Discrepancy Criterion Research Articles

Diagnosing written language disabilities using the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement-Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.

The writing portions of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement-Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test are often administered when establishing eligibility for special education services due to learning disabilities. The scores on these measures are typically regarded as equivalent although little is known about how scores on the two measures differ for the same students. Differences of only a few points, however, may affect eligibility for special education services. These tests were administered to 25 sixth grade students previously diagnosed with learning disabilities in written expression only. Students' Wechsler scores were consistently higher on the overall writing composite, while there was no difference in the mean scores on the language mechanics subtests. The WIAT Written Expression subtest mean, however, was significantly higher than the Woodcock-Johnson Writing Samples subtest mean. Use of the Wechsler test would be less likely to identify children for special education services in written expression when point discrepancy criteria are utilized for eligibility. Clinicians should be cognizant of the effect of the specific test chosen on eligibility outcome.

Basing Eligibility on Discrepancy Criteria: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Passed

Basing Eligibility on Discrepancy Criteria: A Bad Idea Whose Time Has Passed

Neuropsychological differentiation of subnormal arithmetic abilities in children.

For the neuropsychological diagnosis of a Specific disorder of arithmetic skills the standard is defined worldwide by the diagnostic guidelines of the two major classification systems of psychiatric disorders, the ICD- 10 and the DSM-IV, both of which use the discrepancy criterion as the key feature of the diagnosis. It becomes clear that following such guidelines can only mean an extensive diagnostic assessment of patients with subnormal arithmetic abilities, including the social and previous medical history followed by the exclusion of a present disorder or disability, often necessitating laboratory, neuroimaging and neurophysiological tests. In the neuropsychological diagnosis of a Specific disorder of arithmetical skills we found a stepwise approach including previously obtained test results to be most practical and economical. The assessment instruments such as intelligence tests, neuropsychological test batteries, academic achievement tests, specific neuropsychological tests, test batteries for arithmetic abilities or error analysis are discussed. An overview of case studies in the literature is given; however, the overwhelming majority of case reports on patients with arithmetic disabilities are casuistics of adult patients with an acquired loss of arithmetic abilities. The importance of a differentiated neuropsychological diagnosis is demonstrated by four of our own cases: of borderline deficient intelligence, a combined disorder of academic skills, congenital brain dysfunction, and a specific disorder of arithmetic skills. Especially the new quality in assessing arithmetic abilities with the NUCALC battery is demonstrated; diagnostic and therapeutic consequences are discussed.

Utility of Kindergarten Teacher Judgments in Identifying Early Learning Problems

Most existing research on early identification of learning difficulties has examined the validity of methods for predicting future academic problems. The present study focused instead on the sensitivity of kindergarten teachers to learning problems in their students and on the continuity of teacher-identified problems over time. To identify early learning problems, kindergarten teachers in a suburban school district rated student progress toward six academic objectives as satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Twenty percent of the district's 303 kindergarten children received unsatisfactory ratings in at least one area. Thirty-eight of these children (identified group) were matched to 34 children with satisfactory ratings in all areas (nonidentified group). Results of testing conducted during kindergarten revealed poorer academic achievement in identified children than in nonidentified children. Children from the identified group also performed more poorly than children from the nonidentified group on tests of phonological processing and working memory/executive function and were rated by teachers as having more behavior and attention problems and lower social competence. Follow-up of the sample to first grade documented continued learning problems in the identified group. These findings support the use of teacher judgements in early detection of learning problems and argue against reliance on discrepancy criteria.

Cognitive Processing of Low Achievers and Children with Reading Disabilities: A Selective Meta-Analytic Review of the Published Literature

This article synthesizes some of the published literature comparing the cognitive functioning of children with reading disabilities (RD) and children with low reading and low intelligence (low achievers). Nineteen studies, which yielded 274 effect sizes (ESs), indicated that children with reading disabilities outperformed low achievers (LA) on measures of lexical knowledge, syntactical knowledge, and visual-spatial processing (ES means =.55,.87,.36, respectively), but not on measures of phonological processing [e.g., ES mean =.25 for pseudo-word reading, ES mean = -.06 for automaticity (rapid naming)]. Regression modeling indicated that the magnitude of effect size differences on cognitive measures between RD and LA children was significantly related to chronological age (older participants yield smaller effect sizes than younger participants) and verbal IQ (the greater the difference in IQ between RD and LA participants the larger the effect size). Model testing further supported the hypothesis that relative to other cognitive measures, children with RD share a common phonological core deficit with LA achievers. However, the results indicated that the deficits shared between these two groups are much broader than a phonological core. The results were discussed within the context of defining children with RD by discrepancy criteria and how advances in the classification of such children might occur.

Comparison of Students Classified as LD Who Petitioned for or Fulfilled the College Foreign Language Requirement

In this study, we compared the cognitive, academic achievement, and demographic profiles of 46 students from one university who had been classified as learning disabled (LD) and had received permission to substitute courses for the university's foreign language (FL) requirement (petition group) with the profiles of 21 students from the same university who had been classified as LD and had fulfilled the university's FL requirement by passing FL courses (nonpetition group). Results showed no significant differences between the two groups on measures of reading, mathematics, written language, American College Testing score, and graduating grade point average when IQ was used as a covariate. More petition than nonpetition students had at least a 1.0 SD discrepancy between IQ and achievement and had been referred only for FL learning problems. More nonpetition than petition students had taken an FL in college and received accommodations in the FL. The two groups together appeared to constitute a heterogeneous group of learners, with more than half failing to meet a minimum discrepancy criterion for classification as LD. The discussion addresses the classification system for LD, the process for determining the presence of FL learning problems and how to address them, and directions for further research.

Characteristics of children attending language units in England: a national study of 7-year-olds.

The present investigation examined the characteristics of 7-year-old children attending language units in England. The study involved 242 participants who represented a randomized sample of all 7-year-old children spending 50% of more of the school week in a language unit. Results are discussed in terms of the following questions: what is the non-verbal ability of children attending language units?; do children attending language units fit the discrepancy criteria between verbal and non-verbal ability diagnostic of specific language impairment (SLI)?; and what types of language difficulties do children with SLI attending language units have?

Intelligence and dyslexia: implications for diagnosis and intervention.

In this paper we critically examine theoretical issues and practical consequences of including IQ in the definition of dyslexia. According to the discrepancy criterion individuals are classified as dyslexic if their reading skills are below what would be expected from their IQ scores. However, we argue that intelligence is a fuzzy concept and that there is no clear causal relationship between intelligence level and word decoding skills. Also, high and low IQ poor readers show the same reading performance patterns, indicating that both groups might benefit from the same remedial activities. Evidence for the critical role of phonological skills in dyslexia is presented and a more recent definition of dyslexia is discussed in relation to these findings. Finally, two alternative, more outcome-based classifications of poor readers are suggested and some critical consequences for individual interventions are outlined.

Classifying Children as LD: An Analysis of Current Practice in an Urban Setting

A large number of states have continued to include a discrepancy criterion in their regulations for determining a child's learning disability status even though researchers have raised questions regarding the appropriateness of discrepancy formulas and the ability of clinicians to apply such formulas to quantitative data. Given the problems raised with the discrepancy model approach, one must question to what extent clinicians are, in fact, making decisions based upon this approach. This study sought to answer this question using data from 105 case files of predominantly African American children who had been classified as LD in a large, inner-city public school district and who had been receiving special education services for at least three years. Data are evaluated at both initial and triennial evaluations. Implications of results are discussed as are suggestions for future research.

Dyslexia: a practitioner's handbook

About the Author. Other Books by Gavin Reid. Foreword. Preface. Chapter 1 Defining Dyslexia. Defining Dyslexia. Purpose of Definitions. How Should We Define Dyslexia? Definitions. Barriers to Implementing Policy. Rose Review and Dyslexia. Education for Learners with Dyslexia. Different Perspectives and Agenda. Chapter 2 Explaining Dyslexia: The Range of Research. Causal Modelling Framework. Genetic Factors. Neurobiological Factors. Visual and Temporal Processing. Magnocellular Visual System. Procedural Timing. Hemispheric Symmetry. Processing Speed. Phonological Processing. Phonological Awareness and Multisensory Programmes. Morphological Processing. Glue Ear. Cognitive Skills. Metacognition. Environmental Factors. Additional Language Learning. Dyslexia in Different Orthographies. Self-disclosure in Adults. Chapter 3 Assessment: Issues and Considerations. Points to Consider. Discrepancy Criteria. Listening Comprehension. Componential Model of Reading. Curriculum Focus. Why an Assessment? How-the Assessment Process. Effect of an Assessment. Assessment-Points to Consider. Some Other Considerations. Assessment and Inclusion. The Bilingual Learner. Chapter 4 Identifying Needs. Factors that can Prompt Concern. Linking Assessment with the Planning of Intervention. Comorbidity. Assessing Performances. Criteria: Summary. Whose Responsibility. Early Identification. Models of Identification. Expert/Intervention-Attainment. Barriers to Learning. Whole-school Involvement. Chapter 5 Assessment: Approaches and Resources. The Use of Tests-Points to Ponder. Cognitive Measures. Assessment of Processing Skills. Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP). Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests. Gray Oral Reading Tests (Gort-4). Standardised/Psychometric Criteria. Standardisation. Psychometric. Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT). Comment. Phonological Representation and Assessment. Screening. Curriculum Assessment. Miscue Analysis. Assessment in Context. Metacognitive Assessment. Multiple Intelligences Approaches. A Components Approach. Observational Assessment. Observational Framework. Systematic Observation. Summary. Chapter 6 Reading-Social, Cultural and Government Perspectives. The Social Context for Literacy. Literacy and Culture. Defining Literacy. Critical Literacy. Challenging Assumptions. Government Initiatives. Literacy Standards and International Comparisons. Pisa Study. Literacy Initiatives. Chapter 7 The Acquisition of Literacy. What is Reading? Factors to Consider. Reading as a Process. Reading Skills. Reading Practice. Developing Reading Skills. Key Factors. The Development of Reading. Stages of Reading Development. Limitations of the Stage Model of Reading. Reading and Memory. Relationship between Phonology and Orthography. Dyslexia and Different Orthographies. Chapter 8 Reading Models and Methods. Bottom-Up and Top Down Models. Connectionist Models. Balance Model of Reading. Method of Teaching Reading. Developing Reading Skills. Teaching Reading-the Debate. Reading Interventions. Methodological Issues in Reading Intervention Research. Factors to Consider in Developing and Using Reading Approaches. The Literacy Experience. Framework for Teaching. Summary. Chapter 9 The Acquisition of Literacy: Spelling. Why is Spelling Difficult? Systems Involved in Spelling. Spelling Skills. Spelling Development. Spelling Policy. Spelling Strategies. Spelling Materials. Chapter 10 Expressive Writing. The Importance of Writing. Relationship between Writing and Spelling. Expressive Writing: The Process. Cognitive Skills Associated with Writing. Writing in the Curriculum. Developing Metacognitive Skills through Writing. Metacognitive Strategies for Writing. Strategies for Writing. Motivation and Writing. Planning. Pre-writing Framework. Developing Ideas. Handwriting. Summary. Chapter 11 Teaching Approaches: Points to Consider. The Context. Assessment and the Curriculum. The Learner. Programmes and Approaches-Some Considerations. Over-learning. Principles. Issues. Chapter 12 Supporting Literacy: Individualised Programmes. Criteria for Selection. Alpha to Omega. Orton-Gillingham. Procedure. The Hickey Multisensory Language Course. Bangor Dyslexia Teaching System. Tackling Dyslexia. Alphabetic Phonics. The Slingerland Programme. Letterland. Reading Recovery. Toe By Toe: Multisensory Manual for Teachers and Parents. Comment-Issues to Consider. Chapter 13 Supporting Literacy: Approaches and Strategies. Phonics Instructional Approaches. Language Experience. Other Support Approaches. Phonological Approaches. High-interest Books-History. Start to Finish Books. Differentiated Texts. Visual Factors. Motor Aspects. Assisted Learning. Summary. Chapter 14 Supporting Learning. Effective Learning. Key Points About Learning. The Learning Process. Realising Potential. Zone of Proximal Development. Developing Learning Skills. Learning Strategies. Multiple Intelligences. Study Skills. Set Goals. Feedback. Memory-Some Strategies. The Role of Self-esteem. Creativity and the 'Gifted' Dyslexic Student. Summary. Chapter 15 Inclusion: Curriculum Access. The Context. Responding to the Diverse Needs of Students. The Challenges. Meeting Curriculum Objectives. Index for Inclusion. Tensions and Contradictions. Assessment, Need and Accountability. Removing Barriers to Achievement. Interventions and Inclusion. Making the School Inclusive. Equity. Principles of Inclusion. An Inclusive School. Healthy Schools. Supporting Inclusion. Staff Support and Training. Student Advocacy. Dyslexia and Self-advocacy. Staff Support. Key Factors. Chapter 16 Inclusion in Secondary Education: Accessing the Curriculum. Responsibility. Features of Secondary Schools. Differentiation and Curricular Development. Differentiation and Assessment. Subject Areas. Multiple Intelligences in Secondary Schools. Physical Education. Staff Development. Challenges: Key Areas. Chapter 17 Inclusion: Further and Higher Education and the Workplace. Further and Higher Education. The Workplace. Concluding Comment. Chapter 18 Issues and Concerns. Issue 1. Multilingualism. Issue 2. The Use of Computers and Technology. Issue 3. Overlap, Continuum and Intervention. Issue 4. Alternative Therapies. Issue 5. Training and Professional Development. Comment on Issues. Chapter 19 The Role of Parents. Parental Concerns. Parental Support. Parents' Challenges. Parents as Partners. Appendix 1 Some Tests for Dyslexia that Can Be Used by Teachers. Appendix 2 Further Contacts. References. Index.

Socioeconomic status, age and the classification of dyslexics and poor readers: the dangers of using IQ scores in the definition of reading disability

Two studies are reported that raise additional serious questions about the use of IQ scores in the definition of dyslexia. Participants in the studies were children with reading difficulties and IQ ⩾80. Children were categorized into ‘dyslexic’ and ‘poor reader’ groups on the basis of whether or not there was a significant discrepancy between their IQ and their reading performance. The first study was based on a sample of 161 7–8-year-old children. There was a significant positive correlation (0.351) between the IQ scores of the children and the socioeconomic status (SES) scores of the parents. Furthermore, the dyslexic children had significantly higher SES scores than the poor readers. The second study investigated the changes in IQ with age, using a total of 473 children aged 7–16 years. Two key findings emerged: first, the mean IQ scores were lower for the older children, suggesting an effective decline with age; second, the ratio of poor readers to dyslexic children increased with age. The findings suggest strongly that the measured IQ of a dyslexic child decreases with age, leading to a reclassification from dyslexic to poor reader using the discrepancy approach. Two children with equivalent reading difficulties might therefore be diagnosed differently by the IQ–attainment discrepancy criterion, with a child with lower SES or who is older being more likely to be classified as a poor reader. Therefore children with lower SES or who are older are victims of discrimination if the IQ–achievement discrepancy definition of dyslexia is used. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Learning Disabilities Definitions and Criteria Used by State Education Departments

This article reports the results of a survey of the 51 state departments of education (including Washington, DC) regarding their definitions of learning disabilities, identification criteria, and operationalization procedures. A conceptual framework consisting of eight components was used in analyzing the definitions and identification criteria. Results show the continued effect of the 1977 federal definition and criteria while revealing variations in state definitions and criteria. For example, several state definitions now include the neurological component, and use of discrepancy criteria is increasing. To determine current trends, the data are compared with those from a similar survey published in 1990. Findings are discussed in terms of trends, prereferral interventions, and noncategorical identification.

Differential risk for developmental reading disorders in the offspring of compensated versus noncompensated parents

When one or both parents have a history of developmental reading disorder (RD) in childhood, the risk to their offspring for developing reading problems is substantially increased. However, risk research has usually assumed a stability of reading problems across the lifespan (i.e., if a parent was affected in childhood, he or she remains affected in adulthood). Yet, some individuals with RD in childhood compensate for the disorder as they grow older. Both an environmental and genetic hypothesis would predict that the risk for RD in offspring will vary as a function of parental compensation. This study examined whether risk to offspring was dependent on the parents' successful or unsuccessful compensation for their childhood reading problems. Two large family data sets were analyzed (N=907). Diagnoses with either an age discrepant or IQ discrepant criteria essentially showed that having at least one still affected parent (i.e., RD both as a child and as an adult) put the offspring at a higher risk for RD than having at least one compensated parent (i.e., RD as a child but not as an adult). The lowest risk to an offspring occurred when both parents were never affected (i.e., not RD as a child or as an adult). The implications of these findings are discussed with regard to counseling and early diagnosis of reading problems.

Evidence of Nonverbal Learning Disability among Learning Disabled Boys with Sensory Integrative Dysfunction

The presumed sensorimotor basis of the nonverbal learning disability syndrome was investigated among 90 learning disabled boys (M age = 6 yr., 8 mo., SD = 12.2 mo.) with sensory integrative dysfunction. The majority of the boys were Caucasian, lower to middle socioeconomic status, and from urban, English-speaking families. 14% (n = 13) of the boys satisfied core discrepancy criteria for nonverbal learning disability, including both a significantly higher Wechsler Verbal than Performance IQ and a higher standard score in Reading than Arithmetic on the Wide Range Achievement Test. Compared with a control group of 19 boys from the same sample who had no significant discrepancies, boys with nonverbal learning disability had significantly greater weaknesses in space visualization and visuomotor coordination. As predicted, rote verbal memory and syntactical strengths were also exhibited by boys with nonverbal learning disability, but the two groups did not differ significantly.

Effects of simple and regressed discrepancy models and cutoffs on severe discrepancy determination

Concern over the growing number of students identified as learning disabled has led school districts to examine the criteria for determination and the means by which they are operationalized. Two frequently used methods for determining a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement, a key criterion in LD determination, were applied to a sample of 344 students to determine how a change in method might influence the rates and characteristics of students meeting this criterion. The results indicate an increase in numbers when a regression method is used over a simple difference score method. When the change proposed included moving to a more severe cutoff score, the pattern reversed and a 20% decrease was observed. Although IQ correlated with the discrepancies when the simple difference score method was used, no correlation was observed when regression was employed, indicating that regression may be a more equitable method for calculating severe discrepancies. Neither method resulted in disproportionate racial representation among those meeting the severe discrepancy criterion.

Impact on Psychologists of State Guidelines for Evaluating Underachievement

Despite continuing controversy about the validity of distinguishing between subgroups of low achievers, evaluating discrepancies between ability and achievement remains central to current practice in identifying students as learning disabled (LD) for special education services. State education department (SED) efforts to operationalize the discrepancy criterion and to specify “best practice” take on particular importance given the nature of practitioner difficulties reported in the literature and the need to increase the reliability of identification. Information from 290 nationally certified school psychologists (64.4% of the original random sample) was compared with data collected by Frankenberger and Fronzaglio (1991) on SED recommendations to evaluate how effectively recommendations were being communicated and followed. The trend toward more appropriate methods of quantifying a discrepancy noted in reviews of SED guidelines was reflected in the practices reported by those working in such states. Evidence also suggested considerable questionable practice stemming from inadequate clarity of guidelines and absence of guidelines. Findings indicate that one immediately available avenue for improving LD identification is to clarify a number of SED guidelines and provide such guidelines in states where they do not currently exist.

Validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Criteria for Identifying Learning Disabilities

IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria identified 24 children with learning disabilities (LD) having a lower Verbal-higher Performance (LV-HP) WISC-R IQ profile and 33 children with slower learning (SL). The majority of children were white males of lower to middle-class background and ranged in age from 77 to 159 months. Except for predetermined Performance scale group differences, children with LD were not found to be otherwise distinguished by differences on WISC-R subtest scores, subtest scatter, or variation among Kaufman and Bannatyne category scores. Only one of the WISC-R profile differences that was an advantage for the children with LD satisfied test criteria for clinical significance. None of the differences predicted their reading, spelling, or aritlunetic achievement. Results suggest that children who are differentially identified as LV-HP LD or SL based on IQ achievement discrepancy criteria may not be distinguishable on any other aspects of their WISC-R profile that are related to their basic academic performance.

Visual event-related potentials of dyslexic children to rhyming and nonrhyming stimuli.

In a visual event-related potential (ERP) study, children diagnosed as dyslexic in terms of both age and IQ discrepancy criteria were compared with two contrast groups: poor for age (SLOW) readers and normal reading children with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). The children viewed 200 stimulus pairs and judged whether the second stimulus of each pair rhymed with the first. The first stimulus was always a three-letter word, while half of the second stimuli were pronounceable nonsense words and half were real words. Rhyme probability was 50%. The ERP waveforms of the dyslexics were significantly different from those of the ADD group in showing less late negativity. The SLOW group's waveforms more closely paralleled those of the ADD group. The major anomalous feature of the dyslexics' waveform was a pronounced late positive peak (P500), which followed an attenuated N450 peak. Over all groups, the N450 peak was sensitive to the rhyme manipulation, as has been found in adults (Rugg, 1984a, 1984b). Real words and nonsense words produced similar waveforms. Hemispheric effects were found but did not interact with group. Results suggest non-automatic visual cognitive processing of rhyme in dyslexics.

Language impaired children: Differences between verbal and nonverbal abilities

Specific language impairment has been defined by excluding other types of difficulties like peripheral hearing loss, mental retardation, emotional disturbances, etc. It has also been advocated that discrepancy criteria could be used, for example the discrepancy between language measures and nonverbal IQ. Language measures and measures of nonverbal IQ represent very global measures of cognitive functioning. The present paper relates to the problem of definition and assessment of specific language impairment by suggesting that a distinction ought to be made between two aspects of verbal and nonverbal cognitive functioning. The subtests on WPPSI (the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Wechsler, 1967) were sorted into groups representing declarative and procedural knowledge. Declarative knowledge corresponds to “knowing that”/“seeing that” and procedural knowledge corresponds to “knowing how”/“seeing how”. In a group of 90 language impaired children, mean age 5.9 years, we found marked disc...

Phonological Processes, Confrontational Naming, and Immediate Memory in Dyslexia

A group of poor readers classified as dyslexic by age/IQ discrepancy criteria (n = 42) were contrasted with two clinic control groups: 56 adequate-for-age readers with attention deficit disorder (ADD) and 21 poor-for-age readers not meeting the IQ discrepancy criterion (slow/borderline group). The children (33 girls, 86 boys) ranged in age from 7.5 years to 12 years. Variables chosen for study included simple and complex phonological processing, speech rate, continuous naming speed, running memory span, serial memory span, and mental addition. Evidence is presented that the two poor reader groups are distinguishable. Unlike the dyslexic group, the slow/borderline group did not differ from the ADD group on three key measures: simple auditory phonological sensitivity, continuous naming speed, and running memory span. Stepwise regression to predict word list reading level showed that once age and verbal IQ were removed (51% of variance), these three key measures accounted for an additional 22% of the variance (R = 0.86, R2 = 0.73). The single best predictor of word list reading level was nonsense word list reading level, which was explained by the same set of five variables that explained real word reading (R = 0.77, R2 = .60). Severity of attentional problems was not linearly related to reading skill in this clinic sample.