DEFINITIONSOF LEARNINGDISABILITIES

FROM ADULTS WITH LEARNINGDISABILI-

TIES: THE INSIDERS' PERSPECTIVES
Henry B. Reiff, Paul J. Gerber, and Rick Ginsberg

Abstract. Definitions of learning disabilities typically include the perspectives of

professionals from educational, psychological, medical, and sociopolitical fields. De-
cision-makers in learning disabilities have rarely solicited the views of an important
population of individuals who live with this label, adults with learning disabilities.
This article presents responses from a sample of successful adults with learning dis-
abilities who were asked to define the term learning disabilities. In addition to a
number of constructs found in many existing definitions, responses include percep-
tions and conceptualizations that are only available from first-hand experience of
living with learning disabilities into the adult years. Even when these perceptions
evidence technical inaccuracies, their personal nature offers important insights into
the effects of learning disabilities throughout the lifespan. Future attempts to arrive
at a uniform definition of learning disabilities, especially in adulthood, should in-
clude or at least consider input from adults with learning disabilities.

Thirty years ago, Dr. Samuel Kirk coined a
new term, learning disabilities, presumably in
an effort to help parents and professionals un-
derstand why some children of normal intelli-
gence experienced significant difficultylearning
and performing in school. Apparently, Kirk's
(1962) explanation was not satisfactory to a
wide range of professionals and other interested
parties who attempted to grapple with this phe-
nomenon. In the ensuing decades, therefore, at
least 10 additionaldefinitionsachieved some de-
gree of popularity(Hammill,1990).
The issue of defining learning disabilitieshas
generated significant and ongoing controversy.
Part of this difficultylies in a kind of identity cri-
sis: Is the construct of learning disabilitiesan ed-
ucational, psychological, or social-political con-
cern, or possibly some complex combination of
all of these concerns? Adding to this confusion,
education and psychology are low-consensus
fields dealing with human behavior and its theo-
retical constructs, of which learning disabilitiesis
one (Reynolds, 1986).
In the midst of the debate to formulate a uni-
form definition, Hammill (1990) contended that
the field of learning disabilitiesis heading toward
an emerging consensus. Through a comparison
of 11 definitions that are prominent today or
were previously,Hammill(1990) delineated nine
significant elements by which definitions could
be contrasted. The nine elements include (a) un-
derachievement determination, (b) central ner-
vous system (CNS) dysfunctionetiology, (c) pro-
cess involvement, (d) presence throughout the
lifespan, (e) specification of spoken language
problems as potential learning disabilities, (f)
specification of academic problems as potential
HENRY B. REIFF,Ph.D., is Assistant Profes-
sor of Education, Western Maryland College.
PAUL J. GERBER, Ph.D., is Professor of Spe-
cial Education and Clinical Professor of
Psychiatry, Virginia Commonwealth Univer-
sity/Medical College of Virginia.
RICK GINSBERG, Ph.D., is Associate Profes-
sor of Education, University of South Carolina.

114 Learning Disability Quarterly

Sage Publications, Inc.

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve, and extend access to
Learning Disability Quarterly
www.jstor.org
learning disabilities, (g) specification of concep-
tual problems as potential learning disabilities,
(h) specification of other conditions as potential
learning disabilities, and (i) allowance for the
multihandicappingnature of learning disabilities.
Definitions that evidenced an agreement rate
of 67% or greater on these elements were clus-
tered together. Hammill'ssubsequentanalysis re-
vealed that considerable agreement exists
among the definitions on the nine elements and
that the definitions generally fall into two clus-
ters. One cluster, comprising four lesser used
definitions, focuses primarilyon disorders in the
learning processes; the other cluster, consisting
of seven more currently popular definitions,
tends to emphasize specific factors such as lan-
guage and academic deficits.
In spite of such agreement, arguments over
theoretical constructs or conceptualizationhave
occupied considerable research in the past and
persist in recent literature.For example, Cruick-
shank (1975) voiced concern that many defini-
tions did not conceptualize learning disabilities
specifically as a function of perceptual deficits.
In the view of other professionals, the most glar-
ing omission in defining learning disabilitiescen-
tered on social skill deficits (Interagency Com-
mittee on LearningDisabilities,1987).
Yet, other professionals turned their attention
from what was excluded to criticallyexamining
elements traditionally included in most defini-
tions. For example, Siegel (1989) provoked sig-
nificant debate by questioning whether IQ
should be used as part of the theoretical con-
struct in defining learning disabilities.Some re-
searchers countered Siegel's (1989) contention
by offering social, historical,political, and practi-
cal reasons why the IQ test is of use to the
learning disabilitiesfield (Wong, 1989).
Framinglearning disabilitiesin such pragmatic
concerns is not surprising,for the term has had
substantialimpact on educational policy regard-
less of theoretical debate. In some ways, educa-
tors have used the term primarily to describe
students who did not "fit"into other exception-
alities (Mercer, King-Sears, & Mercer, 1990).
Thus, the definitions of learning disabilitiesmay
function simultaneously as theory and policy,
thereby not only affecting the way learning dis-
abilitiesare conceptualizedbut identificationand
placement procedures as well. The circumstan-
tial purposes of diverse decision-makers often
determine the use of a particular definition,
which may have a profound impact on the life of
an individualwith learning difficulties.
Decision-makers are often self-appointed
"representatives"of the learning disabled con-
stituency. However, the participantsin the defi-
nitional debates rarelysolicit the views of individ-
uals who live with the label. This omission raises
some concern, especially in light of a paradigm
shift that focuses less on what professionals can
do for persons with disabilities and more on
what persons with disabilitiescan do for them-
selves (Reiff & deFur, 1992). Consequently, it
may be appropriate for the field to listen to
these other voices in the quest for a valid and
widely acceptable definition.
A continuing discussion on definitions is
largely positive and perhaps necessary to pre-
vent the field from growing stagnant (Reynolds,
1986). However, although the dialectic may be
intellectuallyhealthy, the need for a resolutionto
the issue is becoming urgent. Silver (1988) ad-
monished that the lack of a uniform definition
limits the value of epidemological, clinical, basic,
and educational research. Soliciting the experi-
ences of individuals with learning disabilities,
that is, listening to the insiders'perspectives, not
only lends a criticaldimension to the discussion
but should also be valuable in developing more
consensual conceptualizationsof the term. Addi-
tionally, the insiders'perspectives may be essen-
tial for understandingand defining learning dis-
abilitiesin adulthood.
In attempting to define learning disabilitiesin
adulthood, a new set of problems emerges.
Hammill's(1990) assertion that the field is mov-
ing toward consensus on a uniform definition
applies only to childrenwith learning disabilities;
none of the definitions that Hammill analyzed
focuses specifically on the adult manifestations
of learning disabilities. Mellard(1990) reported
that the California Community College system
designed a model to provide a clear definitionof
the learning disabilityconstruct for adults. The
model emphasizes a persistent condition despite
instructionin standardclassroom situations.
The definition has five components, three of
which-IQ, processing, and discrepancy-are
found, in one form or another, in most defini-
tions (Hammill, 1990). The unique components
include adaptive behavior and a measured
achievement deficit in a specific skill including
Volume 16, Spring 1993 115
vocational areas. Mellard (1990) pointed out
that "measuredachievement" (p. 79) refers to a
specific deficit, allowing an individualto be suc-
cessful in other areas of functioning, a qualifica-
tion that recalls what Hammill(1990) referredto
as "intra-individual differences"(p. 80).
The National Institute for Handicapped Re-
search (now National Institutefor DisabilityRe-
search and Rehabilitation)state-of-the-art adult
with learning disabilitiesconference in 1982 es-
tablished the development of a definition for
adults with learning disabilitiesas a top priority.
It is likely that the paucity of research on adults
with learning disabilitieshas impeded a realiza-
tion of this goal. At present, the Rehabilitative
Services Administration (RSA) has adopted a
formal definition(RSA, 1989), which focuses on
employment, avoids reference to academic diffi-
culties, and includes problems with social com-
petence and social maturityas potential learning
disabilities. Otherwise, all other components
(i.e., CNS dysfunction etiology, process involve-
ment, and specification of specific problems)
have origins in other currentlyused definitions.
Thus, the framework for defining learning dis-
abilities in adulthood continues to be largely a
theoretical or conceptual rather than an empiri-
cal construct. After all, the database is primarily
a collection of theoreticalperspectives.
Gerber (1990) expressed concern that so
much of programmingfor persons with learning
disabilities lacks empirical, field-tested founda-
tions. This type of concern suggests that the va-
lidity of a framework for assessing definitions
must itself be subject to an empirical basis for
defining learning disabilities.
One study that did employ this method was
based on interviews with 26 adolescents at a
residentialschool for children with severe learn-
ing disabilities (Schneider, 1984). The students
tended to evidence limited conceptualizationsof
learning disabilitiesand to attributeproblems to
their own lack of effort. Nevertheless, they un-
derstood several elements of traditionalformula-
tions. For example, many felt they were intelli-
gent overall but deficient in certain specific
abilities. Additionally,they implicitlysuggested a
kind of exclusion clause, pointing out a number
of factors that they felt were not responsible for
their difficulties.
As a result of these findings, Schneider (1984)
advocated the use of counseling with students
116 Learning Disability Quarterly
with learning disabilities to promote better un-
derstandingof the term. The study concluded by
emphasizing the importance of furtherresearch
into the perceptions of individualswith learning
disabilities.
Additionalresearch into individualperceptions
used definitions by nine adults with learning dis-
abilities as a preface to ethnographic interviews
with these subjects (Gerber & Reiff, 1991).
Rather than commenting directly on the defini-
tions, the authors accepted the responses and
encouraged the reader to factor the subjects'
perceptions into the interviews and discussion.
The purpose of this study was to allow adults
with learning disabilitiesto speak for themselves.
Nevertheless, professionals may be able to add
to the knowledge base by applying such data to
the ongoing debate over definitions.
The experiences and perspectives of adults
with learning disabilities present a validation
measure that is subjective, yet unimpeachable.
The necessarily subjectivecomponent of assess-
ing one's personal experiences represents an es-
sential element of the heterogeneity of learning
disabilities. The National Joint Committee on
Learning Disabilities (NJCLD)begins its defini-
tion (NJCLD, 1988), lauded by Hammill (1990)
as being the best of currentlyused definitions,by
acknowledging that learning disabilitiesis a het-
erogeneous group of disorders. Moreover, per-
sonal perceptions constitute a valid basis for
conceptualizing the functional implications of
the disability,in some cases lending insights that
are unavailableto even the most astute outside
observer.
In a review of longitudinaland follow-up stud-
ies of adults with learning disabilities (Gerber,
Reiff, & Ginsberg, 1988), we contended that the
need exists to utilize "inside-out"research per-
spectives whereby individualsubjects would de-
scribe systemic components of learning disabili-
ties in adulthood. Such qualitative approaches
provide a means to confirm or challenge conclu-
sions or assumptions generated by quantitative
analyses. Miles and Huberman (1984) expressed
the potential benefits of referringto the personal
perceptions of adults with learning disabilitiesto
validatecurrentdefinitions:
Qualitative data are attractive. They are a
source of well-grounded,rich descriptions and
explanations of processes in local contexts.
With qualitative data one can preserve the
 chronological flow, assess local causality, and
derive fruitfulexplanations. Then, too, qualita-
tive data are more likely to lead to serendipi-
tous findings and to new theoretical integra-
tions; they help researchers go beyond initial
preconceptions and frameworks.(p. 15)
The purpose of this article is to explore the
perceptions of the construct of learning disabili-
ties held by adultswith learning disabilities.First-
hand experience is vital for helping professionals
in the field of learning disabilitiesunderstandand
appreciate the realitiesof livingwith learningdis-
abilities. Such information provides a useful
yardstick for measuring current conceptualiza-
tions, for one criterion of a definition's validity
must be the abilityto reflect or correlatewith the
experiences of those who receive a label based
on that definition. Furthermore, those insiders'
perspectives may provide a foundation for for-
mulating a new definition that blends current
theoreticalconstructswith first-handexperience.
METHOD
Subjects
The subjects for this study participated in a
project investigating alterable patterns in em-
ployment success for moderatelyand highly suc-
cessful adults with learning disabilities (Gerber,
Ginsberg, & Reiff, 1990). To identify a target
population, the researchers solicited nomina-
tions from the National Network of Learning
Disabled Adults, the Orton Dyslexia Society, the
Learning Disabilities Association (formerly
ACLD), and a number of other related organiza-
tions throughout the country. Of the 241 per-
sons nominated, the researchers determined
that 181 were eligible for screening into the par-
ticipant pool.
To ascertain the presence of learning disabili-
ties, the researchers developed a screening in-
ventory that provided information about how
and when the learning disabilitieshad been iden-
tified and whether or not other disabling condi-
tions (e.g., hearing or vision loss, physical dis-
ability, or emotional condition) were more
significant than the learning disabilities. If any
other disabilityreceived a higher rating, the can-
didate was excluded.
Additionally,potential subjects self-rated on a
7-point scale the severity of learning disabilities
at school age and currentlyfor 12 characteris-
tics: listening, speaking, reading, writing,
spelling, mathematical abilities, perception, co-
ordination, impulsivity,distractibility,hyperactiv-
ity, and attention span. The majorityof the po-
tential subjects had been identified as
demonstrating learning disabilities either in
school or as adults. The screening instrumental-
lowed the researchersto compare the profiles of
potential subjects who had no formal diagnosis
to the profiles of individualspreviouslyidentified.
In this way, the researchers excluded any indi-
viduals who did not evidence characteristics of
identifiablelearningdisabilities.
The screening process included collecting de-
mographic data (i.e., age, race, gender, educa-
tion, income) as well as information about cur-
rent occupation, job satisfaction, recognition
attained in the field, and parents' occupational
levels. In order to determine the participants'
level of success, the researchers defined suc-
cess-a subjective construct-across five vari-
ables: income level, job classification (derived
from Duncan Sociometric Index [Reiss, 1961]),
education level, prominence in one's field, and
job satisfaction.
Utilizingthe data from the screening, a panel
of five experts in qualitativemethods rated can-
didates on each of the five criteria.Consensus of
the panel was necessary to assign the candidates
to either a moderate or a high success group.
Through this process, 71 subjects, who evi-
denced specific learning disabilities and had
achieved either moderate or high vocational suc-
cess, were selected from the 181 potential par-
ticipants. The subjects came from 24 states and
Canada and represented more than 30 types of
occupations. Forty-eight males and 23 females
comprised the sample; their ages ranged from
29-69, with an average age of 45 years. All had
graduatedfrom high school; in addition, 14 had
bachelor's degrees, 19 had master's degrees,
and 29 had a Ph.D. or M.D. Yearlyincomes var-
ied from just under $20,000 to considerably
more than $100,000. Table 1 summarizes the
key characteristicsof the 71 subjects.
Procedure
The investigation of successful adults with
learning disabilitiesutilizedan in-depth interview
process with each participant. Participants re-
sponded to open-ended questions designed to
elicit both a comprehensive portrayalof the ex-
perience of coping successfullywith learning dis-
abilitiesin adulthood and a retrospectiveview of
Volume 16, Spring 1993 117
 Table 1
Key Subject Characteristics

Occupations Income Distribution Level of Education

Occupation #Subjects Annual Income ($) #Subjects Highest Degree Held #Subjects
Business 22 No answer 1 High school 8
Education 18 -10,000 3 Associate 1
Health 17 10-20,000 2 Bachelor 14
Science 5 20-30,000 3 Master 19
Law 4 30-40,000 7 Doctorate 29
Art 3 40-50,000 9 Total=71
Journalism 2 50-60,000 10
Total=71 60-75,000 11
75-100,000 3
100,000+ 22
Total=71

learning disabilities from childhood to the pre-
sent. Gerber, Ginsberg, and Reiff's (1992) re-
port on the results of the project provides a
broader context for understandingthe methods
and purposes of the interview procedure; the
reader is encouraged to refer to this article for
more detailed information.
Of particularrelevance to the present study, at
the end of the interview, the interviewerasked
each participantthe following question:
"We have sometimes addressed the issue of
your disabilityin each of the sections, but now
I'd like to focus on your learning disabilities
specifically. The feelings you share regarding
your disability can have a significant impact
on others who may feel that they are the only
ones who are different. Let's talk a little about
your learning disabilities.There are many defi-
nitions of learning disabilities.How would you
define learning disabilities?"
This stimulus question spawned responses of
varying lengths and diverse levels of complexity.
Despite a wide array of sophistication about
learningdisabilitiesin the study group, all subjects
had their own definitionof learningdisabilities.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Fifty-seven of the 71 subjects offered defini-
tions. In defining the term learning disabilities
several themes appeared, a number of which
are included in many current definitions;
namely, (a) processing difficulties, (b) specific
functional limitations, (c) underachievement de-
termination, and (d)learning disabilitiesas differ-
ences-a concern that most definitions pre-
clude. These four themes will form the basis for
presenting and discussingthe data.
Processing Difficulties
Of the 57 definitions offered by adults with
learning disabilities, 16 (i.e., 28%) focused on
the concept of a processing deficit as the pri-
mary explanation for learning difficulties. Most
used the specific term process to describe their
functioning.
The followingquotationsillustrateways in which
the subjectsperceivedprocessingdifficulties:
"Any interruptionin the learning process that
makes it difficult for that person to achieve
goals."
"Brainis not programmedto process informa-
tion like most people's brains are pro-
grammed."
"Not a learning disability;it's a processing dis-
ability."
"Probablya central nervous system condition
that interferes with the person's abilityto pro-

118 Learning Disability Quarterly

 cess information."
"A breakdownin processing."
"Definitely not sensory; interpretation and
perception process that is involved."
"An obstacle to processing information in the
normal way."
"An inabilitybecause of naturalcauses with a
person to accomplish thought processes,
speech and language processes, educational
processes.
"Inabilityto process information and utilize
it."
"Not mental retardation, higher IQ, process-
ing problem, you work hard and you fail."
Most often, the subjectsreferredspecificallyto
problems with processing information.Addition-
ally, some of their responses interwove other
concepts found in many currently used defini-
tions. One response directlycited a "centralner-
vous system condition";another alludedto natu-
ral causes, which may be interpreted,in context,
as referring to central nervous system dysfunc-
tion. Use of the term neurological was not un-
common across all definitions. Two responses
evoked the exclusionary component of many
definitions; that is, they stated that learning dis-
abilities are "definitely not sensory" and "not
mental retardation." Only one statement re-
ferred to "average or higher IQ," although the
remark that learning disabilities make it more
difficult"to achieve goals" conjures the concept
of underachievementdetermination.
Several definitions utilized a metaphorical ap-
proach to describe processing problems. These
descriptions offer a true insider's perspective
and, in a sense, begin to operationalize, at least
subjectively,the construct of psychological pro-
cesses:
"Physicalmanifestation of the brain malfunc-
tions and its associated behavioralaspects, not
just the reduced, like dysgraphia, but also the
psychological adjustments that one has to
make when one knows one can't break stuff
out very well."
"Someone who can't concentrate on more
than one thing at a time. Difficulttime break-
ing your train of thoughts, analyzing different
things."
"Some areas of the brain of the neuropath-
ways are jumbled, missing, in a mess, kind of
stretched."
"Blocks that occur in a person's ability to
sense or perceive information to assimilate
that information and to spit it back out for a
combination of neurological reasons, psycho-
logical reasons."
"Not able to learn in the conventional way be-
cause of a technical problem in their brain
that makes them unable to visually or orally
remember or both."
Similarities in these descriptions lie in terms
such as "can't break stuff out," "breakingyour
train of thoughts," "jumbled,"and "blocks."The
conceptual problems associated with these psy-
chological processes are depicted as concentrat-
ing, attending, and remembering.Two of the re-
sponses alluded to an emotional overlay in the
use of the term "psychological."
A criticalanalysis of the respondents' versions
of processing difficultiessuggests that even suc-
cessful and intelligent adults cannot describe
what is going on inside their heads more clearly
than has been depicted in research and defini-
tions. The adultsseem to find it difficultto clarify
basic psychological processes. Professionals,
too, have struggledwith this concept. Thus, the
NJCLD definition eliminated the term, partially
because its usefulness was tenuous.
Perhaps the confusion implicit in the re-
sponses acts as a reminderthat a preoccupation
with CNS etiology may be theoreticallyfascinat-
ing but of limitedvalue in practicalterms. Defini-
tions of learning disabilitiesmay become more
meaningful through increased understandingof
such issues as functional limitations and under-
achievement-two areas that adults with learn-
ing disabilitiescan address directly.
Functional Limitations
Understandably,many subjects offered defini-
tions that described how learning disabilitiesaf-
fected their lives in functional, rather than theo-
retical, terms. In many ways, much of the
struggle in developing workable definitions has
centered on ways to operationalizethe term. An
enlarged understandingof functional limitations
may make conceptualizationsmore concrete as
well as provide useful informationin the identifi-
cation of learning disabilities.
Respondents' approach to describing how
learning disabilitieshave affected their lives re-
calls aspects of many definitions that point to
the specification of spoken language, academic,
conceptual, or other problems as potential
learning disabilities (Hammill, 1990). The vari-
Volume 16, Spring 1993 119
ability of their effects on functioning attests to
the heterogeneous nature of learning disabilities.
Approximately 23% (n=13) of the subjects de-
scribed specific functionallimitationsimposed by
learning disabilities. Many subjects pinpointed
academic concerns, usuallyreading, writing, and
math:
"Specific block in the attainment of academic
skillsthat is not accounted for by mental retar-
dation and tends to be specific to reading,
math skills."
"Inefficiencyin reading."
"All kinds of problems like reading and writ-
ing."
"Difficulttime with written word, comprehen-
sion, handling numbers...time factor...slow
reader,poor decoding, poor writing."
"Personwho's been diagnosed as having read-
ing, writing, spelling, auditory, or visual prob-
lems."
"Veryspecific like in reading or math when IQ
is normal or above."
"Individualdifficultyin reading and writing in
the accepted way."
Some responses centered on language deficits
as depicting learning disabilities:
"Lose meaning-inability to string words or
syllablestogether."
"A language disorder."
A number of respondents captured the sense
of a generic difficultywith learning, character-
ized by Hammill(1990) as conceptual problems:
"Difficultywith learning."
"Difficultyin learning in some area. Could be
general due to low IQ or specific like
dyslexia."
"Makesit more difficultfor you to understand
or do something you should normally be able
to do."
Academic and language deficits tend to elicit
the most agreement among currentlyused defi-
nitions. The respondents' tendency to focus on
these difficulties further validates that learning
disabilitiesresult in specific functionallimitations
and that these specific problems persist in adult-
hood.
These adults' reflections offer a significant re-
minder in ongoing attempts to formulate defini-
tions for adulthood. Although some manifesta-
tions of learning disabilitieschange in response
to adult demands, the basic problems in areas
such as language and math may remain the
120 Learning Disability Quarterly
same or even become worse (Gerber et al.,
1990).
It may also be significant that, in spite of at-
tempts to focus on nonacademic issues in defini-
tions of learning disabilitiesin adulthood, many
of the respondents in this study clearlyalludedto
classroom settings. One adult, in particular,fo-
cused on difficulty in school as the basis for
defining learning disabilities:"People who have
trouble functioningin a classroom, comprehend-
ing, trouble staying with it." Thus, regardlessof
the persistence factor, for some adults the most
vivid realizationof learning disabilitiesremained
in school.
Conceptual problems receive less explicit en-
dorsement from definitions, possibly because
these difficulties may be subsumed under the
construct of process involvement. It is notewor-
thy that a few of the respondents captured the
ideas of conceptual disorders by recapitulating
the term itself; that is, difficultywith learning.
Additionally, one respondent commented on
"low IQ," an idea generally antitheticalto most
conceptualizationsof learning disabilities.Never-
theless, many definitions do not address the
generally held notion that persons with learning
disabilitiesare of average or above average intel-
ligence. Therefore, it may be necessary for a
definition to tackle this issue explicitly to avoid
the confusion that learning disabilities may be
due to low intelligence.
Interestingly, the adults in the present study
did not emphasize vocational or social difficul-
ties-the functional areas generally highlighted
in definitionsof learning disabilitiesin adulthood
(cf., Mellard, 1990; RSA, 1989). The make-up
of this particularsample may offer an explana-
tion. These adults were uniformly successful in
their vocational endeavors, and, to some extent,
in their social endeavors as well. Hence, their
personal experiences may not reflect the out-
comes of many other adultswith severe learning
disabilities,who have struggledto find vocational
and social satisfaction(Minskoff,Hawks, Steidle,
& Hoffmann, 1989).
At the same time, the subjects clearly indi-
cated specific problems in academic areas. How-
ever, their vocational outcomes demonstratethat
specific limitations in areas such as math and
reading do not have to hinder success in adult-
hood. Apparently, they learned to compensate,
cope, and achieve. Consequently, perhaps defi-
nitions of learning disabilities should include
some type of qualification: Although specific
deficits associated with learning disabilities are
real and persistent, such deficits do not neces-
sarilypreclude achievement.
Underachievement Determination
In spite of having made significant accom-
plishments, a number of the adults in this study
felt that they had been held back in some form
by learning disabilities.Almost all definitions of
learning disabilities express the concept of un-
derachievement-as either a manifestationof in-
tra-individualdifferences (i.e., uneven patterns of
performance) or as a significantdiscrepancy be-
tween aptitude and achievement (Hammill,
1990). Operationalizingthis concept, however,
has proven to be an elusive endeavor. For exam-
ple, when McLeskey (1989) applied a statisti-
cally determined severe-discrepancy formula to
733 students identifiedas learning disabled, only
a slight majoritymanifested the discrepancy. It is
necessary to find a way to translate the experi-
ence of feeling that one has not reached one's
potential into a meaningful and consistent
method for identifying individualswith learning
disabilities.
Only one subject offered a definition that fo-
cused on intra-individualdifferences: "Those ar-
eas in my life, academic, social, that are quite a
bit suppressed in relationship to the other abili-
ties and functions in my life." Most constructs of
intra-individual differences view individual
strengths rathernarrowly,usuallyin terms of sig-
nificant differences between subject areas such
as math and reading. In contrast, the self-analy-
sis presented by this subject offers a larger per-
spective that captures the diverse areas of func-
tioning in adult life (i.e., educational, vocational,
interpersonal, social/emotional, recreational,
daily living).
Eleven percent (n=6) of the responses seemed
to capture the concept of underachievement;
these responses, by and large, emphasized the
discrepancy construct ratherthan intra-individual
differences:
"Prevents one from developing one's poten-
tial."
"Not being able to do something in the nor-
mal manner when the basic abilityis there."
"Disabilitydoesn't affect your intelligence but
affects your ability to perform sometimes as
intelligentlyas you could; can affect a variety
of areas, almost anything."
"Disabilityother than the norm, whatever the
norm is, that creates a limitationin an individ-
ual with restrictionto not allow him to achieve
his full potential."
"A difficulty, sometimes an inability, to
achieve at one's potential."
"Smarterthan can illustrateto others."
These adults with learning disabilities recog-
nized the concept of discrepancy, and their per-
sonal experiences, in a sense, lend credence to
the idea that learning disabilitiesresult in a dis-
crepancy between expected and actual achieve-
ment. Yet, the responses do not seem to offer a
means for improvingthe way we operationalize
the discrepancy construct. Thus, the value of
first-hand experience may not lie in refining
technical aspects of identification procedures
such as a severe discrepancyformula.
The responses of the adults in this study un-
earth, perhaps, a larger issue. Some persons
with learning disabilities obviously believe that
reaching or expressing their full potential pre-
sents a significant difficulty.Interestingly,none
of the subjects specificallyused the term under-
achiever, possibly because few of them could be
considered underachievers. Instead, their re-
sponses tended to focus on the idea that learn-
ing disabilitieslimited the ability to reach one's
full potential. In this sense, the subjectsimplicitly
suggested that they might have achieved to a
greater degree if they had not had learning dis-
abilities.
However, it may be valid to ask, "Wouldthey
really have achieved more if they did not have
learning disabilities?"Many interviews indicated
that, in one way or another, learning how to
deal with learning disabilitiesprovided the foun-
dation for success. Indeed, many of the subjects
felt that they were more determined, resilient,
goal-oriented, and creative because of their
learning disabilities.In a sense, they may have
realized their full potential; they simply jour-
neyed a differentroute to get to that destination.
The finding that 11 % of these very successful
adults maintained that their achievement was
not commensurate with their abilities may sug-
gest an interpretationrather than a validationof
the discrepancyconstruct. Perhaps the stigma of
having learning disabilities prompted these
adults to overlook or undervalue their own
achievements. Responses recalling the discrep-
Volume 16, Spring 1993 121
ancy construct from individuals who have
achieved considerable success may suggest that
they continue to suffer from or even perseverate
on messages saying that lack of academic
achievement diminished them as individuals.
While it may be true that certain areas of aca-
demic achievement have eluded them, equating
the realization of one's potential with academic
achievement may reflect a sociopolitical value
rather than a valid constructfor defining a differ-
ent kind of learning process.
Learning Disabilities as Differences
For some adults with learning disabilities,es-
pecially those who have experienced vocational
success, discrepancy may be too narrow a con-
struct to describe the effects of learning disabili-
ties. In some cases, it may be more accurate to
depict learning disabilitiesas a condition that ne-
cessitates alternativeapproaches to the norm in
order to reach full potential. Twelve of the sub-
jects downplayed the construct of learning dis-
abilities as a legitimate disability, perceiving in-
stead their difficultiesas individualdifferences. In
other words, twice as many subjects rejected the
notion of disabilityas accepted the concept of
discrepancy. Additionally,several subjects stated
that their difficultiesresultednot from a disability
per se but from ineffectiveteaching.
As the term disability traditionallydenotes in-
capability or a deprivation of mental strength
(Morehead & Morehead, 1972), a rejection of
this term by individuals who have overcome
such limitations should not be surprising. Re-
sponses of this nature ranged from acknowledg-
ing inherent limitations to contending that the
label is erroneous, irrelevant, or socially obse-
quious.
Definitions that acknowledge some kind of dif-
ficulty,but stress difference ratherthan disability,
included:
"Can'tlearn the way everyone else learns."
"Anythingthat gets in the way with the normal
process of learning, whatevernormal means."
"Learningdifferent. The capacity for learning
is the same as normal but the way they learn is
differentand not normal."
"Activitiesthat are harderfor you than the nor-
mal person."
"Differentway of learning, having to learn in a
differentway, an unconventionalway."
"Problem that you experience in a particular
way.
122 Learning Disability Quarterly
Other definitions explicitly dismissed the no-
tion of disability:
"Not a disability as long as you realize that
you will have to work a little bit harder than
other people."
"Not learning disabled, it's learning different."
"Normalvariationof learning, of how people
go about learning and communicating. Word
that should be gotten rid of. Ought to find a
new term."
"Mind operates differently than the normal.
Does not mean it doesn't work right, just dif-
ferent."
Finally, some respondents felt that the term
was not only ill-conceived but misappropriated.
Some specificallyfocused on poor teaching:
"Not a learning disabilitybut a teaching dis-
ability."
"Teachingdisability."
Speculation that learning disabilities may be
related to poor teaching is not new. For exam-
ple, Hallahanand Kauffman(1988) noted that a
number of theorists have contended that poor
teaching may result in the types of behaviors
that are likelyto be identifiedas learning disabili-
ties. In particular,Engelmann(1977) argued that
ineffective teaching may account for up to 90%
of students identifiedwith learning disabilities.
These subjects' histories lend credence to the
notion that poor learning may be largely in the
mind of the beholder, or, more precisely, in the
ineffectiveness of the teacher. After all, adult ex-
perience has clearly demonstrated to these sub-
jects that they do have the ability to learn. In
many cases, they found innovativeways to teach
themselves. In other words, the ability to learn
was always present; perhaps the knowledge of
how to teach was absent. Hallahan and Kauff-
man (1988) submitted that many learning dis-
abilities could be avoided if teachers knew how
to respond to diverse learning styles.
Responses that challenge the construct of a
disabilityraise more than a rhetorical question.
Historically, debate centered on the "softness"
of the phenomenon. To some extent, the field
attempted to legitimatize the disabling process
by popularizing the term hidden handicap,
largely as a response to those who doubted its
veracity. The disabilitycould not be seen, but it
did impose functionallimitations,namely, in the
form of the ability/achievementdiscrepancyand
specific difficultiesin one or more areas related
to educationalperformance.
For adults, a number of definitions have
shifted from functional limitationsto a focus on
vocational and social issues. However, some of
the adults in this study did not feel that their
learning differences had held them back. Per-
haps they had to work harder or use unconven-
tional methods to achieve; but ultimately, they
did not experience functional limitations. Their
success does not invalidate the diagnosis of
learning disabilities to describe their learning
style, but it does question the conventional wis-
dom that persons with learning disabilities do
not achieve to their potential.
Limitations of the Study
Although the respondents did identify central
issues found in many definitions, their insights
were often restrictedand sometimes erroneous,
particularlywith regard to processing difficulties.
Thus, one adult described processing difficulties
as an inabilityto accomplish thought and other
processes-a contradictionin the sense that the
same person accomplished those very processes
in providing the description. Yet, technically in-
accurate conceptualizations can still provide a
measure of insight. For example, the term psy-
chological was used loosely by participants,
seemingly as synonymous with emotional. Most
definitions deal with emotional difficulties as a
separate issue. Although this distinction may
provide theoretical clarity (i.e., learning prob-
lems result from some inherent deficit related to
cognitive processing rather than emotional
blocking), it may be unrealisticto separate emo-
tional issues that are connected to difficultiesin
learning. Moreover, recent research points to-
ward an interactionalperspective in understand-
ing the relationshipbetween learning disabilities
and other behavioral and emotional disorders
(Murphy& Hicks-Stewart,1991).
In examining the population of vocationally
successful adults with learning disabilities, the
meaning of functional limitations may become
hazy. Admittedly, many of the subjects in this
study had used and continued to use less than
conventional methods to achieve their success,
but such approaches do not necessarily diminish
or tarnish the extent of their achievements.
Are these individuals functionally limited?
Some responded that they felt they would have
done even better if they had not had learning
disabilities; perhaps at some level, the
ability/achievementdiscrepancyis real for them.
Others felt they had realized their full potential.
Further,in a number of cases, subjects credited
learning disabilitieswith giving them the neces-
sary drive and resourcefulnessto achieve. While
the characteristicsof learning disabilitieshad not
disappeared, their meanings and manifestations
had.
Perhaps the most obvious limitations of this
investigationare those endemic to qualitativere-
search. Quantitativedesigns allow for relatively
straightforwardstatistical analyses of the data,
which enable the researcher simply to reject or
not reject the null hypothesis. Qualitativestud-
ies, on the other hand, in general must rely on
more subjective analyses. In this study, the re-
searchers made decisions, admittedlysubjective,
in order to clarifyor analyze the data. Our anal-
yses are open to scrutiny; we cannot hide be-
hind what has been termed the "straw man of
statistical significance" (Carver, 1978, p. 381).
Instead, the burden of qualitativeresearch is to
let the data speak for themselves. The reader
can then judge the merit of our analyses.
In this study, the data take the form of individ-
ual responses to an open-ended question. Some
subjects chose not to respond. Others may have
given answers they thought were "correct."Still
others may have had a personal agenda that
limited their ability objectively to express their
experiences. Nevertheless, the presence of pat-
terns or trends in the responses may act as a
mitigatingfactor for individualidiosyncrasies.
The skewed natureof the participantspresents
yet another limitation.In a sense, many of them
may be representative of gifted individualswith
learningdisabilities-a group that is in need of its
own uniquedefinition(Vaughn,1989). Neverthe-
less, the sample also represents a portion of
adults with learning disabilities who are clearly
not gifted but have succeeded in spite of the
odds. In either case, their success represents a
significantconcern. Their perceptions are bound
to be differentfrom those of adultswith learning
disabilitieswho have not been successful,particu-
larlywith regard to functionallimitations,under-
achievement determination,and learningdisabili-
ties as differencesratherthan deficits.
Finally, the selection process located only a
sample of successful adultswith learning disabili-
ties, necessarily precluding individualswho did
not wish to discuss their learning disabilities.Ad-
Volume 16, Spring 1993 123
ditionally, the sample included only adults who
were in the networks utilized for the study.
Therefore, furtherresearch is necessary to deter-
mine their representativeness and to answer
other questions raised in this discussion of limita-
tions.
CONCLUSIONS
Specific issues that emerged in the results and
discussion section deserve concluding com-
ments. Although many professionals in the field
have raised legitimate concerns about including
psychological processing deficits in definitions,
28% of the subjects conceptualized learning dis-
abilities in terms of processing difficulties. The
personal nature of the responses suggests that
many of these individuals felt or believed that
their problems with learning were caused by
some processing dysfunction in the brain. For
persons with learning disabilities,the notion of
psychological processing deficits is a little like
jazz-hard to define but easy to recognize. Per-
haps another implication for professionals is
that, instead of dismissingpsychological process-
ing as unwieldy, ways to make this construct
meaningfulmust be identified.
The perceptions of adultswith learning disabil-
ities make significantcontributionsto the contin-
uing attempt to reach a definition of learning
disabilities that will gain widespread support.
The degree of overlap between the personal ex-
periences of adults with learning disabilitiesand
the constructs of many current definitions sug-
gests how far researchers and theorists have
come in conceptualizinglearning disabilities.
Furthermore,divergence within this sample of
adults with learning disabilities parallels differ-
ences among theoretical perspectives. In the
same way that differences in theoretical, social,
and philosophical perspectives result in diverse
conceptualizations of learning disabilities, this
sample proffereddefinitionsthat were driven not
only by personal outlook but by the professional
orientations of those who were interviewed.The
most strikingcommonality of professional orien-
tation is the success factor, but the vocational
and career identities account for differences in
conceptualizations as well. In other words, the
specific occupations of the individual subjects
tended to color their perspectives on how they
viewed the effects and meaning of learning dis-
abilities. For example, individualsin the medical
124 Learning Disability Quarterly
field often based their definitions more in medi-
cal constructssuch as central nervous system eti-
ology and processing difficulties,whereas some
of those who termed learning disabilities as
teaching disabilities had been teachers them-
selves.
The results of this study suggest that in future
attempts to consolidate a definition of learning
disabilities,especially in adulthood, professionals
and policy-makersshould incorporate the direct
and personal experiences of adultswho live with
the condition. Otherwise, constructsare reduced
to presumptions lacking a true empirical base.
The voices of successful adults with learning dis-
abilitiesare essential for understandingwhat can
be accomplished and which kinds of approaches
lead to success; in contrast, traditionalperspec-
tives have focused largely on what could not be
achieved. It is essential that conceptualizations
of learning disabilitiesrecognize the possibilities
for significantachievement.
The subjectsin this study present myriadview-
points; hence no single synthesized definition
can fully reflect all perspectives presented. Yet,
implications for a definition of learning disabili-
ties in adulthood do arise from these data. With
the inherent shortcomings of this task clearly in
mind, we propose the following operational def-
inition culled from the experiences of one spe-
cific sample of vocationallysuccessful adultswith
learning disabilities:
Learning disabilitiesin adulthood affect each
individualuniquely. For some, difficultieslie in
only one specific functional area; for others,
problems are more global in nature, including
social and emotional problems. For many,
certain functionalareas of adult life are limited
compared to other areas. Adults with learning
disabilitiesare of average or above average in-
telligence, but intelligence oftentimes has no
relation to the degree of disability. Learning
disabilities persist throughout the lifespan,
with some areas improving and others wors-
ening. Specific deficits associated with learn-
ing disabilitiesare real and persistent and may
pose significantdifficultiesin vocation and ca-
reer. Nevertheless, such deficits do not neces-
sarily preclude achievement, and in some
cases, may have a positive relationship with
achievement. In almost all cases, learning dis-
abilities necessitate alternative approaches to
achieve vocational success.
 REFERENCES
Carver,R.P. (1978). The case against statisticalsignifi-
cance testing. Harvard Educational Review, 48,
378-399.
Cruickshank, W.M. (1975). The psychoeducational
match. In W.M. Cruickshank & D.P. Hallahan
(Eds.),Perceptual and learning disabilities in chil-
dren: Vol.1. Psychoeducational practices (pp. 71-
114). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse UniversityPress.
Engelmann, S.E. (1977). Sequencing cognitive and
academic tasks. In R.D. Kneedler & S.G. Tarver
(Eds.), Changing perspectives in special
education. Columbus,OH: Merrill.
Gerber,M. (1990, October). Critical issues: Redefin-
ing the field in the 1990s. Paper presented at
Council for Learning DisabilitiesInternationalCon-
ference, Austin, TX.
Gerber, P.J., Ginsberg, R.J., & Reiff, H.B. (1990).
Identifying alterable patterns in employment suc-
cess for highly successful adults with learning dis-
abilities. Final report (Grant No. H133G80500).
Washington, DC: United States Departmentof Edu-
cation, Office of Special Education and Rehabilita-
tive Services.
Gerber, P.J., Ginsberg, R.J., & Reiff, H.B. (1992).
Identifyingalterablepatterns in employment success
for highly successful adultswith learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475-487.
Gerber, P.J., & Reiff, H.B. (1991). Speaking for
themselves: Ethnographic interviews with adults
with learning disabilities. Ann Arbor:Universityof
MichiganPress.
Gerber,P.J., Reiff, H.B., & Ginsberg,R. (1988). Stud-
ies on learning disabled adults: Methodologicaland
substantiveconsiderations.Thalamus, 6(1), 1-32.
Gerber, P.J., Schnieders, C.A., Paradise, L.V., Reiff,
H.B., Ginsberg, R., & Popp, P.A. (1990). Persist-
ing problems of adults with learning disabilities:
Self-reported comparisons from their school-age
and adult years. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
23, 570-573.
Hallahan, D.P., & Kauffman, J.M. (1988). Excep-
tional children: Introduction to special education
(4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hammill, D.D. (1990). On defining learning disabili-
ties: An emerging consensus. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 23, 74-84.
Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities.
(1987). Learning disabilities: A report to the U.S.
Congress. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of
Health.
Kirk, S.A. (1962). Educating exceptional children.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
McLeskey,J. (1989). The influence of level of discrep-
ancy on the identificationof students with learning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,
435-438.
Mellard,D.F. (1990). The eligibilityprocess: Identify-
ing students with learning disabilitiesin California's
community colleges. Learning Disabilities Focus,
5. 75-90.
Mercer,C.D., King-Sears,P., & Mercer,A.R. (1990).
Learning disabilitiesdefinitions and criteriaused by
state education departments. Learning Disability
Quarterly, 13, 141-152.
Miles, M.B., & Huberman, A.M. (1984). Qualitative
data analysis. BeverlyHills, CA: Sage.
Minskoff, E.H., Hawks, R., Steidle, E.F., & Hoff-
mann, EJ. (1989). A homogeneous group of per-
sons with learning disabilities:Adults with severe
learning disabilities in vocational rehabilitation.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 521-528.
Morehead, A., & Morehead, L. (Eds.). (1972). The
new American Webster dictionary. Chicago:
Times Mirror.
Murphy, V., & Hicks-Stewart, K. (1991). Learning
disabilitiesand attention deficit-hyperactivitydisor-
der: An interactional perspective. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 24, 386-388.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.
(1988). [Letterto NJCLD member organizations].
Rehabilitative Services Administration. (1989, Au-
gust). Evaluation of services provided for individ-
uals with specific learning disabilities (Vol. 1: Fi-
nal report). Washington, DC: Department of
Education,ContractNo. 300-87-0112.
Reiff, H.B., & deFur,S. (1992). Transitionfor youths
with learning disabilities:A focus on developing in-
dependence. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15(4),
237-250.
Reiss, H. (1961). Duncan socioeconomic scale.
Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press.
Reynolds, C.R. (1986). Towardobjective diagnosis of
learning disabilities. Special Services in the
Schools, 2(2-3), 161-176.
Schneider, B.H. (1984). LD as they see it: Percep-
tions of adolescents in a special residentialschool.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 533-536.
Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevantto the definitionof
learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabili-
ties, 22, 469-478, 486.
Silver, L.B. (1988). A review of the federal govern-
ment's InteragencyCommittee on LearningDisabil-
ities Report to the U.S. Congress. Learning Dis-
abilities Focus, 3, 73-80.
Vaughn, S. (1989). Gifted learning disabilities: Is it
such a brightidea? Learning Disabilities Focus, 4,
123-126.
Wong, B.Y. (1989). Concluding comments on the
special series on the place of IQ in defininglearning
disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22,
519-520.
FOOTNOTES
Money to support this research project came from the
United States Department of Education, Office of
Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Na-
tional Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Re-
search. ProjectNo. H133G80500.
Requests for reprints should be addressed to: Henry
B. Reiff, Thompson Hall, Western MarylandCollege,
2 College Hill, Westminster,MD 21157-4390.
Volume 16, Spring 1993 125