SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
On the contemporary history of learning disability identification procedures-a systematic literature review (1960-2000).
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic literature review critically synthesizes the academic literature on learning disability (LD) identification processes between 1960 and 2000, highlighting dominant conceptual frameworks and methodological tensions. The study addresses a critical gap in the literature by focusing on the historical context and development of LD diagnostic procedures, which have predominantly been characterized by conceptual ambiguity, varying diagnostic approaches, and the evolving understanding of LD. Utilizing a corpus of 82 peer-reviewed articles from predominantly English-speaking countries, the review employs a thematic synthesis approach to identify three central themes: (1) conceptual ambiguity concerning definitions and criteria of LD, (2) diverse approaches and challenges in diagnostic procedures, and (3) the focus on prediction and prevention methodologies. The findings underscore the absence of a unified LD definition and the influence of interdisciplinary perspectives, highlighting the necessity for further reflection as well as disciplinary discourse. The study calls for further research into historical and international comparisons of LD identification processes, suggesting that such efforts could enhance global consensus and improve diagnostic practices.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.