An ethnically stratified sample of 150 children referred to school study teams (SSTs) were administered the WISC-III and WRAT-R and assigned by research criteria reflecting the State of California criteria as having mental retardation, a learning disability, or neither disability (ineligible). When the WISC-III IQs were compared, the Hispanic subjects in the referred sample achieved PIQs that were on average 8 points higher than VIQ a difference not found for White or Black groups. Use of PIQ rather than FSIQ resulted in a dramatic reduction in the number of Hispanic students qualifying as children with mental retardation; however, use of PIQ also markedly increased the number of Hispanic students qualifying as children with a “severe discrepancy” as learning disabled. The actual school decisions reached on these children were contrasted to research criteria, revealing rather limited congruence with classifications based on either FSIQ or PIQ. Finally, multivariate analyses revealed significant differences between “stable” (qualifying under both FSIQ and PIQ) cases of mental retardation, learning disabilities, and ineligible on achievement and deportment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
A master plan for special education in California. (1973). Sacramento: California State Department of Education.
2.
Ashurst, D. I., & Meyers, C. E. (1973). Social system and clinical model in school identification of the educable retarded. In G. Tarjan, R. K. Eyman, & C. E. Meyers (Eds.), Sociobehavioral studies in mental retardation (pp. 150-163). Monographs of the American Association of Mental Deficiency, No. 1.
3.
Budoff, M. (1970). Social and test data correlates of learning potential status in adolescent educable mentally retarded children. Studies in Learning Potential, 1(3).
4.
Budoff, M., Meskin, J., & Harrison, R. H. (1971). Educational test of the learning potential hypothesis. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 159-169.
5.
Darlington, R. B. (1971). Another look at “culture fairness."Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 71-82.
6.
Diana v. State Board of Education, C-70-37 (RFP Dist. Ct. N. Cal. 1970).
7.
Fleiss, J. L. (1981). The measurement of interrater agreement. In Statistical methods for rates and proportions (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
8.
Fletcher, J., Shaywitz, S., Shankweiler, D., Katz, L., Liberman, I., Fowler, A., Francis, D., Stuebing, K.,, & Shaywitz, B. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 1-18.
9.
Frankenberger, W., & Fronzaglio, K. (1991). States' definitions and procedures for identifying children with mental retardation: Comparison over nine years. Mental Retardation, 29, 315-321.
10.
Gresham, F. M., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
11.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1997). Teachers as “tests": Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26, 47-60.
12.
Grossman, H. J. (Ed.) (1983). Classification in mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency.
13.
Hersh, R., & Walker, H. M. (1983). Great expectations: Making schools effective for all students. Policy Studies Review, 2147-188.
14.
Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, N. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak Associates.
15.
Jensen, A. R. (1980). Bias in mental testing. New York: Free Press.
16.
Johnson, D. J. (1988). Review of research on specific reading, writing, and mathematics disorders. In J. F. Kavanagh & T. J. Truss, Jr. (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Proceedings of the national conference (pp. 79-163). Parkton, MD: York Press.
17.
Kauffman, J. M. (1993). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disorders of children and youth (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill/Macmillan.
18.
Kaufman, A. S. (1994). Intelligence testing with the WISC-III. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
19.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
20.
Larry P. v. Riles. Civil Action No. 71-2270 (N.D. Cal. 1971). 495 Suppl 926 (N.D. Cal. 1979); Decision on Merits, United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, No. 80-427, January 23, 1984, Trial Court Decision Affirmed.
21.
Linn, R. L. (1973). Fair test use in selection. Review of Educational Research, 43, 139-161.
22.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Lopez, M. F., & Bocian, K., (1996). Comparison of students nominated for prereferral interventions by ethnicity and gender. Journal of Special Education, 30, 133-151.
23.
MacMillan, D. L., Siperstein, G. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1996). Mild mental retardation: A challenge to its viability as a diagnostic category. Exceptional Children, 62, 356-371.
24.
MacMillan, D. L., & Speece, D. L. (in press). Utility of current diagnostic categories for research and practice. In R. Gallimore, L. Bernheimer, D. MacMillan, D. Speece, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Developmental perspectives on children with high incidence disabilities. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
25.
McShane, D., & Cook, V. J. (1985). Transcultural intellectual assessment: Performance by Hispanics on the Wechsler scales. In B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 737-785). New York: Wiley.
26.
Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Mercer, A. R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 217-232.
27.
Mercer, J. R., & Lewis, J. F. (1978). System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (SOMPA). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
28.
Meyers, C. E., Sundstrom, P. E., & Yoshida, R. K. (1974). The school psychologist and assessment in special education. School Psychology Monograph, 2(1), 3-57.
29.
Morison, P., White, S. H., & Feuer, M. J. (Eds.) (1996). The use of IQ tests in special education decision making and planning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
30.
Reschly, D. J. (1988). Minority mild mental retardation: Legal issues, research findings, and reform trends. In M. C. Wang, M. C. Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.), Handbook of special education: Research and practice. (Vol. 2, pp. 23-41). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
31.
Reschly, D.J., & Jipson, F.J. (1976). Ethnicity, geographic locale, age, sex, and urban-rural residence as variables in the prevalence of mild retardation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 81, 154-161.
32.
Richardson, S. A., Katz, M., & Koller, H. (1986). Sex differences in number of children administratively classified as mildly mentally retarded. An epidemiological review. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 91, 250-256.
33.
Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Author.
34.
Shaywitz, B., Fletcher, J., Holahan, J., & Shaywitz, S. (1992). Discrepancy compared to low achievement definitions of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 639-648.
35.
Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Fletcher, J. M., & Escobar, M. D. (1990). Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls: Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. Journal of the American Medical Association, 264, 998-1002.
36.
Smith, J. D., & Polloway, E. A. (1979). The dimension of adaptive behavior in mental retardation research: An analysis of recent practices. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 84, 203-206.
37.
Speece, D. L., & Harry, B. (1997). Classification for children. In J. W. Lloyd, E. Kameenui, & D. Chard (Eds.), Issues in educating students with disabilities (pp. 63-72). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
38.
Stanovich, K., & Siegel, L. (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.
39.
Thorndike, R. L. (1971). Concepts of culture fairness. Journal of Educational Measurement, 8, 63-70.
40.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
