Distinctions between learning-disabled and non-classified children with learning problems

The assessment of learning disabilities has been wrought with many questions and debates over the years. Issues including the types of deficits involved and the necessary remediation for the facilitation of learning should be paramount. One theory of the primary abilities involved in learning has been proposed by Horn and Cattell (1966). As part of their theory they refer to the classes or dimensions of fluid (Gf) and crystallized (Gc) intelligence. Analysis of these skills is often considered lacking in the assessment of children with learning disabilities.; A review of literature revealed a paucity of research that investigates these cognitive abilities in children. Goldsmith-Phillips and Smith (1999) investigated these abilities in a study using college-age students as subjects. This study was a modified version of that study with elementary students as subjects. This study used the Children's Category Test (CCAT) as a measure of fluid cognition in children aged 9 to 16 years old. Three groups of students are involved in this study. Group 1 includes children classified with a New Jersey special education classification as learning disabled; Group 2 is comprised of students receiving basic skill services in mathematics or reading; and Group 3 is a group of achieving students with no apparent academic difficulties. Research questions address the feasibility of adding a measure of fluid cognitive abilities in the assessment of educational abilities in children.; A multivariate analysis of variance is used in the analysis of the data. The dependent variable in this study is the CCAT scores and the independent variables are the three groups of students.; Results obtained did not show significant support for the use of the CCAT. However, this does not mean that other evaluation and assessment measures might not be more promising. One difficulty may be that there are a variety of deficits that are associated with the classification of learning disabilities and that it may not be feasible to classify students under this one broad classification.