Lewis 2016

Taking Stock of 40 Years of Research on Mathematical Learning Disability: Methodological
Issues and Future Directions

Author(s): Katherine E. Lewis and Marie B. Fisher
Source: Journal for Research in Mathematics Education , Vol. 47, No. 4 (July 2016), pp.
338-371
Published by: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/jresematheduc.47.4.0338
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
This content downloaded from

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Journal for Research in Mathematics Education
2016, Vol. 47, No. 4, 338–371
Taking Stock of 40 Years of Research on

Mathematical Learning Disability:
Methodological Issues and Future
Directions
Katherine E. Lewis and Marie B. Fisher
University of Washington
Although approximately 5–8% of students have a mathematical learning disability

(MLD), researchers have yet to develop a consensus operational definition. To
examine how MLD has been identified and what mathematics topics have been
explored, we conducted a systematic review of 164 studies on MLD published
between 1974 and 2013. Findings indicate that (a) there was great variability in the
classification methods used, (b) studies rarely reported demographic differences
between the MLD and typically achieving groups, and (c) studies overwhelmingly
focused on elementary-aged students engaged in basic arithmetic calculation. To move
the field toward a more precise and shared definition of MLD, we argue for standards
for methodology and reporting, and we identify a need for research addressing more
complex mathematics.
Key words: Assessment; Dyscalculia; Identification; Mathematics learning disability
Researchers estimate that the prevalence of mathematical learning disability

(MLD; i.e., dyscalculia) is the same as dyslexia, affecting approximately 5–8% of
students (Badian, 1999; Gross-Tsur, Manor, & Shalev, 1996; Shalev, 2007).
However, unlike dyslexia, research on MLD is still in its infancy (Kaufmann et al.,
2013). Although researchers agree that an MLD is a biologically based difference
in the brain, which results in significant difficulties with mathematics
(e.g., Butterworth & Laurillard, 2010; Geary, 2007; Mazzocco, 2007), researchers
have yet to identify the core cognitive characteristics of this disability (Berch &
Mazzocco, 2007). Because of this, the field is facing foundational methodological
challenges around accurate and reliable identification of students with this disability
(Kaufmann et al., 2013; Watson & Gable, 2013). Efforts to move toward a consensus
definition of MLD—as has been achieved in dyslexia research (see International
Dyslexia Association, n.d., for the definition adopted in 2002)—necessitate both
precision and comprehensiveness. First, the operational definition of MLD must be
sufficiently precise to ensure that researchers are studying a common phenomenon.
Second, the exploration of MLD must be sufficiently broad to ensure that researchers
understand the variety of ways in which this disability may manifest. Now, after
We would like to thank Mark Windschitl and Holly Schindler for feedback
on earlier versions of this manuscript. Special thanks to Yanlin Ma, Grace
Thompson, and Jasmine Yip, who assisted in coding and analysis.
Copyright © 2016 by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, Inc., www.nctm.org. All rights reserved.
This material may not be copied or distributed electronically or in other formats without written permission from NCTM.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Katherine E. Lewis and Marie B. Fisher 339
40 years of educational research on MLD, it is time to take stock of the method-

ological decisions that have been made and consider how these decisions shape our
understanding of MLD.
Although several systematic literature reviews have addressed MLD, these
reviews focused on synthesizing the common characteristics of MLD (e.g., Geary,
2004; Swanson & Jerman, 2006) or identifying interventions that are effective for
students with an MLD (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009; Kroesbergen & Van Luit, 2003;
Xin & Jitendra, 1999). None have focused on the methodological criteria used to
identify students with an MLD. This is a key omission because researchers have
argued that MLD identification issues may limit our ability to aggregate findings
across studies in order to develop a comprehensive view of MLD (Mazzocco,
2007). In this review, we explore issues related to methodological precision and
breadth in how MLD is currently operationally defined and studied. Specifically,
we investigate (a) the variability in MLD classification criteria, (b) the potential
for conflation of MLD and low achievement due to noncognitive factors, and
(c) the comprehensiveness of the mathematics topics under study. We conducted
a systematic analysis of 40 years of educational research on MLD to determine
how prevalent this issue is and whether there have been methodological shifts over
time to address these concerns.
Methodological Issues
Importance of Precision
The field’s understanding of MLD is predicated on researchers’ ability to accu-
rately identify students with an MLD. Currently there is no accepted consensus
definition of MLD (Mazzocco, 2007; Swanson, 2007). Although an MLD is
understood to have a biological or cognitive origin (see Butterworth & Laurillard,
2010, for a review of the field’s understanding of MLD), researchers identify
students with an MLD based on behavioral data—most commonly performance
below a given cutoff threshold on a mathematics achievement test (Mazzocco,
2007). Because low achievement is used as a proxy, this raises questions about the
reliability of the measures across studies and the validity of the identification
approaches used to identify specific students with an MLD.
Issues of reliability: Variability in classification criteria. The first issue

related to methodological precision involves the consistency of classification
criteria used across studies. Empirical evidence suggests that variations in the
assessments used or the cutoffs selected can have implications for the students
who get classified as having an MLD. For example, Mazzocco and Myers (2003)
administered several mathematics achievement tests commonly used to identify
MLD and found that membership in the MLD group varied based upon the assess-
ment measures used. This suggests that “mathematics achievement” is not a
uniform construct and that inclusion in the MLD group is influenced by the
variations in the skills evaluated within the assessment (Landerl, Bevan, &
Butterworth, 2004). Similarly, Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, and Early (2007)

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
340 Taking Stock of Mathematics Learning Disability Research
found that commonly used cutoffs (10th percentile and 25th percentile) identified
groups of students with different cognitive profiles. This further suggests that
students classified as having an MLD in one study might not be similarly classified
in another, which limits our ability to meaningfully compare and synthesize find-
ings across studies (Mazzocco, 2007; Murphy, Mazzocco, Hanich, & Early, 2007).
This has implications for our understanding of MLD because it suggests that
researchers are not studying the same population of students. Although we know
that variability in operational definitions of MLD is consequential, there has not
been a comprehensive analysis of how MLD has been defined in the field.
Issues of validity: Noncognitive factors implicated in low achievement. The

second issue of precision concerns the validity of the identification methods. To
understand MLD, it is necessary to differentiate between cognitive and noncogni-
tive sources of mathematics difficulties. Conflating students with an MLD and
students with low achievement due to another cause makes it difficult to draw
conclusions about either group of students (Mazzocco, 2007). Research on dispro-
portionality, the achievement gap, and assessment bias raise questions about the
validity of low achievement as a measure of disability.
Myriad “achievement gap” studies document the racial and class disparities in
performance on academic achievement measures (Ladson-Billings, 2006). These
studies have consistently found that students from historically marginalized racial
or ethnic groups, students of low socioeconomic status (SES), and students who
are English language learners have significantly lower achievement scores than
their white, middle-class peers (Tate, 1997; U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2015).
These findings are consistent with disproportionate representation in schools in
which students from low-income families, students of color, and nonnative English
speakers are more likely to be identified with a disability (Skiba et al., 2008),
particularly in high-incidence categories like learning disabilities (e.g., Sullivan
& Bal, 2013). Furthermore, American Indian, African American, and Native
Hawaiian children ages 6 through 21 were more likely to receive special education
services than in all other racial or ethnic groups combined (U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of
Special Education Programs, 2014). These trends may emerge, in part, because of
issues of assessment bias. Assessment bias can occur when the design of an assess-
ment or interpretation of results systematically disadvantages certain groups of
students because of differences in race, SES, language proficiency, or cultural
norms (Lane & Leventhal, 2015). The achievement gap and the disproportionality
within special education demonstrate how differences in social and environmental
circumstances are then reflected in the achievement test scores and disability
classification of students. This highlights how educational systems have histori-
cally and systemically marginalized certain groups of students (Gutiérrez, 2008;
Ladson-Billings, 2006) and is relevant in studies of MLD because low mathe-
matics achievement is the primary measure used to classify students. Currently,

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
it is not known if disproportionate representation is a prevalent issue for MLD

identification. If MLD classification techniques do result in similar achievement
gap trends, this may suggest that the operational definition for MLD is not suffi-
ciently precise.
In summary, the field’s reliance on low mathematics achievement to identify
students with an MLD raises questions about precision. It is unknown how much
variability exists across the body of research, which raises questions about the
reliability and validity of MLD identification particularly related to differentiating
cognitive and noncognitive1 sources of low achievement.
Importance of Mathematical Breadth

To develop a comprehensive understanding of MLD and accurately identify
students of all ages, we must document how the disability manifests across math-
ematics topics. School mathematics involves numerous interconnected concepts.
For example, the Common Core State Standards for Mathematics (CCSSM;
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2010) identifies 11 domains for K–8 mathematics (i.e., Counting
& Cardinality, Number & Operations in Base Ten, Operations & Algebraic
Thinking, Number & Operations—Fractions, Measurement & Data, Geometry,
Ratios & Proportional Relationships, The Number System, Expressions &
Equations, Functions, and Statistics & Probability). Mathematics is a hierarchical
topic domain in which elementary concepts and procedures serve the foundation
for more complex mathematics (Earnest, 2015; Mazzocco & Myers, 2003).
Research on mathematics learning has demonstrated that learning and doing math-
ematics in more complex mathematical domains is qualitatively different than basic
arithmetic calculation. For example, students must undergo a qualitative shift in
their understanding of number to reason about fractional quantities (e.g., Stafylidou
& Vosniadou, 2004), and students rely upon different brain regions to reason about
negative numbers than they do to reason about positive numbers (Gullick & Wolford
2014; Gullick, Wolford, & Temple, 2012). Additionally, topics beyond arithmetic
require different kinds of mathematical representations and thinking. For example,
in algebra, the equal sign takes on new meaning (Stephens et al., 2013); letters can
stand for variables or unknowns (Kaput, 2008); the relationships between quantities
are represented abstractly in a variety of forms: graphs, tables, equations, and
symbols (Kaput, Blanton, & Moreno, 2008; Kieran, 1992); and students must solve
multistep problems (Alibali, Stephens, Brown, Kao, & Nathan, 2014). Because
mathematical thinking and learning has been shown to be qualitatively different
across topic domains, it is essential that research on MLD explores the breadth of
mathematical topics. Currently it is unknown how comprehensive the research on
MLD is and how many CCSSM domains have been addressed.
1 There are likely other noncognitive factors (e.g., anxiety) that may influence a student’s achieve-
ment test score. The goal here is not to identify all possible noncognitive factors of low mathematics
achievement but to highlight that achievement tests scores can be influenced by noncognitive factors.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Research Questions
Although issues of precision and breadth are clearly implicated in the study of
MLD, there has been no systematic analysis of these methodological issues in
MLD research. This kind of synthesis is of critical importance if we hope to
aggregate findings across studies and make substantive progress toward under-
standing MLD. In the systematic literature review reported in this article, we
analyzed studies across 4 decades of research in order to answer the following
research questions:
1. How have studies operationally defined MLD? In particular, what assessments
and cutoffs were used to identify students with an MLD?
2. W hat demographic differences have been reported between the MLD groups
and typically achieving groups? Have significant differences been reported in
SES, race, language fluency, or gender?2
3. W hat age range and mathematics topics have studies of MLD included?
For each of these strands of analysis, we looked for trends over time to determine
if there have been shifts in methodological approaches over 4 decades of research
on MLD.
Method
We conducted an exhaustive search of the literature using keyword searches of
psychological and educational databases. We searched PsycINFO, ERIC, and
Education Source to identify studies published between 1962 and 2013. We
selected this range because Samuel Kirk first coined the term “learning disability”
in 1962 (Bateman, 2005) and our goal was to provide a comprehensive account of
educational research on MLD. The following keywords with wildcards3 were
used: math* disabl*, math* learning disabilit*, math* disabilit*, dyscalculia,
arithmetic* disabl*, and arithmetic* disabilit*. In addition to the database search,
we also conducted a hand search of articles that were published within the last 15
years (1998–2013) in leading journals in the field (Exceptional Children, the
Journal of Learning Disabilities, the Journal of Special Education, Learning
Disabilities Research and Practice, and Learning Disability Quarterly).
Articles included in this study met the following criteria:
• Studies were empirical and were available in English in a peer-reviewed journal.

• Participants were classified as having a specific disability in mathematics,
including, for example, dyscalculia, mathematical learning disability, and
2 Although there has been no established relationship between gender and mathematics achieve-
ment (Royers & Walles, 2007), historically, this relationship has received attention and therefore
was included in this analysis.
3 A wildcard is a character (i.e., *) used with search engines to stand in place of any sequence of
characters. For example, the search term “math* disabilit*” will return results for “math disability”
as well as “mathematical disabilities.”

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
arithmetic disability. We did not include studies that referred to the participants
as having mathematics learning difficulties or as being at-risk for MLD,4 or
studies of individuals with a distinct primary diagnosis (e.g., Turner Syndrome).
• Studies provided specific criteria about how the participants were classified as
having an MLD. Studies that relied upon previous identification alone (e.g.,
school identification) and did not establish disability status with an operational
definition were not included because school identification is not sufficient for
MLD identification (e.g., Geary, 1990).
The initial search yielded a total of 710 abstracts, with an additional 10 abstracts
that were identified in our hand search. All abstracts were reviewed for inclusion
criteria and double coded by the authors and research assistants. We resolved any
discrepancies that arose in categorizing the abstracts by consulting the full text of
the articles to determine whether they met the inclusion criteria. Of the original
720 articles, 467 were excluded for the following reasons: the study included no
MLD group (n = 107), the research was nonempirical (n = 196), the study focused
on another disability category (n = 99), or the article was published in a language
other than English (n = 65).
We reviewed the full articles for the remaining 253 studies. This review
excluded an additional 89 articles for the following reasons: the study provided
insufficient information about classification of students (n = 40), the study did not
identify an MLD group or participant with an MLD (n = 15), the study was not
empirical (n = 4), the article was not published in English (n = 15), the study
focused on another disability category (e.g., individuals diagnosed with ADHD,
Alzheimer’s, or Tourette’s Syndrome; n = 8), the article was a duplicate (n = 6), or
the article was not available (n = 1). Note that there were no exclusion criteria for
methodological approach; therefore, the studies included in this review reflected
a range of methodologies (e.g., quantitative, qualitative, case study, single-subject
design). The final sample consisted of 164 studies that focused on MLD.
We coded all articles for classification criteria, the differences reported between
groups for demographic variables, and the mathematics topic under study. Then,
research assistants double-coded the articles. Any discrepancies in coding were
resolved in weekly team meetings by consulting the article text and reaching a
consensus.
Criterion for Classification

The first area of interest was the criteria used by studies to classify students as
having an MLD. Given the large number of assessments used, we did not
4 The term disability as used in research on MLD implies a biological or cognitive origin. The
purpose of this literature review was to explore how this cognitive difference has been studied. We
differentiate the study of MLD from the study of students with mathematics difficulties because, as
Mazzocco (2007) argued, the conflation of these two groups is problematic for drawing conclusions
about either.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
differentiate between different versions of the same assessment (e.g., KeyMath

and KeyMath-R were both coded as KeyMath). Articles that did not specify the
name of the assessment were classified as unspecified assessment. Articles that
used an assessment that was designed exclusively for research purposes and not
widely available were classified as researcher designed.
Separate codes were assigned for the criterion type and criteria. Criterion types
were defined as cutoff, discrepancy, growth, and other. An article was coded as
cutoff if it used a cutoff criterion (e.g., 25th percentile or 2 grades below). For these
articles, we recorded the specific percentile cutoff threshold and converted stan-
dard scores and standard deviations to percentiles for the purposes of summarizing
the data. An article was coded as discrepancy if it did not specify a cutoff criterion
and, instead, only required a discrepancy between mathematics achievement and
some other measure (e.g., IQ, reading achievement). Studies that required both a
cutoff and discrepancy for inclusion in the MLD group were classified in the more
common cutoff category, given that establishing a discrepancy has not been shown
to be necessary for MLD classification (Mazzocco & Myers, 2003). An article
was coded as growth if it used growth modeling (e.g., multiple assessments that
establish a student’s low start score and slow growth) to determine which students
were classified as having MLD. An article was coded as other if it did not match
any of these common categories (e.g., performance on timed test above control
mean).
After this initial phase of coding, we decided to code two additional dimensions
of participant classification because the original coding scheme did not capture
important nuances of classification criteria that were used in several studies.
Specifically, each study was coded for (a) whether it differentiated a low-achieving
group from the students classified as having an MLD and (b) whether it used
assessments at multiple time points to establish the persistence of low achieve-
ment.
Demographic Variables
The second area of interest was the demographic composition of the groups in
the studies and whether there were racial, class, language, or gender differences
between the students classified as having an MLD and those classified as typically
achieving. Thirty-two studies did not have a typically achieving group and were
therefore excluded from this part of the analysis. For the remaining 132 studies,
we coded each article for whether it reported differences between groups for SES,
race, language fluency, and gender. Some studies asserted that there were no
differences in SES between groups because participants were drawn from the
same school or neighborhood. Other studies reported that the sample was
“predominantly White” or “predominantly English speaking.” These broad char-
acterizations of the sample were not classified as reporting differences between
groups because demographic information was not collected for the individual
participants.
For the studies that reported any demographic differences between the groups,

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
we conducted additional analyses to summarize the differences reported. We

double-coded the SES measurement the study used, the number of participants of
each race and gender in the MLD and typically achieving groups, and the primary
language in the study. As needed, a chi-square test was calculated to determine
whether differences reported were significant.
Mathematical Domain
The third area of interest was determining the breadth of the mathematical topics
considered by the studies. To determine this, we coded the mathematics topic
investigated and the age or grade of the participants. We used the CCSSM content
domains to categorize mathematics topics.5 If a study involved multiple topic
domains, each was coded. Because many of the articles did not easily fit into these
predefined categories, we used an open coding scheme in which the coder summa-
rized the main mathematics topic or focus of the study. After resolving discrepan-
cies between coders, we extrapolated three additional categories to aid in summa-
rizing the data. The first category identified was number processing, which
included studies that were primarily concerned with students’ ability to process
numerical magnitude (symbolic6 or nonsymbolic), including studies of the
approximate number system. Studies in the second category, classification data
only, reported details of students’ performance on the measures used for classifi-
cation instead of studying a distinct mathematics topic and largely included studies
investigating the prevalence of MLD. Studies in the final category, nonmath,
explored nonmathematical topics, such as executive function, cognitive processing,
spelling, and visual processing. A study was classified as nonmath only if it did
not have any mathematical topic of focus.
In addition to mathematics topic, we also coded the age and grade range of
participants. Because many studies reported the grade of the students but not the
age, we converted all ages to grades (see Table 1 for guidelines for conversion). If
a study included participants across age bands, this was coded as a range (e.g.,
participants from ages 4–14 would be classified as elementary–middle school).
General Article Characteristics

In addition to the three main analytic strands, we coded the decade of publica-
tion and the country in which the study was conducted. This enabled us to analyze
changes over time and determine whether trends differed in the United States and
elsewhere.
5 Although many of the studies reviewed were published before the CCSSM, we used the CCSSM
content domains to evaluate the comprehensiveness of the coverage of MLD research reviewed
because (a) the CCSSM content standards are comparable to the content domains identified by the
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics’ Principles and Standards for School Mathematics
(2000) and (b) at the time, the CCSSM standards were the most widely used standards in the United
States.
6 Symbolic (e.g., “3”) and non-symbolic (e.g., “• • •”) are terms used in the research to refer to dif-
ferent kinds of number processing.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Table 1
Grade Classification Codes for Grades and Age Range of Participants
Grade classification Grades Ages
Elementary Kindergarten–6tha 4–12
Middle school 6th–8th 12–14
High School 9th–12th 14–18
Adult College and beyond 18+
a Because sixth grade is sometimes considered to be part of elementary school and some-
times part of middle school, we classified sixth-grade participants based on the majority of
students in the study (e.g., participants in Grades 4–6 would be classified as elementary,
whereas participants in Grades 6–8 would be classified as middle school).
Results
We reviewed 164 articles published between 1974 and 2013 that met our criteria
for inclusion.7 The results are presented in three sections corresponding to each
of our research questions. First, we report the variability in the criteria used to
operationally define MLD. Second, we present data summarizing the number of
studies that reported or controlled for demographic variables known to be corre-
lated with mathematics achievement. Third, we present an analysis of the math-
ematical topics investigated and the age range of participants to evaluate the
comprehensiveness of the research on MLD. For each of the three primary research
questions, we report the results of a chronological analysis of these studies in
which we looked for shifts in methodological approach over the past 4 decades.
Classification Criteria
To evaluate the operational definition of MLD (Research Question 1), we exam-
ined the assessment and criteria used to classify students in the MLD group.
Table 2 summarizes the variety of assessments commonly used to classify students
as having an MLD. For the purposes of summarizing these data, we aggregated
(a) those assessments that were researcher designed and therefore not widely avail-
able, (b) those that were unspecified, and (c) those assessments that were used in
fewer than four studies. The most common assessments used were the Wide Range
Achievement Test (20%, n = 32), the Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement
(10%, n = 17), the Kortrijk Arithmetic Test and Tempo Test Rekenen (assessments
developed for Belgian students; 9%, n = 14), and the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test (7%, n = 11). Nearly half of the studies (45%, n = 73) used an
assessment for classification that was either designed by the researchers or not
commonly used in the field.
There was also variability in the types of criteria that were used in studies to
7 Although our cutoff date for inclusion was 1963, the first study meeting our criteria was
published in 1974.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Table 2
Assessment Measures Used by Studies to Identify Students with an MLD
Assessment used for MLD classification n Percenta
Wide Range Achievement Test 32 20
Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement 17 10
Kortrijk Arithmetic Test and Tempo Test Rekenen 14 9
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test 11 7
Heidelberger Rechentest 8 5
KeyMath 7 4
Peabody Individual Achievement Test 6 4
Test of Early Mathematical Ability 4 2
Israeli Developmental Dyscalculia Test 4 2
Other (assessments used in fewer than four studies, researcher 73 45
designed assessments, and unspecified achievement measures)
a Percentages exceed 100% because 12 studies used two different assessments for classification
purposes; therefore, they were double-counted in this table.
identify students with an MLD. Ninety percent of studies (n = 148) identified

students with an MLD with a cutoff score. Other criteria were used relatively rarely.
Only 5% of studies (n = 8) classified students based on a discrepancy criterion
alone, and only 2% (n = 4) relied upon growth models. The remaining 2% (n= 4)
of the studies did not fall into any of these categories and were classified as other.
Of the 148 studies that relied upon an achievement cutoff score, 135 (91%) provided
a standardized threshold criterion (e.g., percentile, standard score), and 13 (9%)
used a cutoff of grades below. Of those studies providing a cutoff percentile, there
was considerable variability in the percentile threshold selected (see Figure 1),
ranging from the 2nd percentile to the 46th percentile.
Analysis over time. To investigate whether there had been changes in the cutoff
threshold used over time, we calculated the mean and median cutoff used in each
decade (see Figure 2). It is worth noting that the two studies using a cutoff in the
1974–1983 decade used a more stringent cutoff than most studies in the following
20 years. However, the general trend over the past 3 decades is toward lower cutoff
thresholds.
To explore trends over time with respect to more stringent criteria for MLD
identification, we explored two aspects of classification: (a) studies that differen-
tiated a low-achieving group from the MLD group and (b) studies that established
disability status based on the persistence of low achievement using multiple assess-
ments at different points in time. Figure 3 summarizes the number of studies
differentiating MLD from low achievement. Over the past 3 decades, the
percentage of studies differentiating low achievement from MLD has increased

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Figure 1. Number of studies using each percentile cutoff to identify students with an
MLD.
Figure 2. Mean and median percentile cutoffs used over the past 4 decades.
(from 5% to 13% and 21%, respectively). Although the number of studies that
relied upon multiple assessments to demonstrate the persistence of low achieve-
ment has also increased (see Figure 4), the percentage of studies has remained
relatively constant over the past 3 decades with 21%, 28%, and 24%, respectively,
of studies requiring more than one assessment.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Figure 3. Trend line for number of studies differentiating students with low achievement
from students with an MLD over the past 4 decades.
Demographic Information
To determine how many studies considered differences between groups on the
demographic variables of interest (SES, race, language fluency, gender; Research
Question 2), we determined whether each study that had a typically achieving
comparison group (n = 132) reported differences between the comparison group
and the MLD group. The majority of studies reported gender differences but did
not report SES, race, or language fluency differences. Figure 5 summarizes the
percentages of studies reporting each demographic factor.
Because the achievement gap literature largely focuses on disparities in achieve-
ment in the United States, we considered whether studies conducted within the
United States revealed a different pattern of reporting for demographic factors.
As Figure 6 illustrates, there is a similar pattern for studies conducted within the
United States. A slightly higher percentage of studies conducted in the United
States reported the racial differences between groups, and a slightly lower
percentage reported the differences in SES and language fluency. Therefore, the
majority of studies, both within and outside of the United States, did not report
differences between groups for SES, race, or language fluency.
For each of the studies that reported differences between groups for gender,
SES, race, or language fluency, we conducted a secondary analysis to investigate
the type of differences, including, as applicable, whether it mirrored the well-
documented achievement gap trends.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Figure 4. Trend line for number of studies requiring persistence of low achievement to
identify students with an MLD.
Fig ure 5. Percent of articles (n = 132) that reported differences in demographic

variables between the typically achieving and MLD groups.
Gender. Of the 132 articles that included a typically achieving group, 75%
(n = 99) reported the gender differences between the typically achieving and the
MLD groups. If the article did not include a statistical test of differences (n = 37),
we conducted a chi-square test to evaluate whether the difference was significant.
Of the 99 articles reporting gender differences, 86% (n = 85) found no significant

103.21.126.8ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
Figure 6. Percent of articles conducted within the United States (n = 44) that reported
differences in demographic variables between the typically achieving and MLD groups.
gender differences between groups. Eight percent (n = 8) of articles found a differ-

ence between groups, with three studies finding that there were more girls in the
MLD group and five studies finding that there were more boys in the MLD group.
The remaining six articles had sample sizes that were too small for a chi-square
test. Therefore, the majority of the studies reported no significant gender differ-
ences between the groups, and those studies that did find significant differences
were mixed with respect to which gender was overrepresented in the MLD group.
SES. Of the 132 articles that included typically achieving students as a compar-
ison group, only 12% (n = 16) of the studies reported differences in SES between
groups. Table 3 summarizes the studies and the measure of SES used. Of the 16
studies that reported differences between groups, 12 studies established the simi-
larity of the groups by matching typically achieving and MLD participants on SES
(n = 3) or with the use of statistical tests (n = 9). However, two of these studies
(Mammarella, Caviola, Cornoldi, & Lucangeli, 2013; Räsänen & Ahonen, 1995)
did not specify the measure that they used as a proxy for SES and therefore may
have relied upon measures of SES based on school or neighborhood rather than a
measure of SES specific to an individual.
Four studies found significant differences in SES between the groups, with a
higher number of students in the MLD group coming from lower SES backgrounds
(Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Lambert, & Hamlett, 2012; Gross-Tsur et al., 1996;
Mazzocco & Thompson, 2005; Pieters, Desoete, Roeyers, Vanderswalmen, & Van
Waelvelde, 2012). For example, Gross-Tsur, Manor, and Shalev (1996) found that
students with an MLD differed significantly from the non-MLD comparison
students on all three factors used to judge SES: father’s education, family size, and
father’s place of birth.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Table 3
Studies Reporting Differences for SES Between MLD and Typically Achieving Groups
Study SES measure
No significant difference between groups
Badian (1999) Parental occupation scale (range: 1–5)

Desoete, Roeyers, & Buysse (2001) Father’s and mother’s educational
levels
Desoete & Roeyers (2002) Father’s and mother’s educational
levels
Desoete, Ceulemans, De Weerdt, & Parents’ education levels
Pieters (2012)
Fuchs et al. (2007) Percentage receiving subsidized
lunch
Räsänen & Ahonen (1995) Not specified
Share, Moffitt, & Silva (1988) Rutter’s Adversity Index (Rutter,
1978)
Stock, Desoete, & Roeyers (2010) Father’s and mother’s educational
levels
White, Moffitt, & Silva (1992) Family Disadvantage Index
Matched on SES

levels
levels
Mammarella et al. (2013) Not specified
Significant difference between groups
Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Lambert, & Percentage receiving subsidized

Hamlett (2012) lunch
Gross-Tsur, Manor, & Shalev (1996) Size of family, father’s years of
education, father’s place of birth
Mazzocco & Thompson (2005) Mother’s educational level
Pieters, Desoete, Roeyers, Hollingshead Index (Hollingshead,
Vanderswalmen, & Van Waelvelde 1975)
(2012)

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
In addition to the 16 studies reviewed above that reported individual measures

of SES, we evaluated those studies that reported neighborhood or school SES
measures. As expected, the majority of these studies showed no difference
between groups. It has been demonstrated that individual differences can be
masked by relying upon neighborhood or school SES measures (Mazzocco &
Thompson, 2005). However, there were an additional two studies that did find
differences based on variation in SES associated with different geographic areas
or schools. Koumoula et al. (2004) found that two thirds of the students classified
as having an MLD came from areas of low SES and that fewer than a third of the
students in the typically achieving group did. Similarly, Geary, Hoard, and Bailey
(2012) found that significantly more students in the MLD group came from schools
with a higher percentage of students receiving free or reduced-price lunch than
did the students in the typically achieving group. These two studies provide addi-
tional support for a correlation between SES and MLD classification because the
differences in groups were evident, even with the imprecise proxy of neighborhood
or school. In summary, only a small number of studies reported differences in
SES, and those studies showed mixed findings with respect to SES disparities
between MLD groups and typically achieving groups.
Race. Of the 132 articles that included typically achieving students as a compar-
ison group, only 17% (n = 22) of the studies reported differences in race between
groups. Twelve of these studies established the similarity in groups because they
had a racially homogenous sample (i.e., all students in the study were White; e.g.,
Desoete & Roeyers, 2006). Six of the studies determined there was no statistical
difference in racial composition of the groups (see Table 4). Therefore, the majority
of studies reporting no significant differences between groups established the
similarity of the groups by recruiting a racially homogenous sample.
The remaining four studies (Compton et al., 2012; Geary, Hoard, Nugent, &
Bailey, 2012; Geary, Hoard, Byrd-Craven, & DeSota, 2004; Geary, Hoard,
Byrd-Craven, Nugent, & Numtee, 2007) found that students of color (in particular,
African American students) were disproportionally represented in the learning
disabled group (see Table 5). For example, Geary, Hoard, Nugent, and Bailey
(2012) reported that the typically achieving group was 80% White and 20%
students of color, whereas the MLD group was only 36% White and 64% students
of color. Tables 4 and 5 report the percentage of White participants in each group
because in many cases the researchers did not provide enough detail of the racial
demographic information of their sample to compare other racial groups. When
studies involved multiple MLD or typically achieving groups, these groups were
collapsed for the purposes of summarizing these data. As with SES, the small
number of studies reporting racial differences revealed mixed findings with
respect to whether there were significant racial disparities.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Table 4
Percentage of White Participants for Studies Reporting No Significant Difference in Racial
Composition of MLD and Typically Achieving Groups
Percent n
Typically Typically
Study MLD achieving MLD achieving Total
Derr (1985) 67 67 22 18 40
Fuchs et al. (2007)a
MLD - calculation 57 44 23 147 170
MLD - word problems 50 45 24 146 170
Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & NR NR 19 50 69
Byrd-Craven (2008)
Silver, Elder, & DeBolt 43 38 14 13 27
(1999)
Swanson (2012) 67 80 12 15 27
Willcutt et al. (2013) NR NR 183 419 602
Note. NR = not reported.
a Fuchs et al. (2007) classified students as having an MLD in calculation or an MLD in word
problems. Because these groups were not mutually exclusive, we did not collapse the
demographic data.
Table 5
Percentage of White Participants for Studies Reporting a Significant Difference in Racial
Composition of MLD and Typically Achieving Groups
Percent n
Typically Typically
Study MLD achieving MLD achieving Total
Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, 26 40 88 1,013 1,101
Lambert, & Hamlett
(2012)
Geary, Hoard, Byrd- 50 84 58 91 149
Craven, & DeSota (2004)
Geary, Hoard, NRa NR 44 46 90
Byrd-Craven, Nugent,
& Numtee (2007)
Geary, Hoard, Nugent, & 36 80 16 132 148
Bailey (2012)
Note. NR = not reported.
a Geary et al. (2004) reported more African American students in the MLD group ( p < .01).

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Language fluency. Of the 132 studies with a typically achieving comparison

group, 27% (n = 35) reported differences in language fluency within the groups.
Of those studies, all except one established that there were no differences between
groups by either establishing that all students were native or fluent speakers of the
language (80%, n = 28) or by excluding nonnative speakers (17%, n = 6). The one
remaining study (Compton et al., 2012), undertaken in the United States, included
English language learners but determined that there were no significant differ-
ences between the MLD group and the typically achieving group. Therefore, only
one study evaluated whether language fluency differences were evident between
the typically achieving and MLD groups. All other studies reporting the differ-
ences between groups controlled for language fluency by establishing a homog-
enous sample of fluent speakers.
Differences reported across demographic variables. Studies often controlled

for demographic differences between groups by establishing the homogeneity of
the entire sample (see Figure 7). Given the relatively small percentage of studies
reporting differences in SES, race, and language (12%, 17%, and 27%, respec-
tively) and the high percentage of studies with demographically homogenous
samples, we do not have enough information to determine whether racial, class,
and language achievement gap trends are evident in studies of MLD. In contrast,
the majority of studies did report gender differences, with most studies deter-
mining that there were no significant differences between groups. Because there
were no consistent gender differences identified between groups in these studies,
gender has been excluded from the remaining analysis.
Figure 7. Number of studies matching or reporting differences (significant or non-

significant) between the MLD and the typically achieving groups for SES, race,
language fluency, and gender.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
To evaluate the number of studies reporting differences for multiple demographic

factors, we determined the number of demographic factors that each study reported.
Of the 132 studies with a typically achieving group, 82 (62%) did not report or control
for any demographic factor associated with low mathematics achievement. Thirty-
five studies (27%) reported differences for one demographic factor. Seven studies
(5%) reported differences for two demographic factors. Only eight studies (6%;
Compton et al., 2012; Desoete, Ceulemans, De Weerdt, & Pieters, 2012; Desoete &
Roeyers, 2002, 2005, 2006; Desoete, Roeyers, & Buysse, 2001; Fuchs et al., 2007;
Stock, Desoete, & Roeyers, 2010) reported differences for all three demographic
variables associated with the achievement gap (see Figure 8).
Figure 8. Venn diagram illustrating the number of studies that reported differences
between groups for SES, race, and language fluency.
Analysis over time. Finally, an analysis of the trends over time revealed that
the total percentage of studies reporting any of these demographic figures has
stayed relatively low, particularly when compared with studies reporting gender
(see Figure 9).
Mathematical Breadth Covered

To evaluate the comprehensiveness of research on MLD (Research Question 3),
we investigated the mathematics topics covered and the age range of the partici-
pants in each of the articles. For the analysis of mathematics topic, we excluded
15% of studies (n = 25) that only reported data on the assessment measures used
to classify students as having an MLD. There were two reasons for this exclusion.
First, an analysis of error patterns on all mathematical topics covered within an
achievement test seemed insufficient to warrant coding the study as covering each
mathematical topic (e.g., simply reporting errors on algebra items from the

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
classification assessment does not qualify as exploring MLD in algebra). Second,

it seemed somewhat tautological to define the characteristics of the MLD group
based on the assessments used to classify the students. Of the remaining 139 studies,
36% (n = 50) focused on nonmathematical skills (e.g., memory, executive function,
attention, cognitive processing), 20% (n = 28) focused only on symbolic or nonsym-
bolic number processing, and 44% (n = 61) focused on at least one CCSSM domain.
For the 61 studies that focused on a CCSSM topic, the specific mathematical
domain is represented in Figure 10 (note the total number exceeds 61 because
several studies addressed multiple topics).
Of the 11 mathematics strands, MLD research has only addressed six of the
topics. A disproportionate number of studies have focused on basic skills. Those
studies, classified as Counting & Cardinality (n = 14), Operations & Algebraic
Reasoning (n = 55), and Number & Operations in Base Ten (n = 4), involved topics
aligned with the kindergarten through third-grade standards and focused almost
exclusively on basic arithmetic calculation. In addition, the three studies including
the topic of geometry focused on the naming of shapes and therefore also repre-
sented content aligned with kindergarten. Only 6% of studies (n = 9) focused on
mathematics content beyond a third-grade level, with six articles focused on frac-
tions and three focused on algebra.
The analysis of age range reflected a similar trend. Eighty-seven percent
(n = 142) of all articles included at least some elementary students. Because several
studies spanned multiple grade bands, we determined the highest grade level that
Figure 9. Trend lines for percentage of studies reporting differences between the MLD
group and typically achieving group over the past 4 decades for SES, race, language
fluency, and gender.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
each study considered. Ten percent (n = 17) of studies included adults, 9% (n = 15)
of studies included high school students, 14% (n = 23) included middle school
students, and 67% (n = 109) of studies focused exclusively on elementary-aged
students.
Figure 10. Number of studies focusing on each of the 11 CCSSM topic domains.
Figure 11. Number of studies focusing on each mathematics topic across the last 4
decades.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Figure 12. Trend lines for number of articles categorized by the highest grade range
included.
Analysis over time. Our analysis of mathematics topics and grade range over
time show two interesting trends. First, although elementary mathematics
continued to be the focus of most studies, interest in numerical processing of
students with an MLD has increased in the last decade (see Figure 11). Second, as
illustrated in Figure 12, although the number of studies including middle school,
high school, or adult students has remained relatively constant, the number of
studies focusing exclusively on elementary students has increased dramatically
over the last 3 decades (32%, 62%, and 74%, respectively). The trend across
decades suggests a continued focus on elementary mathematics and students in
the elementary grades.
Discussion
In this review of the literature, we examined 4 decades of MLD research to
analyze how students were classified, the rigor used in differentiating cognitive
and noncognitive sources of low achievement, and the comprehensiveness of the
mathematical topics investigated. We identified several enduring methodological
challenges in the study of MLD related to participant classification and the math-
ematical topic under study. In this section, we discuss each issue and then propose
standards for methodology and reporting for future research.
Lack of Consistency in MLD Identification Criteria

The lack of a consensus operational definition for MLD was confirmed,

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
specifically through two factors: variability in the assessment measures and vari-
ability in cutoff criteria used to identify students with an MLD. Almost half of all
studies used an assessment measure that was not commonly used in the field. The
cutoff criterion used in studies of MLD revealed similar variability, with thresh-
olds ranging from the 2nd to the 46th percentile. The range of cutoffs and assess-
ments used—particularly assessments that are not widely available or standard-
ized—suggests, as others have argued, that students classified as having an MLD
do not represent one homogenous group8 (Mazzocco & Myers, 2003; Murphy et
al., 2007). Students classified as having an MLD in one study may not be classified
as having an MLD in another study, which limits our ability to draw meaningful
comparisons across studies.
Although identification issues remain a challenge in the field, the analysis of
trends over time revealed an increase in rigor with respect to the assessment
criteria used to identify students with an MLD. Three notable shifts were evident
across the last 3 decades: a decrease in the average cutoff score used, an increase
in the number of studies identifying distinct cutoff points for MLD and
low-achieving groups, and an increase in the number of studies requiring that
students demonstrate persistent performance below the cutoff threshold (generally
over multiple years) to meet the MLD criteria. Although the field still has no
consensus definition, the movement toward more stringent criteria for MLD
identification suggests that researchers are actively attempting to address this
outstanding methodological challenge.
Lack of Control for Noncognitive Factors

Despite these trends toward more stringent criteria for MLD identification, the
continued reliance upon achievement measures makes it difficult to differentiate
students with cognitive differences (i.e., MLD) and those students whose low
achievement stems from a noncognitive source. Unfortunately, there were not
enough studies reporting the differences between groups to reveal whether the
achievement gap trends are at play. For SES, race, and language fluency, the vast
majority of the studies (88%, 83%, and 73%, respectively) did not report differ-
ences between the typically achieving and MLD groups, with only eight studies
(6%) reporting differences for all demographic factors. Of the studies that did
report differences in race and SES, several found patterns similar to those docu-
mented in the achievement gap literature (e.g., Ladson-Billings, 2006; Tate, 1997).
Of the studies that reported no differences between groups, many of the studies
did so by establishing the demographic homogeneity of the sample (e.g., all
students were White, native speakers). Although this may diminish the chance of
noncognitive factors driving MLD identification in these studies, achievement
gap trends still might be evident in economically, racially, and linguistically
8 Although some researchers have proposed subtypes of MLD (e.g., Geary & Hoard, 2005;
Skagerlund & Träff, 2016), the argument here is that it is important to disentangle students with any
cognitively based mathematics disability from more general low mathematics achievement due to
other causes.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
heterogeneous student samples. Studies that omit information about the demo-
graphic differences between groups render potentially consequential noncognitive
factors invisible. This predominant trend in omitting data that report differences
between groups for race, class, and language fluency can be contrasted with
studies reporting gender differences. Even though there is no clear link between
achievement and gender (Royer & Walles, 2007), the majority of studies (75%)
did report gender differences between the groups.
The analysis of trends over time did not point to a methodological shift in rigor
with respect to reporting demographic differences between groups. The total
percentage of studies reporting differences in SES and race has decreased in the
last decade (see Figure 9). This is somewhat surprising given that researchers have
long acknowledged the importance of social and environmental factors on
students’ mathematics performance (Martin, 2003). Even in the first decade of
research on MLD, researchers differentiated between social sources of low math-
ematics achievement (e.g., insufficient educational opportunity) and cognitive
sources of low mathematics achievement (e.g., dyscalculia; Košč, 1979). The find-
ings of our review suggest that in recent decades these two kinds of low achieve-
ment have been conflated and labeled a disability.
We argue that this presumed “color-blindness,” which results from not reporting
difference between groups, is problematic, particularly when disability status is
at stake. As Ladson-Billings (2012) argued, disproportionately labeling students
of color or students from low SES backgrounds as disabled contributes to the
“destructive thinking about the capabilities of learners based on race” (p. 115).
When using achievement measures to classify students as having an MLD, it is
important to acknowledge the disparities in educational opportunity.
Narrow Mathematics Topic Focus

Our review of the literature revealed that research on MLD has focused dispro-
portionately on elementary-aged students engaged in basic numerical skills. Of
the 11 domains identified in the CCSSM for K–8 mathematics, 86% of studies
including any CCSSM domains focused exclusively on basic arithmetic competen-
cies. Only 5% of the studies reviewed focused on more advanced mathematical
topics (i.e., fractions, algebra).). Although basic arithmetic calculation is an impor-
tant component of mathematical proficiency, it represents only a small subset of
the mathematics skills that all students should learn. This narrow focus leads to a
preponderance of evidence that students with an MLD have difficulty memorizing
number facts (e.g., Gersten, Jordan, & Flojo, 2005; Swanson, 2007; Swanson &
Jerman, 2006) but a significant lack of information about how MLD manifests in
other mathematical topics. Those few studies that have begun examining MLD in
more complex mathematical domains have found conceptual and representational
issues—not difficulties with number facts—to be the primary characteristic of
MLD (e.g., Hecht & Vagi, 2010; Mazzocco & Devlin, 2008; Mazzocco, Myers,
Lewis, Hanich, & Murphy, 2013). The nature of the difficulties identified in more
complex mathematical domains appears to be qualitatively different from those

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 U76 12:34:56 UTC
identified for basic whole-number processing or calculation. Consequently,

research focused on more complex mathematical domains is clearly needed.
The analysis over time did reveal two notable shifts. First, the number of studies
focusing on numerical processing has increased dramatically in the last decade.
This increase may indicate that researchers have begun to identify the importance
of students’ difficulties in processing quantity as a core component of MLD
(Butterworth & Reigosa, 2007). The second trend was an increase in the number
of studies focusing exclusively on elementary-aged students. This focus on
elementary students may reflect the growing emphasis on the importance of early
identification (Gersten et al., 2005). Although identifying students early is surely
important to their later success, to develop a comprehensive understanding of
MLD, we must explore how MLD manifests in older students in mathematics
topics beyond basic arithmetic.
Summary of Methodological Issues

The methodological issues described above compromise our understanding of
MLD and render synthesis of results across studies problematic. The variation in
criteria used across studies makes it difficult to identify the central characteristics
of an MLD. Additionally, the lack of studies that attempt to differentiate the cogni-
tive from noncognitive sources of mathematics difficulties also raise questions
about whether studies have identified characteristics that correlate with low
mathematics achievement rather than MLD specifically. Finally, the relatively
limited focus on elementary mathematics suggests that our view of MLD is far
from complete. These methodological issues raise questions about what conclu-
sions we can draw from the body of research on MLD.
Recommendations for MLD Research

To move the field toward a more rigorous and comprehensive definition of MLD,
we provide general recommendations for the field as a whole followed by specific
methodological recommendations for individual studies. First, we contextualize
the current status of research on MLD by considering the evolution of the dyslexia
definition, which shares a similar history. Second, we recommend standards for
methodology and reporting that should be used as we work toward and refine a
consensus definition of MLD.
Leveraging dyslexia research. Given that dyslexia research has faced and
overcome similar definitional challenges, it is productive to situate current
research on MLD within the trajectory of research on dyslexia. The consensus
definition of dyslexia was achieved by synthesizing empirical work across a large
number of studies, drawing particularly on longitudinal, neurological, and devel-
opmental studies that relied upon an exclusionary definition of dyslexia (Chiappe,
2005; Lyon, 1995). Exclusionary definitions (i.e., defining dyslexia by what it is
not) involved identifying students who had “unexpected” difficulties that could
“not be predicted by the child’s age, other academic and cognitive abilities,

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
exposure to instruction, or sociocultural opportunities” (Lyon, 1995, p. 15). These

studies, along with studies of adults who had significant difficulties reading
fluently (Lyon, Shaywitz, & Shaywitz, 2003), were used to develop an inclu-
sionary definition (i.e., defining dyslexia by what it is; Lyon et al., 2003). Although
there is an ever-increasing number of longitudinal, neurological, and develop-
mental studies of MLD, the findings of our review indicate that, for the most part,
the field has not yet adopted an exclusionary definition of MLD. If MLD research
follows a similar trajectory as dyslexia research, we might expect the field’s adop-
tion of clear exclusionary criteria to precede the development of a consensus
inclusionary definition.
Until a unified movement in the field is made toward a consensus definition, it
is essential that future research on MLD does not continue to proliferate studies
that rely upon insufficient methodological rigor in identification and reporting.
Toward these ends, we propose a set of criteria for methodology and reporting that
we recommend for all future research on MLD.
Suggested methodological approaches and standards for reporting. To make

progress toward understanding the cognitive characteristics of MLD, we propose
a set of standards for methodology and reporting for future MLD research.
Although it may seem premature to recommend methodological approaches
because the definition of MLD is not yet clearly articulated, we argue that only
more stringent methodologies and reporting can move us toward the consensus
definition that the field hopes to produce. We identify both what should be required
of all research on MLD at a minimum and then propose best practices that will
address some of the methodological challenges.
Increasing the accuracy of MLD identification. To increase the accuracy of

identification of MLD, studies should collect and report meaningful classification
data. At a minimum, studies should provide clarity about how the participants
were classified as having an MLD. Recall that 40 studies claiming to investigate
MLD were excluded from this analysis because the operational definitions used
were insufficiently specific. Additionally, until researchers design an assessment
that identifies the characteristics of MLD, researchers should provide assessment
information about participants in a way that is generally interpretable. If a study
uses a researcher-designed assessment to classify students, it should also use and
report a standard measure (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson Test of Achievement, Wide
Range Achievement Test) to facilitate comparisons across studies.
Ideally, studies should follow the recent trend toward more rigorous identifica-
tion approaches. Some researchers (e.g., Landerl et al., 2004) have argued that
higher cutoff scores, particularly those not aligned with the estimated prevalence
of MLD (i.e., 5–8%; e.g., Badian, 1999) can obscure consequential group differ-
ences and may result in identifying students with low mathematics achievement,
in addition to those students who truly have a cognitive difference. When classi-
fying groups of students, cutoff scores below the 10th percentile should be used

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
to more closely match the estimated prevalence of MLD (Landerl et al., 2004).
Studies should also establish the persistence of each student’s low mathematics
achievement by using longitudinal data to provide evidence that the student’s
mathematics difficulties have persisted over multiple years (e.g., Geary, Hoard,
Nugent, & Bailey, 2012). This may be accomplished with growth models, which
identify students who have low achievement and slow growth over time, or by
collecting longitudinal or retrospective achievement data for the participants clas-
sified as having an MLD (e.g., Mazzocco et al., 2013).
Differentiating cognitive and noncognitive factors. To begin to address the

conflation of cognitive and noncognitive sources for low mathematics achievement,
researchers should explicitly collect empirical evidence that students’ difficulties
are not attributable to social or environmental factors. At a minimum, studies should
report the demographic differences between groups to reveal potential noncognitive
sources of low achievement. The demographic data reported should include
students’ SES, race, and native language and be collected for individual students.
Studies should not describe a sample as “predominantly White” or “from a middle-
class school,” given that Mazzocco and Thompson (2005) have demonstrated that
significant differences between groups for individual SES were not detectable when
comparing groups based on their schools’ SES.
Those studies that do not report demographic differences between groups might
more accurately classify students as having “mathematics learning difficulties” or
as being “at risk for mathematics learning disabilities” rather than students with an
MLD. The label of disability connotes a cognitive difference not warranted in studies
that are not attending to the existence of potential confounding environmental
factors. In keeping with this recommendation, some researchers tend to use the term
difficulties rather than disabilities to refer to students classified with achievement
measures alone (e.g., Jordan, Kaplan, Oláh, & Locuniak, 2006; Fuchs et al., 2009).
Ideally, studies should go beyond demographic variables that have been histori-
cally correlated with low mathematics achievement and attempt to determine if
there are noncognitive explanations for an individual student’s difficulties.
Researchers can use qualitative measures, such as interviews, questionnaires, and
observations with students, parents, and teachers, to explore students’ opportuni-
ties to learn mathematics and affective issues that may influence achievement.
Such measurements might address factors like anxiety (e.g., Hendy, Schorschinsky,
& Wade, 2014; Quilter & Harper, 1988), educational opportunity (e.g., Oakes &
Rogers, 2006), and attention or behavioral issues (e.g., Auerbach, Gross-Tsur,
Manor, & Shalev, 2008). Using interviews, observations, and questionnaires to
illuminate the potential underlying causes of low mathematics achievement allows
researchers to empirically consider alternative hypotheses—other than an MLD—
for the students’ low mathematics achievement.
Exploring MLD in more complex mathematical domains. To provide a more

comprehensive understanding of MLD, we must begin to explore MLD across a

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
range of mathematical topics. At a minimum, researchers should refrain from

making generalizations about MLD based on research that focuses almost entirely
on basic arithmetic skills (Geary, 2003). Recently, some researchers have begun
to investigate MLD in the context of fractions (e.g., Mazzocco et al., 2013). Ideally,
future studies should investigate more complex mathematical topic domains,
reflecting the breadth of mathematical topics represented in the CCSSM. In
particular, it is critically important that researchers begin to explore MLD in
algebra, given its role as an educational gatekeeper. Furthermore, unlike the well-
documented mathematics facts issues, difficulties with algebra cannot be so easily
ameliorated with a calculator. Therefore, to serve students with an MLD effec-
tively and to understand the fundamental characteristics of MLD, we must explore
how MLD manifests across topic domain and age.
Pressing Need for Methodological Change

Our recommendations for more stringent methodology and reporting are
intended to address some of the methodological challenges that this review high-
lighted. Adopting methodological approaches that prioritize accurate participant
identification and a broad view of the ways that MLD may manifest across topic
domains will assist the field in generating research that can meaningfully
contribute to a comprehensive definition of MLD. There are significant ramifica-
tions for failing to adopt more rigorous methodological approaches. Without this
kind of shift in methodological approach, we risk continuing to perpetuate a
narrow view of MLD as a disability exclusively impacting whole-number calcula-
tion and problematically conflating MLD and low achievement.
The issues surrounding research on MLD have potentially detrimental implica-
tions for practice as well. In practice, pathologizing low achievement and then
labeling it as a disability serves neither students with low achievement nor students
with an MLD. Labeling low achieving students as disabled inappropriately locates
the origin of low achievement within the student rather than within the environ-
mental, social, and instructional conditions. Practitioners who understand student
failure to result from an inherent property of the student are less likely to see
instruction as a productive means by which to counteract low achievement, which
can negatively impact students’ opportunities to learn (Jackson, Gibbons, &
Dunlap, in press; Wilhelm, Munter, & Jackson, in press). In addition, by failing to
acknowledge that students with an MLD represent a distinct population—different
from students with low achievement for other reasons—practitioners become less
attentive to the unique difficulties that these students face and the ways in which
standard instructional approaches may be inaccessible for those students.
Similarly, if research focuses exclusively on young children engaged in basic
whole-number calculation, researchers will continue to amass evidence that inap-
propriately suggests that MLD and difficulties with mathematics facts are
synonymous. The absence of knowledge about the wide range of ways in which
MLD may manifest across different mathematical topics is particularly detri-
mental for older students with an MLD. Students with an MLD in middle school,

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
high school, and college face topics beyond whole-number calculation and may
have difficulty obtaining sufficient acknowledgment and accommodations for
their disability.
The implications for both research and practice suggest that there are significant
consequences for maintaining the methodological status quo in research on MLD.
There is a pressing need to shift the field and conduct more rigorous research that
can meaningfully inform research and practice.
Limitations
Several limitations of this literature review should be acknowledged. First, we did
not include studies that investigated mathematical learning difficulties. Researchers
studying mathematics learning difficulties often rely upon similar criteria (e.g.,
mathematics achievement scores below the 25th percentile) to classify students. It
is possible that including these studies would reveal different methodological trends;
for example, Jordan and colleagues often report differences in race and SES for
students with and without mathematics difficulties (e.g., Jordan, Kaplan, Ramineni,
& Locuniak, 2009; Jordan & Levine, 2009). Because we were primarily concerned
with how mathematical learning disabilities have been operationalized, we did not
include studies using this more inclusive term. Second, we did not evaluate the rela-
tive quality of the 164 studies included in our analysis; a high-quality rigorous study
was therefore given equal weight to a less rigorous study and may have skewed our
findings. Third, we focused exclusively on educational and psychological research
and did not include studies of dyscalculia published in the medical field. It is possible
that research in the medical field may show a different approach for classification
and different trends over time. Finally, a number of articles were not available in
English, and therefore we were unable to include them in this analysis. Given that
many researchers study MLD in non-English speaking countries, this may have
limited the generalizability of our findings.
Conclusion
This comprehensive review of research on MLD has identified methodological
issues related to the precision of the MLD identification and the breadth of math-
ematical topics that have been considered. The 164 articles reviewed showed great
variability in the methods used to identify students with an MLD. This variability
results in students being classified differently across studies and limits our ability
to meaningfully synthesize findings across this body of work. Additionally,
studies rarely reported demographic differences between the groups, which may
mask noncognitive causes of low achievement and result in the field conflating
low achievement and MLD. This review also identified a lack of studies focusing
on older students engaged in more complex mathematics. Our understanding of
MLD becomes distorted if the identification methods are not sufficiently precise
to identify the phenomenon we presume to study or if our exploration of the math-
ematical domain is not sufficiently broad. To move the field forward, we must
adopt a more precise and shared definition of MLD.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
References
Alibali, M. W., Stephens, A. C., Brown, A. N., Kao, Y. S., & Nathan, M. J. (2014). Middle school stu-
dents’ conceptual understanding of equations: Evidence from writing story problems. International
Journal of Educational Psychology, 3(3), 235–264. doi:10.4471/ijep.2014.13
Auerbach, J. G., Gross-Tsur, V., Manor, O., & Shalev, R. S. (2008). Emotional and behavioral charac-
teristics over a six-year period in youths with persistent and nonpersistent dyscalculia. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 41(3), 263–273. doi:10.1177/0022219408315637
Badian, N. A. (1999). Persistent arithmetic, reading, or arithmetic and reading disability. Annals of
Dyslexia, 49(1), 45–70. doi:10.1007/s11881-999-0019-8
Bateman, B. (2005). The play’s the thing. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 93–95.
doi:10.2307/1593601
Berch, D. B., & Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2007). Preface. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.),
Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties
and disabilities (pp. xxiii–xxvi). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Butterworth, B., & Laurillard, D. (2010). Low numeracy and dyscalculia: Identification and interven-
tion. ZDM, 42(6), 527–539. doi:10.1007/s11858-010-0267-4
Butterworth, B., & Reigosa, V. (2007). Information processing deficits in dyscalculia. In D. B. Berch
& M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of
mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 65–81). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Chiappe, P. (2005). How reading research can inform mathematics difficulties: The search for the core
deficit. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 313–317. doi:10.1177/00222194050380040601
Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., & Hamlett, C. (2012). The cognitive and aca-
demic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
45(1), 79–95. doi:10.1177/0022219410393012
Derr, A. M. (1985). Conservation and mathematics achievement in the learning disabled child. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 18(6), 333–336. doi:10.1177/002221948501800605
Desoete, A., Ceulemans, A., De Weerdt, F., & Pieters, S. (2012). Can we predict mathematical learn-
ing disabilities from symbolic and non-symbolic comparison tasks in kindergarten? Findings from
a longitudinal study. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 64–81. doi:10.1348/2044-
8279.002002
Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2002). Off-line metacognition—A domain-specific retardation in young chil-
dren with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(2), 123–139. doi:10.2307/1511279
Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2005). Cognitive skills in mathematical problem solving in Grade 3. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(1), 119–138. doi:10.1348/000709904X22287
Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2006). Metacognitive macroevaluations in mathematical problem solving.
Learning and Instruction, 16(1), 12–25. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2005.12.003
Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., & Buysse, A. (2001). Metacognition and mathematical problem solving in
Grade 3. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(5), 435–449. doi:10.1177/002221940103400505
Earnest, D. (2015). From number lines to graphs in the coordinate plane: Investigating problem solving
across mathematical representations. Cognition and Instruction, 33(1), 46–87. doi:10.1080/0737000
8.2014.994634
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L. Bryant, J. D., Hamlett, C. L., & Seethaler, P. M. (2007). Math-
ematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to inter-
vention. Exceptional Children, 73(3), 311–330. doi:10.1177/001440290707300303
Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., Fletcher, J. M., Fuchs, D., … Zumeta, R. O.
(2009). Remediating number combination and word problem deficits among students with mathe-
matics difficulties: A randomized control trial. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(3), 561–576.
doi:10.1037/a0014701
Geary, D. C. (1990). A componential analysis of an early learning deficit in mathematics. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 49(3), 363–383. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(90)90065-G
Geary, D. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: Problem-solving differences and cognitive
deficits. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities
(pp. 199–212). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Geary, D. C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1),
4–15. doi:10.1177/00222194040370010201
Geary, D. C. (2007). An evolutionary perspective on learning disability in mathematics. Developmen-
tal Neuropsychology, 32(1), 471–519. doi:10.1080/87565640701360924
Geary, D. C., & Hoard, M. K. (2005). Learning disabilities in arithmetic and mathematics: Theoretical
and empirical perspectives. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of mathematical cognition (pp.
253–267). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Fact retrieval deficits in low achieving children and
children with mathematical learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(4), 291–307.
doi:10.1177/0022219410392046
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., & DeSota, M. C. (2004). Strategy choices in simple and
complex addition: Contributions of working memory and counting knowledge for children with
mathematical disability. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 88(2), 121–151. doi:10.1016/j.
jecp.2004.03.002
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L., & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms
underlying achievement deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Develop-
ment, 78(4), 1343–1359. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01069.x
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Bailey, D. H. (2012). Mathematical cognition deficits in
children with learning disabilities and persistent low achievement: A five-year prospective study.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 206–223. doi:10.1037/a0025398
Geary, D. C., Hoard, M. K., Nugent, L., & Byrd-Craven, J. (2008). Development of number line rep-
resentations in children with mathematical learning disability. Developmental Neuropsychology,
33(3), 277–299. doi:10.1080/87565640801982361
Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. (2009). Mathematics in-
struction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Re-
view of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431
Gersten, R., Jordan, N. C., & Flojo, J. R. (2005). Early identification and interventions for students with
mathematics difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(4), 293–304. doi:10.1177/0022219405
0380040301
Gross-Tsur, V., Manor, O., & Shalev, R. S. (1996). Developmental dyscalculia: Prevalence and demograph-
ic features. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 38(1), 25–33. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.1996.
tb15029.x
Gullick, M. M., & Wolford, G. (2014). Brain systems involved in arithmetic with positive versus nega-
tive numbers. Human Brain Mapping, 35(2), 539–551. doi:10.1002/hbm.22201
Gullick, M. M., Wolford, G., & Temple, E. (2012). Understanding less than nothing: Neural distance
effects for negative numbers. NeuroImage, 62(1), 542–554. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.058
Gutiérrez, R. (2008). A “gap-gazing” fetish in mathematics education? Problematizing research on the
achievement gap. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 39(4), 357–364.
Hecht, S. A., & Vagi, K. J. (2010). Sources of group and individual differences in emerging fraction
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 843–859. doi:10.1037/a0019824
Hendy, H. M., Schorschinsky, N., & Wade, B. (2014). Measurement of math beliefs and their asso-
ciations with math behaviors in college students. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1225–1234.
doi:10.1037/a0037688
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. New Haven, CT: Yale University.
International Dyslexia Association. (n.d.). Definition consensus project. Retrieved from http://eida.org/
definition-consensus-project/
Jackson, K., Gibbons, L., & Dunlap, C. (in press). Teachers’ views of students’ mathematical capabili-
ties: Challenges and possibilities for ambitious reform. Teacher’s College Record.
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Oláh, L. N., & Locuniak, M. N. (2006). Number sense growth in kindergar-
ten: A longitudinal investigation of children at risk for mathematics difficulties. Child Development,
77(1), 153–175. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00862.x
Jordan, N. C., Kaplan, D., Ramineni, C., & Locuniak, M. N. (2009). Early math matters: Kindergarten
number competence and later mathematics outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 850–867.
doi:10.1037/a0014939

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Jordan, N. C., & Levine, S. C. (2009). Socioeconomic variation, number competence, and mathematics
learning difficulties in young children. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 15(1), 60–68.
doi:10.1002/ddrr.46
Kaput, J. J. (2008). What is algebra? What is algebraic reasoning? In J. J. Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M.
L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 5–17). New York, NY: Erlbaum.
Kaput, J. J., Blanton, M. L., & Moreno, L. (2008). Algebra from a symbolization point of view. In J. J.
Kaput, D. W. Carraher, & M. L. Blanton (Eds.), Algebra in the early grades (pp. 19–55). New York,
NY: Erlbaum.
Kaufmann, L., Mazzocco, M. M., Dowker, A., von Aster, M., Göbel, S. M., Grabner, R. H., … Nuerk,
H.-C. (2013). Dyscalculia from a developmental and differential perspective. Frontiers in Psychol-
ogy, 4 (Article 516). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00516
Kieran, C. (1992). The learning and teaching of school algebra. In D. A. Grouws (Ed.), Handbook of
research on mathematics teaching and learning (pp. 390–419). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Košč, L. (1979). To the problems of diagnosing disorders of mathematical functions in children. Studia
Psychologica, 21(1), 62–67.
Koumoula, A., Tsironi, V., Stamouli, V., Bardani, I., Siapati, S., Graham, A., . . . von Aster, M. (2004).
An epidemiological study of number processing and mental calculation in Greek schoolchildren.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(5), 377–388. doi:10.1177/00222194040370050201
Kroesbergen, E. H., & Van Luit, J. E. H. (2003) Mathematics interventions for children with special
educational needs: A meta-analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 24(2), 97–114. doi:10.1177/07
419325030240020501
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006). From the achievement gap to the education debt: Understanding achieve-
ment in U.S. schools. Educational Researcher, 35(7), 3–12. doi:10.3102/0013189X035007003
Ladson-Billings, G. (2012). Through a glass darkly: The persistence of race in education research &
scholarship. Educational Researcher, 41(4), 115–120. doi:10.3102/0013189X12440743
Landerl, K., Bevan, A., & Butterworth, B. (2004). Developmental dyscalculia and basic numeri-
cal capacities: A study of 8–9-year-old students. Cognition, 93(2), 99–125. doi:10.1016/j.cogni-
tion.2003.11.004
Lane, S., & Leventhal, B. (2015). Psychometric challenges in assessing English language
learners and students with disabilities. Review of Research in Education, 39(1), 165–214.
doi:10.3102/0091732X14556073
Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 45(1), 1–27. doi:10.1007/
BF02648210
Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). A definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia,
53(1), 1–14. doi:10.1007/s11881-003-0001-9
Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., Cornoldi, C., & Lucangeli, D. (2013). Mental additions and verbal-
domain interference in children with developmental dyscalculia. Research in Developmental Dis-
abilities, 34(9), 2845–2855. doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.044
Martin, D. B. (2003). Hidden assumptions and unaddressed questions in “Mathematics for All” rhetoric.
The Mathematics Educator, 13(2), 7–21. Retrieved from http://tme.journals.libs.uga.edu/index.php/
tme/article/view/127/118
Mazzocco, M. M. M. (2007). Defining and differentiating mathematical learning disabilities and dif-
ficulties. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The
nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 29–48). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Devlin, K. T. (2008). Parts and “holes”: Gaps in rational number sense among
children with vs. without mathematical learning disabilities. Developmental Science, 11(5), 681–691.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-7687.2008.00717.x
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Myers, G. F. (2003). Complexities in identifying and defining mathematics
learning disability in the primary school-age years. Annals of Dyslexia, 53(1), 218–253. doi:10.1007/
s11881-003-0011-7
Mazzocco, M. M. M., Myers, G. F., Lewis, K. E., Hanich, L. B., & Murphy, M. M. (2013). Limited
knowledge of fraction representations differentiates middle school students with mathematics learn-
ing disability (dyscalculia) versus low mathematics achievement. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 115(2), 371–387. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2013.01.005

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Mazzocco, M. M. M., & Thompson, R. E. (2005). Kindergarten predictors of math learning disability.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(3), 142–155. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2005.00129.x
Murphy, M. M., Mazzocco, M. M. M., Hanich, L. B., & Early, M. C. (2007). Cognitive characteristics
of children with mathematics learning disability (MLD) vary as a function of the cutoff criterion
used to define MLD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 458–478. doi:10.1177/002221940704
00050901
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (2000). Principles and standards for school mathemat-
ics. Reston, VA: Author.
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers.
(2010). Common Core State Standards for Mathematics. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.corestandards.org/assets/CCSSI_Math%20Standards.pdf
Oakes, J., & Rogers, J. (2006). Learning power: Organizing for education and justice. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Pieters, S., Desoete, A., Roeyers, H., Vanderswalmen, R., & Van Waelvelde, H. (2012). Behind math-
ematical learning disabilities: What about visual perception and motor skills? Learning and Indi-
vidual Differences, 22(4), 498–504. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.03.014
Quilter, D., & Harper, E. (1988). “Why we didn’t like mathematics, and why we can’t do it.” Educa-
tional Research, 30(2), 121–134. doi:10.1080/0013188880300206
Räsänen, P., & Ahonen, T. (1995). Arithmetic disabilities with and without reading difficul-
ties: A comparison of arithmetic errors. Developmental Neuropsychology, 11(3), 275–295.
doi:10.1080/87565649509540620
Royer, J. M., & Walles, R. (2007). Influences of gender, ethnicity, and motivation on mathematical per-
formance. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco (Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The
nature and origins of mathematical learning difficulties and disabilities (pp. 349–368). Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Rutter, M. (1978). Family, area and school influences in the genesis of conduct disorders. In L. A.
Hersov, M. Berger, & D. Schaffer (Eds.), Aggression and antisocial behaviour in childhood and
adolescence (pp. 95–113). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Shalev, R. S. (2007). Prevalence of developmental dyscalculia. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco
(Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning
difficulties and disabilities (pp. 49–60). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Share, D. L., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1988). Factors associated with arithmetic-and-reading
disability and specific arithmetic disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21(5), 313–320.
doi:10.1177/002221948802100515
Silver, C. H., Elder, W. G., & DeBolt, A. J. (1999). Social skills self-appraisal of children with spe-
cific arithmetic disabilities. Developmental Neuropsychology, 16(1), 117–126. doi:10.1207/
S15326942DN160107
Skagerlund, K., & Träff, U. (2016). Number processing and heterogeneity of developmental dyscalcu-
lia: Subtypes with different cognitive profiles and deficits. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1),
36–50. doi:10.1177/0022219414522707
Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gibb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., & Chung, C.-G.
(2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional
Children, 74(3), 264–288. doi:10.1177/001440290807400301
Stafylidou, S., & Vosniadou, S. (2004). The development of students’ understanding of the numerical
value of fractions. Learning and Instruction, 14(5), 503–518. doi:10.1016/j.learninstruc.2004.06.015
Stephens, A. C., Knuth, E. J., Blanton, M. L., Isler, I., Gardiner, A. M., & Marum, T. (2013). Equa-
tion structure and the meaning of the equal sign: The impact of task selection in eliciting elemen-
tary students’ understandings. Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 32(2), 173–182. doi:10.1016/j.
jmathb.2013.02.001
Stock, P., Desoete, A., & Roeyers, H. (2010). Detecting children with arithmetic disabilities from kin-
dergarten: Evidence from a 3-year longitudinal study on the role of preparatory arithmetic abilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43(3), 250–268. doi:10.1177/0022219409345011
Sullivan, A. L., & Bal, A. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school
variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 475–494. doi:10.1177/001440291307900406

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC
Swanson, H, L. (2007). Cognitive aspects of math disabilities. In D. B. Berch & M. M. M. Mazzocco

(Eds.), Why is math so hard for some children? The nature and origins of mathematical learning
difficulties and disabilities (pp. 133–146). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Swanson, H. L. (2012). Cognitive profile of adolescents with math disabilities: Are the profiles different
from those with reading disabilities? Child Neuropsychology, 18(2), 125–143. doi:10.1080/0929704
9.2011.589377
Swanson, H. L., & Jerman, O. (2006). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature.
Review of Educational Research, 76(2), 249–274. doi:10.3102/00346543076002249
Tate, W. F. (1997). Race-ethnicity, SES, gender, and language proficiency trends in mathemat-
ics achievement: An update. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 28(6), 652–679.
doi:10.2307/749636
U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statis-
tics. (2015). The nation’s report card: 2015 mathematics and reading assessments. Retrieved from
http://www.nationsreportcard.gov/reading_math_2015/
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of
Special Education Programs. (2014). 36th annual report to congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://
www2.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2014/parts-b-c/36th-idea-arc.pdf
Watson, S. M. R., & Gable, R. A. (2013). Unraveling the complex nature of mathematics learning
disability: Implications for research and practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 36(3), 178–187.
doi:10.1177/0731948712461489
White, J. L., Moffitt, T. E., & Silva, P. A. (1992). Neuropsychological and socio-emotional correlates
of specific-arithmetic disability. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 7(1), 1–16. doi:10.1093/ar-
clin/7.1.1
Wilhelm, A. G., Munter, C., & Jackson, K. (in press). Examining relations between teachers’ diagnoses
of sources of students’ difficulty in mathematics and students’ opportunities to learn. Elementary
School Journal.
Willcutt, E. G., Petrill, S. A., Wu, S., Boada, R., DeFries, J. C., Olson, R. K., & Pennington, B. F.
(2013). Comorbidity between reading disability and math disability: Concurrent psychopathology,
functional impairment, and neuropsychological functioning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46(6),
500–516. doi: 10.1177/0022219413477476
Xin, Y. P., & Jitendra, A. K. (1999). The effects of instruction in solving mathematical word problems
for students with learning problems: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 32(4), 207–225.
doi:10.1177/002246699903200402
Authors
Katherine E. Lewis, College of Education, University of Washington, Box 353600, Seattle, WA
98195; kelewis2@uw.edu
Marie B. Fisher, College of Education, University of Washington, Box 353600, Seattle, WA 98195;
mfisher4@uw.edu
Submitted June 29, 2015

Accepted October 21, 2015
more
The complete list of articles included in the literature review “Taking Stock of 40 Years
of Research on Mathematical Learning Disability: Methodological Issues and Future
Directions” is available with this article online at http://www.nctm.org/jrme. More4U
content is available to NCTM members only.

103.21.126.80 on Sun, 13 Nov 2022 08:26:40 UTC

Lewis 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lewis 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taking Stock of 40 Years of Research on Mathematical Learning Disability: Methodological

Issues and Future Directions

This content downloaded from

Taking Stock of 40 Years of Research on

Although approximately 5–8% of students have a mathematical learning disability

Key words: Assessment; Dyscalculia; Identification; Mathematics learning disability

Researchers estimate that the prevalence of mathematical learning disability

This content downloaded from

40 years of educational research on MLD, it is time to take stock of the method-

Issues of reliability: Variability in classification criteria. The first issue

This content downloaded from

Issues of validity: Noncognitive factors implicated in low achievement. The

This content downloaded from

it is not known if disproportionate representation is a prevalent issue for MLD

Importance of Mathematical Breadth

This content downloaded from

• Studies were empirical and were available in English in a peer-reviewed journal.

This content downloaded from

Criterion for Classification

This content downloaded from

differentiate between different versions of the same assessment (e.g., KeyMath

This content downloaded from

we conducted additional analyses to summarize the differences reported. We

General Article Characteristics

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

identify students with an MLD. Ninety percent of studies (n = 148) identified

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Fig ure 5. Percent of articles (n = 132) that reported differences in demographic

This content downloaded from

gender differences between groups. Eight percent (n = 8) of articles found a differ-

This content downloaded from

No significant difference between groups

Badian (1999) Parental occupation scale (range: 1–5)

Desoete & Roeyers (2006) Father’s and mother’s educational

Significant difference between groups

Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Lambert, & Percentage receiving subsidized

This content downloaded from

In addition to the 16 studies reviewed above that reported individual measures

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Language fluency. Of the 132 studies with a typically achieving comparison

Differences reported across demographic variables. Studies often controlled

Figure 7. Number of studies matching or reporting differences (significant or non-

This content downloaded from

To evaluate the number of studies reporting differences for multiple demographic

Mathematical Breadth Covered

This content downloaded from

classification assessment does not qualify as exploring MLD in algebra). Second,

This content downloaded from

This content downloaded from

Lack of Consistency in MLD Identification Criteria

This content downloaded from

Lack of Control for Noncognitive Factors

This content downloaded from

Narrow Mathematics Topic Focus

This content downloaded from

identified for basic whole-number processing or calculation. Consequently,

Summary of Methodological Issues

Recommendations for MLD Research

This content downloaded from