Research Alert: The critical role for neuropsychologists in the assessment and diagnosis of learning disorders: A position paper from the National Academy of Neuropsychology position, education, and response committee

Copy of article at this link. Unfortunately, this is not an open access article.

Abstract

Objective

Learning disorders are common neurodevelopmental disorders that affect cognitive functioning across the lifespan and frequently co-occur with medical and psychiatric conditions. This updated position paper from National Academy of Neuropsychology (NAN)’s Position, Education, and Response Committee discusses the role of neuropsychologists in identifying and diagnosing learning disorders.

Method

The history of learning disorders is reviewed, along with key legislation related to special education services and disability accommodations. Recent neuroscience, genetics, and education research related to learning disorders is integrated to outline current challenges and future goals for training, clinical practice, and advocacy.

Results

Key recommendations for neuropsychologists related to the assessment of learning disorders are detailed, including routine screening, understanding the interface between neuropsychological evaluations and laws regulating access to special education services and disability accommodations, advocacy for insurance coverage, and training in assessment of learning disorders and appropriate interventions. The paper also highlights the incremental value of neuropsychological assessment in complex cases, including differential diagnosis, identification of co-occurring neurodevelopmental, psychiatric, and medical conditions, clarification of mechanisms underlying poor academic performance, and development of individualized intervention recommendations when school-based evaluation or response to intervention is insufficient.

Conclusions

Clinical neuropsychologists are uniquely positioned to advance the science and assessment of learning disorders by integrating academic findings with developmental, cognitive, psychiatric, and medical information to clarify why a student is struggling and to guide individualized treatment planning. Such efforts have the potential to reduce disparities that confer increased risk for lifelong neuropsychological challenges.

A proposed shift in education (and assessment) to a more European notion of aptitude (i.e., Snow’s aptitude-trait complexes) compared to the IQ-centric US notion of aptitude

Since the early 2000’s, starting with the NCLB education reform movement in US education, I’ve have believed that Richard Snow’s notion of “aptitude” (i.e., aptitude-trait complexes) should be more central in US education and special education.  Snow’s notion of aptitude embraces the older European notion of aptitude and not the largely cognitive-IQ-g centric US notion of aptitude. 

I eventually completed a literature review and submitted (2004) a US Department of Education OSEP discretionary grant white paper—that curiously never saw the light of day!  This “fugitive” piece of literature is described and can be downloaded at a prior IQs Corner post (click here).  It is a long story, but 18 years later, after further study and refinement, I officially published the Snow-inspired Cognitive-Affective-Motivation Model of Learning (CAMML; click here to read the paper; click here for other related posts).

With the help of AI Grok, I have created a figure that compares the differences between the European and American notions of aptitude.  It should be self-explanatory.  I encourage readers interested in a proposed shift in education to the European notion of aptitude (NOT IQ-centric; instead Snow’s notion of aptitude trait complexes) to take a look at the CAMML paper mentioned above.  Enjoy.

Click on image to enlarge for easy reading

Research Alert: Dispelling Myths and Misunderstandings About Defining and Remediating Dyslexia

Link to journal article, which is open access is here. 

Abstract

Despite a strong base of scientifically supported research on dyslexia, pervasive misunderstandings continue, particularly in the United States, where state legislation, instructional practices and parent advocacy intersect in ways that influence how dyslexia is identified and treated. Historical misinterpretations about the aetiology and characteristics of dyslexia, evolving definitions of dyslexia and differing ideological beliefs about how to operationalize identifying dyslexia in schools all contribute to uncertainty surrounding what dyslexia is and is not. Misunderstandings have led to a host of fad and pseudoscientific treatments for dyslexia that are unsupported by scientifically based reading research. Misinformation about dyslexia continues to be shared by well-intentioned, but uninformed, advocates. Disinformation about dyslexia is also shared with education stakeholders for monetary gain. This article draws on scientifically based reading research to (a) illuminate current understandings and misunderstandings about dyslexia, (b) support evidence-based treatments, (c) dispel fad and pseudoscientific treatments and (d) highlight areas needing additional research.

Practitioner Points

• Dyslexia reflects word-reading difficulty along a continuum of severity; students need the same evidence-based instruction, delivered with greater intensity.
• Structured literacy—explicit, systematic instruction in foundational and language skills—has the strongest evidence for remediating dyslexia.
• Vision-based treatments, dyslexic fonts and cognitive or ‘brain’ training programs lack evidence for improving reading outcomes.
• Orton–Gillingham's defining multisensory element lacks empirical support; its well-supported components are shared by other structured literacy approaches.
• Educators and parents should critically evaluate treatment claims, prioritizing instruction grounded in scientifically based reading research.