What Lies Behind Diagnostic Labels? High Intra-Individual Variability Is the True Cognitive Signature of University Students with Specific Learning Disorders

Background/Objectives: Specific Learning Disorders are lifelong neurodevelopmental conditions that persist in adulthood, yet research has traditionally focused on children. In adults, there is significant heterogeneity in cognitive profiles and a lack of consensus on how to operationalize these disorders. This study aims to map the variability in cognitive functioning in university students with Specific Learning Disorders and investigate whether cognitive profiles differ across diagnostic categories and comorbidities. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted on the clinical documentation of 166 university students with a diagnosis of Specific Learning Disorders. Participants were categorized into three subgroups: predominant reading disorder, predominant arithmetic disorder, and mixed learning disorder. Cognitive functioning was assessed using Wechsler scales indices. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models and Latent Profile Analysis. Results: Across the sample, reasoning abilities were significantly higher than cognitive efficiency, with working memory consistently emerging as a core weakness. The mixed-disorder group exhibited the lowest cognitive scores and the greatest working memory deficits. Latent Profile Analysis identified two distinct latent subgroups: a “Low Profile” characterized by weaker working memory and a “High Profile” characterized by stronger reasoning and balanced efficiency. Diagnostic labels were only partially aligned with these profiles; while the mixed-disorder group was overrepresented in the “Low Profile,” substantial intra-individual variability existed across all diagnostic categories. Conclusions: The findings suggest that traditional categorical labels for Specific Learning Disorders have limited explanatory power in adulthood, given the high heterogeneity of cognitive functioning. Cognitive weaknesses, particularly in working memory, persist even in high-achieving university students. Clinical and educational support should shift from a label-based approach toward a dimensional, profile-based model to better address the unique strengths and vulnerabilities of adults with Specific Learning Disorders.