Complete agreement among professionals regarding the characteristics of learning disabilities and how those characteristics should be measured has yet to be attained. While a number of formulae based on standardized test scores have been proposed, none has been satisfactory for a variety of reasons. A model for identifying learning disabilities is presented in this paper which combines use of psychometric information with clinical judgement. Guidelines for combining objective and subjective sources of information are outlined, and examples of applications of the model in two case studies are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B. , Ysseldyke, J.E. and Shinn, M.E. (1982) 'Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities: When is a Discrepancy Severe?', Journal of School Psychology20:299-305.
2.
Baldwin, R.S. and Vaughn, S. (1989) 'Why Siegel's Arguments are Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities', Journal of Learning Disabilities22:513-520.
3.
Board of Trustees of the Council for Learning Disabilities (1986) 'Use of Discrepancy Formulas in the Identification of Learning Disabled Individuals', Learning Disability Quarterly9:245-245.
4.
Bryan, T. (1989) 'IQ and Learning Disabilities: A Perspective from Research on Social Factors', Journal of Learning Disabilities22:480-481.
5.
Cotman, C.W. and Lynch, G.F. (1988) 'The Neurobiology of Learning and Memory', in J.F. Kavanagh and T.J. Truss, Jr (eds) Learning Disabilities: Proceedings of the National Conference. Parkton, MD: York Press.
6.
Danielson, L.C. and Bauer, J.W. (1978) 'A Formula-based Classification of Learning Disabled Children: An Examination of the Issues', Journal of Learning Disabilities11:163-176.
7.
Gerber, M.M. and Semmel, M.I. (1984) 'Teacher as Imperfect Test: Reconceptualizing the Referral Process', Educational Psychologist19:137-148.
8.
Graham, S. and Harris, K.R. (1989) 'The Relevance of IQ in the Determination of Learning Disabilities: Abandoning Scores as Decision Makers', Journal of Learning Disabilities22:500-503.
9.
Gresham, F.M. , Reschly, D.J. and Carey, M.P. (1987) 'Teachers as "Tests": Classification Accuracy and Concurrent Validation in the Identification of Learning Disabled Children', School Psychology Review16:543-553.
10.
Hammill, D.D. (1990) 'On Defining Learning Disabilities: An Emerging Consensus', Journal of Learning Disabilities23:74-84.
11.
Johnson, D.J. (1988) 'Review of Research on Specific Reading, Writing, and Mathematics Disorders', in J.F. Kavanagh and T.J. Truss, Jr (eds) Learning Disabilities: Proceedings of the National Conference. Parkton, MD: York Press.
12.
Kauffman, J.M. (1985) 'Characteristics of Children's Behavior Disorders', Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.
13.
Leong, C.K. (1989) 'The Locus of So-Called IQ Test Results in Reading Disabilities', Journal of Learning Disabilities22:507-512.
14.
Lynch, E.W. and Lewis, R.B. (eds) (1988) Exceptional Children and Adults. Glenville: Scott Foresman.
15.
Lyon, G.R. (1989) 'IQ is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities: A Position in Search of Logic and Data', Journal of Learning Disabilities22:504-512.
16.
Meyen, E. (1989) 'Let's Not Confuse Test Scores with the Substance of the Discrepancy Model', Journal of Learning Disabilities22:482-483.
17.
Reynolds, C.R. (1984) 'Critical Measurement Issues in Learning Disabilities', Journal of Special Education18:451-476.
18.
Salvia, J. and Ysseldyke, J.E. (eds) (1988) Assessment in Special and Remedial Education (4th edn.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
19.
Siegel, L.S. (1989) 'IQ is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities', Journal of Learning Disabilities22:469-486.
20.
United States Office of Education (1977) 'Definition and Criteria for Defining Students as Learning Disabled', Federal Register, 42:250, p. 650683-650683. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.
