Fletcher, J.M., Coulter, W.A., Reschly, D.J. and Vaughn, S. (2004) Alternative Approaches to the Definition and Identification of Learning Disabilities: Some Questions and Answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304-331.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-004-0015-y

has been cited by the following article:

• TITLE: Translating Interdisciplinary Research on Language Learning into Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities in Verbally Gifted and Average Children and Youth

  AUTHORS: Ruby Dawn Lyman, Elizabeth Sanders, Robert D. Abbott, Virginia W. Berninger

  KEYWORDS: Defining Specific Learning Disabilities (SLDs), Diagnosing Specific Learning Disabilities in Written Language (SLDs-WL), Verbal Giftedness, Multi-Component Working Memory Endophenotypes, Language Learning Mechanism, Translation Science for Diagnosis of SLDs

  JOURNAL NAME: Journal of Behavioral and Brain Science, Vol.7 No.6, June 16, 2017

  ABSTRACT: The current research was grounded in prior interdisciplinary research that showed cognitive ability (verbal ability for translating cognitions into oral language) and multiple-working memory endophenotypes (behavioral markers of genetic or brain bases of language learning) predict reading and writing achievement in students with and without specific learning disabilities in written language (SLDs-WL). Results largely replicated prior findings that verbally gifted with dyslexia score higher on reading and writing achievement than those with average verbal ability but not on endophenotypes. The current study extended that research by comparing those with and without SLDs-WL with assessed verbal ability held constant. The verbally gifted without SLDs-WL (n = 14) scored higher than the verbally gifted with SLDs-WL (n = 27) on six language skills (oral sentence construction, best and fastest handwriting in copying, single real word oral reading accuracy, oral pseudoword reading accuracy and rate) and four endophenotypes (orthographic and morphological coding, orthographic loop, and switching attention). The verbally average without SLDs-WL (n = 6) scored higher than the verbally average with SLDs-WL (n = 22) on four language skills (best and fastest hand-writing in copying, oral pseudoword reading accuracy and rate) and two endophenotypes (orthographic coding and orthographic loop). Implications of results for translating interdisciplinary research into flexible definitions for assessment and instruction to serve students with varying verbal abilities and language learning and endophenotype profiles are discussed along with directions for future research.