This paper reviews the theoretical issues surrounding a severe discrepancy in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. The theoretical status of discrepancy is first discussed. It is concluded that the discrepancy concept is difficult to validate theoretically and has become too reified and deified. Components of discrepancy, including ability measures, achievement measures, and the notion of expected achievement, are next discussed. Discrepancy, as an ability-achievement difference, is next discussed with respect to uniqueness, experience, reliability, severity, and measurement models. Finally, the relationship between discrepancy and learning disabilities is discussed. It is argued that discrepancy is best linked to underachievement and that a learning disability should be something more than simply underachievement. It is concluded that discrepancy is a necessary but not sufficient criterion in the identification of a learning disability.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB., & YsseldykeJ. (1983). Learning disabilities as a subset of school failure: The oversophistication of a concept. Exceptional Children, 50, 242–246.
2.
AlgozzineB.YsseldykeJ.E., & ShinnM. (1982). Identifying children with learning disabilities: When is a discrepancy severe?Journal of School Psychology, 20,298-305.
3.
BatemanB.D. (1965). An educator's view of a diagnostic approach to learning disorders. In HellmuthJ. (Ed.), Learning disorders (Vol. 1). Seattle: Special Child Publications.
4.
BeckR.A. (1982). Effectiveness of discrepancy score methods for screening children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities, 1, 11–24.
5.
BlockN.J., & DworkinG. (Eds.). (1976). The IQ controversy.New York: Pantheon.
6.
BrodbeckM. (1957). The philosophy of science and educational research. Review of Educational Research, 27, 427-440.
7.
ChapmanJ.C. (1923). The unreliability of the difference between intelligence and educational ratings. Journal of Educational Psychology, 14,103-108.
8.
ChaseS. (1938). The tyranny of words.Chicago: Harcourt.
9.
ConeT.E., & WilsonL.R. (1981). Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 359–371.
10.
DanielsonL.C., & BauerJ.N. (1978). A formula-based classification of learning disabled children: An examination of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 11, 163-176.
11.
DyerH.S. (1963). On the assessment of academic achievement. Teachers College Record, 62, 164–172.
12.
EppsS.YsseldykeJ.E., & AlgozzineB. (1985). An analysis of the conceptual framework underlying definitions of learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 23, 133–144.
13.
FarquharW.W., & PayneD.A. (1964). A classification and comparison of techniques used in selecting under- and over-achievers. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 27, 874-884.
14.
FornessS.R.SinclairE., & GuthrieD. (1983). Learning disability discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6,107–114.
15.
FranzenR. (1920). The accomplishment quotient. Teachers College Record, 21, 432–440.
16.
GoodmanN. (1955). Fact, fiction, and forecast.Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17.
GreenD.R. (1974). The aptitude-achievement distinction.Monterey, CA: CTB/McGraw-Hill.
18.
HannaG.S.DyckN.J., & HolenM.C. (1979). Objective analysis of achievement-aptitude discrepancies in LD classification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 32–38.
19.
HempelC.G. (1952). Fundamentals of concept formation in empirical science.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
HopkinsK.D., & StanleyJ.C. (1981). Educational and psychological measurement and evaluation (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
21.
KavaleK.A., & FornessS.R. (1986). School learning, time, and learning disabilities: The disassociated learner. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19,130-138.
22.
KavaleK.A., & NyeC. (1986). Parameters of learning disabilities in achievement, linguistics, neuropsychological, and social/behavior domains. Journal of Special Education, 19, 443–458.
23.
KelleyT.L. (1927). Interpretation of educational measurements.New York: World Book.
24.
LavinD.E. (1965). The prediction of academic performance.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
25.
MacCorquodaleD., & MeehlP.E. (1948). On a distinction between hypothetical constructs and intervening variables. Psychological Review, 55, 95–107.
26.
PintnerR., & MarshallH. (1921). A combined mental- educational survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 12, 32-48.
27.
PopenceH. (1927). A report on certain significant deficiencies of the accomplishment quotient. Journal of Educational Research, 17, 1–10.
28.
ReynoldsC.R. (1981). The fallacy of “two years below grade level for age” as a diagnostic criterion for reading disorders. Journal of School Psychology, 11, 250–258.
29.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984-85). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18, 451-475.
30.
ReynoldsC.R. (1985). Measuring the aptitude-achievement discrepancy in learning disability diagnosis. Remedial and Special Education, 6 (5), 37–55.
31.
ReynoldsC.R. (1986). Toward objective diagnosis of learning disabilities. Special Services in the Schools, 2,161-176.
32.
SchulteA., & BorichG.D. (1984). Considerations in the use of difference scores to identify learning disabled children. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 381–390.
33.
ShepardL.A. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 14, 79–91.
34.
ShepardL.A. (1983). The role of measurement in educational policy: Lessons from the identification of learning disabilities. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 2, 4–8.
35.
ShoemakerD.M. (1975). Toward a framework for achievement testing. Review of Educational Research, 45,127-147.
36.
ThorndikeR.L. (1963). The concepts of over-and underachievement.New York: Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
37.
ThorndikeR.L., & HagenE.P. (1977). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (4th ed.). New York: John Wiley.
38.
ToopsH.A., & SymondsP.M. (1922). What shall we expect of the AQ?Journal of Educational Psychology, 13, 513-528.
39.
U.S. Office of Education. (1976). Public Law 94-142 regulations: Proposed rulemaking. Federal Register, 41, 52404-52407.
40.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Public Law 94-142 regulations: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42, 65082–65085.
41.
WilsonW.R. (1928). The misleading accomplishment quotient. Journal of Educational Research, 16, 40–47.
42.
WilsonW.R.ConeT.E.BuschR., & AlleeT. (1983). A critique of the expectancy formula approach: Beating a dead horse?Psychology in the Schools, 20, 241–249.
43.
YsseldykeJ.E.AlgozzineB.ShinnM.R., & McGueM. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73–85.
