Many college students receiving accommodations for specific learning disability (SLD) do not meet objective criteria for the disorder. Furthermore, whether students meet criteria depends on the diagnostic decision model used by their clinician. The authors examined whether the relationship between diagnostic model and likelihood of meeting objective criteria is moderated by students’ postsecondary institution. They administered a comprehensive psychoeducational battery to 98 undergraduates receiving accommodations for SLD at 2-year public colleges, 4-year public universities, and 4-year private colleges. Most 4-year public university students failed to meet objective criteria for SLD. In contrast, most 4-year private college students met objective criteria based on significant ability–achievement discrepancies, and most 2-year public college students met objective criteria based on normative deficits in achievement and cognitive processing. Students who met objective criteria also differed significantly in degree of academic impairment. The authors’ findings indicate qualitative differences in SLD across postsecondary settings and have implications for the identification and mitigation of SLD in college students.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act, Pub. L. No. 110-325 (2008).
5.
BrodyL. E.MillsC. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282–296.
6.
BrodyL. E.MillsC. J. (2004). Linking assessment and diagnosis to interventions for gifted students with learning disabilities. In NewmanT. M.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 73–93). New York, NY: Kluwer.
7.
BrueggemannA. E.KamphausR. W.DombrowskiS. C. (2008). An impairment model of learning disability diagnosis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39, 424–430.
DanielsA. (2008). Reading fluency in adults. In WolfL. E.SchreiberH. E.WassersteinJ. (Eds.), Adult learning disorders (pp. 121–125). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
10.
DehnM. J. (2008). Cognitive processing deficits. In MorrisR. J.MatherN. (Eds.), Evidence-based interventions for students with learning and behavioral challenges (pp. 258–287). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
DombrowskiS. C.KamphausR. W.ReynoldsC. R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364–372.
12.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2002). Enforcement guidance on reasonable accommodation and undue hardship under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
FerriB. A.GreggN.HeggoyS. J. (1997). Profiles of college students demonstrating learning disabilities with and without giftedness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 552–559.
14.
FlanaganD. P. (2003). Use of the Woodcock–Johnson III within the context of a modern operational definition of learning disability. In SchrankF. A.FlanaganD. P. (Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation (pp. 200–227). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
15.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C.DyndaA. M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 807–825.
16.
FlanaganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C.MascoloJ. T. (2006). The achievement test desk reference (2nd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
17.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
18.
GerberP. J. (2009). Transition and adults with learning disabilities. In TaymansJ. M. (Ed.), Learning to achieve: A review of the research literature on serving adults with learning disabilities (pp. 211–252). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
19.
GoldsteinS.SchwebachA. (2009). Neuropsychological basis of learning disabilities. In ReynoldsC. R.Fletcher-JanzenE. (Eds.), Handbook of clinical child neuropsychology (pp. 187–201). New York, NY: Springer.
20.
GordonM.LewandowskiL.KeiserS. (1999). The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485–490.
21.
GreggN. (2003). Diagnostic issues surrounding students with learning disabilities. In VogelS. A.VogelG.SharoniV.DahanO. (Eds.), Learning disabilities in higher education and beyond (pp. 93–105). Baltimore, MD: York.
22.
GreggN. (2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 219–228.
23.
GreggN. (2009a). Accommodations: Evidence-based accommodation research specific to the adolescent and adult population with learning disabilities. In TaymansJ. M. (Ed.), Learning to achieve: A review of the research literature on serving adults with learning disabilities (pp. 119–180). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
24.
GreggN. (2009b). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and ADHD: Assessment and accommodation. New York, NY: Guilford.
25.
GreggN.BandalosD. L.ColemanC.DavisJ. M.RobinsonK.BlakeJ. (2008). The validity of a battery of phonemic and orthographic awareness tasks for adults with and without dyslexia and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Remedial and Special Education, 29, 175–190.
26.
GreggN.ColemanC.DavisM.LindstromW.HartwigJ. (2006). Critical issues for the diagnosis of learning disabilities in the adult population. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 889–899.
27.
GreggN.ColemanC.KnightD. (2003). Use of the Woodcock–Johnson III in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. In SchrankF. A.FlanaganD. P. (Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation (pp. 125–174). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
28.
GreggN.ColemanC.LindstromJ.LeeC. (2007). Who are most, average, or high-functioning adults?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 264–274.
29.
HaginR. A. (2003). Diagnosing adults with learning disabilities: Essential components. In VogelS. A.VogelG.SharoniV.DahanO. (Eds.), Learning disabilities in higher education and beyond (pp. 83–91). Baltimore, MD: York.
30.
HaleJ. B.KaufmanA.NaglieriJ. A.KavaleK. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integration response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 753–770.
31.
HoskynM.SwansonH. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119.
32.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400et seq. (2004).
33.
KavaleK. A.KaufmanA.NaglieriJ.HaleJ. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. School Psychologist, 59, 15–25.
34.
KavaleK. A.SpauldingL. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability?Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 169–179.
35.
KazdinA. E. (2003). Research design in clinical psychology. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
36.
KruegerF.GrafmanJ. (2008). Disorders of mathematics: Implications for adult functioning. In WolfL. E.SchreiberH. E.WassersteinJ. (Eds.), Adult learning disorders (pp. 191–218). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
37.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
38.
LovettB. J.GordonM.LewandowskiL. J. (2009). Measuring impairment in a legal context: Practical considerations in the evaluation of psychiatric and learning disabilities. In GoldsteinS.NaglieriJ. (Eds.), Assessing impairment: From theory to practice (pp. 93–103). New York, NY: Springer.
39.
LovettB. J.LewandowskiL. J. (2006). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Who are they?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 515–527.
40.
LovettB. J.SparksR. S. (2010). Exploring the diagnosis of “gifted/LD:” Characterizing postsecondary students with learning disability diagnoses at different IQ levels. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 17–28.
41.
MadausJ. W.ShawS. F. (2006). The impact of the IDEA 2004 on transition to college for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 21, 273–281.
42.
MatherN. (2009). The intelligent testing of children with specific learning disabilities. In KaufmanJ. C. (Ed.), Intelligent testing: Integrating psychological theory and clinical practice (pp. 30–52). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
43.
MatherN.GernerM. E. (2008). Postsecondary students with high abilities and reading disabilities: Case analysis and commentary. Learning Disabilities, 15, 121–129.
44.
MatherN.GreggN. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 99–106.
45.
MatherN.SchrankF. A. (2003). Using the Woodcock–Johnson III discrepancy procedures for diagnosing learning disabilities. In SchrankF. A.FlanaganD. P. (Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation (pp. 175–198). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
46.
McCoachD. B.KehleT.BrayM. A.SiegleD. (2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 403–411.
47.
McCoachD. B.KehleT. J.BrayM. A.SiegleD. (2004). The identification of gifted students with learning disabilities: Challenges, controversies, and promising practices. In NewmanT. M.SternbergR. J. (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 31–46). New York, NY: Kluwer.
48.
McGrewK. S.WoodcockR. W. (2001). Technical manual, Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
49.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System. Retrieved from http://nces .ed.gov/ipeds/
50.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2007). The documentation disconnect for students with learning disabilities: Improving access to postsecondary disability services. Retrieved from http://www.ahead.org/uploads/docs/resources/njld_paper.pdf
51.
NielsenM. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93–111.
52.
ProctorB.PrevattF. (2003). Agreement among four models used for diagnosing learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 459–466.
53.
SchrankF. A.MillerD. C.WendlingB. J.WoodcockR. W. (2010). Essentials of WJ III cognitive abilities assessment. New York, NY: John Wiley.
54.
Semrud-ClikemanM.FineJ. G. (2008). Brief comprehensive neuropsychological assessment of children and adults with learning difficulties and disabilities. In D’AmatoR. C.HartlageL. C. (Eds.), Essentials of neuropsychological assessment (pp. 245–291). New York, NY: Springer.
55.
ShermanJ. C. (2008). Normal and learning disabled (LD) development of academic skills. In WolfL. E.SchreiberH. E.WassersteinJ. (Eds.), Adult learning disorders (pp. 3–24). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
56.
SparksR. L.LovettB. J. (2009a). College students with learning disability diagnoses: Who are they and how do they perform?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 494–510.
57.
SparksR. L.LovettB. J. (2009b). Objective criteria for classification of postsecondary students as learning disabled: Effects on prevalence rates and group characteristics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 230–239.
58.
StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.LeDouxJ. M.LyonG. R.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.
59.
SwansonH. J. (2001). Research on interventions for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. Elementary School Journal, 101, 331–348.
60.
SwansonH. J. (2009). Assessment of adults with learning disabilities. In TaymansJ. M. (Ed.), Learning to achieve: A review of the research literature on serving adults with learning disabilities (pp. 15–70). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
61.
SwansonH. J.HoskynM. (1999). Definition × treatment interactions for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 28, 644–658.
62.
TaymansJ. M. (2009). Introduction. In TaymansJ. M. (Ed.), Learning to achieve: A review of the research literature on serving adults with learning disabilities (pp. 1–13). Washington, DC: National Institute for Literacy.
63.
VogelS. A.LeonardF.ScalesW.HayeslipP.HermansenJ.DonnelisL. (1998). The National Learning Disabilities Postsecondary Data Bank: An overview. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 234–247.
64.
WendlingB. J.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Tests of Achievement: Examiner training booklet. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
65.
WolfL. E.SchreiberH. E.WassersteinJ. (2008). Adult learning disorders. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
66.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatherN. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
