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

Through the use of excerpts from one of our own case studies, this commentary applied concepts inherent in, but not limited to, the neuropsychological literature to the interpretation of performance on the Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3), particularly at the level of error analysis. The approach to KTEA-3 test interpretation advocated here parallels the cognitive process-oriented approach used by McCloskey and colleagues in their interpretation of the Wechsler scales. This approach is also advocated by Hale and Fiorello as part of their cognitive hypothesis testing model and is inherent in the neuropsychological assessment and interpretation frameworks proposed by Miller and Dehn. For the purpose of this commentary, we describe how this approach to KTEA-3 test interpretation fits within our own Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)-based approach to specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification. To derive maximum benefit from error analysis, practitioners must pay careful attention to the manner in which students respond to test items and copiously document their observations during test administration.