Accurate and timely identification of reading disabilities (RDs) is essential for providing appropriate and effective remediation for struggling readers. However, practices for identifying RDs lack sufficient documentation within and across educational and clinical settings. The wide range of possible practices intended to identify struggling readers can render the field vulnerable to inconsistencies in how the needs of struggling readers are recognized and supported. To better understand the range of current practices used to identify RDs in school-age children, we created and disseminated a survey nationally, and analyzed data from 965 practitioners. The findings indicate lengthy timelines to identify RDs; substantial variability in the composition of assessment teams, identification criteria, and diagnostic labels; and notable opportunities for enhancing practitioner training experiences. This study aims to promote cross-contextual dialogue about the identification of RDs and their implications for students’ educational experiences.
Al OtaibaS.ConnorC. M.FolsomJ. S.GreulichL.MeadowsJ.LiZ. (2011). Assessment data–informed guidance to individualize kindergarten reading instruction: Findings from a cluster-randomized control field trial. The Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 535–560. https://doi.org/10.1086/659031
Barnard-BrakL.StevensT. (2019). Association of summer extended school year services and academic regression. The School Psychologist, 73(1), 3–10. https://bit.ly/35mThbM
4.
Barnard-BrakL.StevensT. (2020). Criteria for determining eligibility for extended school year services. The Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466920911468
5.
BeasleyT. M.SchumackerR. E. (1995). Multiple regression approach to analyzing contingency tables: Post hoc and planned comparison procedures. The Journal of Experimental Education, 64(1), 79–93. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1995.9943797
6.
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
7.
BerkeleyS.ScanlonD.BaileyT. R.SuttonJ. C.SaccoD. M. (2020). A snapshot of RTI implementation a decade later: New picture, same story. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(5), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219420915867
8.
BraatenE. (2020, February24). Playing the insurance game: When is testing covered?MGH Clay Center for Young Healthy Minds. http://bit.ly/39dxCE7
9.
BurnsM. K.SenesacB. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43(5), 393–406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2005.09.003
10.
CainK. (2009). Making sense of text: Skills that support text comprehension and its development. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 35, 11–14. https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/26618/
11.
CarterN.PraterM. A.JacksonA.MarchantM. (2009). Educators’ perceptions of collaborative planning processes for students with disabilities. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 54(1), 60–70. https://doi.org/10.3200/PSFL.54.1.60-70
12.
ConnorC. M.AlbertoP. A.ComptonD. L.O’ConnorR. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences Research Centers (NCSER 2014– 3000). National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/
13.
CottrellJ. M.BarrettC. A. (2016). Defining the undefinable: Operationalization of methods to identify specific learning disabilities among practicing school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 53(2), 143–157. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21892
14.
de MesquitaP. B. (1992). Diagnostic problem solving of school psychologists: Scientific method or guesswork?Journal of School Psychology, 30(3), 269–291. https://doi.org/c7jmrz
15.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Press.
16.
FletcherJ. M.VaughnS. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x
17.
FoormanB. R.MoatsL. C. (2004). Conditions for sustaining research-based practices in early reading instruction. Remedial and Special Education, 25(1), 51–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325040250010601
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(2), 98–108. https://doi.org/b92s46
19.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–99. https://doi.org/fk4x2p
20.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.McMasterK. N.Al OtaibaS. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum based measurement and dual discrepancy approach. In SwansonH. L.HarrisK. R.GrahamS. (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 431–449). Guilford Press.
21.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L.AllinderR. M. (1991). The contribution of skills analysis to curriculum-based measurement in spelling. Exceptional Children, 57(5), 443–452. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440299105700507
HaleJ.AlfonsoV.BerningerV.BrackenB.ChristoC.ClarkE.CohenM.DavisA.DeckerS.DencklaM.DumontR.ElliottC.FeiferS.FiorelloC.FlanaganD.Fletcher-JanzenE.GearyD.GerberM.GernerM.. . . YalofJ. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300310
24.
HollenbeckA. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 137–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00238.x
JoshiR. M.AaronP. G. (2012). Componential Model of Reading (CMR): Validation studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 387–390. https://doi.org/fp76
27.
JoshiR. M.BinksE.HougenM.DahlgrenM. E.Ocker-DeanE.SmithD. L. (2009). Why elementary teachers might be inadequately prepared to teach reading. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219409338736
28.
KamaraC. A. (2015). Neurolinguistic approach to reading: A guide for speech-language pathologists treating dyslexia. Plural.
29.
KimY.-S. G. (2020). Hierarchical and dynamic relations of language and cognitive skills to reading comprehension: Testing the direct and indirect effects model of reading (DIER). Journal of Educational Psychology, 112(4), 667–684. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000407
30.
KlingnerJ. K.HarryB. (2006). The special education referral and decision-making process for English language learners: Child study team meetings and staffings. Teachers College Record, 108(11), 2247–2281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9620.2006.00781.x
31.
LemonsC. J.OtaibaS. A.ConwayS. J.MelladoDeLa CruzV. (2016). Improving professional development to enhance reading outcomes for students in special education: Improving PD. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 2016(154), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1002/cad.20177
32.
MachekG. R.NelsonJ. M. (2007). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of practicing school psychologists. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00239.x
33.
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
34.
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
35.
MakiK. E.FloydR. G.RobersonT. (2015). State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review. School Psychology Quarterly, 30(4), 457–469. https://doi.org/f73x9x
36.
MatherN.GreggN. (2006). Specific Learning Disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(1), 99–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.99
37.
MatherN.WendlingB. J. (2012). Essentials of dyslexia assessment and intervention. Wiley.
38.
McCutchenD.AbbottR. D.GreenL. B.BeretvasS. N.CoxS.PotterN. S.QuirogaT.GrayA. L. (2002). Beginning literacy: Links among teacher knowledge, teacher practice, and student learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 69–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500106
39.
MellardD. F.McKnightM.WoodsK. (2009). Response to Intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(4), 186–195. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00292.x
40.
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(1), 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000037
41.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2018). Forward together: Helping educators unlock the power of students who learn differently. https://bit.ly/3s7ft3C
42.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2019). Evaluation for specific learning disabilities: Allowable methods of identification and their implications. https://bit.ly/3s1qnYJ
43.
NelsonJ. M.MachekG. R. (2007). A survey of training, practice, and competence in reading assessment and intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(2), 311–327. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2007-10860-010
44.
O’DonnellP. S.MillerD. N. (2011). Identifying students with specific learning disabilities: school psychologists’ acceptability of the discrepancy model versus response to intervention. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 22(2), 83–94. https://doi.org/cdxpqb
45.
PerfettiC. A.LandiN.OakhillJ. (2005). The acquisition of reading comprehension skill. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 227–247). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch13
46.
PiastaS.ConnorC. M.FishmanB.MorrisonF. (2009). Teachers’ knowledge of literacy concepts, classroom practices, and student reading growth. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(3), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902851364
47.
PittmanR. T.ZhangS.Binks-CantrellE.HudsonA.JoshiR. M. (2020). Teachers’ knowledge about language constructs related to literacy skills and student achievement in low socio-economic status schools. Dyslexia, 26(2), 200–219. https://doi.org/fp77
48.
Project FORUM, National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2003). Specific learning disabilities: Current approaches to identification and proposals for change. http://www.nasdse.org/forum.htm
49.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 197–213. https://doi.org/10.2307/1593673
50.
RosenblumY.LarochetteA.-C.HarrisonA. G.ArmstrongI. (2010). The relation between comprehensive assessment procedures and diagnostic stability in school-aged children identified with learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 25(2), 170–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573509357068
51.
RozalskiM.MillerJ.StewartA. (2011). Least restrictive environment. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 107–119). Routledge.
52.
SánchezM. T.ParkerC.AkbayinB.McTigueA. (2010). Processes and challenges in identifying learning disabilities among students who are English language learners in three New York State Districts (REL 2010-No. 085). U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Northeast & Islands. https://bit.ly/2Lzlh4W
53.
ScruggsT. E.MastropieriM. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25(3), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.2307/1511299
54.
ShaywitzS. E.ShaywitzB. A. (2008). Paying attention to reading: The neurobiology of reading and dyslexia. Development and Psychopathology, 20(4), 1329–1349. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579408000631
UnruhS.MckellarN. A. (2013). Evolution, not revolution: School psychologists’ changing practices in determining specific learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 50(4), 353–365. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21678
VellutinoF. R.FletcherJ. M. (2005). Developmental dyslexia. In SnowlingM. J.HulmeC. (Eds.), The science of reading: A handbook (pp. 362–378). Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470757642.ch19
59.
VellutinoF. R.FletcherJ. M.SnowlingM. J.ScanlonD. M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades?Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2–40. https://doi.org/c98mtm
60.
VellutinoF. R.ScanlonD. M.SipayE. R.SmallS. G.PrattA.ChenR.DencklaM. B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(4), 601–638. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.4.601
61.
VellutinoF. R.TunmerW. E.JaccardJ. J.ChenR. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430709336632
62.
WallachG. P. (2014). Improving clinical practice: A school-age and school-based perspective. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(2), 127–136. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0016
63.
WatkinsM. W. (2009). Errors in diagnostic decision making and clinical judgment. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 210–229). Wiley.
64.
YsseldykeJ. (2001). Reflections on a research career: Generalizations from 25 years of research on assessment and instructional decision making. Exceptional Children, 67(3), 295–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700301
65.
ZehlerA. M.FleischmanH. L.HopstockP. J.StephensonT. G.PendzickM. L.SapruS. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities (Report No. 4). U.S. Department of Education. https://www.ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE021199/special_ed4.pdf
66.
ZirkelP. A. (2017). RTI and other approaches to SLD identification under the IDEA: A legal update. Learning Disability Quarterly, 40(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/fp78
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
