Redefining specific learning disabilities: An attempt to bridge research, policy, and practice through expert consensus.

The definition and identification of specific learning disability (SLD) remain highly contested, with divergent interpretations shaping research, policy, and practice. This study employed the Delphi Method to engage a panel of experts in synthesizing perspectives on how SLD should be defined and what forms of evidence are necessary to support valid identification methods. Key points of agreement included the centrality of academic deficits, unexpected underachievement, environmental considerations, and exclusionary criteria. Most panelists referenced a neurobiological basis for SLD, though perspectives varied, with some questioning its empirical grounding. Panelists prioritized diagnostic accuracy, measurement accuracy, logic, treatment utility, and group comparisons as the most critical forms of evidence, while expressing lower support for correlational data and clinical expertise. Persistent disagreements centered on how to operationalize unexpectedness, the use of discrepancy methods, and implications for identifying twice-exceptional learners. Findings underscored the need to reconceptualize SLD as a heterogeneous construct and to adopt operational definitions anchored in empirically supported evidence. Implications for policy, professional preparation, practice, and research are considered, with the goal of fostering more consistent, evidence-based, and equitable identification frameworks.