Assessment personnel from the southern borderlands area of Texas participated in analyzing one of four different hypothetical cases. Respondents were expected to defer making eligibility decisions due to language proficiency, environment, culture, or lack of data. When data were lacking, the investigators proposed that respondents would recognize the need for additional information and defer making a decision. Differences in eligibility decisions were found when the respondents analyzed cases in which a significant discrepancy existed and in cases in which language proficiency information was provided. Experience in assessment was significant in the determination that additional information was needed to reach a decision, F(2, 87) = 3.99, p < .05. A majority of the respondents (83%) made an eligibility decision using insufficient data.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Artiles, A., Trent, S.C., & Kuan, L. (1997). Learning disabilities empirical research on ethnic minority students: An analysis of 22 years of studies published in selected refereed journals. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 12, 82—91.
2.
Bocian, K.M., Beebe, M.E., McMillan, D., & Gresham, F.M. (1999). Competing paradigms in learning disabilities classification by schools and the variations in the meaning of discrepant achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 14, 1—14.
3.
Brown, T., Reynolds, C.R., & Whitaker, J.S. (1999). Bias in mental testing since Bias in Mental Testing. School Psychology Quarterly , 14, 208—238.
4.
Estrada, V.L. (1999). Living and teaching along the U.S./Mexico border: Midwestern student interns' cultural adaptation experiences in Texas schools . Bilingual Research Journal, 23, 247—276.
5.
Federal Register (1999, March 12). Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office.
6.
Figueroa, R.A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: Knowledge gaps and regulations. Exceptional Children, 56, 145—152.
7.
Gersten, R., & Woodward, J. (1994). The language-minority student and special education: Issues, trends, and paradoxes. Exceptional Children, 60, 310—322.
8.
Gonzalez, J.E.J., & Valle, I.H. (2000). Word identification and reading disorders in the Spanish language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 44—60.
9.
Gonzalez, V., Bauerle, P., & Felix-Holt, M. (1996). Theoretical and practical implications of assessing cognitive and language development in bilingual children with qualitative methods. The Bilingual Research Journal, 20, 93—131.
10.
Gopaul-McNicol, S., & Thomas-Presswood, T. (1998). Working with linguistically and culturally different children: Innovative clinical and educational approaches . Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
11.
Gresham, F.M., McMillan, D.L., & Bocian, K.M. (1998). Agreement between school study team decisions and authoritative definitions in classifications of students at-risk for mild disabilities. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 181—191.
12.
Haywood, H.C., Brown, A.L., & Wingenfeld, S. (1990). Dynamic approaches to psychoeducational assessment. School Psychology Review, 19, 411—422.
13.
Huebner, E.S. (1987a). The effects of type of referral information and test data on psychoeducational decisions. School Psychology Review, 16, 382—390.
14.
Huebner, E.S. (1987b). Teachers' special education decisions: Does test information make a difference?Journal of Educational Research , 80, 202—205.
15.
Huebner, E.S. (1988). Bias in teachers' special education decisions as a function of test score reporting format. Journal of Educational Research, 21, 217—220.
16.
Huebner, E.S. (1989). Errors in decision-making: A comparison of school psychologists' interpretations of grade equivalents, percentiles, and deviation IQs. School Psychology Review, 18, 51—55.
17.
Jitendra, A.K., & Rohena-Diaz, E. (1996). Language assessment of students who are linguistically diverse: Why a discrete approach is not the answer. School Psychology Review, 25, 40—56.
18.
Keogh, B.K., Gallimore, R., & Weisner, T. (1997). A sociocultural perspective on learning and learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice , 12, 107— 113.
19.
Lidz, C.S. (1997). Dynamic assessment: Psychoeducational assessment with cultural sensitivity. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 6, 95—111.
20.
Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, A. J. Rotherham, & C. Hokanson (Eds.), Rethinking special education. Retrieved February 20, 2002, from http://www.edexcellence.net/library/special_ed/index.html
21.
McMillan, D.L., Gresham, F.M., & Bocian, K.M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314— 326.
22.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D., & Mercer, A. (1996). Learning disabilities and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 217—232.
23.
Pena, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 269—280.
24.
Reynolds, C.R., Lowe, P.A., & Saenz, A.L. (1999). The problem of bias in psychological assessment . In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (3rd. ed., pp. 549—595). New York: Wiley.
25.
Region One. (1998). Public education information management system data for region 1. Retrieved June 10, 2001, from http://www.escl.net/peims/disaggre/esc1stud.htm
26.
Rosado, L.A., & Ligons, C.M. (1997). The acculturation of Latino children in U.S. society . Teacher Education and Practice, 13, 39—66.
27.
Rumberger, R.W., & Larson, K.A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high school dropout. American Journal of Education, 107, 2—35.
28.
Siler, A., Stolzberg, S., von Glatz, A., & Strang, W. (1999). Meeting the needs of migrant students in schoolwide programs: Technical report of the congressionally mandated study of migrant student participation in schoolwide programs. Rockville, MD: Westat.
29.
Texas Education Agency. (2001). Subchapter AA. Special education services division. Clarification of provisions in federal regulations and state law. Retrieved from http://www.tea.state.tx.us/rules/tac/chapter089/
30.
U.S. Department of Education. (2000). Twenty-second annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
31.
Velez, W., & Saenz, R. (2001). Toward a comprehensive model of the school leaving process among Latinos. School Psychology Quarterly, 16, 445—467.
32.
Ward, T., Ward, S., Glutting, J., & Hatt, C. (1999). Exceptional LD profile types for the WISC-III and WIAT. School Psychology Review, 28, 629—643.
33.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
34.
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III, tests of achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
