Examining the identification, prevalence and coping of Australian primary school students with learning disabilities

Learning disabilities (LDs) have a prevalence rate of approximately ten percent in the population and result from processing problems that are neurological in origin and permanent in nature (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Prior, 1996). Indications of LDs in students are frequently manifested by underachievement in one or more academic areas such as reading, spelling, writing or mathematics despite intelligence scores in the normal range (Prior, 1996). Recognition of LDs in Australian schools requires registered educational psychologists to establish a demonstrable discrepancy between a range of educational tests and intelligence tests. However, such testing is expensive and, coupled with a lack of school resources and teacher knowledge about LDs, results in a failure to recognise LDs in many students in Australian schools. This failure to recognise students with LDs persists in spite of a body of research that demonstrates knowledge of LDs is a protective factor against a range of adverse outcomes for those with LDs (Raskind, Goldberg, Higgins, & Herman, 1999). A primary aim of this study was to propose and evaluate an alternative method for screening students for LDs using individual and group-administered standardised educational and intelligence screening tests that are less costly, less time-consuming and can be administered by classroom teachers. Specifically, students with low educational achievement scores coupled with intelligence scores in the normal range display a discrepancy between achievement and intelligence tests which is indicative of possible LDs. It was further argued that this screening process has the added advantage of providing teachers with critical information about their students that empowers them to make appropriate accommodations for students with LDs. A second aim of this research was to examine the coping responses of students with LDs. Unidentified LDs can be particularly stressful for students. Indeed, LDs are often associated with adverse educational, social and psychological outcomes, which indicate that students with LDs are not coping. As such, two stress and coping models, namely the Conservation of Resources (COR) model (Hobfoll, 1989; 2001) and the Children‟s Coping in the Academic Domain (CCAD) model (Skinner & Wellborn, 1997), were integrated and used as a theoretical framework to explain coping behaviours for students with LDs. Important resources identified for students with LDs included external resources (student engagement, family cohesion) internal resources (external control, internal control) and coping styles (productive coping, non-productive coping). The overall goal was to test a proposed model of coping resources in which it was hypothesised that internal resources would mediate the relationships between external resources and coping styles, which, in turn, would predict the degree to which students expressed their inability to cope.