Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2026-2
Partitioning Influences on SLD Decision Outcomes and Confidence: School Psychologists’ Decision-Making Style,Beliefs,and Sociodemographic Characteristics
Despite the importance of reliable, valid, and equitable identification of students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), research has highlighted the potential for school psychologists’ personal characteristics to influence the identification decision. No studies to date have examined the broad range of individual characteristics and their potential to affect the SLD identification decision or individuals’ confidence in their decision. We conducted a study with 264 full-time practicing U.S. school psychologists to isolate the role of individual characteristics, including beliefs about SLD and decision-making style, on the SLD identification decision and confidence in the decision. Results indicated that, all else equal, a variety of individual characteristics emerged as significant predictors of the identification decision and confidence. Implications for research and practice are discussed, as well as suggestions for future research.
AartsA. A.WittemanC. L.SourenP. M.EggerJ. I. (2012). Associations between psychologists’ thinking styles and accuracy on a diagnostic classification task. Synthese, 189, 119–130. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0081-3
2.
AlfonsoV. C.FlanaganD. P. (Eds.). (2018). Essentials of specific learning disability identification (2nd ed.). John Wiley.
3.
ArkesH. R. (2013). The consequences of the hindsight bias in medical decision-making. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 22, 356–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413489988
4.
ArtilesA. J.KozleskiE. B.TrentS. C.OsherD.OrtizA. (2010). Justifying and explaining disproportionality, 1968–2008: A critique of underlying views of culture. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291007600303
5.
AspelA. D.WillisW. G.FaustD. (1998). School psychologists’ diagnostic decision-making processes: Objective-subjective discrepancies. Journal of School Psychology, 36(2), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(98)00002-8
6.
Barnard-BrakL.StevensT.RobinsonE.HoltA. (2013). Schools psychologist diagnostic decision-making: A pilot study. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 567-57. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21694
7.
BarrettC. A.BurnsM. K.MakiK. E.ClinkscalesA.HajovskyD. B.SpearS. E. (2022). Language used in school psychological evaluation reports as predictors of SLD identification within a response to intervention model. School Psychology, 37(2), 107–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000485
8.
BarrettC.A.MakiK.E.ChestnutS. (2024). Assessing beliefs about intrinsic and extrinsic determinants of SLD: Evaluating the factor structure of a novel instrument. Journal of Learning Disabilities. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241263659
9.
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
10.
BoccioD. E. (2021). Does use of a decision-making model improve the quality of school psychologists’ ethical decisions?Ethics & Behavior, 31(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2020.1715802
11.
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(3), 296–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410392048
12.
CharlesJ. L.HolleyL. C.KondratD. C. (2017). Addressing our own biases: Social work educators’ experiences with students with mental illnesses. Social Work Education, 36(4), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2017.1297393
13.
CottrellJ. M.BarrettC. A. (2017). Examining school psychologists’ perspectives about specific learning disabilities: Implications for practice. Psychology in the Schools, 54, 294–308. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21997
14.
EppsS.YsseldykeJ. E.McGueM. (1984). “I know one when I see one”: Differentiating LD and non-LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 89–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1510265
15.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146
16.
FlanaganD. P.AlfonsoV. C.CostaM.PalmaK.LeahyM. A. (2018). Use of ability tests in the identification of specific learning disabilities within the context of an operational definition. In FlanaganD. P.McDonoughE. M. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 608–642). The Guilford Press.
17.
FletcherJ. M.LyonG. R.FuchsL. S.BarnesM. A. (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention (2nd ed.). 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. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380020101
19.
GarbH. N. (2013). Cognitive and social factors influencing clinical judgment in psychiatric practice. World Psychiatry, 12, 108–110. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20045
20.
Garcia-RetameroR.MüllerS. M.CatenaA.MaldonadoA. (2009). The power of causal beliefs and conflicting evidence on causal judgments and decision making. Learning and Motivation, 40(3), 284–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lmot.2009.04.001
GreenacreL.TungN. M.ChapmanT. (2014). Self confidence, and the ability to influence. Academy of Marketing Studies Journal, 18(2), 169–192.
23.
GrigorenkoE. L.ComptonD. L.FuchsL. S.WagnerR. K.WilcuttE. G.FletcherJ. M. (2020). Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000452
24.
GuillénL.MayoM.KarelaiaN. (2018). Appearing self-confident and getting credit for it: Why it may be easier for men than women to gain influence at work. Human Resource Management, 57(4), 839–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrm.21857
25.
JenkinsM. M.YoungstromE. A.WashburnJ. J.YoungstromJ. K. (2011). Evidence-based strategies to improve assessment of pediatric bipolar disorder by community practitioners. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 42(2), 121–129. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022506
26.
KahanD. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making, 8, 407–424. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2182588
27.
KovaleskiJ. F.VanDerHeydenA. M.RungeT. J.ZirkelP. A.ShapiroE. S. (2022). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
28.
LilienfeldS. O.WoodJ. M.GarbH. N. (2006). Why questionable psychological tests remain popular. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, 10, 6–15.
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22179
30.
MakiK. E.AdamsS. R. (2020). Specific learning disabilities identification: Do the identification methods and data matter?Learning Disability Quarterly, 43(2), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948719826296
31.
MakiK. E.BurnsM. K.SullivanA. (2018). School psychologists’ confidence in LD identification decisions. Learning Disability Quarterly, 41(1), 243–256. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871876925
32.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000037
33.
MiciakJ.TaylorW. P.StuebingK. K.FletcherJ. M. (2018). Simulation of LD identification accuracy using a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses method with multiple measures. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(1), 21–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916683287
34.
MillerD. J.SpenglerE. S.SpenglerP. M. (2015). A meta-analysis of confidence and judgment accuracy in clinical decision making. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62, 553–567. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000105
35.
MohammedS.SchwallA. (2009). Individual differences and decision making: What we know and where we go from here. International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 24, 249–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470745267.ch8
36.
MorganP. L.FarkasG.CookM.StrassfeldN. M.HillemeierM. M.PunW. H.SchusslerD. L. (2017). Are Black children disproportionately overrepresented in special education? A best-evidence synthesis. Exceptional Children, 83(2), 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0014402916664042
National Center for Education Statistics. (2022). Students with disabilities. Condition of education. Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator/cgg
PhillipsW. J.FletcherJ. M.MarksA. D. J.HineD. W. (2016). Thinking styles and decision making: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 260–290. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000027
42.
ScottS. G.BruceR. A. (1995). Decision-making style: The development and assessment of a new measure. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 55(5), 818–831. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164495055005017
43.
ShifrerD.MullerC.CallahanR. (2011). Disproportionality and learning disabilities: Parsing apart race, socioeconomic status, and language. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(3), 246–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219410374236
44.
SpencerM.WagnerR. K.SchatschneiderC.QuinnJ.LopezD.PetscherY. (2014). Incorporating RTI in a hybrid model of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3), 161–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948714530967
45.
SullivanA. L.BalA. (2013). Disproportionality in special education: Effects of individual and school variables on disability risk. Exceptional Children, 79(4), 475–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440291307900406
46.
SullivanA. L.SadehS.HouriA. K. (2019). Are school psychologists’ special education eligibility decisions reliable and unbiased? A multi-study experimental investigation. Journal of School Psychology, 77, 90–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2019.10.006
47.
TaylorW. P.MiciakJ.FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J. (2017). Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 446–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000356
48.
ThompsonC. G.KimR. S.AloeA. M.BeckerB. J. (2017). Extracting the variance inflation factor and other multicollinearity diagnostics from typical regression results. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 39, 81–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2016.1277529
van RynM.FuS. (2003). Paved with good intentions: Do public health and human service providers contribute to racial/ethnic disparities in health?American Journal of Public Health, 93, 248–255. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.2.248
51.
YoungstromE. A.HalversonT. F.YoungstromJ. K.LindhiemO.FindlingR. L. (2018). Evidence-based assessment from simple clinical judgments to statistical learning: Evaluating a range of options using pediatric bipolar disorder as a diagnostic challenge. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(2), 243–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617741845
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.
