AbstractThis study analyzed WISC‐R profiles along a three‐factor approach (Spatial; Verbal‐Comprehensive; Attention‐Concentration), as suggested by Bannatyne (1968) for purposes of differential diagnosis. The WISC‐R profiles of 278 school‐verified learning disabled children were compared to those of four other groups: Educable Mentally Impaired (N= 141), Emotionally Impaired (N= 67), Otherwise Impaired (N= 61), and Nonimpaired (N= 294). The total sample was drawn from the State of Michigan public schools. Statistically significant differences were found between the learning disabled group and the other four groups on WISC‐R subtest scores. Further analysis revealed that 36% of the learning disabled and 32% of normal children exhibited this WISC‐R profile. Analysis of WISC‐R profiles of Spatial→Verbal→Attention was not useful in differential diagnosis among the five groups. The results are discussed in terms of the limited utility of a three‐factor analysis of WISC‐R subtest scores for the purpose