Stability and accuracy of specific learning disability diagnoses from childhood to young adulthood.

Objective: Specific learning disorder (SLD) diagnoses made in childhood are often assumed to be stable across development; however, diagnostic stability has frequently been conflated with diagnostic validity. This study examined (a) the accuracy of childhood SLD diagnoses at the time they were made, relative to objective academic impairment and (b) the stability of SLD diagnoses from childhood to young adulthood.

Method: Archival data were analyzed from 325 postsecondary students who underwent comprehensive adult psychoeducational assessment and for whom childhood assessment documentation was available. Childhood reports were coded for assessment content, diagnostic clarity, and evidence of objective academic impairment. Diagnostic stability was evaluated by comparing childhood and adult SLD diagnoses across reading, written expression, and mathematics.

Results: Most childhood assessments included standardized measures of cognitive, academic, and behavioral functioning; however, fewer than half included measures of phonological processing, and only 52.3% contained a clear diagnostic statement. Across domains, 82-89% of childhood SLD diagnoses were supported by objective academic impairment at the time of assessment. Despite this, diagnostic stability from childhood to adulthood was moderate, with approximately 59% of childhood diagnoses retained across reading, writing, and mathematics, and roughly 40% not confirmed at adult reassessment.

Conclusions: Findings indicate that while many childhood SLD diagnoses are supported by contemporaneous academic impairment, that impairment does not always persist into adulthood. These results underscore the importance of distinguishing diagnostic accuracy from diagnostic stability and highlight the need for careful reassessment of learning difficulties in postsecondary contexts rather than reliance on childhood diagnoses alone.