Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.

中文翻译：

---

比较使用LDAC和DSM-5标准获得的数学LD诊断率：对该领域的影响

在加拿大范围内，两个主要的学习障碍分类系统可以说是美国精神病学协会（APA）的《精神疾病诊断和统计手册》和加拿大《学习障碍的正式定义》中的学习障碍协会（LDAC）。第五版DSM的最新更改与LDAC定义形成对照，后者将它们确立为竞争性诊断框架。当同时对LDAC和DSM-5标准进行建模并应用于存档数据集（2011-2016）时，我们调查了数学学习障碍识别的频率。结果表明，采用LDAC或DSM-5标准时，确定的数学学习障碍案例的百分比通常相近；但是，这两种方法确定了一组不同的情况。