A primary characteristic of a child with a learning disability is a discrepancy between current academic achievement and level of intellectual functioning. Five commonly used formulas for identifying discrepancies for eligibility as learning disabled were applied to 137 children. These children were identified as learning disabled by interdisciplinary child study teams prior to the time when discrepancy formulas became a part of state guidelines for learning disabilities screening procedures. Varied results were found depending on the formula used. Criticism of formula strengths and weaknesses as well as implications for their use are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdelmanH. (1979). Diagnostic classification of LD: Research and ethical perspectives as related to practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 5–16.
2.
AlgozzineB.ForgnoneC.MercerC., & TrifilettiJ. (1979). Toward defining discrepancies for specific learning disabilities: An analysis and alternatives. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 25–31.
3.
AlgozzineB.YsseldykeJ.E., & ShinnM. (1982). Identifying children with learning disabilities: When is a discrepancy severe? Journal of School Psychology, 20, 299–305.
4.
AndersonM.KaufmanA.S., & KaufmanN.L. (1976). Use of the WISC-R with a learning disabled population: Some diagnostic implications. Psychology in the Schools, 73,381–386.
5.
BerkR.A. (1982). Effectiveness of discrepancy score methods for screening children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 1, 11–24.
6.
BerkR.A. (1984). Screening and diagnosis of children with learning disabilities.Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas.
7.
BloomA.S., & RaskinL.M. (1980). WISC-R verbal-performance IQ discrepancies: A comparison of learning disabled children to the normative sample. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 36, 322–323.
8.
BondG.L., & TinkerM.A. (1973). Reading difficulties: Their diagnosis and correction (3rd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
9.
Bureau of Education for the Handicapped. Federal Register, 1976, 41 (230), 52407.
10.
California Association of School Psychologists. (1985). New eligibility criteria proposed. CASP Today, 35,1-2.
11.
California State Department of Education (1983). A manual for the determination of a severe discrepancy as defined by Title 5, CAC, Section 3030(J).
12.
ChalfantJ.C., & PyshM.V. (1984). Teacher assistance teams. Workshop materials. Tucson: University of Arizona.
13.
ConeT.E., & WilsonL.R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 359–371.
14.
ConeT.E.WilsonL.R.BradleyC.M., & ReeseJ.H. (1985). Characteristics of LD students in Iowa: An empirical investigation. Learning Disability Quarterly, 8, 211–220.
15.
DanielsonL.C., & BauerN.J. (1978). A formula based classification of learning disabled children: An examination of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 163–176.
DunnL.M., & MarkwardtF.C. (1970). Peabody Individual Achievement Test Manual.Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
18.
EppsS.YsseldykeJ.E., & McGueM. (1984). “I know one when I see one”—differentiating LD and non-LD students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 7,89–101.
19.
EricksonM.T. (1975). The Z-score discrepancy method for identifying reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 8,308-312.
20.
FornessS.R.SinclairE., & GuthrieD. (1983). Learning disability discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6,107-114.
21.
HannaG.S.DyckN.J., & HolenM.C. (1979). Objective analysis of achievement-aptitude discrepancies in LD classification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 32–38.
22.
HarberJ.R. (1981). Learning disability research: How far have we progressed? Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 372–381.
23.
HarrisA. (1975). How to increase reading ability (6th ed.). New York: David McKay.
24.
HoffmanJ.V. (1980). The disabled reader: Forgive us our regressions and lead us not into expectations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 7–11.
25.
JohnsonD.J., & MyklebustH.S. (1967). Learning disabilities: Educational principles and practices.New York: Grune and Stratton.
KavaleK., & AndreassenE. (1984). Factors in diagnosing the learning disabled: Analysis of judgmental policies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 17, 273–278.
McLeodJ. (1979). Educational underachievement: Toward a defensible psychometric definition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 42–50.
30.
MellardD.CooleyS.PoggioJ., & DeshlerD. (1983). A comprehensive analysis of four discrepancy methods (Research Monograph No. 15).Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
31.
O'DonnellL.E. (1980). Intra-individual discrepancy in diagnosing specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3,10-18.
32.
ReynoldsC.R.BerkR.A.BoodooG.M.CoxJ.GutkinT.B.MannL.PageE.B., & WilsonV.L. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Report to the United States Department of Education.
33.
ShephardL. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 14,80-91.
34.
SinclairE. (1980). Relationship of psychoeducational diagnosis to educational placement. Journal of School Psychology, 18,349-353.
35.
SinclairE., & AlexsonJ. (1985). Creating diagnostic related groups: A manageable way to deal with DSM III. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 55, 426–433.
36.
SinclairE., & AlexsonJ. (in press). Psychiatric diagnosis: A study of its relationship to school needs. Journal of Special Education.
37.
SinclairE.GuthrieD., & FornessS.R. (1984). Establishing a connection between severity of learning disabilities and classroom attention problems. Journal of Educational Research, 78,18-21.
38.
SmithM.D., & RogersC.M. (1978). Reliability of standardized assessment instruments when used with learning disabled children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1, 23–31.
39.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977a). Assistance to states for education for handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42 (250), 62082–62085.
40.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977b). Education of handicapped children: Implementation of Part B of the Education of the Handicapped Act. Federal Register, 42 (163), 42474–42518.
41.
WarnerM.M. (1981). A comparison of five discrepancy criteria for determining learning disabilities in secondary school populations (Research Report No. 50).Lawrence: University of Kansas, Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.
42.
WechslerD. (1974). The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised Manual.New York: Psychological Corp.
43.
WilsonJ.D., & SpanglerP.F. (1974). The Peabody Individual Achievement Test as a clinical tool. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 322–330.
44.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB., & EppsS. (1983). A logical and empirical analysis of current practices in classifying students as handicapped. Exceptional Children, 50, 160–166.
