Diagnosing specific learning disorder in adults Part II: bias, base rates, and a path forward.

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Allyson G Harrison, Richard Sparks
{"title":"Diagnosing specific learning disorder in adults Part II: bias, base rates, and a path forward.","authors":"Allyson G Harrison, Richard Sparks","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2026.2654023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The diagnosis of specific learning disorders (SLDs) in adults has increased substantially over the past two decades, particularly within selective postsecondary and professional training settings. Part II of this paper examines why adult SLD diagnosis is especially vulnerable to error and bias, despite diagnostic criteria requiring substantial, developmentally grounded academic impairment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We synthesize empirical research from neuropsychology, education, and psychometrics to identify systematic sources of diagnostic distortion in adult SLD assessment. Particular emphasis is placed on statistical artifacts (e.g. restriction of range), base-rate neglect, contextual performance effects, performance validity, reliance on self-report, and the misapplication of sociostructural frameworks to clinical decision-making.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>To combat overdiagnosis and ground diagnosis in empirically-supported practices, we propose a four-step diagnostic framework for first time diagnosis of SLD in adults: 1) Documented academic achievement below at least the 16<sup>th</sup> percentile relative to the general population norms; 2) Clear evidence of onset in early school years, including impairment when scaffolding and supports are removed; 3) Evidence that academic difficulties persisted despite adequate educational opportunity and, when available, targeted intervention; and 4) Exclusion of contextual, motivational, neurological/medical, language, or instructional explanations.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Accurate diagnosis of SLD in adulthood requires population-referenced criteria, corroborated evidence of childhood onset, objective demonstration of current academic impairment, systematic exclusion of alternative explanations, and assessment of performance credibility. Adoption of a structured, evidence-based diagnostic framework is essential to preserving the scientific validity, ethical application, and equitable use of SLD diagnoses in adult educational and professional settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"1-15"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2026.2654023","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The diagnosis of specific learning disorders (SLDs) in adults has increased substantially over the past two decades, particularly within selective postsecondary and professional training settings. Part II of this paper examines why adult SLD diagnosis is especially vulnerable to error and bias, despite diagnostic criteria requiring substantial, developmentally grounded academic impairment.

Methods: We synthesize empirical research from neuropsychology, education, and psychometrics to identify systematic sources of diagnostic distortion in adult SLD assessment. Particular emphasis is placed on statistical artifacts (e.g. restriction of range), base-rate neglect, contextual performance effects, performance validity, reliance on self-report, and the misapplication of sociostructural frameworks to clinical decision-making.

Results: To combat overdiagnosis and ground diagnosis in empirically-supported practices, we propose a four-step diagnostic framework for first time diagnosis of SLD in adults: 1) Documented academic achievement below at least the 16th percentile relative to the general population norms; 2) Clear evidence of onset in early school years, including impairment when scaffolding and supports are removed; 3) Evidence that academic difficulties persisted despite adequate educational opportunity and, when available, targeted intervention; and 4) Exclusion of contextual, motivational, neurological/medical, language, or instructional explanations.

Conclusions: Accurate diagnosis of SLD in adulthood requires population-referenced criteria, corroborated evidence of childhood onset, objective demonstration of current academic impairment, systematic exclusion of alternative explanations, and assessment of performance credibility. Adoption of a structured, evidence-based diagnostic framework is essential to preserving the scientific validity, ethical application, and equitable use of SLD diagnoses in adult educational and professional settings.

诊断成人特殊学习障碍第二部分:偏差,基本率,和前进的道路。
成人特异性学习障碍(SLDs)的诊断在过去二十年中大幅增加,特别是在选择性的高等教育和专业培训环境中。本文的第二部分探讨了为什么成人特殊语言障碍的诊断特别容易受到错误和偏见的影响,尽管诊断标准需要实质性的、以发展为基础的学业障碍。方法:综合神经心理学、教育学和心理测量学的实证研究,找出成人特殊语言障碍评估中诊断扭曲的系统来源。特别强调的是统计人为因素(例如范围限制),基本率忽视,情境绩效影响,绩效有效性,依赖自我报告,以及在临床决策中误用社会结构框架。结果:为了对抗过度诊断和经验支持的基础诊断,我们提出了成人SLD首次诊断的四步诊断框架:1)相对于一般人群标准,记录的学业成绩至少低于第16个百分位;2)有明显证据表明,在上学早期发病,包括移除脚手架和支撑物时出现的损伤;3)尽管有充分的教育机会和有针对性的干预,学业困难仍然存在的证据;4)排除上下文、动机、神经学/医学、语言或教学解释。结论:成年期SLD的准确诊断需要人群参考标准、儿童期发病的确凿证据、当前学业障碍的客观证明、系统地排除其他解释以及评估表现的可信度。采用结构化的、基于证据的诊断框架对于在成人教育和专业环境中维护特殊障碍诊断的科学有效性、伦理应用和公平使用至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书