Free
Research Article  |   July 1981
A Learning Disability Screening Program in a Public School
Author Affiliations
  • Paula Kramer Goldstein, M.A., OTR, is Senior Occupational Therapist, Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center of New York, New York, New York; Doctoral Candidate at New York University, Department of Occupational Therapy, New York, New York
  • John D. O’Brien, M.D., is Director of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, St. Vincent’s Hospital and Medical Center of New York, New York, New York
  • Gary M. Katz, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor, Department of Occupational Therapy, New York University, School of Education, Health, Nursing and Arts Professions, New York, New York
Article Information
Learning Disabilities / School-Based Practice / Features
Research Article   |   July 1981
A Learning Disability Screening Program in a Public School
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July 1981, Vol. 35, 451-455. doi:10.5014/ajot.35.7.451
American Journal of Occupational Therapy, July 1981, Vol. 35, 451-455. doi:10.5014/ajot.35.7.451
Abstract

The outline of a screening program for learning disabilities in a public school is presented in this paper. The screening program consisted of four standardized measures (Information Subtest of the WPPSI, SEARCH, Evanston Early Identification Scale, Bender-Gestalt) and six of the clinical observations suggested by Ayres. Forty-three kindergarten and first graders (25 males, 18 females) were tested and each child was categorized as low, moderate, or high risk for learning disabilities on each of the measures. Approximately 10 percent of the children were identified as at high risk for learning disabilities, but the children did not perform at the same risk level on all measures. A factor analysis of the four measures and six observations revealed that three factors prevailed in this screening program: cognitive abilities, fine motor control, and reflex integration. This analysis also indicated the importance of assessing neurophysiological immaturity in a screening program. The implications of the categories used are discussed.