Specific Learning Disabilities Identification Research Articles

Do the Special Education Regulations in States Requiring RtI for SLD Identification Include or Omit Intervention Fidelity?

This study examined intervention fidelity (IF) and the extent to which this essential feature of response to intervention (RtI) was included within artifacts (laws and guidance documents) for states requiring RtI for specific learning disability (SLD) identification. Intervention fidelity is defined as the degree to which an intervention is implemented as planned. Artifacts from all U.S. states were reviewed. Twelve states were identified as requiring RtI for SLD identification, and they comprised the sample for the study. Using state department of education websites, artifacts for the 12 states were found and reviewed for any information on preferred terms (fidelity or integrity), definition, IF dimensions (adherence, exposure, interventionist quality, and participant response), and methods for assessing, reporting, and evaluating IF. We found nine states used the term fidelity, four states provided explicit guidance on assessing IF, and two states provided explicit information on how often to collect IF data and what level (percent) of IF was required for intervention decision-making. Implications for state policies and practices, future directions for improving IF knowledge, application, and evaluation, and study limitations are discussed.

Assessing Beliefs About Intrinsic and Extrinsic Determinants of SLD: Evaluating the Factor Structure of a Novel Instrument.

Schools conduct comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations to identify students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) and determine whether they qualify for special education services. This decision-making process is complex and research has documented many factors influencing SLD identification decisions. One such factor may be decision-makers' beliefs about the underlying causes of SLD, including intrinsic and extrinsic factors. However, no studies to date have examined the underlying factor structure of the responses to prompts about the causes of SLD from intrinsic and extrinsic perspectives. This study was conducted with a sample of 521 school psychologists as part of a larger study examining decision-making during SLD identification. Using confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) to compare two theoretically plausible models, results suggested that a single latent factor best captured variability in responses to these prompts. Implications for assessing beliefs and how they impact the psychoeducational assessment process to identify SLDs are discussed, along with areas for future research.

Intellectual Development and the Core-Selective Evaluation Process: Gaining Insight and Understanding of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities

The specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification literature is replete with competing narratives concerning the advantages and disadvantages of various techniques and methods. Until a widely accepted and empirically proven SLD identification methodology is universally supported, evaluators should seek to improve the existing alternatives. This article describes the value of using norm-referenced testing of intellectual development to comprehensively identify specific learning disabilities (SLD) as advocated by the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP). To this end, we will define intellectual development and describe practices such as integrated data analysis and task demand analysis.

The effect of measurement error on the positive predictive value of PSW methods for SLD identification: How buffer zones dispel the illusion of inaccuracy

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) methods are widely used for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Several researchers, however, have reported that the diagnostic accuracy of PSW methods is unacceptably low when strict thresholds were used to identify students with SLDs. We believe these findings give a misleading impression of the magnitude of the diagnostic errors that are likely to arise in PSW assessments. In a simulation study of 10 million cases using a simplified PSW method for demonstration, most of what have been called diagnostic errors were cases in which observed scores and true scores fell on opposite sides of a strict threshold but were still within a buffer zone the size of a typical measurement error. Because small score differences do not result in meaningfully different case conceptualizations, the use of buffer zones reveals that previous estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of PSW methods are misleadingly low. We also demonstrate that diagnostic decisions become increasingly reliable when observed scores are comfortably distant from diagnostic thresholds. For practitioners, we present a flowchart and practical guidelines to improve the accuracy and stability of SLD identification decisions.

Clinical Assessment in School Psychology: Impervious to Scientific Reform?

Given the interdisciplinary influences on school psychology along with its requirement to comply with federal and state law in the United States, scientific progress in the area of cognitive assessment and specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification has experienced slow, if not stagnant, progress. Extrapolation of research from one discipline to that of assessment is common in school psychology where test authors and creators of interpretive and diagnostic systems make theoretical and empirical justification for their claims with correlational research and factor analysis. Although these methodologies may appear to support an underlying theory or interpretive approach, they can produce divergent results depending upon sample size and methodological choice. Consequently, greater replication and reproduction is required. Federal and state law in the United States may perpetuate low value practices among practitioners who view them as acceptable since they are legal. School psychology does not have regulatory agencies to oversee practices. All of these influences impinge on scientific progress in cognitive assessment and SLD identification. Fortunately, Canada is not beholden to omnibus special education law so its academic institutions and agencies (e.g., school districts) may be better poised to engender scientific progress in cognitive assessment and SLD identification.

Response to Intervention and Specific Learning Disability Identification: Evidence From Tennessee

Response to intervention (RTI) is a method for providing academic support to students and for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Using interrupted time series and hazard models, we examined if statewide RTI adoption in the U.S. state of Tennessee was associated with changes in rates of SLD and first-time SLD identification in elementary schools, and if these associations varied across student groups. Response to intervention was associated with an initial decline in the percentage of students with SLD in the state that continued over time, with larger decreases for students who were Black or economically disadvantaged. Response to intervention was associated with a 61% average decrease in the odds of first-time SLD identification by third grade (about a 0.006 change in the predicted probability), with greater declines for students who were Black or economically disadvantaged. We discuss these results in the context of disproportionality in special education and the need for research examining whether declines in SLD were due to improved academic outcomes, as opposed to delays in identification.

Review of State Policies and Guidance for the Identification of Culturally and Linguistically Minoritized Students With Specific Learning Disabilities

The identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD) remains fraught with controversy and uncertainty about professionals’ capacity to appropriately identify special education eligibility. For students from linguistically minoritized backgrounds, the exclusionary clause prohibits the identification of learning difficulties primarily attributable to contextual or linguistic factors. Yet the ambiguity of the federal language may hinder application, making critical states’ interpretation and corresponding guidance for professional practice in eligibility determination. In this archival study, we systematically reviewed state departments’ education policies and related guidance on the identification of multilingual learners with SLD, with a focus on how states have articulated policies and procedures related to the federal exclusionary clause. Our findings demonstrate variability and depth of information across states pertaining to guidance regarding the exclusionary clause. Implications for practice and policy are provided.

Specific Learning Disability Identification in an RtI Method: Do Measures of Cognitive Ability Matter?

AbstractThis study examined the extent to which cognitive ability index scores predicted multidisciplinary teams’ (MDT) SLD identification within a response‐to‐intervention (RtI) method after accounting for RtI slope and norm‐referenced achievement scores. Results showed that four achievement composite scores (i.e., basic reading, reading comprehension, math computation, and math problem solving) and two cognitive ability index scores (i.e., crystallized ability, working memory) predicted MDT‐determined SLD, explaining 81% of the variance. The inclusion of academic achievement and cognitive ability index scores predicted MDT‐determined SLD with 90% accuracy; cognitive ability index scores only increased specificity (sensitivity = 95%; specificity = 79%). RtI slope did not predict MDT‐determined SLD, which was a required component of the evaluation.

Dual discrepancy/consistency pattern of strengths and weaknesses method of specific learning disability identification: Classification accuracy when combining clinical judgment with assessment data

The Dual Discrepancy/Consistency (DD/C) pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) method is the most prominent “other alternative research-based procedure” used to identify a specific learning disability (SLD). The DD/C method is intended to be used with multiple data sources, but no research has examined identification decision making using the DD/C PSW analysis of cognitive and academic achievement test scores with other assessment data (e.g., pre-referral intervention data, parent/teacher reports, observations, evaluation of exclusionary factors). This study used an experimental vignette methodology to investigate school psychologists' (N = 343) identification decision making using the DD/C method with multiple data sources. Results showed that school psychologist participants made highly accurate (97.50%) identification decisions when both cognitive and achievement test score patterns and other assessment data were clearly indicative of SLD, but that overall identification accuracy was only 65.60%. Participants made less accurate identification decisions when examining test score data that did not meet DD/C PSW criteria for SLD than when examining test score data that did. Participants made less accurate decisions when other assessment data (interpreted in conjunction with test scores) did not meet DD/C PSW criteria for SLD or were ambiguous than when they did. In addition, male school psychologists were less likely to make accurate identification decisions than female school psychologists, and participants who were Nationally Certified School Psychologists were less likely to make accurate identification decisions than those who were not. Last, more experience with DD/C resulted in less accurate identification decisions, and participants who made accurate decisions reported higher levels of confidence, although the effect size was negligible. Implications for research and practice are discussed.

Language used in school psychological evaluation reports as predictors of SLD identification within a response to intervention model.

Despite decades of research, much is still unknown regarding how specific learning disability (SLD) identification decisions are made, particularly how language related to sociodemographic and psychosocial factors may impact decision-making. This study employed the Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count (LIWC) method to examine the language used in school psychological reports to better understand how sociodemographic (i.e., race, socioeconomic background, and gender) and psychosocial factors (e.g., positive and negative emotion, student effort, and student social processes) related to SLD identification within a Response to Intervention (RtI) identification method. The reports of students identified as SLD contained significantly more achievement-related language (e.g., hardworking, motivated, exerting effort) compared to students who were not identified as SLD, and achievement-related language was associated with SLD identification above and beyond RtI evaluation data (i.e., academic achievement and slope). Implications for research and practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Specific Learning Disability Identification Practices in the USA: a Survey of Special Education Administrators

Specific learning disorder (SLD) identification is arguably one of the most significant controversies in school psychology. One component of this issue is that guidelines and practices vary substantially across professionals and states, which leads to inconsistent identification rates and outcomes for students. To assess the extent of this problem at the district level, we surveyed special education administrators from 725 US school districts regarding their districts’ current specific learning disability (SLD) identification practices in the USA. Significant differences in SLD identification methods were reported across districts. Significant differences in SLD identification methods were also found across regions and between districts that used different educators to collect academic achievement test data. Curriculum-based measures were also used more frequently in districts that identify SLD using response to intervention. Implications of these findings for policy and for practice are considered.

Muddled Measurement: A Historical Perspective on Questionable Practices in School Psychology’s Assessment of Learning Disabilities

As school psychologists we are well trained with using and interpreting a variety of psychometric instruments, yet there are several studies that indicate that school psychologist’s interpretive practices veer off the intended path. The application of assessment to the process of identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD) has been noted as one of the more problematic areas in psychoeducational assessment for myriad reasons. While the medical field has begun to focus on de-implementing ineffective practices, the field of psychology has not followed as readily. This article considers the costs of poor decision making in the context of SLD evaluation and seeks to identify evidence-based assessment practices for SLD identification and decision making. After considering historical perspectives, approaches and practices for assessing SLD, actuarial interpretation, and treatment validity will be discussed.

Assessing the Impact of Sequential Data Presentation on Specific Learning Disabilities Identification Decisions Using Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Methods

Patterns of strengths and weaknesses represent relatively novel methods for identifying specific learning disabilities (SLD) with proponents asserting that the incorporation of multiple sources of assessment data and professional judgment play a key role in their utility. In this study, we examined if the sequential presentation of assessment data impacted school psychologists’ ratings as to whether or not hypothetical students depicted in special education evaluation vignettes should be identified with SLD. Results showed that when participants viewed vignettes that were indicative of SLD (i.e., SLD positive), SLD likelihood ratings increased with the additional presentation of assessment data sources over time. However, when participants viewed vignettes that were indicative of a student not having SLD (i.e., SLD negative), SLD likelihood ratings were relatively consistent over time. Moreover, participants demonstrated relatively high levels of confidence in their SLD identification decisions, and in SLD negative vignettes, confidence increased after the fourth assessment data source was presented. Implications for SLD identification are discussed.

An examination of the relationships between specific learning disabilities identification and growth rate, achievement, cognitive ability, and student demographics.

Students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs) represent a large proportion of those receiving special education services in U.S. schools, but the relationship between student-level variables and SLD identification is still not well understood. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which data collected as part of a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation were associated with SLD identification status. Logistic regression analyses were used to examine how response to intervention (RtI) slope (i.e., growth rate), academic achievement, global cognitive ability, and demographic variables (i.e., race/ethnicity, gender, and free/reduced-price lunch [FRL] status) were related to SLD identification. Academic achievement (B = -0.13, OR = 0.88), race/ethnicity (B = -1.35, OR = 0.26; 0 = white student, 1 = student of color), and FRL (B = 0.94, OR = 2.57) were related to SLD status, but global cognitive ability and RtI slope were not, even though the RtI method was reported to be used during the special education decision-making process. Implications for practice, particularly related to the use of RtI, are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Attendance and Specific Learning Disability Identification: A Survey of Practicing School Psychologists

AbstractAccording to Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, lack of appropriate instruction is a possible exclusionary factor that must be considered during Specific Learning Disability (SLD) identification. Student attendance is a major predictor of long‐term academic success or failure and may relate to whether a student had access to appropriate instruction; however, it is unclear whether and how attendance is considered during SLD identification. This survey of practicing school psychologists provides an exploration of how school psychologists consider and address student absenteeism in the SLD identification process. Researchers found considerable variability across school psychologists and eligibility teams across a multitude of dimensions, including whether and how attendance is considered exclusionary and whether respondents perceived the need for more clear guidance from their district and/or state.

A national survey of school psychologists' practices in identifying specific learning disabilities.

This study examined the identification frameworks, specific models, and assessment practices used by school psychologists to identify students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in public schools in the United States. We surveyed school psychologist practitioners using an online survey, conducted a review of state regulations addressing SLD, and evaluated the effects of state-level policies and school psychologists' characteristics on identification practices. Responses from more than 1,300 school psychologists revealed that multiple SLD identification frameworks are utilized and that state regulations generally have stronger effects on identification practices than do characteristics such as school psychologists' age, highest degree obtained, and years of experience. Frameworks with well-known psychometric limitations, such as those employing intelligence-achievement discrepancy formulas, remain commonly employed. We encourage more and better scientific research into both the conceptual and psychometric outcomes associated with SLD identification frameworks and urge application of evidence-based practices in the assessment and treatment of academic deficits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

How Do School Psychologists Interpret Intelligence Tests for the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities?

Although intelligence tests are among the most widely used psychological instruments in school psychology, at the current time, little is known about how practitioners interpret them. The primary purpose of this study, therefore, was to determine how intelligence tests are interpreted by school psychologists, particularly for the identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD). Participants were 1317 school psychologists who were practicing in the USA. Results indicated that school psychologists differ widely in their approach to intelligence test interpretation, particularly for the identification of SLD, and that these differences are only modestly related to personal characteristics, level and accreditation/approval status of professional training, and state regulations for SLD eligibility determination. Although we found that most practicing school psychologists (80%) regularly interpret the overall score, which is the most reliable and valid score for most uses of intelligence tests in the schools, many also engage in questionable interpretive practices, such as conducting intra-individual (ipsative) subtest analyses and the patterns of strengths and weaknesses approach to SLD identification. Implications of these results for practice and training are discussed.

Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years of science and practice.

Specific learning disabilities (SLDs) are highly relevant to the science and practice of psychology, both historically and currently, exemplifying the integration of interdisciplinary approaches to human conditions. They can be manifested as primary conditions-as difficulties in acquiring specific academic skills-or as secondary conditions, comorbid to other developmental disorders such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. In this synthesis of historical and contemporary trends in research and practice, we mark the 50th anniversary of the recognition of SLDs as a disability in the United States. Specifically, we address the manifestations, occurrence, identification, comorbidity, etiology, and treatment of SLDs, emphasizing the integration of information from the interdisciplinary fields of psychology, education, psychiatry, genetics, and cognitive neuroscience. SLDs, exemplified here by specific word reading, reading comprehension, mathematics, and written expression disabilities, represent spectrum disorders, each occurring in approximately 5% to 15% of the school-aged population. In addition to risk for academic deficiencies and related functional social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties, those with SLDs often have poorer long-term social and vocational outcomes. Given the high rate of occurrence of SLDs and their lifelong negative impact on functioning if not treated, it is important to establish and maintain effective prevention, surveillance, and treatment systems involving professionals from various disciplines trained to minimize the risk and maximize the protective factors for SLDs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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).

Further Examination of a Critical Assumption Underlying the Dual-Discrepancy/Consistency Approach to Specific Learning Disability Identification

The aim of this study was to further examine a critical assumption underlying the dual-discrepancy/consistency (DD/C) patterns of strengths and weaknesses method of specific learning disability (SLD) identification. To examine the concordance between strengths and weaknesses in cognitive abilities and academic achievement, we conducted classification agreement analyses on data gathered from three large representative samples of children and adolescents (n = 300 for each group) at different age levels using composite scores from the norming sample of the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Achievement. We also followed the decision processes for determining significant weaknesses in the DD/C method and used the accompanying Cross-Battery Assessment Software System to analyze data. Results of classification agreement analyses indicated that, although specificity and negative predictive values were high across all academic achievement domains and cognitive abilities examined, sensitivity and positive predictive values were low. These findings further the empirical literature research questioning the utility of the DD/C methods of SLD identification. Altogether, research on the utility of the DD/C method suggests that use of these methods will result in school psychologists spending too much time conducting assessments with a low probability of accurately identifying SLD.