Abstract
Procedures for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLD) have been controversial, if not contentious, for many decades. Over this period, researchers and policymakers have sought to replace the IQ-achievement discrepancy (IAD) method, the original method used to identify SLD, with alternative research-based approaches. Patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) is advocated as overcoming the limitations of the IAD method, is allowed under federal special education regulations, and has been adopted by at least 14 states. Questions remain, however, regarding whether PSW is evidence-based as an identification procedure. This study sought to understand the evidentiary basis of PSW for SLD identification through a systematic review of the diagnostic accuracy evidence. Review results showed that PSW identifies SLD at the level of chance (e.g., a coin flip) regardless of PSW method used, instrument employed, and whether real or simulated data are used. The evidence to date suggests that PSW may not be worth the time or effort for SLD identification, and therefore, psychologists are encouraged to consider alternative SLD identification methods. Impact Statement This study reviews the diagnostic accuracy research surrounding patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) for specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification. The results indicated that no matter what PSW method is used, the procedure is only about as accurate as a coin flip when used to identify SLD. School districts and school psychology practitioners should look to alternative procedures to PSW when seeking a method for SLD identification.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call