This paper reviews the findings regarding the use of severe discrepancy formulas in the identification of learning disabilities by the Work Group on Measurement Issues In the Assessment of Learning Disabilities (Reynolds, 1984-85; Willson & Reynolds, 1984-85). Alternative considerations are then presented that may ultimately prove more beneficial in the identification of learning disabilities
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArterJ., & JenkinsJ. (1977). Examining the benefits and prevalence of modality considerations in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 11, 281–298.
2.
ColesG. (1978). The learning disabilities test battery: Empirical and social issues. Harvard Educational Review, 48, 313-340.
3.
FornessS.R.SinclairE., & GuthrieD. (1983). Learning disabilities discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 107–114.
4.
HallahanD.P.KellerD.E., & BallD.W. (1986). A comparison of prevalence rate variability from state to state for each of the categories of special education. Remedialand Special Education, 7 (2), 8–14.
5.
HornW.F., & PackardT. (1986). Early identification of learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 597–607.
6.
KavaleK.A., & FornessS.R. (1985). The science of learning disabilities.San Diego: College-Hill.
7.
ReynoldsC.R. (1984-85). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 451-476.
8.
ScruggsT.E.MastropieriM.A., & McGradyH. (1987). Discrepancies in discrepancy testing.West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University, Department of Education.
9.
WillsonV.L., & ReynoldsC.R. (1984-85). Another look at evaluating aptitude-achievement discrepancy in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 477–487.
