Specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification has consistently been shown to be problematic; however, research has largely focused on SLD identification using test scores only. The present study, therefore, examined SLD identification decisions across identification methods and student evaluation data levels, including test scores, background information, and observations. Participants included 461 school psychologists who were randomly assigned to one of 12 conditions to make identification decisions. Results indicated that response to intervention (RtI) methods resulted in greater identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy while pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) resulted in lower identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy. However, background information and observation data did not impact SLD identification consistency. Implications for practice and research are also discussed.
AlgozzineB.YsseldykeJ. E. (1981). Special education services for normal children: Better safe than sorry?Exceptional Children, 48, 239–243.
2.
AlgozzineB.YsseldykeJ. E.McGueM. (1995). Differentiating low achieving students: Thoughts on setting the record straight. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 103, 140–145.
3.
BarnettD. W.MacmannG. M. (1992). Aptitude-achievement discrepancy scores: Accuracy in analysis misdirected. School Psychology Review, 21, 494–508.
4.
BarthA. E.StuebingK. K.AnthonyJ. L.DentonC. A.MathesP. G.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 296–307. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.004
5.
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. doi:10.1177/0022219410392048
6.
ChenH.CohenP.ChenS. (2009). How big is a big odds ratio? Interpreting the magnitudes of odds ratios in epidemiological studies. Communications in Statistics: Simulation and Computation, 39, 860–864. doi:10.1080/036109113650383
7.
CicchettiD. V. (2011). On the reliability and accuracy of the evaluative method for identifying evidence-based practices in autism. In ReichowB.DoehringP.CichettiD. V.VolkmarF. R. (Eds.), Evidence-based practices and treatments for children with autism (pp. 41–51). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-6975-0_3
8.
CohenJ. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement, 7, 249–253. doi:10.1177/014662168300700301
9.
CurtisM. J.CastilloJ. M.GelleyC. (2012). School psychology 2010: Demographics, employment, and the context for professional practices—Part 1. NASP Communique, 40(7), 28–30.
10.
EppsS.YsseldykeJ. E.McGueM. (1984). “I know one when I see one”: Differentiating LD and non-LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 89-101. doi:10.2307/1510265
11.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C.MascoloJ. T. (2011). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. In FlanganD. P.OrtizS. O.AlfonsoV. C. (Eds.), Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment (Vol. 84, pp. 233–298). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
12.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C.SyM. C.MascoloJ. T.McDonoughE. M.OrtizS. O. (2018). Dual discrepancy/consistency operational definition of SLD: Integrating multiple data sources and multiple data-gathering methods. In AlfonsoV. C.FlanaganD. P. (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 329–430). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
13.
FlanaganD. P.FiorelloC. A.OritzS. O. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 739–760.
14.
FlanaganD. P.SchneiderW. J. (2016). Cross-Battery Assessment? XBA PSW? A case of mistaken identity: A commentary on Kranzler and colleagues’ “Classification agreement analysis of Cross-Battery Assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children and youth.”International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4, 137–145. doi:10.1080/21683603.2016.1192852
15.
FleissJ. L.LevinB.PaikM. C. (2003). Statistical methods for rates and proportions (3rd ed.). New York, NY: John Wiley. doi:10.1002/0471445428
16.
FletcherJ. M. (2012). Classification and identification of learning disabilities. In WongB.ButlerD. L. (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed., pp. 1–25). Waltham, MA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-388409-1.00001-1
17.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
18.
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. doi:10.1177/00222194050380020101
19.
HaleJ. B.FiorelloC. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
20.
HoskynM.SwansonH. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119.
21.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108–446,118Stat. 2647; 2004 Enacted H.R. 1350; 108 Enacted H.R. 1350 (Final regulations implementing IDEA 2004 were published in the Federal Register, Monday, August 14, 2006, pp. 46540–46845).
22.
KaufmanA. S. (1994). Intelligent testing with the WISC-III. New York, NY: John Wiley.
23.
KovaleskiJ.VanDerHeydenA. M.ShapiroE. S. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
KranzlerJ. H.FloydR. G.BensonN.ZaboskiB.ThibodauxL. (2016). Cross-battery Assessment pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach to the identification of specific learning disorders: Evidence-based practice or pseudoscience?International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4, 146–157. doi:10.1080/21683603.2016.1192855
25.
LichtensteinR. (2014). Best practices in identifying learning disabilities. In HarrisonP. L.ThomasA. (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology: Data-based and collaborative decision making (pp. 331–354). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
26.
LyonG. R.FletcherJ. M.ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A.TorgensenJ. K.WoodF. B.. . . OlsonR. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In FinnC. E.RotherhamA. J.HokansonC. R. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
27.
MacmannG. M.BarnettD. W. (1997). Myth of the master detective: Reliability of interpretations for Kaufman’s “intelligent testing” approach to the WISC–III. School Psychology Review, 12, 197–234.
28.
MakiK. E. (2018). Response to intervention for specific learning disabilities identification: The impact of graduate preparation and experience on identification consistency. School Psychology Forum, 12, 6–16.
29.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2019). A current landscape of specific learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implications. Psychology in the Schools, 56, 18–31. doi:10.1002/pits.22179
30.
MakiK. E.BurnsM. K.SullivanA. (2017). Learning disability identification consistency: The impact of methodology and student evaluation data. School Psychology Quarterly, 32, 254–267. doi:10.1037/spq0000165
31.
MakiK. E.FloydR. G.RobersonT. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 457–469. doi:10.1037/spq0000109
32.
MayesS. D.CalhounS. L.BixlerE. O.ZimmermanD. N. (2009). IQ and neuropsychological predictors of academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 238–241. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.001
33.
McGillR. J.BusseR. T. (2017). When theory trumps science: A critique of the PSW model for SLD identification. Contemporary School Psychology, 21, 10–18. doi:10.1007/s40688-016-0094-x
34.
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. doi:10.1037/spq0000037
35.
MiciakJ.TaylorW. P.DentonC. A.FletcherJ. M. (2015). The effect of achievement test selection on identification of learning disabilities within a patterns of strengths and weaknesses framework. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 321–334. doi:10.1037/spq0000091
36.
MiciakJ.WilliamsJ. L.TaylorW. P.CirinoP. T.FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2016). Do processing patterns of strengths and weaknesses predict differential treatment response?Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 898. doi:10.1037/edu0000096
37.
NaglieriJ. A.FeiferS. G. (2018). Pattern of strengths and weaknesses made easy: The discrepancy consistency method. In FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C. (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (2nd ed., pp. 431–474). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
ProctorB.PrevattF. (2003). Agreement among four models used for diagnosing learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 459–466. doi:10.1177/0022219403036005070
40.
ReynoldsC. R.ShaywitzS. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145. doi:10.1037/a0016158
41.
SalviaJ.YsseldykeJ.BoltS. (2012). Assessment in special and inclusive education. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
42.
SchroederM.DrefsM. A.CormierD. C. (2017). The messiness of LD identification: Contributions of diagnostic criteria and clinical judgment. Canadian Psychology, 58, 218–227. doi:10.1037/cap0000115
43.
ShaywitzB. A.FletcherJ. M.HolahanJ. M.ShaywitzS. E. (1992). Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability: Results from the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 639–648. doi:10.1177/002221949202501003
44.
StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M.Branum-MartinL.FrancisD. J. (2012). Evaluation of the technical adequacy of three methods for identifying specific learning disabilities based on cognitive discrepancies. School Psychology Review, 41, 3–22.
45.
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, 469–518. doi:10.3102/00028312039002469
46.
TaylorW. P.MiciakJ.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2017). Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological Assessment, 29, 446-457. doi:10.1037/pas0000356
47.
U.S. Office of Education. (1975, November29). Education for All Handicapped Children Act (Public Law No. 94-142). 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400 et seq.
48.
VaughnS.FletcherJ. M. (2012). Response to intervention with secondary school students with reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 244–256. doi:10.1177/0022219412442157
49.
VaughnS.FuchsL. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070
50.
YsseldykeJ. (2005). Assessment and decision making for students with learning disabilities: What if this is as good as it gets?Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 125–128. doi:10.2307/1593610
51.
YsseldykeJ. E.AlgozzineB.RicheyL.GradenJ. (1982). Declaring students eligible for learning disability services: Why bother with the data?Learning Disability Quarterly, 5, 37–44. doi:10.2307/1510614
