In the first chapter, Keogh provides an overview of federal financial resources that have been allocated toward the research of learning disabilities. Unfortunately, research from the various funding agencies (e.g., National Institutes of

Health, U. S. Department of Education) has been motivated from psychological, neuropsychological, educational, or biomedical perspectives that have not been interactive with each other. One reason for this interative work on learning disabilities, especially when it comes to translations into clinical and educational applications, relates to such issues as identification, classification and the heterogeneity of the learning disabled population. In an attempt to enhance interactive efforts across various orientations, Keogh suggests that some common assumptions must be shared. Some of these assumptions are: (1) the locus of the learning disability is in the individual, (2) learning disabled individuals do not function at levels consistent with their intellectual potential, and (3) learning disabled individuals exhibit unexpected failures in specific academic or educational tasks. Keogh suggests that several steps are necessary if one is to encourage the integration of various approaches to learning disabilities. Some of these steps include (1) detailing the primary attributes that distinguish learning disabilities from other conditions, (2) providing a detailed and comprehensive taxonomy (also see chapters by Speece, Kavale, and Fomess) of the heterogeneity within learning disabilities, (3) searching for viable aptitude-treatment interactions, (4) relating learning disabilities to the content and structure of learning tasks (also see Ceci, Pelligrino, and Goldman, this volume), (5) testing competing models of treatment, instruction or intervention, and (6) documenting the longitudinal course of learning problems. Unless progress is made in some of these areas there will be minimal cross over effects between various perspectives (psychological, neuropsychological, biomedical).