The current article investigates whether the mathematics achievement of students in special education can be used to identify those who share common cognitive skills that may not be in concordance with their disability labels. Latent class analysis of a comprehensive test of mathematics taken by fourth-grade students with various disabilities reveals that a model with 2 latent classes is adequate to characterize the latent structure of the data. A parallel relationship of response profiles across the 2 classes suggests differences in the levels of mathematical ability (quantitative), rather than differences in the type of mathematical ability (qualitative), between the 2 latent classes in terms of generic mathematical proficiency. Cross-validation on a separate data set with careful matching of content areas within the math test verified this conclusion. Although a significant relationship exists between the identified latent classes and various disabilities, the analysis also found common mathematical problem-solving behaviors across disability categories. Implications for intervention and limitations of the current study are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agresti, A. (1996). An introduction to categorical data analysis. New York: Wiley.
Bensmail, H., Celeux, C., Raftery, A.E., & Robert, C.P. (1997). Inference in model-based clustering. Statistics and Computing, 7, 1—10.
4.
Brinker, R.P. (1990). In search of the foundation of special education: Who are the individuals and what are the differences? The Journal of Special Education, 24, 174—184.
5.
Caulfield, M.B., Fischel, J.E., DeBaryshe, B.D., & Whitehurst, G.J. (1989). Behavioral correlates of developmental expressive language disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 17, 187—201.
6.
Cole, K.N., Mills, P.E., Dale, P.S., & Jenkins, J.R. (1991). Effects of preschool integration for children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 58, 36—45.
7.
Cressie, N.A.C., & Read, T.R.C. (1984). Multinomial goodness-of-fit tests. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B, 46, 440—464.
8.
Dayton, C.M. (1998). Latent class scaling analysis. Sage University papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9.
Deno, S.L. (1990). Individual differences and individual difference: The essential difference of special education. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 160—173.
10.
Efron, B., & Tibshirani, R.J. (1993). An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman & Hall.
11.
Embretson, S.E., & Reise, S.P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
12.
Embretson, S.E., & Yang, X. (in press). Item response theory. In G. Camilli, P. Elmore, & J. Green (Eds.). Complementary research methods in education, 3rd edition. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association .
13.
Everitt, B.S., & Hand, D.J. (1981). Finite mixture models. New York: Chapman and Hall.
14.
Everitt, B.S. (1993). Cluster analysis. London: Edward Arnold.
15.
Formann, A.K. (1985). Constrained latent class models: Theory and applications . British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology , 38, 87—111.
16.
Fraley, C., & Raftery, A.E. (1998). MCLUST: Software for model-based cluster and discriminant analysis (Tech. Rep. No. 342). University of Washington, Seattle: Department of Statistics.
17.
Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Stuebing, K.K., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading disability: A longitudinal, individual growth curves analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 3—17.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1990). Introduction to special section: The importance of individual differences to special educator effectiveness. The Journal of Special Education, 24, 135—138.
19.
Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B.W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 453—465.
20.
Griffith, P.L., Rogers-Adkinson, D.L., & Cusick, G.M. (1997). Comparing language disorders in two groups of students with severe behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders , 22, 160—166.
21.
Gulliksen. H. (1950). Theory of mental test. New York: Wiley.
22.
Jöreskog, K.G. (1971). Simultaneous factor analysis in several populations . Psychometrika, 36, 409—426.
23.
Jorgensen, M., & Hunt, L. (1996). Mixture model clustering of data sets with categorical and continuous variables. Proceedings of the Conference ISIS '96, Australia, 375—384.
24.
Kansas State Board of Education. (1999). Kansas curricular standards for mathematics. Topeka, KS : Author. Available at www.ksde.org
25.
Kansas State Department of Education. (2001 ). Kansas State regulations for special education. Topeka, KS: Author. Available at http://www.kansped.org/ksde/processchg/spfc/apE.pdf
26.
Kaufman, L., & Rousseeuw, P.J. (1990). Finding groups in data: An introduction to cluster analysis. New York: Wiley.
Li, W., & Nyholt, D.R. (2001). Marker selection by Akaike information criterion and Bayesian information criterion. Genetic Epidemiology, 21(Suppl. 1), 272—277.
29.
Lin, T.H., & Dayton, C.M. (1997). Model-selection information criteria for non-nested latent class models. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 22, 249—264.
30.
Lloyd, J.W. (1984). How shall we individualize instruction—or should we? Remedial and Special Education, 5, 7—15.
31.
Loehlin, J.C. (1998). Latent variable models: An introduction to factor, path and structural analysis (3rd ed.) New Jersey: Erlbaum.
32.
Luke, G., & Muthén, B. (in press). Investigating population heterogeneity with factor mixture models. Psychological Methods.
33.
Lyon, G.R. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities: A position in search of logic and data. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 504—512.
34.
MacMillan, 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.
35.
McArthur, G.M., Hogben, J.H., Edwards, V.T., Heath, S.M., & Mengler, E.D. (2000). On the “specifics” of specific reading disability and specific language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 869—874.
36.
McCutcheon, A.L. (1987). Latent class analysis. Sage university papers series on quantitative applications in the social sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
McLachlan, G.J., & Basford, K.E. (1988). Mixture models: Inference and application to clustering . New York: Marcel Dekker.
38.
McLachlan, G.J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York: Wiley.
39.
McLachlan, G.J., Peel, D., Basford, K.E., & Adams, P. (1999). The EMMIX software for the fitting of mixtures of normal and t-components. Journal of Statistical Software , 4(2).
40.
Read, T.R.C., & Cressie, N.A.C. (1988). Goodness-of-fit statistics for discrete multivariate data. New York: Springer Verlag.
41.
Reschly, D.J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV, (pp. 3—20). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
42.
Shaywitz, B.A., Fletcher, J.M., Holahan, J.M., & Shaywitz, S.E. (1992). Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: Results from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 639—648.
43.
Siegel, L.S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469—478.
44.
Sheehan, J.K., & Han, T. (1996). Hierarchical modeling techniques to analyze contextual effects: What happened to the aptitude by treatment design? Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 9(4), 4—7.
45.
Simpson, E.H. (1951). The interpretation of interactions in contingency tables. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, B (13), 238—241.
46.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., & Leavey, M. (1984). Effects of team assisted individualization on the mathematics achievement of academically handicapped and nonhandicapped students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 813—819.
47.
Speece, D.L. (1990). Aptitude-treatment interactions: Bad rap or bad idea? The Journal of Special Education, 24, 139—149.
48.
Stage, S.A., Abbott, R.D., Jenkins, J.R., & Berninger, V.W. (2003). Predicting response to early reading intervention from verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities, attention ratings, and verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy: Failure to validate discrepancy method. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 24—33.
49.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum .
50.
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.
51.
Tomblin, J.B., Zhang, X., & Buckwalter, P. (2000). The association of reading disability, behavioral disorders, and language impairment among second-grade children. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 473—482.
52.
Toppelberg, C.O., & Shapiro, T. (2000). Language disorders: A 10-year research update review. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 39, 143—152.
53.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140—147.
54.
Vermunt, J.K., & Magidson, J. (2000). Latent GOLD's user's guide. Boston: Statistical Innovations, Inc.
55.
Vermunt, J.K., & Magidson, J. (2002a). Latent class cluster analysis. In J. A. Hagenaars & A. L. McCutcheon (Eds.), Applied latent class analysis (pp. 89—106). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
56.
Vermunt, J.K., & Magidson, J. (2002b). Latent class models for clustering: A comparison with K-means. Canadian Journal of Marketing Research, 20, 37—44.
57.
Vermunt, J.K., & Magidson, J. (in press). Latent class analysis. In M. Lewis-Beck, A. Bryman, & T. F. Liao (Eds.), Encyclopedia of research methods for the social sciences. Newbury Park: Sage.
58.
Von Davier, M. (2001). WINMIRA2001 [Computer software]. St. Paul, MN: Assessment Systems Corporation.
59.
Zimowski, M., Muraki, E., Mislevy, R.J., & Bock, R.D. (2002). BILOG-MG 3: Item analysis and test scoring with binary logistic models for multiple groups [Computer software]. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.
