Factors influencing the identification of black and white students with learning disabilities

This study examined the differential influence of an IQ cutoff and standard score or regression-based method for determining a severe discrepancy as eligibility criteria for the identification of black and white students with learning disabilities. Subjects were 218 white and 132 black students referred for possible learning disability services. The results of the study demonstrated that the use of a standard score method for determining a severe discrepancy and the use of an IQ cutoff above the range for mental retardation resulted in the disproportionate underrepresentation of black students meeting eligibility criteria. In contrast, when a regression-based method to determine a severe discrepancy was used, along with the absence of an IQ cutoff, no differences were discerned between the two groups. The implications of these findings for current practice are discussed.     

One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups

The use of IQ scores and discrepancy formulas for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLD) has been widely discredited by prominent researchers for more than a decade. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of state policies still specify the use of discrepancy formulas, including the simple difference method, which is psychometrically inferior to regression-based methods. This study compares the use of a minimum IQ cutoff score and a simple difference method versus a regression-based method for identifying SLD in a sample of African American and European American full-time college students (N = 117). Replicating the findings from previous studies using typically achieving children, typically achieving adults, and school-age children with SLD, this study adds to the chorus of voices criticizing the use of outdated assessment practices that can have deleterious effects for individuals with SLD. The implications for legislative policy are discussed in the context of the historical overrepresentation of African Americans in all special education categories except SLD and the increased access to higher education that students with SLD have gained during the past decade.     

A Critical Analysis of Siegel's Case for Revision of the Learning Disability Construct

In this paper I analyse Siegel's revisionist conceptualization of the learning disability concept. Siegel has attempted to demonstrate that the construct of learning disabilities is flawed because of its long‐term linkage with the variable of intelligence. The discrepancy formulation is the particular focus of her criticism. She has denigrated the use of IQ tests in LD diagnosis and argued that intelligence and reading measure many of the same abilities and therefore any difference between these two functions is confounded; that IQ is not a valid measure of reading potential in children with LD and normal populations; and that logical analysis and empirical research demonstrate that the concept of intelligence is redundant in any conception of learning disabilities. I present arguments against each of these propositions and several other matters raised in her paper. I propose two basic approaches to learning disabilities and give expression to these in two theoretical models, a simple categorical model (designated as Model C) and the underachievement model (Model D). I show that Siegel's interpretation is based on a weak version of Model C, but that this model fails to elucidate the essential meaning of the learning disability construct. I show that Model D is the more appropriate alternative. I contend that the application of standard regression procedures inherent in Model D would lead to a more appropriate definition of LD and that more stringent standards for the underachievement criterion would offset many of the problems that Siegel has highlighted in her paper.     

The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities

The Boston University (BU) case illustrates how the psychometrics of ability differences interact with the concept of learning disability and with the sociopolitics of schooling and society. It also illustrates that learning disabilities advocacy will not be on a sound footing as long as the field refuses to rid itself of its IQ fetishism, refuses to jettison its fixation on aptitude-achievement discrepancy, and fails to free clinical practice from the pseudoscientific neurology that plagued the field in the 1970s. A more inclusive definition of learning disability--one that abandons discrepancy notions--and a more self-critical attitude toward its own claims would advance the field of learning disabilities and help to rid it of distractions such as the BU case.     

Understanding the ‘Lexia’ in dyslexia: A multidisciplinary team approach to learning disabilities

The historical roots of the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of learning disability are discussed as a reference point for explaining why this definition came into being and why it is inadequate for dealing with the variety of learning and developmental disabilities that present in school settings. A proposal is offered and justified for defining learning disabilities on the basis of profiles for multiple developmental domains that affect learning. In this proposal, developmental dyslexia is differentiated from other learning disabilities. Developmental dyslexia is defined as uneven development (dissociation) between word reading and higher-level processes in the functional reading system. Dyslexics may struggle with word reading because of deficits in phonological processes, orthographic-phonological connections, and/or fluency (rate, automaticity, or executive coordination). The need for both national and international classification schemes for defining specific learning and developmental disabilities for the purposes of educational services and research is emphasized. Grant P50 33812-06 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development supported preparation of this article.     

Learning disabilities and vocational rehabilitation.

Students with learning disabilities have received services in special education programs for many years. Unfortunately, many of these students continue to need services after they exit high schools. Vocational rehabilitation has begun to provide services for young adults with learning disabilities; however, there continues to be a discrepancy between the number of adults with learning disabilities who need vocational rehabilitation services and those who are receiving them. This article describes the definitions and eligibility criteria used by vocational rehabilitation agencies to serve adults with learning disabilities. By understanding the vocational rehabilitation system, teachers, it is hoped, will be better able to access these services for their students with learning disabilities.     

Will the real discrepant learning disability please stand up?

Willson and Reynolds (in this issue) challenged my thesis that the regression-based discrepancy method (RDM) is not a valid tool to detect aptitude-achievement discrepancies. In this response, I show that the statistical and theoretical counterarguments of Willson and Reynolds are based on a misreading of the statistical models presented. Furthermore, I demonstrate that the regression adjustment, which is largest for lower correlations, is the direct source of the lack of validity of the RDM procedure. Nevertheless, RDM can be considered a valid method to measure an achievement component that is unrelated to intelligence.     

美国学习障碍鉴别研究综述

学习障碍自提出之日起,便成为教育、心理及医学界共同关注的问题。本文回顾了美国学习障碍鉴别研究的发展历程,从最具权威性的差距法到各种替代性方法以及近期提出的新方法的内涵和特点进行了阐释和评述;探讨了美国学习障碍鉴别出现的问题及对我国学障鉴别研究的启示。     

Methodological issues and learning disabilities diagnosis in clinical populations.

Previous research suggests that the diagnosis of a comorbid learning disability is dependent on the method used for making the LD diagnosis. This study investigated that proposition by studying the effects of using three approaches to the assessment of learning disabilities in a sample of 177 six- to thirteen-year-old boys referred to outpatient mental health clinics for behavior problems. The use of these three procedures to diagnose comorbid learning problems produced significantly different results. All methods identified significant numbers of children in the clinical population as learning disabled; however, each method identified children with differing characteristics. Consistent with predictions from measurement theory, the commonly used simple standard score discrepancy method was more likely to identify children with above-average IQs as learning disabled, whereas a regression approach identified learning disabilities more consistently across the ability range. These results were interpreted as supporting the use of regression approaches to diagnose co-occurring learning disabilities, as that method is less likely to be biased by the child's intelligence test score. The implications of the use of each method in research investigations is also discussed.     

学习障碍鉴别方法综述

通过对学习障碍鉴别方法发展历程的回顾,重点对智力一成就差异模式、干预一反应模式、动态评估模式、全面的认知评估模式进行阐释和评述,分析了目前学习障碍鉴别中出现的弗林效应、地板效应等问题,探讨了这些方法对今后学习障碍鉴别的启示．     

Differential ability scales: Profiles of learning-disabled subtypes

The purpose of this study was to determine whether distinct subgroups of children with learning disabilities could be identified using a single, recently developed instrument—the Differential Ability Scales (DAS). Ward's method of cluster analysis was used to group 83 school-verified children with learning disabilities from the standardization sample. The following six subgroups were identified: (a) generalized, (b) high functioning, (c) normal, (d) underachievement, (e) borderline, and (f) dyseidetic. Not all subgroups displayed the expected discrepancy between intelligence and achievement associated with the current definitions of I.D. In subsequent discriminant analyses, both achievement and diagnostic subtests were necessary for accuracy in classification. This study provided evidence of the DAS's ability to diagnose the learning disabled differentially and provided distinct profiles for LD subgroups. Administration of the diagnostic subtests along with achievement subtests can provide the clinician with valuable diagnostic information for LD.     

Gender bias and special education referrals

Referrals for special education determine who receives special education services. The most common referring agents are regular education teachers. Today, there is a large discrepancy between the number of females to males found in learning disabilities programs. However, studies have found the number of female and male students with learning disabilities in schools is more proportional than enrollment in special education suggests. The position of this paper is that gender bias among referring agents is a major factor in the unequal distribution of males and females in learning disabilities programs.     

Diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities based on the component model of reading: an alternative to the discrepancy model of LD

Currently, learning disabilities (LD) are diagnosed on the basis of the discrepancy between students' IQ and reading achievement scores. Students diagnosed with LD often receive remedial instruction in resource rooms. The available evidence suggests that the educational policy based on this discrepancy model has not yielded satisfactory results. This has led researchers to try other paradigms, such as the component model and response to intervention, for dealing with children with reading disabilities. The component model of reading (CMR) described in the present article identifies the reading component that is the source of reading difficulty and targets instruction at that component. Study 1 describes the CMR and reports on its validity. Study 2 describes the successful outcome of a 7-year CMR-based reading instruction program. Compared to the discrepancy model, the CMR has demonstrated several advantages.     

An investigation of the K-ABC,WISC-R,and W-JPB,part two,with learning disabled children

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), the WISC-R, and the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery (W-JPB), Part Two, with children who experience learning disabilities. Correlational analyses were used to examine relationships among the WISC-R, K-ABC Mental Processing and Achievement scales, and the W-JPB Achievement scales. Thirty-four children with learning disabilities (mean age 8–11 years) received all three measures. Correlation coefficients indicated stronger and more consistent relationships between the WISC-R and W-JPB Achievement tests than between the K-ABC and W-JPB Achievement tests. Significant relationships between the WISC-R Full Scale IQ and the K-ABC Mental Processing Composite (MPC) revealed evidence of validity for this learning disabled sample. However, correlation coefficients among the K-ABC Achievement subtests and the W-JPB Achievement clusters indicated both convergent and discriminant validity. Thus, it is suggested that both the K-ABC MPC, for assessment of cognitive abilities, and the W-JPB Achievement clusters could be employed in discrepancy formulas for special education placement of children with learning disabilities.     

Maintaining the relationship between science and special education

Science has been an important partner of the field of learning disabilities since its inception. Special educators have used science to confirm or reject approaches to identifying and teaching students with disabilities. Current research and practice is using science to find better approaches to preventing learning difficulties and reducing the number of students referred for special education. However, I caution that if we want science to have the desired impact on the educational and social outcomes of students with learning disabilities, we must take care not to misuse it.     

我国学习不良儿童社会性发展研究综述

学习不良是指个体的实际学业成就与根据其智力潜能期望达到的学业成绩之间的差异,这种差异达到一定标准时就是学习不良。我国对学习不良儿童社会性发展的研究主要从其社会认知、社会行为与相关因素三个方面来探讨学习不良儿童社会性发展的内在机制、特点及影响因素。本文总结了国内这方面的相关研究,以便理清思路,为今后的研究提供借鉴。     

从美国学习障碍定义演变的角度探索其理论分析框架

该文在分析美国不同时期学习障碍定义的内容、特点及构成要素的基础上 ,探索出学习障碍的理论分析框架 :学习障碍主要表现为学业成就、语言的理解与运用、学业 -潜能差异、认知心理过程等方面的困难或障碍 ,并包括排它性条款及神经病理学特征等要素 ;对学习障碍的认识从单一学科逐步向多学科模式发展、从重视深层的神经病理特征向重视外部学业领域行为特征过渡 ,其鉴定以外部行为特征为主 ,并据此对内部心理、神经病理特征进行推测。     

Differences required for significance between Wechsler verbal and performance IQs and WIAT subtests and composites: The predicted-achievement method

This paper provides tables of critical values for determining statistically significant discrepancies between Wechsler Verbal/Performance IQ and WIAT subtest and composite scores based on a predicted-achievement method. It is recommended that these tables be used when a statistically significant and diagnostically meaningful Verbal IQ-Performance IQ discrepancy exists rendering either of these IQs a better estimate of a student's ability than the Full Scale IQ. Issues regarding the use of discrepancy formulas in the assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities are discussed, and basic considerations for using the critical values tables are provided.     

Limitations of Standard Scores in Individual Achievement Testing

This paper considers two major problems related to the Identification of learning disabilities with individually administered achievement tests: the appropriateness of standard versus developmental scores for determining severity of discrepancy and the limitations of existing developmental score scales. The paper also examines the characteristics of the developmental score scales of individualized achievement tests commonly used to evaluate learning disabilities.     

A reconceptualization of learning disabilities via a self-organizing systems paradigm

A dilemma exists regarding the interpretation of learning disabilities. A self-organizing systems (SOS) paradigm suggests widespread, diffuse outcomes, whereas a specific learning disability concept suggests more localized dysfunction. There may be very good reason to doubt the veridicality of the concept of a specific learning disability, not because the construct of learning disabilities itself is a frivolous concept, as some have held, but because the biological or neurological events that underlie a learning disability do not remain focal and constrained only to specific dysfunction. It is important to know whether an identified learning disability remains contained or whether processing disorders might be found in other areas. The assessment profiles of school-age children identified with nonverbal learning disabilities (NLD), assumed to have primarily right-hemispheric brain dysfunctions, and children with language-based learning disabilities (LLD), assumed to have primarily left-hemispheric brain dysfunctions, were examined to explore learning disabilities using an SOS paradigm. The pilot study reported here is used as an exemplar of how a self-organizing systems paradigm is conceptualized. Although a more comprehensive study is needed to confirm the data, this exemplar suggests that overflow into areas not typically associated with each disability subtype may occur. Concerns regarding ways of determining discrepancy for diagnostic purposes are noted, and remediation strategies designed for specific disabilities are questioned.