Ability-achievement Discrepancy Research Articles

An Expectancy-Value Approach to Math Underachievement: Examining High School Achievement, College Attendance, and STEM Interest

Students’ academic underachievement, defined as discrepancies between ability and academic performance, is a widespread problem leading to many negative consequences. Our study examines high school students’ math underachievement, its motivational antecedents, and its impact on future math achievement, college attendance, and STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) interest. Using data from the nationally representative High School Longitudinal Study, we identified students who exhibited a math ability–achievement discrepancy between their standardized math scores at the beginning of ninth grade and their final math grade in fall of ninth grade. We then conducted generalized structural equation modeling to identify direct effects of math motivation on math underachievement along with the direct effects of math underachievement on future STEM and college outcomes. Informed by expectancy-value theory, we found that math motivation, as measured by value and expectancy beliefs was significantly associated with math underachievement. We also found that math underachievement was associated with a number of outcomes in the high school to college transition with evidence of moderation by high math ability. Implications for research, practice, and policy are discussed.

Differences in specific learning disability identification with the Woodcock-Johnson IV.

The Ability Achievement Discrepancy model remains the primary identification method used by school personnel. This study examined identification of a specific learning disability using the Ability Achievement Discrepancy model with the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ-IV). Two different test scores can be used to represent the ability construct: one that maintains the overlap between intelligence quotient (IQ) and basic psychological processes (i.e., general intellectual ability) and one that mostly removes the overlap between IQ and basic psychological processes (i.e., fluid-crystallized intelligence). The study included 3,736 individuals from the WJ-IV standardization sample to ascertain whether different proportions of individuals were identified by the 2 methods as well as identify which tests contributed to the differences. χ2 tests of independence and absolute ratios were used to examine the proportion of individuals identified; a multivariate analysis of variance and follow-up Tukey honestly significant differences were conducted to determine whether the groups of individuals identified in each model differed on their academic achievement scores, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify the tests that contributed to differences in identification rates. The results indicated that different proportions of individuals were identified as a function of the IQ score used, even though achievement scores were generally similar across identification methods. Black students were overrepresented and White students were underrepresented compared with their proportion in the total sample. Discrepancy profiles largely varied as a function of the internal psychometrics of the WJ-IV rather than characteristics of the individual. Implications for practice and methodological limitations are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Specific Learning Disabilities Identification: Do the Identification Methods and Data Matter?

Specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification has consistently been shown to be problematic; however, research has largely focused on SLD identification using test scores only. The present study, therefore, examined SLD identification decisions across identification methods and student evaluation data levels, including test scores, background information, and observations. Participants included 461 school psychologists who were randomly assigned to one of 12 conditions to make identification decisions. Results indicated that response to intervention (RtI) methods resulted in greater identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy while pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) resulted in lower identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy. However, background information and observation data did not impact SLD identification consistency. Implications for practice and research are also discussed.

A current landscape of specific learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implications

AbstractSpecific learning disability (SLD) identification procedures vary across states (Maki et al., 2015, School Psychol Quart, 30, 457–469); however, the extent to which SLD identification methods are implemented at the district level is not well understood. Moreover, the high‐stakes nature of SLD identification necessitates extensive training, but research regarding graduate and postgraduate training in SLD is limited. This study examined school psychologists’ SLD training and practices through survey methodology. Results showed that a growing number of school psychologists use, prefer, and receive training in response to intervention and pattern of strengths and weaknesses to identify students with SLD while the use of and preference for ability–achievement discrepancy may be decreasing. However, nearly one‐third of school psychologists still reported the use of ability–achievement discrepancy. In addition, over half of school psychologists reported using state department of education guidance documents to inform their SLD identification practices. Implications for training and practice are discussed.

School Psychologists’ Confidence in Learning Disability Identification Decisions

Many school psychologists spend a large portion of their time conducting evaluations for special education, but school psychologists’ confidence in learning disability (learning disability[ies] [LD]) identification has not been examined experimentally. This study examined differences in 376 school psychologists’ confidence in their identification decisions across LD identification methods, student evaluation data conclusiveness level, school psychologist experience, identification consistency, and identification methods used in practice, preferred identification methods, and identification methods taught in graduate school. The school psychologists reported lower levels of confidence when using response to intervention (RtI) compared with ability-achievement discrepancy, and they reported lower levels of confidence when student data were inconclusive compared with when student data were conclusive that a student did not have LD. Higher levels of experience and training did not increase the likelihood of greater confidence compared with lower levels of experience and training. However, school psychologists who reported “somewhat confident ratings” were more likely to make inconsistent identification decisions than school psychologists who reported “not very confident” ratings. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review.

For many decades, discussions regarding the definition and identification of learning disabilities have been contentious; one result is the varied practices across states and school districts. This study reviewed learning disability (LD) regulations and guidelines from the 50 United States and the District of Columbia that were employed during 2013. Two authors independently coded components of all LD regulations and guidelines. Results showed considerable variability in the state policies and practices governing LD identification. Only 67% of states allow for use of the ability-achievement discrepancy approach, and 20% of states explicitly prohibit its use. Approximately 16% of states require the sole use of response to intervention (RtI) models in LD identification, and there is considerable variability in the guidance states provide regarding how to implement RtI models to identify LD. Finally, about half of states do not allow use of "pattern of strengths and weaknesses" (PSW) models, and most states allowing these models provide little information regarding ideal identification practices. These results can inform school psychology practice, training, and related research.

English

Unlike abilityachievement discrepancy and response-to-intervention approaches, the processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach is the only empirically based approach that attempts to identify the pattern of deficit in the basic psychological processes that interferes with academic achievement for children with specific learning disabilities (SLD). If used in combination with RTI, any child who meets PSW criteria would be more likely to be correctly identified as having SLD because both IDEA (2004) statutory (i.e., SLD definition) and regulatory (i.e., SLD method) requirements would be met. In addition, understanding a childs PSW could lead directly to differentiated instruction and targeted interventions for affected children. Although PSW research has been emerging in recent years, this is the first special issue devoted to empirical examination of the PSW method. The articles presented here attest to the value and potential of a PSW approach to identifying SLD, but the critique presented here suggests a rigid psychometric PSW approach is insufficient for identifying SLD and other disorders. Implications for clinical practice and future research will be elucidated.

Teachers’ intuition and knowledge in detecting specific learning disabilities

The aim of the study was to investigate primary school teachers? proficiency in detecting the ability-achievement discrepancy as a landmark of possible specific developmental learning disabilities (SLD). Twenty-two teachers in five schools attempted to select, in accordance with their perception and out of a larger preliminary sample, those students whose school results revealed: (a) discrepancy between school achievement and general abilities (the group of purportedly disharmonic children, GPD) or (b) concordance between general abilities and achievement (the group of purportedly harmonic children, GPH). The children were tested by REVISK, while teachers re-assessed students? reading, writing and arithmetic performance against a simple structured questionnaire based on demands of the approved elementary school program delineated by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia. Research results indicate that more than 60% of children originally qualified to GPH have actually shown significant discrepancy between targeted scholastic skills and (normal) general intelligence. The data suggested some association between students? disparity in attainment and teachers? attribution accuracy, while the only homogenous quantitative marker of misplaced children were decreased values on some of the REVISK Verbal subscale tests. This study has shown that teachers can use their professional knowledge to enhance their capability to detect children with specific learning disabilities. In absence of criterion-referenced tests of reading, writing and mathematics, a structured approach to the projected course of skill progress might support teachers? confidence regarding likely SLD.

What Samuel A. Kirk Really Said About Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities: A Response to Danforth, Slocum, and Dunkle

What Samuel A. Kirk Really Said About Mental Retardation and Learning Disabilities: A Response to Danforth, Slocum, and Dunkle

Qualitative Differences in Learning Disabilities Across Postsecondary Institutions

Many college students receiving accommodations for specific learning disability (SLD) do not meet objective criteria for the disorder. Furthermore, whether students meet criteria depends on the diagnostic decision model used by their clinician. The authors examined whether the relationship between diagnostic model and likelihood of meeting objective criteria is moderated by students’ postsecondary institution. They administered a comprehensive psychoeducational battery to 98 undergraduates receiving accommodations for SLD at 2-year public colleges, 4-year public universities, and 4-year private colleges. Most 4-year public university students failed to meet objective criteria for SLD. In contrast, most 4-year private college students met objective criteria based on significant ability–achievement discrepancies, and most 2-year public college students met objective criteria based on normative deficits in achievement and cognitive processing. Students who met objective criteria also differed significantly in degree of academic impairment. The authors’ findings indicate qualitative differences in SLD across postsecondary settings and have implications for the identification and mitigation of SLD in college students.

Cognitive and Psychosocial Characteristics of Gifted Students With Written Language Disability: A Reply to Lovett’s Response

Our article describing the characteristics of gifted students with a specific learning disability (SLD) in written language was criticized for emphasizing an ability achievement discrepancy as an indication of a written language disability and for not ruling out alternative explanations for the observed difficulties. The three primary alternative explanations include measurement error, (lack of) motivation, and/or past experiences. In our reply, we offer extensive evidence that refutes these alternative explanations. The critique also offers an interpretation, which we determined to be inaccurate, of our data; therefore, we correct the misinterpretation. We conclude with a confirmation of our original findings: identification of gifted students with specific learning disabilities requires a comprehensive psycho-educational evaluation that includes an examination of the cognitive profile generated from individually-administered tests of ability and achievement. In combination with a psychosocial profile that addresses behavior, self-concept, interests, and motivation, educators have the necessary information to guide them in identifying and developing the unique talents of gifted children with SLD.

On the Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities in Gifted Students: Reply to Assouline et al. (2010)

Gifted students often fail to achieve at a superior level in one or more academic areas. In this reply to an article by Assouline, Nicpon, and Whiteman, the author reviews various explanations for this phenomenon, including motivation/interest, learning opportunities, and error in measuring students’ ability—achievement discrepancies. The author also describes different methodologies for investigating whether learning disabilities are overidentified among gifted students and, more broadly, considers the appropriateness of a learning disability diagnosis in students with average achievement. The author concludes with thoughts on the proper interpretation of Assouline et al.’s results.

Enhancing practice through application of Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification

AbstractThis article demonstrates how the broad and narrow abilities and processes that comprise Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory and their relations to specific academic outcomes have begun to transform our current understanding of the definition of and methods for indentifying specific learning disability (SLD), particularly in the school setting. The manner in which CHC theory has been used to guide evaluation of the academic and cognitive capabilities of students who are suspected of having SLD is described. Current psychometric methods for identifying SLD that have a foundation in CHC theory are highlighted. These newer methods are based on what is known as the “third method,” a provision for SLD identification included in the federal regulations (34 CFR 300.540‐543) accompanying the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act that permits the use of alternative, research‐based approaches. A method based on an integration of existing third‐method approaches, called the Hypothesis‐Testing CHC Approach (HT‐CHC), was proposed. The HT‐CHC method is expected to be carried out within the context of a Response to Intervention (RTI) service delivery model. Benefits of this approach over ability–achievement discrepancy and RTI‐only methods and future directions in SLD identification research are discussed. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Intuition, insight, and the right hemisphere: Emergence of higher sociocognitive functions

Intuition is the ability to understand immediately without conscious reasoning and is sometimes explained as a 'gut feeling' about the rightness or wrongness of a person, place, situation, temporal episode or object. In contrast, insight is the capacity to gain accurate and a deep understanding of a problem and it is often associated with movement beyond existing paradigms. Examples include Darwin, Einstein and Freud's theories of natural selection, relativity, or the unconscious; respectively. Many cultures name these concepts and acknowledge their value, and insight is recognized as particularly characteristic of eminent achievements in the arts, sciences and politics. Considerable data suggests that these two concepts are more related than distinct, and that a more distributed intuitive network may feed into a predominately right hemispheric insight-based functional neuronal architecture. The preparation and incubation stages of insight may rely on the incorporation of domain-specific automatized expertise schema associated with intuition. In this manuscript the neural networks associated with intuition and insight are reviewed. Case studies of anomalous subjects with ability-achievement discrepancies are summarized. This theoretical review proposes the prospect that atypical localization of cognitive modules may enhance intuitive and insightful functions and thereby explain individual achievement beyond that expected by conventionally measured intelligence tests. A model and theory of intuition and insight's neuroanatomical basis is proposed which could be used as a starting point for future research and better understanding of the nature of these two distinctly human and highly complex poorly understood abilities.

The Varieties of Pathways to Dysfluent Reading

The majority of work on the double-deficit hypothesis (DDH) of dyslexia has been done at the letter and word levels of reading. Key research questions addressed in this study are (a) do readers with different subtypes of dyslexia display differences in fluency at particular reading levels (e.g., letter, word, and connected text)? and (b) do children with dyslexia identified by either low-achievement or ability—achievement discrepancy criteria show similar differences when classified by the DDH? To address these questions, the authors assessed a sample of 158 children with severe reading impairments in second and third grades on an extensive battery and classified them into three reader subtypes using the DDH. The results demonstrated that the three DDH subtypes exhibited differences in fluency at different levels of reading (letter, word, and connected text), underscoring the separate reading profiles of these subtypes and the different possible routes to dysfluency in reading disabilities. Furthermore, the results suggest that the different patterns among DDH subtypes are primarily driven by the ability—achievement discrepancy group. The implications of these findings are discussed for intervention, reading theory, and a more refined understanding of heterogeneity.

Learning Disabilities and Intellectual Functioning in School-Aged Children With Prenatal Cocaine Exposure

Risk for developing a learning disability (LD) or impaired intellectual functioning by age 7 was assessed in full-term children with prenatal cocaine exposure drawn from a cohort of 476 children born full term and enrolled prospectively at birth. Intellectual functioning was assessed using the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition (Wechsler, 1991) short form, and academic functioning was assessed using the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT; Wechsler, 1993) Screener by examiners blind to exposure status. LDs were categorized based on ability-achievement discrepancy scores, using the regression-based predicted achievement method described in the WIAT manual. The sample in this report included 409 children (212 cocaine-exposed, 197 non-cocaine-exposed) from the birth cohort with available data. Cumulative incidence proportions and relative risk values were estimated using STATA software (Statacorp, 2003). No differences were found in the estimate of relative risk for impaired intellectual functioning (IQ below 70) between children with and without prenatal cocaine exposure (estimated relative risk = .95; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.65, 1.39; p = .79). The cocaine-exposed children had 2.8 times greater risk of developing a LD by age 7 than non-cocaine-exposed children (95% CI = 1.05, 7.67; p = .038; IQ ≥ 70 cutoff). Results remained stable with adjustment for multiple child and caregiver covariates, suggesting that children with prenatal cocaine exposure are at increased risk for developing a learning disability by age 7 when compared to their non-cocaine-exposed peers.

IDEA 2004: Anticipated implications for clinical practice—integrating assessment and intervention

AbstractThe renewal, modification, and ratification of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA; 2004) produced a number of changes in legislation, particularly in the identification for children with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). In particular, the requirement that a child must evidence a severe discrepancy between intellectual functioning and academic performance has been modified to allow for a more flexible approach to SLD determination. The rules and regulations providing guidelines for implementation have yet to be completed, leaving many administrators and psychologists speculating on how to incorporate the recommendation that response to intervention (RTI) procedures be incorporated into their current protocols. Given the substantial anti‐assessment lobbying by RTI proponents, it may appear that the law has changed significantly to the point that comprehensive assessments are not required to determine eligibility for any disabling condition, particularly SLDs. This article reviews historical trends influencing the current legislation, from the inception of the use of ability–achievement discrepancy, the misconceptions that ability–achievement discrepancy and comprehensive assessment are equivalent, and vilification of intellectual assessment to the powerful, inside lobbying forces. In conclusion, we address what the law really says about assessment and RTI, and how these two procedures need to be integrated as a best practice for children but also to adhere to the legislative mandate of IDEA. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 43: 871–882, 2006.

A Nationwide Epidemiologic Modeling Study of LD

Through multiple logistic regression modeling, this article explores the relative importance of risk and protective factors associated with learning disabilities (LD). A representative national sample of 6- to 17-year-old students (N = 1,268) was drawn by random stratification and classified by the presence versus absence of LD in reading, spelling, and mathematics according to ability-achievement discrepancies or low achievement levels. The dichotomous classifications were regressed on sets of explanatory variables indicating potential biological, social-environmental, and cognitive factors, problem behavior, and classroom learning behavior. Modeling revealed patterns of high risk for male students and students evincing verbal and nonverbal ability problems and processing speed problems. It was shown that, absent controls for cognitive abilities (such as provided by the ability-achievement discrepancy definition), definitions keyed to low achievement will substantially overidentify ethnic minority and disadvantaged students and will be confounded by significantly higher proportions of students who display oppositional and aggressive behavior problems. Alternatively, good learning behaviors uniformly provide substantial reduction in the risk for LD.

A collective case study of nursing students with learning disabilities.

This collective case study described the meaning of being a nursing student with a learning disability and examined how baccalaureate nursing students with learning disabilities experienced various aspects of the nursing program. It also examined how their disabilities and previous educational and personal experiences influenced the meaning that they gave to their educational experiences. Seven nursing students were interviewed, completed a demographic data form, and submitted various artifacts (test scores, evaluation reports, and curriculum-based material) for document analysis. The researcher used Stake's model for collective case study research and analysis (1). Data analysis revealed five themes: 1) struggle, 2) learning how to learn with LD, 3) issues concerning time, 4) social support, and 5) personal stories. Theme clusters and individual variations were identified for each theme. Document analysis revealed that participants had average to above average intellectual functioning with an ability-achievement discrepancy among standardized test scores. Participants noted that direct instruction, structure, consistency, clear directions, organization, and a positive instructor attitude assisted learning. Anxiety, social isolation from peers, and limited time to process and complete work were problems faced by the participants.

Severe Discrepancy Models: Which Best Explains School Identification Practices for Learning Disabilities?

This study examined which of three types of severe discrepancy approaches—intraindividual achievement discrepancy, absolute achievement discrepancy, or relative achievement discrepancy—best accounted for students' identification as learning disabled (LD). Participants were 48 fourth-grade, school-identified LD students from a high-achieving and a low-achieving school district in Minnesota. Students were tested with a short form of the WISC-III and two measures of reading, and the resulting discrepancies were matched to students' school LD classification. Results showed that the best explanation for school-based LD identification practices was a relative achievement discrepancy, with between 85–95% of LD students in both districts identified accurately. The state-mandated ability-achievement discrepancy accounted for only 60% of LD students. Implications of these findings for LD identification practice based on an ecological perspective are discussed.