Commonly accepted definitions of learning disability require the presence of a significant discrepancy between a child's potential and his/her achievement. Eight commonly used “discrepancy” formulas were applied to the IQ and achievement scores of a sample of 92 potentially learning disabled youngsters. Extremely variable results were found depending on the formula used. Implications of these findings for actual practice are suggested.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB.ForgnoneC.MercerC.TrifilettiJ.Toward defining discrepancies for specific learning disabilities: An analysis and alternatives. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1979, 2, 25–31.
2.
AlgozzineB.YsseldykeJ. E.ShinnM.Identifying children with learning disabilities: When is a discrepancy severe?Journal of School Psychology, 1982, 20, 299–305.
3.
BondG. L.TinkerM. A.Reading difficulties, their diagnosis and correction (3rd ed.). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1973.
4.
ConeT. E.WilsonL. R.Quantifying a severe discrepancy: A critical analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1981, 4, 359–371.
5.
DanielsonL. C.BauerN. J.A formula based classification of learning disabled children: An examination of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978, 11, 163–176.
6.
DeanR. S.Intelligence-achievement discrepancies in diagnosing pediatric learning disabilities. Clinical Neuropsychology, in press.
7.
DunnL. M.MarkwardtE. C.Peabody Individual Achievement Test Manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Services, 1970.
8.
ElliottM.Quantitative evaluation procedures for learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1981, 2, 84–87.
9.
EricksonM. T.The Z-score discrepancy method for identifying reading disabled children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1975, 8, 308–312.
10.
FleissJ. L.Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin, 1971, 76, 378–382.
11.
FornessS.Behavioristic orientation to categorical labels. Journal of School Psychology, 1976, 14, 90–96.
12.
FornessS. R.Diagnosing dyslexia: A note on the need for ecologic assessment. American Journal of Diseases of Children, 1982, 134, 237–242.
13.
FornessS. R.Diagnostic schooling for children and adolescents with behavior disorders. Behavior Disorders, 1983, 8, 151–166.
14.
FornessS.Implications of recent trends in educational labeling. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 7, 445–449.
15.
FornessS.Programs for behaviorally disordered children at NPI. In RutherfordR.PrietoA. (Eds.), Severe behavior disorders of children and youth (Vol. 1). Reston, VA: Council for Children with Behavior Disorders Monographs, 1978, pp. 64–68.
16.
FornessS. R.Recent concepts in dyslexia: Implications for diagnosis and remediation. Reston, VA: ERIC Exceptional Child Education Reports, 1981.
17.
FornessS. R.BennettL.ToseJ.Academic deficits in emotionally disturbed children. Journal of American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1983, 22, 140–144.
18.
GlavinJ. P.AnnesleyF. R.Reading and arithmetic correlates of conduct-problems and withdrawn children. Journal of Special Education, 1971, 5, 213–220.
19.
HarrisA.How to increase reading ability: A guide to developmental and remedial methods (6th ed.). New York: David McKay, 1975.
20.
HoffmanJ. V.The disabled reader: Forgive us our regressions and lead us not into expectations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1980, 13, 7–11.
21.
KalugerG.KolsonC.Reading and learning disabilities. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill, 1969.
22.
JohnsonD. J.MyklebustH. S.Learning disabilities: Educational principles and practices. New York: Grune and Stratton, 1967.
23.
McLeodJ.Educational underachievement: Toward a defensible psychometric definition. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1979, 12, 42–50.
24.
NunnallyJ. C.Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
25.
O'DonnellL. E.Intra-individual discrepancy in diagnosing specific learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1980, 3, 10–18.
26.
PageE. B.Tests and decisions for the handicapped: A guide to evaluation under the new laws. The Journal of Special Education, 1980, 14, 423–483.
27.
ReynoldsC.The fallacy of “two years below grade level for age” as a diagnostic criterion for reading disorders. Journal of School Psychology, 1981, 19, 350–358.
28.
SalviaJ.ClarkJ.Use of deficits to identify the learning disabled. Exceptional Children, 1973, 39, 305–308.
29.
SenfM. G.Implications of the final procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1978, 11, 11–13.
30.
ShephardL.An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 1980, 14, 80–91.
31.
SmithM. D.ColemanJ.DokeckiP.Intellectual characteristics of school labeled learning disabled children. Exceptional Children, 1977, 15, 82–85.
32.
State board adopts new Title 5 regulations. CEC California Journal, 1982, 32, 1–5.
33.
TarjanG.FornessS. R.Disturbances of intellectual functioning. In UsdinG.LewisJ. (Eds.), Psychiatry in general practice. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1979, pp. 498–517.
34.
WellerC.Discrepancy and severity in the learning disabled: A consolidated perspective. Learning Disability Quarterly, 1980, 3, 84–90.
35.
WilsonJ. D.SpanglerP. F.The Peabody Individual Achievement Test as a clinical tool. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1974, 12, 322–330.
36.
YuleW.RutterM.BergerM.ThompsonJ.Over- and under-achievement in reading: Distribution in the general population. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 44, 1–12.
