This study examined the extent to which cognitive ability index scores predicted multidisciplinary teams’ (MDT) SLD identification within a response–to–intervention (RtI) method after accounting for RtI slope and norm–referenced achievement scores. Results showed that four achievement composite scores (i.e., basic reading, reading comprehension, math computation, and math problem solving) and two cognitive ability index scores (i.e., crystallized ability, working memory) predicted MDT–determined SLD, explaining 81% of the variance. The inclusion of academic achievement and cognitive ability index scores predicted MDT–determined SLD with 90% accuracy; cognitive ability index scores only increased specificity (sensitivity = 95%; specificity = 79%). RtI slope did not predict MDT–determined SLD, which was a required component of the evaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlfonsoV. C., & FlanaganD. P. (2018). Essentials of specific learning disability identification (2nd ed.). Wiley.
2.
ArdoinS. P., ChristT. J., MorenaL. S., CormierD. C., & KlingbeilD. A. (2013). A systematic review and summarization of the recommendations and research surrounding curriculum–based measurement of oral reading fluency (CBM–R) decision rules. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.004
3.
BensonN. F., FloydR. G., KranzlerJ. H., EckertT. L., FeferS. A., & MorganG. B. (2019). Test use and assessment practices of school psychologists in the United States: Findings from the 2017 national survey. Journal of School Psychology, 72, 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.12.004
4.
BensonN. F., KranzlerJ. H., & FloydR. G. (2016). Examining the integrity of measurement of cognitive abilities in the prediction of achievement: Comparisons and contrasts across variables from higher–order and bifactor models. Journal of School Psychology, 58, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2016.06.001
5.
BensonN. F., MakiK. E., FloydR. G., EckertT. L., KranzlerJ. H., & FeferS. A. (2020). A national survey of school psychologists’ practices in identifying specific learning disabilities. School Psychology, 35(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000344
6.
BurnsM. K., Peterson–BrownS., HaegeleK., RodriguezM., SchmittB., CooperM., Clayton, K., Hutcheson, S., Conner, C., Hosp, J., & VanDerHeydenA. M. (2016). Meta–analysis of academic interventions derived from neuropsychological data. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 28–42. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000117
7.
ChenH., CohenP., & ChenS. (2010). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 39(4), 860–864.
8.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Erlbaum.
9.
CottrellJ. M., & BarrettC. A. (2016). Defining the undefinable: Operationalizing methods to identify specific learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21892
10.
ComptonD. L., FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & BryantJ. D. (2006). Selecting at–risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two–year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2), 394–409. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022–0663.98.2.394
11.
DeWittP. (2019). qwraps2: Quick Wraps 2. R package version 0.4.1.
FletcherJ. M., LyonG. R., FuchsL. S., & BarnesM. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford.
15.
FletcherJ. M., & MiciakJ. (2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw103
16.
FletcherJ. M., StuebingK. K., BarthA. E., DentonC. A., CirinoP. T., FrancisD. J., & VaughnS. (2011). Cognitive correlates of inadequate response to reading intervention. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2011.12087725
17.
FloydR., MeisingerE., GreggN., & KeithT. (2012). An exploration of reading comprehension across development using models from Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory: Support for integrative models of reading. Psychology in the Schools, 49(8), 725–743. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21633
18.
FuchsD., & DeshlerD. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2007.00237.x
19.
FuchsD., HaleJ. B., & KearnsD. M. (2011). On the importance of a cognitive processing perspective: An introduction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(2), 99–104. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0022219411400019
20.
GrigorenkoE. L., ComptonD. L., FuchsL. S., WagnerR. K., WillcuttE. G., & FletcherJ. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/amp0000452
21.
HajovskyD. B., & ChesnutS. R. (2022). Examination of differential effects of cognitive abilities on reading and mathematics achievement across race and ethnicity: Evidence with the WJ IV. Journal of School Psychology, 93, 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.05.001
22.
HajovskyD. B., MasonB. A., & McCuneL. A. (2017). Teacher–student relationship quality and academic achievement in elementary school: A longitudinal examination of gender differences. Journal of School Psychology, 63(4), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.04.001
23.
HajovskyD. B., ReynoldsM. R., FloydR. G., TurekJ. J., & KeithT. Z. (2014). A multigroup investigation of latent cognitive abilities and reading achievement relations. School Psychology Review, 43(4), 385–406. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087412
24.
HajovskyD. B., VilleneuveE. F., MasonB. A., & De JongD. A. (2018). A quantile regression analysis of cognitive ability and spelling predictors of written expression: Evidence of gender, age, and skill level moderation. School Psychology Review, 47(3), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR–2017–0110.V47–3
25.
HajovskyD. B., VilleneuveE. F., ReynoldsM. R., NiilekselaC. R., MasonB. A., & ShudakN. J. (2018). Cognitive ability influences on written expression: Evidence for developmental and sex–based differences in school–age children. Journal of School Psychology, 67, 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2017.09.001
26.
HajovskyD. B., VilleneuveE. F., SchneiderW. J., & CaemmererJ. M. (2020). An alternative approach to cognitive and achievement relations research: An introduction to quantile regression. Journal of Pediatric Neuropsychology, 6(2), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40817–020–00086–3
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446,118 Stat. 2647; 2004 Enacted H.R. 1350; 108 Enacted H.R. 1350.
29.
JenkinsJ., & TerjesonK. J. (2011). Monitoring reading growth: Goal setting, measurement frequency, and methods of evaluation. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26(1), 28–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540–5826.2010.00322.x
30.
JohnsonE. S., HumphreyM., MellardD. F., WoodsK., & SwansonH. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta–analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 3–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F073194871003300101
31.
KaufmanA. S., & KaufmanN. L. (2014a) Kaufman test of educational achievement (3rd ed.). NCS Pearson.
32.
KaufmanA. S., & KaufmanN. L. (with BreauxK. C.). (2014b). Technical and interpretive manual. Kaufman test of educational achievement (3rd ed.). NCS Pearson.
33.
KovaleskiJ., VanDerHeydenA. M., & ShapiroE. S. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. Guilford Press.
34.
KranzlerJ. H., FloydR. G., BensonN., ZaboskiB., & ThibodauxL. (2016). Classification agreement analysis of cross–battery assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children and youth. International Journal of School and Educational Psychology, 4(3), 124–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/21683603.2016.1155515
35.
KranzlerJ. H., GilbertK., RobertC. R., FloydR. G., & BensonN. F. (2019). Further examination of a critical assumption underlying the dual–discrepancy/consistency approach to specific learning disability identification. School Psychology Review, 48(3), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR–2018–0008.V48–3
36.
KranzlerJ. H., YaraghchiM., MatthewsK., & Otero–VallesL. (2020). Does the response–to intervention model fundamentally alter the traditional conceptualization of Specific Learning Disability?Contemporary School Psychology. Advanced online version https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688–019–00256–x
37.
KubasH. A., DrefsM. A., PooleJ. M., SchmidA. D., HollandS., & FiorelloC. (2014). Cognitive and academic profiles associated with math disability subtypes. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 20(1), 32–45.
38.
Lewno–DumdieB. M., & HajovskyD. B. (2020). Do global ability composites differentially predict academic achievement across gender?Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 38(6), 706–723. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0734282919892731
MachekG. R., & NelsonJ. M. (2010). School psychologists’ perceptions regarding the practice of identifying reading disabilities: Cognitive assessment and response to intervention considerations. Psychology in the Schools, 47(3), 230–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20467
41.
MakiK. E., & AdamsS. R. (2020). Special education evaluation practices and procedures: Implications for referral and eligibility decision–making. Contemporary School Psychology. Advanced online version. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688–020–00335–4
42.
MakiK. E., BarrettC. A., HajovskyD. B., & BurnsM. K. (2020). An examination of the relationships between specific learning disabilities identification and growth rate, achievement, cognitive ability, and student demographics. School Psychology, 35(5), 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000400
43.
MakiK. E., BurnsM. K., & SullivanA. (2017). Learning disability identification consistency: The impact of methodology and student evaluation data. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(2), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000165
44.
MakiK. E., FloydR. G., & RobersonT. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000109
45.
MakiK. E., McGillR. J., ConoyerS. J., FeferS. A., & WardT. (2020). Assessing the impact of sequential data presentation on specific learning disabilities identification decisions using patterns of strengths and weaknesses methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920983951
46.
McGrewK. S., LaForteE. M., & SchrankF. A. (2014). Woodcock–Johnson IV. Technical manual. Riverside.
47.
McGillR. J., DombrowskiS. C., & CanivezG. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007
48.
MiciakJ., StuebingK. K., VaughnS., RobertsG., BarthA. E., & FletcherJ. M. (2014). Cognitive attributes of adequate and inadequate responders to reading intervention in middle school. School Psychology Review, 43(4), 407–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087413
49.
MorganP. L., & FarkasG. (2016). Are we helping all the children that we are supposed to be helping?Educational Researcher, 45(3), 226–228. https://doi.org/10.3102/2F0013189/16644607
NiilekselaC. R., ReynoldsM. R., KeithT. Z., & McGrewK. S. (2016). A special validity study of the Woodcock–Johnson IV: Acting on evidence for specific abilities. In FlanaganD. P. & AlfonsoV. C. (Eds.), WJ IV clinical use and interpretation: Scientist–practitioner perspectives (pp. 65–106). Elsevier.
53.
Northwest Evaluation Association. (2009). Technical manual for measures of academic progress and measures of academic progress for primary grades. Lake Oswego, OR: Author.
54.
Office of Special Education Programs. (2006, August 14). Final regulations implementing IDEA 2004. Federal Register, 46540–46845.
ReynoldsM. R., & KeithT. Z. (2017). Multi–group hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fifth Edition: What does it measure?Intelligence, 62, 31–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.02.005
59.
ReynoldsC. R., & ShaywitzS. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait–to fail to watch–them–fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130–145. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016158
60.
SalviaJ., YsseldykeJ., & BoltS. (2012). Assessment in special and inclusive education. Wadsworth.
61.
SchneiderW. J., & KaufmanA. S. (2017). Let's not do away with comprehensive cognitive assessments just yet. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 8–20. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw104
62.
SchneiderW. J., & McGrewK. S. (2018). The Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P. & McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73–163). Guilford.
63.
SchrankF. A., MatherN., & McGrewK. S. (2014). Woodcock–Johnson IV tests of achievement. Riverside.
64.
StuebingK. K., BarthA. E., TrahanL. H., ReddyR. R., MiciakJ., & FletcherJ. M. (2014).Are child cognitive characteristics strong predictors of responses to intervention? A meta–analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85, 395–421. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314555996a
65.
SwansonH. L., ZhendX., & JermanO. (2009). Working memory, short–term memory, and reading disabilities: A selective meta–analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 260–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0022219409331958
66.
TaylorW. P., MiciakJ., FletcherJ. M., & FrancisD. J. (2017). Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000356
67.
ThornbladS. C., & ChristT. J. (2014). Curriculum–based measurement of reading: Is 6 weeks of daily progress monitoring enough?School Psychology Review, 43(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2014.12087451
68.
University of Oregon. (2018–2019). 8th edition of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS®): Administration and scoring guide. Retrieved from https://dibels.uoregon.edu
69.
Van NormanE. R., & ChristT. J. (2016). Curriculum–based measurement of reading: Accuracy of recommendations from three–point decision rules. School Psychology Review, 45, 296–309. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR45–3.296–309
70.
VilleneuveE. F., HajovskyD. B., MasonB. A., & LewnoB. M. (2019). Cognitive ability and math computation developmental relations with math problem–solving: An integrated, multi–group approach. School Psychology, 34(1), 96–108. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/spq0000267
71.
WechslerD. (2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th ed.). Pearson.
WilcoxG., & SchroederM. (2015). What comes before report writing? Attending to clinical reasoning and thinking errors in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/2F0734282914562212
74.
ZaboskiB. A., KranzlerJ. H., & GageN. A. (2018). Meta–analysis of the relationship between academic achievement and broad abilities of the Cattell–horn–Carroll theory. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.001
