To examine current practices in the use of psychoeducational evaluations for service delivery, we surveyed 91 service providers to college students with learning disabilities. The three purposes of the survey were to determine (a) whether service delivery decisions are based on information from psychoeducational evaluations, (b) which sections of the psychoeducational report are most useful in making service delivery decisions, and (c) the respondents' satisfaction with the tests and measurements for service delivery. The findings supported the common belief that data from psychoeducational evaluations serve as the primary basis for both eligibility and specific accommodation determinations. Respondents reported that all sections of the psychoeducational evaluation written report were useful, with the least useful section being test scores and the most useful being the summary of cognitive strengths and weaknesses. However, the section used most often for service delivery decisions was the professional's recommendations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ahead1995Membership Directory. (Available to members from the Association on Higher Education and Disability, PO Box 35443, Columbus, OH, 73250).
2.
AHEAD Ad Hoc Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1996, Summer). Guidelines for documentation of a specific learning disability. Latest Developments, pp. 10-12.
3.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 22 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
4.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
5.
Anderson, P.L. (1993). Issues in assessment and diagnosis. In L. C. Brinckerhoff, S. Shaw, & J. McGuire (Eds.), Promoting postsecondary education for college students with learning disabilities: A handbook for practitioners (pp. 89-136). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
6.
Anderson, P.L., & Brinckerhoff, L.C. (1989). Interpreting LD diagnostic reports for appropriate service delivery. University of Connecticut: Special Education Center. (ERIC document 322 671)
7.
Beirne-Smith, M., & Deck, M.D. (1989). A survey of postsecondary programs for students with LD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 456-457.
8.
Brinckerhoff, L.C., Shaw, S., & McGuire, J. (1993). Promoting postsecondary education for college students with learning disabilities: A handbook for practitioners. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
9.
Carlton, C.M., & Walkenshaw, D. (1991). Diagnosis of learning disabilities in postsecondary institutions. Journal of Postsecondary Education andDisability, 9, 197-206.
10.
Cohen, J. (1983). Learning disabilities and the college student: Identification and diagnosis. AdolescentPsychiatry, 11, 177-198.
11.
Compton, C. (1996). A guide to 100 tests for special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Globe Fearon.
12.
Gajar, A.H., Murphy, J.P., & Hunt, F.M. (1982). A university program for learning disabled students . Reading Improvement, 19, 282-288.
13.
Guerin, G., & Maier, A. (1983). Informal assessment in education. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
14.
Heggoy, S. (1996, Summer). Determining appropriate accommodations: Using criteria. Latest Developments, pp. 4-6.
15.
Luftig, R.A. (1989). Assessment of learners with special needs. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon .
16.
Mangrum, C.T., & Strichart, S.S. (1983a). College possibilities for the learning disabled (part 1). Learning Disabilities , 6, 57-69.
17.
Mangrum, C.T., & Strichart, S.S. (1983b). College possibilities for the learning disabled (part 2). Learning Disabilities , 6, 69-81.
18.
Mellard, D.F. (1990). The eligibility process: Identifying students with learning disabilities in California's community colleges. Learning DisabilitiesFocus, 5, 75-90.
19.
Messick, S. (1988). The once and future issues of validity: Assessing the meaning and consequences of measurement. In H. Wainer & H. I. Braun (Eds.), Test validity (pp. 33-45). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
Norlander, K.A., Shaw, S.F., McGuire, J.M., & Czajkowski, A. (1987). Diagnosis and program selection for learning disabled college students. University of Connecticut: Special Education Center. (ERIC document 322 669)
21.
Ofiesh, N. (1997). Using processing speed tests to predict the benefit of extended test time for university students with learning disabilities. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
22.
Ofiesh, N. (in press). The use of processing speed tests to predict the benefit of extended test time for university students with learning disabilities. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability.
23.
Ostertag, B., Pearson, M.T., & Baker, R.E. (1986). Programs for the learning disabled in California community colleges. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities , 2, 331-347.
Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.
27.
Shaw, S.F., & McGuire, J.M. (1996, Summer). What can we learn from the Boston experience?Latest Developments, pp. 1-3.
28.
Woods, P.A., Sedlacek, W.E., & Boyer, S.P. (1990). Learning disability programs in large universities . NASPA Journal, 27, 249-256.
29.
Yost, D.S., Shaw, S.F., Cullen, J.P., & Bigaj, S.J. (1994). Practices and attitudes of postsecondary LD service providers in North America. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 27, 631-640.
30.
Ysseldyke, J. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (Eds.). (1994). Educational outcomes for students with disabilities. New York: Hawthorne Press.
