Despite the importance of early intervention for most disorders to minimize potential deleterious lifetime effects for the individuals concerned, there is currently no universally accepted protocol for the early screening, identification, and assessment of specific learning disabilities, and no consistent age at which initial diagnosis occurs. In Ontario, as well as in other jurisdictions, the distinction between key terms, such as identification and diagnosis, for the sake of service provision and funding in the school system is often not clearly understood. This article presents a rationale and recommended best practice procedures for the screening, identification, and diagnosis of specific learning disabilities in Ontario for children aged 4 to 8 years. A clarification of key terms, challenges to diagnostic accuracy, and implications of recommended improvements to current practice are articulated.
Berninger, V. (2001). Process assessment of the learner test battery for reading and writing. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
2.
Berninger, V. (2004). Brain-based assessment and instructional intervention. In G. Reid & A. Fawcett (Eds.), Dyslexia in context: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 90-119). Philadelphia: Whurr.
3.
Berninger, V., Stage, S., Smith, D., & Hildebrand, D. (2001). Assessment for reading and writing intervention: A 3-tier model for prevention and intervention. In J. Andrews, D. H. Saklofske, & H. Janzen (Eds.), Ability, achievement, and behavior assessment: A practical handbook (pp. 195-223). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
4.
Caruso, J., & Cliff, N. (1999). The properties of equally and differentially weighted WAIS-III factor scores. Psychological Assessment, 11, 198-206.
5.
Chalmers, L. (2002). Best practices. Guidelines: Identification and evaluation of students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved April 4, 2004, from http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced/guide/idld/appendxD.pdf
6.
Davenport, D. A. (1997). The effects of severe discrepancy determination, clinical judgment, pressure factors and service motive on the recommendations of school psychologists to classify children as learning-disabled. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 0081A.
7.
Deptula, D., Manevitz, A., & Yozawitz, A. (1991). Asymmetry of recall in depression. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 13, 854-870.
8.
Dowie, J., & Elstein, A. (1988). Professional judgment: A reader in clinical decision-making. New York: Cambridge University Press.
9.
Dumont, F. (1993). Inferential heuristics in clinical problem formulation: Selective review of their strengths and weaknesses. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 196-205.
10.
Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In W. Evers (Ed.), What’s wrong in America’s classrooms (pp. 49-90). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute Press.
11.
Frederickson, N., & Reason, R. (1995). Discrepancy definitions of specific learning difficulties. Association of Educational Psychologists Journal, 10, 195-205.
12.
Good, R. H., & Kaminski, R. A. (Eds.). (2002). Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Education Achievement.
13.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities. Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
Grimes, D. A., & Shultz, K. F. (2002). Use and misuse of screening tests. Lancet, 359, 881-884.
15.
Grove, W., Zald, D., Lebow, B., Snitz, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). Clinical versus mechanical prediction: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 12, 19-30.
16.
Gyns, J., Willis, W. G., & Faust, D. (1995). School psychologists’ diagnosis of learning disabilities: A study of illusory correlation. Journal of School Psychology, 33, 59-73.
17.
Hughes, H., & DiBrezzo, R. (1987). Physical and emotional abuse and motor development: A preliminary investigation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 64, 469-470.
18.
Humphrey, T., & Bone, J. (1993). Validity of IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria for identifying learning disabilities. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 9, 181-191.
19.
Invernizzi, M., Meier, J. D., Swank, L., & Juel, C. (2002). Phonological Awareness Literacy Screening (PALS-K). Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
20.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 21, 245-273.
22.
Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J., & Mostert, M. P. (2003, December). The feasibility of a response to intervention approach for the identification of specific learning disability: A psychometric alternative. Paper presented at the National Research Centre on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
23.
Kendall-Tackett, K. A., Williams, L. M., & Finkelhor, D. (1993). Impact of sexual abuse on children: A review and synthesis of recent empirical studies. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 164-180.
24.
Koverola, C., & Foa, D. (1993). Post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology in sexually abused children: Implications for legal proceedings. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2, 119-128.
25.
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. (1999). Promoting Early Intervention project. Retrieved March 9, 2004, from http://www.ldao.on.ca/idao_projects/pei/index.html
26.
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. (2001). Early intervention screening tool for K-1 educators. Retrieved October 23, 2003, from http://www.earlyintervention.ca/english/faq.html
27.
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. (2002). Promoting Early Intervention project. Retrieved October 23, 2003, from http://www.ldao.on.ca/ldao_projects/pei/peieval.html
28.
Learning Disabilities Association of Ontario. (2004). Promoting Early Intervention project. Retrieved April 17, 2004, from http://www.ldao.on.ca/ldao_projects/wbtt/index.html%23poutcome
29.
Learning Opportunities Task Force. (2002). Learning opportunities task force report: 1997 to 2002 report summary. Richmond Hill, Canada: Ministry of Training Colleges and Universities.
30.
Lundberg, I. (1994). Reading difficulties can be predicted and prevented: A Scandinavian perspective on phonological awareness and reading. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling (Eds.), Reading development and dyslexia (pp. 180-199). London: Whurr.
31.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
32.
Matarazzo, J. D. (1992). Psychological assessment in the 21st century. American Psychologist, 47, 1007-1018.
33.
Matarazzo, J. D., Daniel, M. H., Prifitera, A., & Herman, D. (1988). Inter-subtest scatter in the WAIS-R standardization sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 940-950.
34.
Matarazzo, J. D., & Herman, D. (1984). Base rate data for the WAIS-R: Test-retest stability and VIQ-PIQ differences. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35, 1-66.
35.
Matarazzo, J. D., & Prifitera, A. (1989). Subtest scatter and premorbid intelligence: Lessons learned from the WAIS-R standardization sample. Psychological Assessment, 1, 186-191.
36.
McCain, M. N., & Mustard, J. F. (1999). Reversing the real brain drain. Early years study: Final report. Toronto: Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
37.
McGuire, J., Madaus, J., Litt, A. V., & Ramirez, M. (1996). An investigation of documentation submitted by university students to verify their learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 297-304.
38.
McLean, J., Kaufman, A. S., & Reynolds, C. (1989). Base rates of WAIS-R subtest scatter as a guide for clinical and neuropsychological assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 919-926.
39.
Ministry of Education. (1990). Education Act, R. S. O., Chapter E2, §11 (1). Ontario, Canada: Government of Ontario, Ministry of Education.
40.
Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. (1991). Regulated Health Professions Act, S.O. 1991, Chapter 18. Retrieved March 8, 2004, from http://192.75.156.68/DBLaws/Statutes/English/91r18_e.htm
41.
Ontario College of Psychologists. (1997). Statutory requirements and policy of the College of Psychologists of Ontario. Communication of a diagnosis: A controlled act in psychological practice. The Bulletin, 24, 9-9.
42.
Parker, K., & Atkinson, L. (1994). Factor space of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-third edition: Critical thoughts and recommendations. Psychological Assessment, 6, 201-208.
43.
Pastor, P. N., & Reuben, C. A. (2002). Attention deficit disorder and learning disability: United States, 1997-98. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Statistics, 10(206), 6-6.
44.
Patchett, R., & Stansfield, M. (1992). Subtest scatter on the WISC-R with children of superior intelligence. Psychology in the Schools, 29, 5-11.
45.
Putnam, F. (1988). Diagnosis and treatment of multiple personality disorder. New York: Guilford.
46.
Rosner, J. (1975). Helping children overcome learning difficulties. New York: Walker and Company.
47.
Schiff, M., Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. (1981). Scatter analysis of WISC-R profiles for learning-disabled children with superior intelligence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 14, 400-404.
48.
Scruggs, T. (2003, December). Alternatives to RtI in the assessment of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the National Research Centre on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness to Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
49.
Shaywitz, B., Fulbright, R., Skudlarski, P., Menci, E., Constable, T., Pugh, K., et al. (2003). Yale researchers identify two types of childhood reading disability with different brain patterns and different outcomes [Yale news release]. Retrieved March 9, 2004, from http://www.yale.edu/opa/newer/03-06-30-01.all.html
50.
Siegel, L. (1988). Evidence that IQ is irrelevant to the definition and analysis of reading disability. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 42, 202-215.
51.
Silver, S. J., & Clampit, M. K. (1990). WISC-R profiles of high ability children: Interpretation of verbal-performance discrepancies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 76-79.
52.
Simner, M. L. (1997). Predictive validity of the Teacher’s School Readiness Inventory. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 3, 21-32.
53.
Speece, D. L., Mollow, D. E., & Case, L. P. (2003). Starting at the beginning for learning disabilities identification: Response to instruction in general education. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Identification and assessment: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 37-51). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science.
54.
Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21, 360-406.
55.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 53-58.
56.
Statistics Canada. (2001). Prevalence of disability in Canada. Retrieved July 21, 2004, from http://www.statcan.ca/english/freepub/89-577-XIE/canada.htm
57.
Streiner, D. (2003). Diagnosing tests: Using and misusing diagnostic and screening tests. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 209-219.
58.
Swanson, H. L. (1999). Intervention research for adolescents with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to high-order processing. Retrieved March 9, 2004, from http://www.id.org.research/ncld_high_order.cfm
59.
Swanson, H. L. (2001). Searching for the best model for instructing students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 34, 2-15.
60.
Torgensen, J. K. (1989). Why is IQ relevant to the definition of learning disabilities?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 484-486.
61.
Torgensen, J. K. (2001, August). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit, Washington, DC.
62.
Turk, D., & Salovey, P. (1988). Reasoning, inference, and judgment in clinical psychology. New York: Free Press.
63.
Vandervelden, M. C., & Siegel, L. S. (1997). Teaching phonological processing skills in early literacy: A developmental approach. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 63-81.
64.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137-146.
65.
Vellutino, F. R. (2001). Further analysis of the relationship between reading achievement and intelligence: Response to Naglieri. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 306-310.
66.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Tanzman, M. S. (1998). The case for early intervention in diagnosing specific reading disability. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 367-397.
67.
Walker, L. (1993). Post-traumatic stress disorder and child sexual abuse: Commentary. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 2, 129-132.
68.
Washington State Association of School Psychologists. (2000). Washington State Association of School Psychologists professional practice guidelines in the evaluation of students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved April 4, 2004, from http://www.wsasp.org/position/ld.pdf
69.
Wechsler, D. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-second edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
70.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-fourth edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
71.
Wilson, V., & Reynolds, C. (1984). Another look at evaluating aptitude-achievement discrepancies in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18, 477-487.
