Prevalence of LD From Parental and Professional Perspectives: A Comparison of the Data From the National Survey of Children’s Health and the Office of Special Education Programs’ Reports to Congress

Abstract

Since the emergence of the field of learning disabilities (LD) in the late 1960s and early 1970s, controversy has surrounded issues regarding methods used for identification. The prevalence of students identified as LD increased steadily from the 1970s until the beginning of the 21st century, at which time it has decreased until at least 2011 (the most current data available from the U.S. Office of Education). In this article, I compare the prevalence rates of children aged 6 to 17 years being served in schools according to the Office of Special Education Programs with the prevalence rates as reported by parents on the National Survey of Children’s Health. To date, no such comparison has been made that takes into account parents’ knowledge of their children’s disabilities. Results of the analyses reveal that parents report that their children have LD at a significantly higher rate than what is reported by schools of students receiving LD services. Most important, the longitudinal trend from 2001 to 2011 indicates that parents are reporting a slight increase whereas the Office of Special Education Programs is reporting a dramatic decrease in LD.

Keywords

prevalence learning disabilities parent perspectives

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aaron

P. G.

(1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.

Baumeister

A. A.

Kupstas

Klindworth

L. M.

(1990). New morbidity: Implications for prevention of children’s disabilities. Exceptionality, 1, 1–16.

Bethlehem

(2005). Survey methods: A statistical perspective. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Blumberg

S. J.

Olson

Frankel

M. R.

Osborn

Srinath

K. P.

Giambo

(2005). Design and operation of the National Survey of Children’s Health, 2003. Vital Health Statistics 1, 43, 1–131.

Blumberg

S. J.

Welch

E. M.

Chowdhury

S. R.

Upchurch

H. L.

Parker

E. K.

Skalland

B. J.

(2008). Design and operation of the National Survey of Children’s Health, 2005–2006. Vital Health Statistics 1, 45, 1–188.

Bollman

K. A.

Silberglitt

Gibbons

K. A.

(2007). The St. Croix River Education District model: Incorporating systems-level organization and a multi-tiered problem-solving process for intervention delivery. In Jimerson

S. R.

Burns

M. K.

VanDerHeyden

A. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 319–330). New York, NY: Springer.

Braunsberger

Wybenga

Gates

(2007). A comparison of reliability between telephone and web-based surveys. Journal of Business Research, 60, 758–764.

Burns

M. K.

Senesac

B. V.

(2005) Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.

Callinan

Cunningham

Theiler

(2012). Revisiting discrepancy theory in learning disabilities: What went wrong and why should we go back? Australian Journal of Guidance and Counseling, 23, 1–17.

10.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Frequently asked questions. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/slaits/nsch.htm

11.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). State and local area integrated telephone survey. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/slaits/nsch.htm

12.

Chang

Krosnick

J. A.

(2009). National surveys via RDD telephone interviewing versus the Internet: Comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opinion Quarterly, 75, 641–678.

13.

Cohen

(1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

14.

ControlFreak. (2015). Control charts for individual data points. Retrieved from http://contchart.com.

15.

Cortiella

Horowitz

S. H.

(2014). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trend and emerging issues. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

16.

D’Agostino

R. B.

(1986). Tests for normal distribution in goodness-of-fit techniques. In D’Agostino

R. B.

Stephens

M. A.

(Eds.), Goodness of fit techniques. New York, NY: Dekker.

17.

D’Agostino

R. B.

Belanger

D’Agostino

R. B.

Jr. (1990). A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. American Statistician, 44, 316–321.

18.

Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health. (n.d.). National Survey of Child and Adolescent Health. Retrieved from http://childhealthdata.org/learn/NSCH

19.

Epps

Ysseldyke

J. E.

Algozzine

(1983). Public policy implications of different definitions of LD. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 1, 341–352.

20.

Finn

C. E.

Rotherham

A. J.

Hokanson

C. R.

(Eds.). (2001). Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and the Progressive Policy Institute.

21.

Fuchs

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

L. S.

Bryant

Davis

G. N.

(2007). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Findings from the first grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing, 21, 413–436.

22.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92–99.

23.

Fuchs

L. S.

McMaster

K. N.

Al Otaiba

(2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum based measurement and dual discrepancy approach. In Swanson

H. L.

Harris

K. R.

(Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 431–449). New York, NY: Guilford.

24.

Fuchs

Mock

Morgan

P. L.

Young

C. L.

(2003), Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the LD construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171.

25.

GraphPad. (1995–2015). GraphPad statistics guide. Retrieved from http://www.graphpad.com/guides/prism/6/statistics/index.htm?stat_how_normality_tests_work.htm

26.

Hallahan

D. P.

(1992). Some thoughts on why the prevalence of learning disabilities has increased. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 523–528.

27.

Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. (n.d.). Sampling for telephone surveys. Retrieved from http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/instructors/setups/notes/sampling-telephone.jsp

28.

Lavrakas

P. J.

(1993). Telephone survey methods: Sampling, selection, and supervision (2nd ed.). Newberry Park, CA: Sage.

29.

MacMillan

D. L.

Gresham

F. M.

Bocian

K. M.

(1998). Discrepancy between definitions of LD and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314–326.

30.

MacMillan

D. L.

Gresham

F. M.

Bocian

K. M.

Lambros

K. M.

(1998). Current plight of borderline students: Where do they belong? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 83–94.

31.

Maternal and Child Health Bureau (in collaboration with the National Center for Health Statistics). (2003). National Survey of Children’s Health. 2003 NSCH [SPSS] indicator data set prepared by the Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health, Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.childhealthdata.org

32.

Maternal and Child Health Bureau (in collaboration with the National Center for Health Statistics). (2007). National Survey of Children’s Health. NSCH [SPSS] indicator data set prepared by the Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health, Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.childhealthdata.org

33.

Maternal and Child Health Bureau (in collaboration with the National Center for Health Statistics). (2011–2012). National Survey of Children’s Health. (2011/12) NSCH [SPSS] Indicator data set prepared by the Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health, Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.childhealthdata.org

34.

Myers

P. I.

Hammill

D. D.

(1990). LD: Basic concepts, assessment practices, and instructional strategies (4th ed.). Austin, TX: ProEd.

35.

Northwestern University. (1996). PROPHET StatGuide: Possible alternatives if your data violate normality test assumptions 1996. Retrieved from http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/statguidefiles/n-dist_alts.html

36.

O’Connor

R. E.

Bocian

K. M.

Beach

K. D.

Sanchez

(2013). Special education in a 4-year response to intervention (RtI) environment: Characteristics of students with learning disabilities and grade of identification. Learning Disabilties Research & Practice, 28, 98–112.

37.

O’Connor

R. E.

Harty

K. R.

Fulmer

(2005). Tiers of intervention in kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 532–538.

38.

Pullen

P. C.

Hallahan

D. P.

(2015). What is special education? In Bateman

B. D.

Lloyd

J. W.

Tankersley

(Eds.), Understanding special education Issues: Who, where, what, when, how and why (pp. 36–50). New York, NY: Routledge.

39.

Smith

P. J.

Hoaglin

D. C.

Battaglia

M. P.

Barker

L. E.

(2005) Statistical methodology of the National Immunization Survey, 1994–2002. Vital Health Statistics, 2, 1–64.

40.

Swanson

H. L.

(2000). Issues facing the field of LD. LD Quarterly, 23, 37–50.

41.

U.S. Department of Education. (1997). 19th annual report to Congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

42.

U.S. Department of Education. (2002). 24th annual report to congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.

43.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). 29th annual report to congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2007. Washington, DC: Author.

44.

U.S. Department of Education (2010). 32th annual report to congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2010. Washington, DC: Author.

45.

U.S. Department of Education (2014). 36th annual report to congress on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014. Washington, DC: Author.

46.

Ysseldyke

Algozzine

Epps

(1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practices in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.

47.

Zigmond

Pullen

P. C.

(2012, February). Does RTI meet the needs of students with learning disabilities? Special session presentation at the Learning Disabilities Association of America Conference, Philadelphia, PA.

48.

Zirkel

(2013). The trend in SLD enrollments and the role of RTI. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 473–479.