Variance In Achievement Research Articles

Is Response to Intervention Good Policy for Specific Learning Disability?

The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ( IDEA ) established new provisions for specific learning disability (SLD) identification, including: (a) no longer requiring consideration of IQ–achievement discrepancy and (b) permitting response to intervention (RTI) as part of SLD evaluation procedures. We discuss several policy implications of these new regulations by considering the original construct of SLD, the still “experimental” status and implementation of RTI, the closer alignment of RTI objectives with No Child Left Behind than former IDEA regulations, and the shift in focus from serving as a special education identification procedure to a general education instructional procedure. We conclude by proposing several recommendations for the appropriate inclusion of both RTI and psychometric evaluation within the continuum of SLD identification procedures.

From Early Childhood Special Education to Special Education Resource Rooms

Results of an exploratory study of eligibility decisions made for 19 Spanish-speaking English language learners (ELLs), who qualified for special education in early childhood and subsequently received special education reading instruction, are reported. Full and individual evaluations revealed that only 9 students demonstrated significant Intelligence Quotient–reading achievement discrepancies. Because the study's purpose was to describe characteristics of ELLs with reading-related learning disabilities (LD), these students became the focus of analyses. After examining data from students' school records, an expert panel concluded that 1 student had reading-related LD, 3 had disabilities other than LD, and 5 had problems that could be explained by other factors. Issues associated with the special education identification process for ELLs are discussed and recommendations for improving practice are offered.

Definitions of learning disabilities in Canadian provinces and territories.

Canadian definitions of learning disabilities (LD) traditionally have varied interprovincially, and the authors have compiled current provincial and territorial policy information related to LD. Special education definitions of LD are summarized, and an overview of funding mechanisms for special education services for students with LD is provided. In the majority of provincial and territorial policies, the concept of LD as a discrepancy between intelligence test scores and achievement has been retained from previous policies as a defining feature. Seven provinces have adopted either the official version or part of the Learning Disabilities Association of Canada (2002) LD definition, which characterises LD as a cognitive processing disorder or condition with processing deficits. The use of IQ scores and the vague conceptualization of processing disorder are major difficulties with the current definitions. These findings of policy definitions of LD with more detailed identification criteria contrast with current noncategorical provincial funding mechanisms for learning disabled students. Keywords: learning disabilities, policy, processing deficit, IQ-achievement discrepancy The variability in Canadian educational policy definitions of learning disabilities (LD) is not unique to Canada, nor is it a recent phenomenon. The definition of specific LD and related classification criteria have been debated since their inception in the mid1960s (Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003).1 Diagnostic definitions and guidelines available to U.S. and Canadian professionals include the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (4th ed., text revision; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) and the World Health Organisation International Classification of Disease (ICD-IO).2 The core of DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for LD is a discrepancy between intelligence and achievement, with achievement that is substantially below [and] defined as a discrepancy of more than two standard deviations (p. 49). This definition contrasts with the longstanding, overwhelming empirical objection to LD as being defined by a discrepancy between cognitive intelligence and academic achievement (National Center for Learning Disabilities, 2002).3 In the United States, policy definitions and the process of LD identification historically have been highly politicized and heavily regulated. U.S. federal disability legislation delineates legal rights for individuals with learning disabilities (i.e., Federal Education of the Handicapped Act [EHA; 1975], Individuals With Disabilities Education Act [IDEA 1990-1991], IDEA 1997 [PL 107-15], and IDEA 2004-2005 [PL 108-446], and U.S. federal special education funding is conditional on state compliance with related federal regulations. The contradictions in U.S. federal policy are highlighted in a review by Reschly et al. (2003), which indicated that the majority of U.S. states define LD using different intellectual ability and achievement discrepancy formulas; consequently, reported rates for LD vary significantly from state to state. Although IDEA was recently amended to reflect more current understandings of LD (and the requirement of an intellectual-achievement discrepancy was removed from its criteria), interpretation of how LD state policies may operationalize LD is still under significant and heated debate.4 As noted by Kavale and Forness (2003), U.S. advocacy agencies have been extremely successful in their promotion of expanded definitions of LD such that students designated as learning disabled account for approximately 52% of all special education students, in excess of 2.5 million students. The Canadian experience with the development and definition of LD has been and continues to be distinct from the U.S. experience. A historical account of LD definitions in Canadian research is available in Flynn (1992) and Klassen (2002), but a review of the general literature indicates a limited number of published articles on Canadian administrative or policy definitions of LD. …

Academic Underachievement Among Children With Epilepsy

This study assessed rates of learning disabilities (LD) by several psychometric definitions in children with epilepsy and identified risk factors. Participants (N = 173, ages 8—15 years) completed IQ screening, academic achievement testing, and structured interviews. Children with significant head injury, chronic physical conditions, or mental retardation were excluded. Using an IQ—achievement discrepancy definition, 48% exceeded the cutoff for LD in at least one academic area; using low-achievement definitions, 41% to 62% exceeded cutoffs in at least one academic area. Younger children with generalized nonabsence seizures were at increased risk for math LD using the IQ—achievement discrepancy definition; age of seizure onset and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were risk factors for reading and math LD using low-achievement definitions. Writing was the most common domain affected, but neither ADHD nor seizure variables reliably identified children at risk for writing LD. Although children with earlier seizure onset, generalized nonabsence seizures, and comorbid ADHD appear to be at increased risk for some types of LD by some definitions, these findings largely suggest that all children with epilepsy should be considered vulnerable to LD. A diagnosis of epilepsy (even with controlled seizures and less severe seizure types) should provide sufficient cause to screen school-age children for LD and comorbid ADHD.

A Much Delayed Response to A Nation at Risk: Recent Innovations in General and Special Education

THE IDEA that our education system is at risk is not a new one. Though its history is longer, this notion was brought to top of public agenda 25 years ago publication of A Nation at Risk. And it is still actively being addressed through legal reforms, mandates, and laws. Here we will discuss recommendations outlined in that landmark report that are specifically related to field of special education, look at efforts to address those recommendations, and end a glimpse into future of field. THE ROLE OF STANDARDIZED TESTING A Nation at Risk addresses matter of testing and discusses use of testing in education system. In brief, report recommends that standardized achievement tests be administered to students at major transition points in their education; that these tests be used to identify need for remediation or for accelerated work; and that tests be given as part of a nationwide system of state and local standardized tests, which would also include other diagnostic procedures designed to help teachers judge student progress. While it seems that A Nation at Risk was on right track its call for tests that would provide baseline data, identify student need, and assist teachers, traditional standardized testing doesn't lend itself to these purposes. Consider case of special education. Controversy and confusion have surrounded use of standardized tests for making decisions in special education, especially their role in I.Q./achievement discrepancy model that federal government previously recognized as way to define a learning disability. (1) A central concern using tests in this way is that they are given only after student has failed and been referred by classroom teacher. The instrument is used to evaluate evaluate whether student meets criteria for a specific learning disability, not to identify remedial strategies. The special educator must then do specific follow-up testing for instructional and remediation needs. Thus a search for alternative kinds of assessments for identifying students for special education has emerged. And Individuals Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) makes change a part of federal law in stating explicitly that the screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related (2) Partly in response to these statements from IDEA and to recommendation in A Nation at Risk that baseline data are needed to assess progress, a kind of package deal has emerged from field of special education: RTI (response to intervention) and CBM (curriculum-based measurement), approaches that allow educators to forgo discrepancy model and use assessments that lend themselves to individualized instruction. RTI uses students' responses to high-quality instruction to guide educational decisions, including decisions about efficacy of instruction and intervention, eligibility for special programs, design of individualized education programs (IEPs), and effectiveness of special education services. (3) In that way it allows for early intervention without waiting for students to fail before providing necessary services and support. (4) RTI may be described in this context as an alternative to I.Q./achievement discrepancy model, and embedded in RTI is CBM. CBM can be characterized as any set of measurement procedures that uses direct observation and measurement to judge a student's performance in school curriculum. (5) In other words, CBM provides information regarding student's abilities as they relate directly to classroom curriculum, and it can be used to assess all academic subjects across all grade levels. CBM also provides educators with a stronger link between assessment and instruction than do standardized tests of achievement. …

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.

The Relationship Between Symptoms and Abilities in Autism

We assessed if autism symptoms relate to ability deficits and achievement discrepancies in 29 children aged 4–13 years with a diagnosis of Autistic Disorder. Symptoms, intelligence, language, motor coordination and social cognition were assessed. Children with autism underachieve on all ability measures. There were significant achievement discrepancies between Performance IQ and theory of mind, fine and gross motor coordination. The most common discrepancy was between Performance IQ scores and motor coordination scores, which was observed in 86% of children. Early developmental abnormalities related to most abilities, social interaction symptoms related to motor coordination and receptive language, and symptoms related to discrepancies between PIQ and social cognitive abilities.

Competing Views

The provision for allowing local education agencies to use an assessment of a student's response to intervention (RTI) in lieu of a consideration of an ability— achievement discrepancy has been a controversial aspect of the 2004 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. To address issues that have arisen about RTI, a series of questions was posed to two authors who have written about the topic—one from an advocacy perspective and the other from a critical point of view. Their responses were arranged in a dialogue format so that these divergent views could be fully considered.

Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process

AbstractThe purpose of this article is to underscore why we need to maintain the presence of comprehensive evaluations in the identification of students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Response to intervention (RTI) models hold great hope for early instruction, and the reduction of the overrepresentation of students in special education who are minorities or who are culturally and linguistically diverse; however, new regulations under the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA; 2004) allow for the identification of individuals with SLDs based on an individual's response to instruction. The regulations provide states the option to include standardized testing as part of the RTI model. This approach was proposed as a solution to the widely criticized aptitude–achievement discrepancy formula; however, the unfortunate result could be to simultaneously remove the comprehensive evaluation, an important part of SLD identification. Eliminating the aptitude–achievement discrepancy formula from the identification of SLDs should not be construed as negating the necessity of a comprehensive evaluation (i.e., the need to identify problems in one or more basic psychological processes). Response to intervention models without a comprehensive evaluation cannot provide the evidence needed to identify students with SLDs or to provide protections to appropriately transition students with SLDs from high school to postsecondary services. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 43: 883–888, 2006.

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.

Comparison of ecological validity of learning disabilities diagnostic models

The purpose of this article is to examine models designed for the determination of a learning disability and compare them to specific criteria to determine whether the given diagnostic process is ecological in nature. The traditional child-centered deficit model (CCD), Relative Achievement Discrepancy model (RAD), and Responsiveness to Intervention model (RTI) were evaluated against the following three questions: (a) Does the environmental context of the assessment adequately represent the real-life situation? (b) Are the assessment stimuli relevant to the daily classroom activity? (c) Are the student behavior and/or required response natural and representative of the construct being assessed? The results of this examination suggested that the RTI has the most potential for ecological validity, but currently falls short. Suggestions for future research are included. © 2006 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 43: 157–168, 2006.

Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it?

On December 3, 2004, President Bush signed into law the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). The revised law is different from the previous version in at least one important respect. Whereas practitioners were previously encouraged to use IQ–achievement discrepancy to identify children with learning disabilities (LD), they now may use “Response to Intervention,” or RTI, a new, alternative method. It is also a means of providing early intervention to all children at risk for school failure. IDEA 2004 permits districts to use as much as 15% of their special education monies to fund early intervention activities. All this has implications for the number and type of children identified, the kinds of educational services provided, and who delivers them. RTI may be especially important to Reading Research Quarterly readers because roughly 80% of those with an LD label have been described as reading disabled (Lyon, 1995). With RTI, there may be a larger role for reading specialists, which in turn might affect preand inservice professional development activities conducted by universities and school districts. Yet much still needs to be understood to ensure that RTI implementation will promote effective early intervention and represents a valid means of LD identification. In this article, we explain important features of RTI, why it has been promoted as a substitute for IQ–achievement discrepancy, and what remains to be understood before it may be seen as a valid means of LD identification. What is RTI?

Validity of Alternative Approaches for the Identification of Learning Disabilities

This article reviews the validity of models based on (a) aptitude-achievement discrepancies, (b) low achievement, (c) intraindividual differences, and (d) response to instruction for the classification and identification of learning disabilities (LD). Models based on aptitude-achievement discrepancies and intraindividual differences showed little evidence of discriminant validity. Low achievement models had stronger discriminant validity but do not adequately assess the most significant component of the LD construct, unexpected underachievement. All three of these status models have limited reliability because of their reliance on a measurement at a single time point. Models that incorporate response to instruction have stronger reliability and validity but cannot represent the sole criterion for LD identification. Hybrid models combining low achievement and response to instruction most clearly capture the LD construct and have the most direct relation to instruction. The assessment of students for LD must reflect a stronger underlying classification that takes into account relations with other developmental disorders as well as the reliability and validity of the underlying classification and resultant identification system.

The nature and frequency of cognitive deficits in children with neurofibromatosis type 1

To assess the frequency and severity of specific cognitive deficits in children with neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) in a large unbiased cohort. Extensive cognitive assessments were performed in 81 children with NF1 ages 8 to 16 years and their performance was compared with that of 49 unaffected sibling controls. Eighty-one percent of the children with NF1 had moderate to severe impairment in one or more areas of cognitive functioning. Although 51% of children with NF1 performed poorly on tasks of reading, spelling, and mathematics, specific learning disabilities (as defined by IQ-achievement discrepancies) were present in only 20% of the children. Sustained attention difficulties were present in 63% of children with NF1, with 38% of children with NF1 fulfilling the diagnostic criteria for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder. The NF1 neuropsychological profile is characterized by deficits in perceptual skills (visuospatial and visuoperceptual), executive functioning (planning and abstract concept formation), and attention (sustained and switching). Interestingly, both verbal and visual memory was unaffected in NF1 children, and their memory skills were in general stronger than their level of general intellectual function. Although both expressive and receptive language skills were significantly impaired in NF1 children, they appeared to be relatively better preserved than visuospatial abilities once IQ is taken into account. There is an extremely high frequency of cognitive problems in children with neurofibromatosis type 1, making cognitive dysfunction the most common complication to affect quality of life in these children.

Is the discrepancy criterion for defining developmental disorders valid?

Most developmental disorders are defined by an achievement discrepancy in which achievement on one or more specific abilities is substantially less than a person's measured intelligence. We evaluated the validity of this discrepancy criterion by assessing parameters that determine variability across abilities and by assessing relationships between achievement discrepancies and behavioral disturbances. Measures of intelligence, language, motor coordination, empathic ability, and attentional control were administered to a representative sample of 390 children aged 3 to 12 years. Parent ratings of child behavior were obtained. Results indicate that achievement discrepancies are a function of the correlation between ability measures, the shape of the ability distributions, and position on an index ability dimension. Discrepancies in achievement were not related to behavioral disturbance, but underachievement relative to age peers was invariably related to behavioral disturbance. We conclude that developmental disorders need to be redefined in ways that are consistent with how Mental Retardation is now defined, by (a) underachievements, (b) of defined magnitude, (c) using standardized measures, (d) with known relations to normal development, and (e) concurrent deficits on standardized measures of impaired function.

Psychosocial functioning of young children with learning problems.

In this study, psychosocial functioning of different groups of young children with learning problems was investigated using a diverse set of psychosocial variables (including behaviour problems, academic motivation, social preference, and self-concept). For this purpose, children with low academic achievement, with a specific learning disability based on an IQ-achievement discrepancy, and with a specific learning disability based on an achievement discrepancy, were selected out of 276 children of the first grade of regular primary schools. By means of multivariate analyses, their psychosocial functioning was compared to the functioning of children without learning problems. The total set of psychosocial variables was able to discriminate between children with and without learning problems, with medium effect size. Attention problems as reported by the teachers turned out to be the most important single psychosocial predictor for group discrimination. However, results varied according to the type of learning problem and the type of psychosocial problem. Children with a specific reading/spelling disability and children with low general academic achievement differed most from their peers without learning problems with regard to their psychosocial functioning. Poor cognitive self-concept was related primarily to low academic achievement, poor learning motivation might be specific for math problems, and a low social preference score seemed most characteristic of children with a specific learning disability. Studying several psychosocial variables simultaneously in different groups of children with learning problems leads to a further refinement of the current knowledge.

Un maître supplémentaire dans la classe : quel effets sur les progressions au cycle III

Céline Piquée, Bruno Suchaut. An extra teacher in the classroom: what effects on progression of children in "cycle 3”? (cycle 3 = last three years of elementary school) To try and reduce school achievement discrepancies at primary school, an original set of actions has been conceived and implemented in the area of Haute Marne. The idea is to provide primary schools in Education Priority Areas with an extra teacher, thus making it possible for the "cycle 3” teachers to occasionally split up the class into groups in order to give special attention to underachieving pupils. This article accounts for the results of an evaluation of the effects of this set of actions on the progression of children in French and maths in "cycle 3”. The plan of actions, with the present lay out at least, doesn’t seem to meet the set targets: the underachieving children dealt with in smaller groups progress no faster than the children with comparable characteristics but taught in traditional school environments.

Do the Effects of Computer-Assisted Practice Differ for Children with Reading Disabilities With and Without IQ—Achievement Discrepancy?

This study was designed to assess whether the effects of computer-assisted practice on visual word recognition differed for children with reading disabilities (RD) with or without aptitude-achievement discrepancy. A sample of 73 Spanish children with low reading performance was selected using the discrepancy method, based on a standard score comparison (i.e., the difference between IQ and achievement standard scores). The sample was classified into three groups: (1) a group of 14 children with dyslexia (age M = 103.85 months; SD = 8.45) who received computer-based reading practice; (2) a group of 31 "garden-variety" (GV) poor readers (age M = 107.06 months; SD = 6.75) who received the same type of instruction; and (3) a group of 28 children with low reading performance (age M = 103.33 months; SD = 9.04) who did not receive computer-assisted practice. Children were pre- and posttested in word recognition, reading comprehension, phonological awareness, and visual and phonological tasks. The results indicated that both computer-assisted intervention groups showed improved word recognition compared to the control group. Nevertheless, children with dyslexia had more difficulties than GV poor readers during computer-based word reading under conditions that required extensive phonological computation, because their performance was more affected by low-frequency words and long words. In conclusion, we did not find empirical evidence in favor of the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability, because IQ did not differentially predict treatment outcomes.

Predicting Response to Early Reading Intervention From Verbal IQ, Reading-Related Language Abilities, Attention Ratings, and Verbal IQ—Word Reading Discrepancy

Additional analyses of a previously published study addressed three questions about growth in word reading during early reading intervention: (1) How well do Verbal IQ, reading-related language abilities (phonological, rapid naming, and orthographic), and attention ratings predict reading growth? (2) How well do language deficits predict reading growth? and (3) How well does Verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy predict reading growth? Univariate analyses showed that Verbal IQ, phonological skills, orthographic skills, rapid automatized naming (RAN), and attention ratings predicted the response to early intervention, but multivariate analyses based on a combination of predictors for real-word reading and pseudoword reading showed that Verbal IQ was not the best unique predictor. Students with double or triple deficits in language skills (RAN, phonological, and orthographic processing) responded more slowly to early intervention than students without language deficits. Verbal IQ-word reading discrepancy did not predict the response to early intervention in reading. Overall results supported the use of reading-related language and attention measures rather than IQ-achievement discrepancy in identifying candidates for early reading intervention.