etiology unless it is grossly obvious” and assume psychogenicity when no easily “to recognizable organic deviation can be found in the child.” Clements and Peters also commented on the relationship between central nervous system dysfunction and reading disabilities. They noted that a reading disability based on nonorganic factors was rare, stating pure psychogenic reading disability is an “that … unusual entity. We cannot accept alleged traumatic experiences, methods of teaching, or blocking’ as sole causes of reading disability. If the brain substrate ‘emotional … essential for reading is intact and sufficiently mature, a child adequately exposed to reading will learn to read normally just as he matures to the point of walking normally.” On the other hand, they had difficulty in accepting the proposition that mild brain “no deviation in combination with emotional factors, traumatic experiences, etc., can lead to various degrees of reading problems.” The explanation of Clements and Peters regarding brain dysfunction” is helpful “minimal in understanding the meaning of the LOC term disability resulting from organic “reading dysfunction.” Similar to Clements and Peters, the LOC (in 1974 and 1997) emphasized organic etiology (i.e., the LOC indicated that the reading disability must have an “organic basis” and that cause, when physical, lies within the central nervous system”). , In “the addition, as noted, the LOC used the word rather than At the “dysfunction” “damage.” same time, it is significant that the LOC did not include the word considered “minimal,” important by Clements and Peters to refer to a disability characterized by “subtle” organic deviations. Clements and Peters rejected the artificial dichotomy between a purely organic and purely psychogenic approach and pointed out that a reading disability based on purely nonorganic factors was rare. In its 1997 factsheet, the LOC stated that a medical doctor was required to be the certifying authority in order to attest to the organic basis of the disability and to rule out factors—such as “nonorganic emotional or environmental causes, intellectual or educational deficiencies.” It is not clear from this language whether the LOC was following the purist point of view, rejected by Clements and Peters, that only organic deviations that were “grossly obvious” (i.e., based on hard signs) were necessary, or whether the LOC supported a broader notion of dysfunction that encompassed a range of central nervous system deviations, including those considered “subtle.”
etiology unless it is grossly obvious” and “to assume psychogenicity when no easily recognizable organic deviation can be found in the child.” Clements and Peters also commented on the relationship between central nervous system dysfunction and reading disabilities. They noted that a reading disability based on nonorganic factors was rare, stating “that pure psychogenic reading disability … is an unusual entity. We cannot accept alleged traumatic experiences, methods of teaching, or ‘emotional blocking’ … as sole causes of reading disability. If the brain substrate essential for reading is intact and sufficiently mature, a child adequately exposed to reading will learn to read normally just as he matures to the point of walking normally.” On the other hand, they had “no difficulty in accepting the proposition that mild brain deviation in combination with emotional factors, traumatic experiences, etc., can lead to various degrees of reading problems.” The explanation of Clements and Peters regarding “minimal brain dysfunction” is helpful in understanding the meaning of the LOC term “reading disability resulting from organic dysfunction.” Similar to Clements and Peters, the LOC (in 1974 and 1997) emphasized organic etiology (i.e., the LOC indicated that the reading disability must have an “organic basis” and that “the cause, when physical, lies within the central nervous system”). , In addition, as noted, the LOC used the word “dysfunction” rather than “damage.” At the same time, it is significant that the LOC did not include the word “minimal,” considered important by Clements and Peters to refer to a disability characterized by “subtle” organic deviations. Clements and Peters rejected the artificial dichotomy between a purely organic and purely psychogenic approach and pointed out that a reading disability based on purely nonorganic factors was rare. In its 1997 factsheet, the LOC stated that a medical doctor was required to be the certifying authority in order to attest to the organic basis of the disability and to rule out “nonorganic factors—such as emotional or environmental causes, intellectual or educational deficiencies.” It is not clear from this language whether the LOC was following the purist point of view, rejected by Clements and Peters, that only organic deviations that were “grossly obvious” (i.e., based on hard signs) were necessary, or whether the LOC supported a broader notion of dysfunction that encompassed a range of central nervous system deviations, including those considered “subtle.”
organic-dysfunction-relationship-ld-2012-01.docx