This study experimentally examined whether specific learning disability (SLD) identification model (i.e., ability-achievement discrepancy [Ab-Ach], response-to-intervention [RtI], and patterns of strengths and weaknesses [PSW]) was associated with SLD identification decisions, the confidence in the decision, and the perceived importance of different assessment data sources in identifying SLD. Participants (N = 264) reviewed a psychoeducational evaluation vignette and determined whether the student should be identified with SLD based on the identification criteria for their randomly assigned condition (i.e., Ab-Ach, RtI, or PSW). Results indicated that type of SLD identification model used did not predict SLD identification decision or the confidence in the decision. However, participant race was related to SLD identification decisions, and participant race, national certification, and years of experience were related to decision confidence. School psychologists rated progress monitoring data, standardized tests, and educational record reviews as the most salient assessment data sources in identifying SLD.
AgrestiA. (2013). Categorical data analysis. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
2.
AlsanM.GarrickO.GrazianiG. (2019). Does diversity matter for health? Experimental evidence from Oakland. American Economic Review, 109(12), 4071–4111. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181446
3.
ArtilesA. J. (1998). The dilemma of difference: Enriching the disproportionality discourse with theory and context. The Journal of Special Education, 32(1), 32–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002246699803200105
4.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B.TrentS. C.OsherD.OrtizA. (2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600303
5.
BarrettC. M. (2024). Best practices in applying multiple models to assessment and identification of learning disabilities. In HarrisonP.ProctorS.ThomasA. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology, Volume 1. National Association of School Psychologists.
6.
BarrettC.MakiK. E.MillerH.BurnsM. K.HajovskyD. B. (2025). Partitioning influences on SLD decision outcomes and confidence: school psychologists’ decision-making style, beliefs, and sociodemographic characteristics. Learning Disabilities Quarterly. Advanced online version. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487251319530
7.
BeaujeanA. A.BensonN. F.McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C. (2018). A misuse of IQ scores: Using the dual discrepancy/consistency model for identifying specific learning disabilities. Journal of Intelligence, 6(3), 36. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence6030036
8.
BensonN. F.MakiK. E.FloydR. G.EckertT. L.KranzlerJ. H.FeferS. A. (2020). A national survey of school psychologists’ practices in identifying specific learning disabilities. School Psychology, 35(2), 146–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000344
9.
BlanchettW. J. (2006). Disproportionate representation of African American students in special education: Acknowledging the role of white privilege and racism. Educational Researcher, 35(6), 24–28. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X035006024
10.
Brown WaescheJ. S.SchatschneiderC.ManerJ. K.AhmedY.WagnerR. K. (2011). Examining agreement and longitudinal stability among traditional and RTI-based definitions of reading disability using the affected-status agreement statistic. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44, 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410392048
11.
BurnsM. K.Peterson-BrownS.HaegeleK.RodriguezM.SchmittB.CooperM.ClaytonK.HutchesonS.ConnerC.HospJ.VanDerHeydenA. M. (2016). Meta-analysis of academic interventions derived from neuropsychological data. School Psychology Quarterly, 31(1), 28–42. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000117
12.
CattsH. W.PetscherY. A. (2022). Cumulative risk and resilience model of dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 55(3), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194211037062
13.
CottrellJ. M.BarrettC. A. (2016). Defining the undefinable: Operationalizing methods to identify specific learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 53, 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21892
DonovanS.CrossC. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/10128
16.
EppsS.YsseldykeJ. E.McGueM. (1984). “I know one when I see one”: Differentiating LD and non-LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 89–101. https://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1510265
17.
FinchH. (2022). An introduction to the analysis of ranked response data. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 27(7), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.7275/tgkh-qk47
18.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C.CostaM.PalmaK.LeahyM. A. (2018). Use of ability tests in the identification of specific learning disabilities within the context of an operational definition. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 608–642). The Guilford Press.
19.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
20.
FletcherJ. M.MiciakJ. (2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Clinical Neuropsychology, 32, 2–7. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acw103
21.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.LyonG. R.ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940503800201
22.
GartlandD.StrosniderR. (2020). The use of response to intervention to inform special education eligibility decisions for students with specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(4), 195–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948720949964
23.
GoforthA. N.FarmerR. L.KimS. Y.NaserS. C.LockwoodA. B.AffruntiN. W. (2021). Status of school psychology in 2020: Part 1, demographics of the NASP membership survey. NASP Research Reports, 5(2).
24.
GrigorenkoE. L.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.WagnerR. K.WillcuttE. G.FletcherJ. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000452
25.
HajovskyD.MakiK. E.ChestnutS. R.BarrettC. A.BurnsM. K. (2022). Predicting specific learning disability status in a RtI identification model: Comparing measures of achievement and cognitive ability. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 37, 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12292
26.
HallahanD. P.PullenP. C.WardD. (2013). A brief history of the field of learning disabilities. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 15–33). Guilford.
27.
HartC. M.LindsayC. A. (2024). Teacher-student race match and identification for discretionary educational services. American Educational Research Journal, 61(3), 474–507. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312241229413
28.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
29.
KovaleskiJ. F.VanDerHeydenA. M.RungeT. J.ZirkelP. A.ShapiroE. S. (2023). The RTI Approach to Evaluating Learning Disabilities (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
30.
KranzlerJ. H.GilbertK.RobertC. R.FloydR. G.BensonN. F. (2019). Further examination of a critical assumption underlying the dual-discrepancy/consistency approach to specific learning disability identification. School Psychology Review, 48(3), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2018-0008.V48-3
31.
LawrenceS. M. (1997). Beyond race awareness: White racial identity and multicultural teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487197048002004
32.
LilienfeldS. O.AmmiratiR.DavidM. (2012). Distinguishing science from pseudoscience in school psychology: Science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology, 50(1), 7–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006
33.
MakiK. E.BarrettC. A.HajovskyD.BurnsM. K. (2020). An examination of the relationships between specific learning disabilities identification and growth rate, achievement, cognitive ability, and student demographics. School Psychology, 35, 343–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719826296
34.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2019). A current landscape of specific learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implications. Psychology in the Schools, 56(1), 18–31. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22179
35.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2020). Specific learning disabilities identification: Do the identification methods and data matter?Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 63–74.
36.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2022). Special education evaluation practices and procedures: Implications for referral and eligibility decisions. Contemporary School Psychology, 26, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00335-4
37.
MakiK. E.BurnsM. K.SullivanA. (2017). Learning disability identification consistency: The impact of methodology and student evaluation data. School Psychology Quarterly, 32(2), 254–267. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000165
38.
MakiK. E.BurnsM. K.SullivanA. L. (2018). School psychologists’ confidence in learning disability identification decisions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(4), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948718769251
39.
MakiK. E.FloydR. G.RobersonT. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000109
40.
MakiK. E.McGillR. J.ConoyerS. J.FeferS. A.WardT. (2021). Assessing the impact of cumulative data presentation on specific learning disabilities identification decisions. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39, 372–380. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920983951
41.
McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007
42.
MeghaniS. H.BrooksJ. M.Gipson-JonesT.WaiteR.Whitfield-HarrisL.DeatrickJ. A. (2009). Patient-provider race-concordance: Does It matter in improving minority patients’ health outcomes?Ethnicity & Health, 14(1), 107–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13557850802227031
43.
MiciakJ.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K.VaughnS.TolarT. D. (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 21–37. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/spq0000037
44.
MiciakJ.TaylorW. P.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M. (2018). Simulation of LD identification accuracy using a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses method with multiple measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916683287
45.
MorganP. L.FarkasG. (2016). Evidence of minority under-representation in special education and its implications for school psychologists. NASP Communique, 44, 6.
46.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.CookM.StrassfeldN. M.HillemeierM. M.PunW. H.SchusslerD. L. (2017). Are Black children disproportionately overrepresented in special education? A best-evidence synthesis. Exceptional Children, 83(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916664042
47.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.CookM.StrassfeldN. M.HillemeierM. M.PunW. H.WangY.SchusslerD. L. (2018). Are Hispanic, Asian, native American, or language-minority children overrepresented in special education?Exceptional Children, 84(3), 261–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402917748303
ReddingC. (2019). A teacher like me: A review of the effect of student–teacher racial/ethnic matching on teacher perceptions of students and student academic and behavioral outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 89(4), 499–535. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319853545
51.
SchatschneiderC.WagnerR. K.CrawfordE. C. (2008). The importance of measuring growth in response to intervention models: Testing a core assumption. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 308–315.
52.
SchroederM.DrefsM. A.CormierD. C. (2017). The messiness of LD identification: Contributions of diagnostic criteria and clinical judgement. Canadian Psychology, 58(3), 218–227. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/cap0000115
53.
SkibaR. J.ArtilesA.KozleskiE.LosenD. J.HarryE. G. (2016). Risks and consequences of oversimplifying educational inequities: A response to Morgan et al. (2016). Educational Researcher, 45, 221–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X16644606
54.
SkibaR. J.SimmonsA. B.RitterS.GibbA. C.RauschM. K.CuadradoJ.ChungC. G. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 264–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290807400301
55.
SpenglerP. M.PilipisL. A. (2015). A comprehensive meta-reanalysis of the robustness of the experience-accuracy effect in clinical judgment. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 360–378. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/cou0000065
56.
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(2), 469–518. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312039002469
57.
SullivanA. L.ArtilesA. J. (2011). Theorizing racial inequity in special education: Applying structural theory to disproportionality. Urban Education, 46, 1526–1552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085911416014
58.
SullivanA. L.BalA. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on risk. Exceptional Children, 79, 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900406
59.
SullivanA. L.SadehS.HouriA. K. (2019). Are school psychologists’ special education eligibility decisions reliable and unbiased? A multi-study experimental investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.006
60.
TaylorW. P.MiciakJ.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2017). Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 446–457. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/pas0000356
61.
TobiasS.ColeC.ZibrinM.BodlakovaV. (1982). Teacher–student ethnicity and recommendations for special education referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(1), 72. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/0022-0663.74.1.72
62.
TosteJ. R.ComptonD. L.FuchsD.FuchsL. S.GilbertJ. K.ChoE.BoutonB. D. (2014). Understanding unresponsiveness to tier 2 reading intervention: Exploring the classification and profiles of adequate and inadequate responders in first grade. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(4), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948713518336
63.
TrierweilerS. J.NeighborsH. W.MundayC.ThompsonE. E.JacksonJ. S.BinionV. J. (2006). Differences in patterns of symptom attribution in diagnosing schizophrenia between African American and non-African American clinicians. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 76, 151–160. https://doi.org//l0.103710002.9432.76.2.154
van RynM.FuS. S. (2003). Paved with good intentions: Do public health and human service providers contribute to racial/ethnic disparities in health?American Journal of Public Health, 93(2), 248–255. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.248
66.
WatkinsM. W. (2009). Errors in diagnostic decision making and clinical judgement. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 210–229). Wiley.
67.
WhittakerM.BurnsM. K. (2019). Evaluation of specific learning disabilities: Allowable methods of identification and their implications. National Center for Learning Disabilities.
68.
WilcoxG.SchroederM. (2015). What comes before report writing? Attending to clinical reasoning and thinking errors in school psychology. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33, 652–661. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914562212
