Diagnostic procedures used to identify reading disabilities must meet acceptable psychometric standards and produce groups of subjects who possess known characteristics of the disorder. The issue addressed in this study is whether there are significant differences in the numbers of children identified as reading disabled according to an achievement cut-off method and a regression method of discrepancy analysis. These approaches then are compared to clinic diagnosis and other criteria. The achievement cut-off approach identified a significantly higher number of subjects as reading disabled than did the other methods. This approach also resulted in significant reading-disabled/non-disabled group differences that were not seen when groups were formed using the regression method. The achievement cut-off approach had a lower level of agreement with clinic diagnosis than did the regression method and met fewer of the evaluative criteria than did the regression method. Use of the achievement cut-off approach resulted in the apparent overidentification of reading disabilities in the current sample, thus this approach cannot be recommended for use without more supportive research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Braden, J. P. (1987). A comparison of regression and standard score discrepancy methods for learning disabilities identification: Effects on racial representation. Journal of School Psychology, 25, 23-29.
2.
Cone, T. E., & Wilson, L. R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 359-371.
3.
Hayes, W. L. (1963). Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
4.
Hynd, G. W., & Cohen, M. (1983). Dyslexia: Neurological theory, research and clinical differentiation. New York: Grune & Stratton.
5.
Hynd, G. W., & Semrud-Clikeman, M. (1990). Dyslexia and neurodevelopmental pathology: Relationships to cognition, intelligence, and reading skill acquisition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 204-220.
6.
Jastak, J. R., & Jastak, S. R., (1978). Wide Range Achievement Test. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
7.
Johnson, D. J. (1988). Review of research on specific reading, writing, and mathematics disorders. In J. F. Kavanagh & T. J. Truss, Jr. (Eds.), Journal of Learning Disabilities: Proceedings from the national conference, 12, 79-163. Parkton, NJ: York Press.
8.
Kamphaus, R. W., Slotkin, J., & DeVincentis, C. (1990). Clinical assessment of children's academic achievement. In C. R. Reynolds & R. W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence and achievement (pp. 552-570). New York: Guilford Press.
9.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
10.
Kavale, K., & Nye, C. (1981). Identification criteria for learning disabilities: A survey of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 383-388.
11.
Keogh, B. K. (1988). Learning disability: Diversity in search of order. In M. Wang, M. Reynolds, & H. Walberg (Eds.), The handbook of special education: Research and practice (pp. 225-251). Oxford, England: Pergamon.
12.
LaBerge D., & Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293-323.
13.
Lyon, G. R. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities: A position in search of data. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 504-506.
14.
Mann, V. A. (1986). Why some children encounter reading problems: The contribution of difficulties with language processing and phonological sophistication to early reading disability. In J. K. Torgesen & B. Y. L. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 133-159). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
15.
Perfetti, C., & Lesgold, A. (1976). Discourse comprehension and individual differences. In P. Carpenter & M. Just (Eds.), Cognitive processes in comprehension (pp. 141-1873). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18, 451-476.
17.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (1992). Behavior Assessment System for Children: Structured developmental history. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
18.
Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children's intelligence and special abilities (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
Shepard, L. A. (1989). Identification of mild handicaps. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 545-572). New York: Macmillan.
20.
Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115-127.
21.
Shinn, M. R. (1989). Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.
22.
Siegel, L. S. (1988). Evidence that IQ scores are irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 201-215.
23.
Siegel, L. S. (1990). IQ and learning disabilities: R.I.P. In H. L. Swanson & B. Keogh (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Theoretical and research issues (pp. 111-128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
24.
Siegel, L. S., & Ryan, E. B. (1989). Subtypes of developmental dyslexia: The influence of definitional variables. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 2, 253-287.
25.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Cognitive processes and the reading problems of learning disabled children: Evaluating the assumption of specificity. In J. Torgesen & B. Wong (Eds.), Psychological and educational perspectives on learning disabilities (pp. 87-131). New York: Academic Press.
26.
Stanovich, K. E. (1989). Has the learning disabilities field lost its intelligence?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 487-492.
27.
Torgesen, J. K., & Dice, C. (1980). Characteristics of research on learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 531-535.
28.
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Childen-Revised. New York: Psychological Corporation.
29.
Wong, B. Y. L. (Ed.) (1989). Is IQ necessary in the definition of learning disabilities? [Special Issue]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22(8).
