This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library] On: 20 January 2015, At: 16:46 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncen19
Learning disability subtyping: A reply to adams Stephen R. Hooper
a c
& W. Grant Willis
b
a
Department of Psychiatry and The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning , University of North Carolina School of Medicine , b
University of Rhode , Island
c
The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, CB# 7255, BSRC, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA Published online: 04 Jan 2008.
To cite this article: Stephen R. Hooper & W. Grant Willis (1992) Learning disability subtyping: A reply to adams, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14:4, 638-640, DOI: 10.1080/01688639208402850 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01688639208402850
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
J o d of Clinical and Fxpsimental N e u q s y c h I ~ 1992. Vol. 14, No.4, pp. 638-640
0168-8634~1404-06383.00 0 Swerr & zc.itlingex
COMMENT
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
Learning Disability Subtyping: A reply to Adams* Stephen R. Hooper Depamnent of Psychiatry and The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine
W.Grant Willis University of Rhode Island
The field of learning disabilities comprises a wide range of dissenting opinions ranging from those who believe that these types of disorders truly are nonexistent to those who believe in selected models and perspectives. Given this wide range of perspectives and opinions, it comes as no surprise that individuals feel passionate about their own perspectives. what is surprising is when professional criticism appears to approach the level of petty quibbling and personal affronts. Adams' (1990)review of our book on learning disability subtyping suggests the latter. We are concerned about what we see as the unprofessional tone of many of Adams' statements. We perceived many of his points to be sarcastic, condescending, and ad hominem. Adams, of course, is entitled to his opinion, but we were particularly surprised that these kinds of statements were overlooked and/or approved in the editorial process -especially in a journal the calibre of JCEN. We have addressed these concerns with the Editors of JCEN, including the INS Editor, and we respect the time, energy, and attention that they have devoted to our concerns. In addition, the Editors of JCEN have offered us the opportunity to rebut issues raised by Adams in his review of our text. We welcome professional evaluation of our scholarly efforts. Unfortunately, Adams' criticisms proffered few constructive suggestions and no avenues for improvement. Even in those cases where a reviewer finds a work of little or no merit, authors and potential readers deserve a dignified style of criticism. This review was not in good taste, was not particularly useful to us or the field and, when compared to other published reviews of our text (e.g., Telzrow, 1990; Tupper, 1990),clearly remains an outlier. Outside of Adams' sarcastic tone and meager attempts at humor, however, we have distilled three basic issues from his
* Requests for reprints should be directed to Stephen R. Hooper, Ph.D.. The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, CB# 7255, BSRC, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. USA. Accepted for publication: December 6, 199 1.
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
FSBUl-l-AL
639
review: (a) the lack of discussion pertaining to a neuropsychological perspective; (b) the lack of integration of literature; and (c) his concerns that we were equating our work with the state-of-the-art. Adams’ initial concern reflected his opinion that there was a lack of emphasis placed on neuropsychology and/or neurology in this text. In this regard, it is important to note that this text was not designed to be a comprehensive review of neurology, or even neuropsychology for that matter. As such, the neuropsychological/neurological information that needed to be included had to pertain to learning disabilities and, in particular, to learning disability subtyping efforts. A similar approach was taken in the chapter on treatment where we did not intend to cover the entire topic of intervention with learning disabilities but, rather, to focus on intervention efforts that had employed subtyping schemes. Given this, we are not sure why Adams minimized the amount of neuropsychology in this text: We made efforts to address basic foundations, neuropsychological assessment procedures used in subtyping efforts, and the resulting models that have been proffered. Also, despite Adams’ notation of previous work (i.e., Riklan & Levita, 1969), it has been only recently that data-based speculations regarding the cortical foundations of childhood learning disabilities have been presented. Speculations regarding subcortical involvement and a discussion beyond the primer provided would have been presumptuous and, perhaps, misleading in a text on learning-disability subtyping. We would agree that this will be an exciting and fruitful area of investigation, particularly given the hypotheses that can be generated by contemporary models of learning and learning dysfunction (e.g., the nonverbal-learning-disabilities model). Adams’ second concern reflected the perception that our text lacked a scholarly integration of the literature. We appreciate Adams’ positive observation about the “evidence gathering function” of the text, but we disagree that the book lacked any evaluation and integration. Ironically, one reason for the lack of a higher degree of integration is that we agree with Adams with respect to theoretical, methodological, and statistical constraints currently in the learning disability literature. Given this plethora of difficulties, we found it difficult to justify a higher level of integration than the one that we achieved. For example, given that the field cannot even agree on an acceptable operational definition of this heterogeneous group of disorders, it becomes difficult to compare across studies in an acceptable fashion. This concern is accented even further when one reviews the subtyping literature and the different kinds of assessment approaches that have been employed. Although several distinguished investigators have a long history of research in learning disabilities (e.g., Rourke, Bakker), and consequently have been able to integrate their work based on their perspectives and their findings, it should be noted that these efforts represent only a portion of the work in learning disabilities. It is our opinion that, at this time, it would be premature, naive, and unduly presumptuous to attempt to integrate the work in subtyping beyond the efforts detailed in our text. It seems to us that Adams was wishing for a level of integration that the field is not yet ready to provide, and to do so or to
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
640
STEPHEM R. HOOPER AND W.GRANT WILLIS
suggest otherwise could be misleading. We agree with Adams that “the creation of true subtypes requires rigor in the specification of a behavioral taxonomy...”. The field has not yet reached that point. The final concern that we were able to extract from Adams’ review was that, in his opinion, we wanted to equate our efforts “with the general cutting edge...”. Although we would like to think that we are familiar with many of the issues confronting this field and that we addressed many of them in our text, particularly with respect to subtyping, we were not so bold or self-enamored to believe that our efforts culminated in the quintessential text on subtyping. The preface clearly states that the text was designed to provide readers with a compendium of the subtyping literature (i.e., to put it in one place so that the field could evaluate it along with us). Thus, we were hoping to provide a scholarly contribution via recognizing the many different conceptual models and clinical issues that confront researchers and clinicians interested in learning disability subtyping. In fact, we noted in the preface that this text should complement the efforts of others (e.g., Rourke, 1985) with respect to the subtyping literature. Had we written our text with Adams’ views in mind, perhaps it might have taken on a more grandiose flavor. The fact that Adams experienced a “sense of letdown” when he completed his review of our text is disappointing to us, but we are really in no position to accep? responsibility for his emotional state. All works of this nature have flaws; our work is no exception, and whatever flaws are present remain our own doing. Adams’ comments were negatively biased, largely devoted to his own attempts at humor, with minimal commentary addressing his perceptions of the positive attributes of the text. Adams actually could have concluded by giving our text a more positive review, based on the few objective comments that were present, but he seems to have gotten caught-up in his own judgment biases and failed attempts at humor. We will endeavor to use Adams’ review in our own teachings, but suffice it to say that his review will be used as an example of how not to critique the work of another (i.e., “what you see is all you get”). REFERENCES Adams. K.M.(1990). What you see is all you get. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 364-367. Riklan, M. & Levita, E. (1969). Subcortical correlates of human behavior. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkens Rourke, B.P.(Ed.) (1985). Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Telzrow, C.F. (1 990). Review o f Learning disability subtyping: Neuropsychological foundations, conceptual models, and issues in clinical differentiation. School Psychology Review, 19, 126-127. Tupper, D.E. (1990). Two neuropsychologists slice the LD pie. Contemporary Psychology, 35,444-445.
Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ncen19
Learning disability subtyping: A reply to adams Stephen R. Hooper
a c
& W. Grant Willis
b
a
Department of Psychiatry and The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning , University of North Carolina School of Medicine , b
University of Rhode , Island
c
The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, CB# 7255, BSRC, University of North Carolina , Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA Published online: 04 Jan 2008.
To cite this article: Stephen R. Hooper & W. Grant Willis (1992) Learning disability subtyping: A reply to adams, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 14:4, 638-640, DOI: 10.1080/01688639208402850 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01688639208402850
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http:// www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
J o d of Clinical and Fxpsimental N e u q s y c h I ~ 1992. Vol. 14, No.4, pp. 638-640
0168-8634~1404-06383.00 0 Swerr & zc.itlingex
COMMENT
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
Learning Disability Subtyping: A reply to Adams* Stephen R. Hooper Depamnent of Psychiatry and The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, University of North Carolina School of Medicine
W.Grant Willis University of Rhode Island
The field of learning disabilities comprises a wide range of dissenting opinions ranging from those who believe that these types of disorders truly are nonexistent to those who believe in selected models and perspectives. Given this wide range of perspectives and opinions, it comes as no surprise that individuals feel passionate about their own perspectives. what is surprising is when professional criticism appears to approach the level of petty quibbling and personal affronts. Adams' (1990)review of our book on learning disability subtyping suggests the latter. We are concerned about what we see as the unprofessional tone of many of Adams' statements. We perceived many of his points to be sarcastic, condescending, and ad hominem. Adams, of course, is entitled to his opinion, but we were particularly surprised that these kinds of statements were overlooked and/or approved in the editorial process -especially in a journal the calibre of JCEN. We have addressed these concerns with the Editors of JCEN, including the INS Editor, and we respect the time, energy, and attention that they have devoted to our concerns. In addition, the Editors of JCEN have offered us the opportunity to rebut issues raised by Adams in his review of our text. We welcome professional evaluation of our scholarly efforts. Unfortunately, Adams' criticisms proffered few constructive suggestions and no avenues for improvement. Even in those cases where a reviewer finds a work of little or no merit, authors and potential readers deserve a dignified style of criticism. This review was not in good taste, was not particularly useful to us or the field and, when compared to other published reviews of our text (e.g., Telzrow, 1990; Tupper, 1990),clearly remains an outlier. Outside of Adams' sarcastic tone and meager attempts at humor, however, we have distilled three basic issues from his
* Requests for reprints should be directed to Stephen R. Hooper, Ph.D.. The Clinical Center for the Study of Development and Learning, CB# 7255, BSRC, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599. USA. Accepted for publication: December 6, 199 1.
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
FSBUl-l-AL
639
review: (a) the lack of discussion pertaining to a neuropsychological perspective; (b) the lack of integration of literature; and (c) his concerns that we were equating our work with the state-of-the-art. Adams’ initial concern reflected his opinion that there was a lack of emphasis placed on neuropsychology and/or neurology in this text. In this regard, it is important to note that this text was not designed to be a comprehensive review of neurology, or even neuropsychology for that matter. As such, the neuropsychological/neurological information that needed to be included had to pertain to learning disabilities and, in particular, to learning disability subtyping efforts. A similar approach was taken in the chapter on treatment where we did not intend to cover the entire topic of intervention with learning disabilities but, rather, to focus on intervention efforts that had employed subtyping schemes. Given this, we are not sure why Adams minimized the amount of neuropsychology in this text: We made efforts to address basic foundations, neuropsychological assessment procedures used in subtyping efforts, and the resulting models that have been proffered. Also, despite Adams’ notation of previous work (i.e., Riklan & Levita, 1969), it has been only recently that data-based speculations regarding the cortical foundations of childhood learning disabilities have been presented. Speculations regarding subcortical involvement and a discussion beyond the primer provided would have been presumptuous and, perhaps, misleading in a text on learning-disability subtyping. We would agree that this will be an exciting and fruitful area of investigation, particularly given the hypotheses that can be generated by contemporary models of learning and learning dysfunction (e.g., the nonverbal-learning-disabilities model). Adams’ second concern reflected the perception that our text lacked a scholarly integration of the literature. We appreciate Adams’ positive observation about the “evidence gathering function” of the text, but we disagree that the book lacked any evaluation and integration. Ironically, one reason for the lack of a higher degree of integration is that we agree with Adams with respect to theoretical, methodological, and statistical constraints currently in the learning disability literature. Given this plethora of difficulties, we found it difficult to justify a higher level of integration than the one that we achieved. For example, given that the field cannot even agree on an acceptable operational definition of this heterogeneous group of disorders, it becomes difficult to compare across studies in an acceptable fashion. This concern is accented even further when one reviews the subtyping literature and the different kinds of assessment approaches that have been employed. Although several distinguished investigators have a long history of research in learning disabilities (e.g., Rourke, Bakker), and consequently have been able to integrate their work based on their perspectives and their findings, it should be noted that these efforts represent only a portion of the work in learning disabilities. It is our opinion that, at this time, it would be premature, naive, and unduly presumptuous to attempt to integrate the work in subtyping beyond the efforts detailed in our text. It seems to us that Adams was wishing for a level of integration that the field is not yet ready to provide, and to do so or to
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 16:46 20 January 2015
640
STEPHEM R. HOOPER AND W.GRANT WILLIS
suggest otherwise could be misleading. We agree with Adams that “the creation of true subtypes requires rigor in the specification of a behavioral taxonomy...”. The field has not yet reached that point. The final concern that we were able to extract from Adams’ review was that, in his opinion, we wanted to equate our efforts “with the general cutting edge...”. Although we would like to think that we are familiar with many of the issues confronting this field and that we addressed many of them in our text, particularly with respect to subtyping, we were not so bold or self-enamored to believe that our efforts culminated in the quintessential text on subtyping. The preface clearly states that the text was designed to provide readers with a compendium of the subtyping literature (i.e., to put it in one place so that the field could evaluate it along with us). Thus, we were hoping to provide a scholarly contribution via recognizing the many different conceptual models and clinical issues that confront researchers and clinicians interested in learning disability subtyping. In fact, we noted in the preface that this text should complement the efforts of others (e.g., Rourke, 1985) with respect to the subtyping literature. Had we written our text with Adams’ views in mind, perhaps it might have taken on a more grandiose flavor. The fact that Adams experienced a “sense of letdown” when he completed his review of our text is disappointing to us, but we are really in no position to accep? responsibility for his emotional state. All works of this nature have flaws; our work is no exception, and whatever flaws are present remain our own doing. Adams’ comments were negatively biased, largely devoted to his own attempts at humor, with minimal commentary addressing his perceptions of the positive attributes of the text. Adams actually could have concluded by giving our text a more positive review, based on the few objective comments that were present, but he seems to have gotten caught-up in his own judgment biases and failed attempts at humor. We will endeavor to use Adams’ review in our own teachings, but suffice it to say that his review will be used as an example of how not to critique the work of another (i.e., “what you see is all you get”). REFERENCES Adams. K.M.(1990). What you see is all you get. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 12, 364-367. Riklan, M. & Levita, E. (1969). Subcortical correlates of human behavior. Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkens Rourke, B.P.(Ed.) (1985). Neuropsychology of learning disabilities: Essentials of subtype analysis. New York: Guilford Press. Telzrow, C.F. (1 990). Review o f Learning disability subtyping: Neuropsychological foundations, conceptual models, and issues in clinical differentiation. School Psychology Review, 19, 126-127. Tupper, D.E. (1990). Two neuropsychologists slice the LD pie. Contemporary Psychology, 35,444-445.
