Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students with Learning Disabilities: A Paper Prepared by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online February, 2011
Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation of Students with Learning Disabilities: A Paper Prepared by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD)1 strongly supports comprehensive assessment and evaluation of students with learning disabilities by a multidisciplinary team for the identification and diagnosis of students with learning disabilities. Comprehensive assessment of individual students requires the use of multiple data sources. These sources may include standardized tests, informal measures, observations, student self-reports, parent reports, and progress monitoring data from response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches (NJCLD, 2005). Reliance on any single criterion for assessment or evaluation is not comprehensive, nor is a group assessment, such as universal screening or statewide academic assessment tests, sufficient for comprehensive assessment or evaluation.
This paper is intended to inform administrators, educators, parents, and others concerned about the effective identification and education of students with learning disabilities about the components, processes, and participants necessary for comprehensive assessment and evaluation, as well as optimal practices that should further enhance the education of students with learning disabilities. The NJCLD has long recognized that inappropriate assessment and evaluation practices may result in questionable incidence rates for learning disabilities (NJCLD, 2001a). Similarly, the NJCLD (2001a, 2001b) has provided a solid foundation for addressing the issues of assessment, evaluation, identification, and eligibility of students with learning disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AfflerbachP. (2007). Understanding and using reading assessment. Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
2.
AltwergerB.JordanN.SheltonN. R. (2007). Re-reading fluency: Process, practice, and policy. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
3.
Americans with Disabilities Act Amendments Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. §§ 1211let seq.) as amended by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 2008 (PL 110-325). Available from www.ada.gov/pubs/adastatute08.htm.
4.
Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities and Preschool Grants for Children with Disabilities; Final Rule, 71 Fed. Reg. 46540 (Aug. 14, 2006) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. Parts 300 and 301). Retrieved from http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/pdf/06-6656.pdf.
5.
AutyW.BielawskiP.DeeterT.HirataG.Hovanetz-LassilaC.RheimJ. (2008). Implementer's guide to growth models. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
6.
BradleyR.DanielsonR. L.HallahanD. P. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
7.
Callard-SzulgitR. (2008). Twice exceptional: A guide for assisting students who are both academically gifted and learning disabled. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
8.
ClayM. (1998). By different paths to common outcomes. York, ME: Stenhouse.
9.
ClayM. (2002). An observational survey of early literacy achievement. Auckland, New Zealand: Heinemann.
10.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2009). Common core state standards initiative. Washington, DC: Author. Available from www.ccsso.org/federal_programs/13286.cfm.
11.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (PL 89-10, 79 Stat. 27, 20 U.S.C. ch.70) enacted April 11, 1965. Reauthorized as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Available from www.ed/gov/Nochildleftbehind.
12.
FigueroaR. A.NewsomeP. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English language learners: Is it nondiscriminatory?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (3), 206–214.
13.
FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.ShaywitzS. E.LyonG. R.FoormanB. R.StuebingK. K.ShaywitzB. A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 186–203.
14.
FletcherJ.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
15.
FoormanB.FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.LynnA. (1996). Relation of phonological and orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two approaches to regression-based, reading-level-match designs. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 639–652.
16.
FoormanB. R.FrancisD. H.FletcherJ. M.SchatschneiderC.MehtaP. (1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 37–55.
17.
FrancisD. J.FletcherJ. M.StuebingK. K. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.
18.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2000). Building student capacity to work productively during peer-assisted reading activities. In TaylorB.GravesM.van den BroekF. (Eds.), Reading for meaning: Fostering comprehension in the middle grades (pp. 95–115). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
19.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.ThompsonA.Al OtaibaS.YenL.YangN.Y. (2001). Is reading important in reading readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as field implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251–267.
20.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Promoting word recognition, fluency, and reading comprehension in young children. Journal of Special Education, 39, 34–44.
21.
GammS. (2007). Disproportionaty in special education: Identifying where and why overidentification of minority students occurs. Bethesda, MD: LRP.
22.
GoldschmidtP.RoschewskiP.ChoiK.AutyW.HebblerS.BlankR.WilliamsA. (2005). Policymakers' guide to growth models for school accountability: How do accountability models differ?Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
23.
GoodmanY.WatsonD.BurkeC. (2005). Reading miscue inventory: From evaluation to instruction. Katonah, NY: Owen.
24.
GreshamF. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467–464). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
GuthrieJ. T.WigfieldA. (2000). Engagement and motivation in reading. In KamilM. L.MosenthalP. B.PearsonP. D.BarrR. (Eds.), The handbook of reading research (Vol. 3, pp. 403–422). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
26.
HallahanD. P.MercerC. D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In BradleyR.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1–67). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27.
HamptonN. Z.MasonE. (2003). Learning disabilities, gender, sources of efficacy, self-efficacy beliefs, and academic achievement in high school students. Journal of School Psychology, 41 (2), 101–112.
JenkinsJ. R.GraffJ. J.MigliorettiD. L. (2009). Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75, 151–163.
30.
KlingnerJ. K.HarryB. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and placement conferences. Teachers College Record, 108 (11), 2247–2281.
31.
KuhnM. R.SchwanenflugelP. J.MeisingerE. B. (2010). Aligning theory and assessment of reading fluency: Automaticity, prosody, and definitions of fluency. Reading Research Quarterly, 45 (2), 231.
32.
LiuK. K.OrtizA. A.WilkinsonC. K.RobertsonP.KushnerM. (2008, June). From early childhood special education to special education resource rooms: Identification, assessment, and eligibility determinations for English language learners with reading-related disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33 (3), 177–187.
33.
MacSwanJ.RolstadK. (2006). How language proficiency tests mislead us about ability: Implications for English language learner placement in special education. Teachers College Record, 108 (11), 2234–2328.
34.
MarinakB.GambrellL. (2008). Intrinsic motivation and rewards: What sustains young children's engagement with text?Literacy Research and Instruction, 47 (1), 9–26.
35.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2001a). Issues in learning disabilities: Assessment and diagnosis. In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 55–61). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. (Original work published 1987).
36.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2001b). Operationalizing the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities for ongoing assessment in schools. In Collective perspectives on issues affecting learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 39–53). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. (Original work published 1997).
37.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Available from www.ldonline.org/njcld.
38.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2007). The documentation disconnect for students with learning disabilities: Improving access to postsecondary disability services. Available from www.ldonline.org/njcld.
39.
Newman-GoncharR.ClarkeB.GerstenR. (2009). A summary of nine key studies: Multi-tier intervention and response to interventions for students struggling in mathematics. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Available from www.centeroninstruction.org.
40.
OlsonR. (2005). The study of dyslexia. New York, NY: Springer.
41.
PetrovicJ. E. (Ed.). (2010). International perspectives on bilingual education: Policy, practice, and controversy. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishers.
42.
PhillipsV.WongC. (2010, February). Tying together the common core of standards, instruction, and assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 91 (5), 31–42.
43.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002, July). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Available from www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation.
44.
PriceC.McCroryE. (2005). The science of reading: A handbook. Oxford, United Kingdom: Blackwell.
45.
PughK. R.MenciW. E.JennerA. R.KatzL.FrostS. J.LeeJ. R.ShaywitzB. A. (2000). Functional neuroimaging studies of reading and reading disability (developmental dyslexia). Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Review, 6, 207–213.
46.
RasinskiT. V.HoffmanT. V. (2003). Theory and research into practice: Oral reading in the school literacy curriculum. Reading Research Quarterly, 38, 510–522.
47.
ShawS. F.MadausJ. W.DukesL. L. (2010). Preparing students with disabilities for college success: A practical guide for transition planning. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
48.
ShaywitzB. A.ShaywitzS. E.PughK. R.MenciW. E.FulbrightR. K.SkudlarskiP.GoreJ. C. (2002). Disruption of posterior brain systems for reading in children with developmental dyslexia. Biological Psychiatry, 52, 101–110.
49.
StageS.JacobsenM. (2001). Children's reading comprehension and oral reading fluency in easy text predicts student success on state-mandated performance-based assessment using oral reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 30, 407–419.
50.
StanovichK. E.SiegelL. S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.
51.
Tapia-PáezI.TammimiesK.MassinenS.RoyA. L.KereJ. (2008). The complex of TFII-I, PARP1, and SFPQ proteins regulates the DYX1C1 gene implicated in neuronal migration and dyslexia. The FASEB Journal, 22, 3001–3009.
52.
TorgesenJ. K. (2004). Lessons learned from research on interventions for students who have difficulty learning to read. In McCardleP.ChhabraV. (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 355–382). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
53.
TorgesenJ. K.WagnerR. K.RashotteC. A.RoseE.LindamoodP.ConwayJ.GarvinC. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579–594.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. (2009). 28th annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2006 (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Author.
WanzekJ.RobertsG.Linan-ThompsonS.VaughnS.WoodruffA.MurrayC. (2010). Differences in the relationship of oral reading fluency and high stakes measures of reading comprehension. Assessment of Effective Intervention, 35, 67–77.
58.
WileyH.DenoS. (2005). Oral reading and maze measures as predictors of success for English language learners on a state-standards assessment. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 207–214.
59.
WilkinsonC.Y.OrtizA. A.RobertsonP. M.KushnerM. I. (2006). English language learners with reading-related LD: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibility determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39 (2), 129–141.
60.
YsseldykeJ. E. (2002). Response to “Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives.” In BradleyT.DanielsonL.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 89–91). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
