The misconception of the regression-based discrepancy operationalization in the definition and research of learning disabilities

In this article, I argue that the regression-based discrepancy method used in the diagnosis of learning disabilities is invalid because it is inconsistent with the underlying underachievement concept of which it is intended to be the operationalization. I mathematically demonstrate that the regression-based discrepancy method largely reflects achievement-specific determinants, thereby defeating its own object of describing aptitude-achievement discrepancies. The implications for research examining the role of intelligence in learning disabilities are outlined.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Patterns of Performance of Chinese-American Students with Learning Disabilities: A pilot study

This pilot study examines the pattern of performances of 55 Chinese-American students with limited English proficiency (LEP) who were classified as learning disabled. The results indicate that the students in this study fell behind academically. The analysis reveals that the general pattern of performances of LEP Chinese-American students with learning disabilities is similar to that of English-speaking peers with learning disabilities. Although their full-scale IQ fell into the low average range, there was a significant discrepancy between verbal IQ and performance IQ. Their deficits in phonetic skills were related to the changed family situation, to the unique linguistic features of Chinese language, and to the instructional approaches at school. Based on the findings of this pilot study more appropriate assessments and better application of theory are needed for these students.     

Identifying English Language Learners with Learning Disabilities: Key Challenges and Possible Approaches

The need for effective approaches for identifying English language learners with learning disabilities is great and growing. Meeting this need is complicated by recent developments in the field of learning disabilities that are unrelated to the English language learning status, and by limitations in existing knowledge specific to the identification of English language learners with learning disabilities. We review recent developments in the field of learning disabilities concerning the need for earlier identification, the need for a more appropriate conceptualization of learning disability, and the need for more effective assessments and treatments. We discuss challenges to assessment and identification of English language learners with learning disabilities, provide examples of two approaches to meeting these challenges, and describe some remaining challenges.     

Getting good at small talk: student-directed learning of social conversation skills

For students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), learning social skills is an intricate but essential task to facilitate social inclusion and participation. Limited research is available on social skills interventions for adolescents with ASD and intellectual disabilities (ID). This article presents a case study that illustrates how the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction was used to improve self-chosen social conversation skills in a Norwegian 14-year old student with ASD and mild ID. This case study illustrates that, also for students with ASD and ID, giving them the opportunity to set personally relevant goals may improve their autonomous motivation, thereby increasing the likelihood of goal attainment.     

English language learners, LD, and overrepresentation: A multiple-level analysis

Continuing unresolved problems in the field of special education include the continued use of discrepancy models; the need for better identification models; continued debate over programmatic issues, ranging from inclusion to self-contained models; and the continued overrepresentation of certain ethnic and racial groups in the learning disabilities (LD) category. This article focuses on students with mild learning disorders in general, and LD in particular, providing a perspective on how this problem has been addressed and suggesting a multilevel approach in which local context plays a central role. We suggest that overrepresentation is best conceptualized as an indicator of underlying issues rather than as the proper focal point of remediation efforts.     

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.     

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．     

How Should Reading Disabilities Be Operationalized? A Survey of Practicing School Psychologists

School psychologists' perceptions of how reading disabilities (RD) should be operationalized were examined and compared to those of journal editorial board members in the learning disabilities field ( Speece & Shekitka, 2002 ). Participants were practicing school psychologists drawn from the membership directory of the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). The sample consisted of 549 participants and was generally representative of the demographic characteristics of NASP membership at large. Results indicated that over 75% of participants endorsed using treatment validity/response to intervention (RTI), cognitive processing, and phonemic awareness as components of RD operationalization. A large percentage (61.9%) also endorsed use of an IQ‐achievement discrepancy criterion. Statistically significant differences were found between the endorsements of this study's participants and those in the Speece and Shekitka (2002) study, with our participants reporting higher endorsement of RTI, cognitive processing, and IQ‐achievement discrepancy criteria.     

The Ability–Achievement Discrepancy: Does it Contribute to an Understanding of Learning Disabilities?

Federal legislation of the 1960s and 1970s extending educational services to learning disabled children contained a criterion requiring a severe discrepancy between an child's ability and achievement. Following a discussion of the historical context related to this decision, research related to discrepancy is reviewed using reading disabilities or dyslexia as the prototype. Topics examined include the relationship of IQ to various factors, including underlying cognitive weaknesses; varying IQ levels; stability of diagnosis; heterogeneity of the diagnostic category; genetic and neuroimaging findings; and appropriate standards of comparison. Research on the practical application of the discrepancy model is also reviewed. In general, there is little evidence to support its continued use. Three proposed alternatives are considered, and a possible model is offered that incorporates findings from research on diagnosis and intervention.     

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。     

Federal law and the accommodation of students with LD: the lawyers' look at the BU decision

This article explores the genesis and development of the Guckenberger v. Boston University case, detailing the pertinent facts and issues of the case and analyzing the court's decision. The overall question posed by the case (as considered from the perspective of the plaintiffs' attorneys) was whether Boston University violated federal law in its response to the requests for reasonable accommodations by students with learning disabilities. The article quotes primarily from the decision issued by Federal Judge Patti Saris. The court's decision signified an important development in the field of higher education and set an extraordinary precedent in favor of students with disabilities under both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973.     

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.     

Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: a perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University

This article reviews issues related to the definition of learning disabilities in the context of the Guckenberger v. Boston University case. Four major questions are addressed: (a) Who is learning disabled? (b) How should learning disabilities be assessed? (c) Who is qualified to make a decision about whether or not an individual has a learning disability? and (d) What accommodations should be provided by a postsecondary institution and how should they be selected? Although these are complicated and difficult questions, it is possible to develop a simple, reasonable classification system for learning disabilities, and to conduct assessments based on a coherent and relevant set of achievement tests in which individuals who score below a cutoff are considered learning disabled. Scores on IQ tests are irrelevant and not useful and may even be discriminatory. The issues of decision making regarding learning disabilities and appropriate accommodations remain significant dilemmas for the field; resolution of these issues seems virtually impossible without agreement on appropriate procedures for the definition, identification, and assessment of learning disabilities.     

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.