Simulated data were used to demonstrate that groups formed by imposing cut-points based on either discrepancy or low-achievement definitions of learning disabilities (LD) are unstable over time. Similar problems were demonstrated in longitudinal data from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study, where 39% of the children designated as having LD in Grade 3 changed group placement with repeated testing in Grade 5. These results show that the practice of subdividing a normal distribution with arbitrary cut-points leads to instability in group membership. Approaches to the identification of children as having LD based solely on individual test scores not linked to specific behavioral criteria lead to invalid decisions about individual children. Low-achievement definitions are not a viable alternative to IQ-discrepancy definitions in the absence of other criteria, such as the traditional exclusions and response to quality intervention. If we accept the premise of multiple classes of low achievers, then we must develop identification systems that are valid and abandon systems whose only merits are their historical precedence and convenience.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aaron, P.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula . Review of Educational Research, 67, 461—502.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
3.
American Psychological Association, American Educational Research Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education ( 2001). Joint standards on the use and interpretation of test scores in psychology and education. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
4.
Bennett, D.E., & Clarizio, H.F. (1988). A comparison of methods for calculating a severe discrepancy. Journal of School Psychology , 26, 359—369.
5.
Bereiter, C. (1967). Some persisting dilemmas in the measurement of change. In C. W. Harris (Ed.), Problems in the measurement of change. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
6.
Berk, R.A. (1982). Effectiveness of discrepancy score methods for screening children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities , 1, 11—24.
7.
Bond, G.L., & Tinker, M.A. (1967). Reading difficulties: Their diagnosis and connection (2nd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
8.
Braden, J., & Weiss, L. (1988). Effects of simple difference versus regression discrepancy methods: An empirical study. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 23—29.
9.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. , & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum .
10.
Christensen, C.A. (1992). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has the quest led us astray?Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 276—278.
11.
Cizek, G.J. (2001). Conjectures on the rise and call of standard setting: An introduction to context and practice. In G. J. Cizek (Ed.), Setting performance standards: Concepts, methods, and perspectives (pp. 3—18). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249—253.
13.
Cone, T., & Wilson, L.R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis . Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 359— 371.
14.
Dobbins, D.A. (1988). Yule's “hump” revisited. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 338—344.
15.
Donavon, M.S., & Cross, C.T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
16.
Dykman, R.A., & Ackerman, P.T. (1992). Diagnosing dyslexia: IQ regression plus cut-points. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 25, 574—576.
17.
Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., Foorman, B.R., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186—203.
18.
Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M. Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R., et al. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan, (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185—250). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
19.
Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Liberman, I.Y., Fowler, A., et al. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6—23.
20.
Forness, S.R., Sinclair, E., & Guthrie, D. (1983). Learning disability discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 107—114.
21.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204—219.
22.
Glaub, V.E., & Kamphaus, R.W. (1994). Evaluating the congruence among methods of reading disability identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 12, 271—282.
23.
Horn, W.F., & O'Donnell, J.P. (1984). Early identification of learning disabilities: A comparison of two methods. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1106—1118.
24.
Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H.L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. The School Psychology Review, 29, 102—119.
25.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
26.
Jorm, A.F., Share, D.L., Matthews, M., & Matthews, R. (1986). Cognitive factors at school entry predictive of specific reading retardation and general reading backwardness: A research note. Journal of Child Psychology, 45—54.
27.
Kavale, K.A., & Reese, J.H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74—94.
28.
Kenny, D.A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York: Wiley.
29.
MacMillan, D.L., & Siperstein, G.N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R. Bradley , L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287—368). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
30.
Maxwell, S.E., & Delaney, H.D. (1993). Bi-variate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin,113, 181—190.
31.
Mercer, C.D., Jordan, L., Allsop, D.H., & Mercer, A.R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly , 19, 217—232.
32.
Miles, T.R., & Haslum, M.N. (1986). Dyslexia: Anomaly or normal variation?Annals of Dyslexia, 36, 103—117.
33.
Reynolds, C. (1984—1985). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education , 18, 451—476.
34.
Rodgers, B. (1983). The identification and prevalence of specific reading retardation. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 53, 369—373.
35.
Rutter, M., & Yule, W. (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 16, 181— 197.
36.
Sattler, J.M. (1993). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon .
37.
Shaywitz, S.E., Escobar, M.D., Shaywitz, B.A., Fletcher, J.M., & Makuch, R. (1992). Distribution and temporal stability of dyslexia in an epidemiological sample of 414 children followed longitudinally. The New England Journal of Medicine, 326, 145—150.
38.
Shaywitz, S.E., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J.M., Shneider, A.E., Marchione, K.E., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut Longitudinal Study at adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351—1359.
39.
Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Fletcher, J.M., & Escobar, M.D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of theAmerican Medical Association, 264, 998—1002.
40.
Shepard, L. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 79—91.
41.
Siegel, L.S. (1992). Dyslexic vs. poor readers: Is there a difference?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 618—629.
42.
Silva, P.A., McGee, R., & Williams, S. (1985). Some characteristics of nine-year-old boys with general reading backwardness or specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 20, 407— 421.
43.
Speece, D.L., & Case, L.P. (2001). Classification in context: An alternative approach to identify early reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 735—749.
44.
Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray?Reading Research Quarterly , 26, 1—29.
45.
Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profiles of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24—53.
46.
Stuebing, K.K., Fletcher, J.M., LeDoux, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469—518.
47.
U.S. Office of Education (1977). Assistance to states for education for handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register , 42, G1082—G1085.
48.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler intelligence scale for children—Revised . San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
49.
Wilson, L.R., & Cone, T. (1984). The regression equation method of determining academic discrepancy. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 95—110.
50.
Wood, F.B., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2001). Emerging issues in the genetics of dyslexia: A methodological preview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 503—512.
