Diagnostik von Lernstörungen: Zeit zum Umdenken.

For about one third of all primary school children learning difficulties in acquiring reading, writing, or mathematical competencies are part of their everyday school life. If these difficulties persist, they are referred to as learning disabilities, learning disorders, or learning impairments. The conceptual distinction is currently complicated by diverging classification criteria in different classification systems (ICD-10/11, DSM-5 or AWMF guidelines), which leads to inconsistent diagnostic decisions and to divergent educational consequences. Of special importance in this regard is the so-called double discrepancy criterion for the diagnosis of a learning disorder: the performance of a child must be below the level expected according to age or schooling and intelligence. The child's academic performance must therefore be contrary to expectations – it must be delayed in comparison to a) the performance level typical for the class level and b) his or her own general cognitive abilities. The criterion of the discrepancy between school achievement and intelligence has been controversially discussed for a long time and is anchored differently in the classification systems. Its application has far-reaching consequences for both diagnostic and educational practice. Children who display the discrepancy between academic performance and intelligence receive the diagnosis "learning disorder", whereas children who do not reach this discrepancy are diagnosed with a "learning disability". Notably, these two groups experience different learning support both in school and outside of school. The present discussion paper questions the justification of the double discrepancy criterion on the basis of empirical evidence and highlights consequences for both its current implementation and for abandoning it. The conclusion of this discussion argues in favor of rethinking the use of the double discrepancy criterion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]