Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a “third method” approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

No abstract

No abstract

This study examined the relationships between the cognitive processes of rapid naming and phonological processing and various literacy skills. Variables measured and used in this analysis were phonological processing, rapid naming, reading comprehension, isolated and nonsense word reading, and spelling. Data were collected from 65 second-to-fifth grade children referred for learning difficulties. Regression analysis was performed to determine which of the cognitive processes was the strongest predictor of the literacy skills measured. Rapid naming was found to be a stronger predictor of word reading, reading comprehension and spelling than was phonological processing. When a measure of decoding skills was included as a predictor, it was found to account for the most variance in word reading and spelling. The implications of these results for assessing and designing interventions with reading disabled children are discussed as well as the need to further investigate the double deficit hypothesis.

No abstract