At present, diagnosing an LD is a challenging task given the lack of consensus regarding the best and more comprehensive method for the diagnosis of LDs (Berninger, Richards, & Abbott, 2015). Traditionally, a formal diagnosis of an LD has been necessary for students to receive additional support and funding in the academic classroom to address the areas in which they struggle (Philpott & Cahill, 2008). Typically, psychologists or other individuals with formal training in cognitive and academic assessment make this diagnosis by referencing established criteria for identifying LDs (Fagan & Wise, 2007). Of issue at present is that a number of diagnostic models exist. For example, learning disorders were first included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed.; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1980) and the model adopted in the description of learning disorders is essentially that of the discrepancy model (DM). In contrast, the concordance-discordance model (C-DM), based on a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach (Hale & Fiorello, 2004), has recently emerged as a viable alternative. This availability of multiple approaches to LD identification has been identified as highly problematic (Harrison & Holmes, 2012), with research supporting LD identification as method contingent (i.e., who receives a diagnosis depends on the identification method employed; e.g., Maki, Floyd, & Roberson, 2015).Further complicating this issue is that clinical decision-making relies on more than just a strict adherence to a particular diagnostic model with clinical judgment also playing an important role in the process. Although clinical judgment generally remains a poorly understood and largely neglected skill (Lilienfeld, Ammirati, & David, 2012), we do know that it plays a more prominent role in instances of diagnostic uncertainty (Redelmeier, Ferris, Tu, Hux, & Schull, 2001). Thus, it is our contention that clinical reasoning likely plays a heightened role in LD diagnosis. That is, psychologists are more likely to rely on clinical judgment to make diagnostic decisions in the absence of a consistent, reliable, and valid identification approach-as describes the current state of LD identification. As an example, a psychologist who primarily adheres to the discrepancy approach may be more lenient in the required spread of scores knowing that other identification models exist that do not require a discrepancy. Leniency might become attractive if it assists in the obtainment of what is the psychologist deems as appropriate levels of support for a particular student.The use of clinical judgment is not without certain cautions. We know largely from the considerable study of clinical reasoning within the medical field that practitioners are prone to several thinking errors and issues (Wilcox & Schroeder, 2015) and evidence within psychology has found practitioners inconsistently apply diagnostic criteria (Maki, Burns, & Sullivan, 2017). However, it is unclear as to whether and under what conditions judgment leads to increased or decreased diagnostic accuracy.Given the extant multiple approaches and the possible heightened role of clinical judgment in LD identification, the study of LD identification practices renders a potentially useful avenue by which to gain insights into the use of clinical judgment in assessment activities. In the present study, we directly compared the rate of LD diagnoses made by clinicians with those obtained using three commonly employed psychometric approaches to LD identification-the DM, LAM, and C-DM. To further explore diagnostic decision-making, when there was disagreement between the clinicians and psychometric approaches, we sought to determine the source of the disagreement as an initial step to better understanding the types of information clinicians use to inform their decision-making.Models of LD DiagnosisHistorically, LDs have been characterised by one feature: unexpected underachievement (Swanson, 2011). …