This study explored the rates of grade retention among children with undiagnosed learning disabilities. During the 1990–91 school year, data were collected on 344 Michigan students who were referred for special‐education evaluation due to learning problems. Of the 201 students determined to possess a learning disability (LD), 71.6% had been retained at least once before they were referred for special‐education evaluation. Minority and urban LD students were more apt to be retained before being referred for evaluation. Retained LD students were usually one year older than nonretained LD students at the time of special‐education referral. Although retention among LD students did not appear to be related to gender or grade placement, retained LD students generally exhibited lower levels of intelligence and weaker skills in reading comprehension, writing, and math at the time of their referral. © 1996 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

To determine whether student characteristics might influence the misclassification of pupils with respect to LD status, the racial, gender, intellectual, achievement, and grade-level status of 344 subjects who had been referred for LD diagnosis was examined. In one fourth of the cases, students were declared either eligible without a severe discrepancy or ineligible with a severe discrepancy regardless of method used (standard score vs. regressed standard score) or cutoff value employed (15-point vs. 22-point discrepancy). Being White, older, and of higher intelligence and achievement were characteristics of those found ineligible despite a severe discrepancy. Being female and less academically able were characteristics of those declared eligible without a severe discrepancy. Implications are presented.A severe discrepancy between ability and achievement does not constitute a diagnosis of learning disability (LD). The severe discrepancy establishes only that underachievement exists. Moreover, recent research by Ross (1992) indicates that practitioners have substantial difficulties evaluating accurately the significance of discrepancies between ability and achievement scores, thereby contributing to variability in LD eligibility decisions. Some school psychologists (e.g., Barnett & Macmann, 1992) have argued that severe discrepancy methods should not be used because they are neither reliable nor sufficiently useful for professional decisions. In the final analysis, professional judgment constitutes an important role in integrating all the diagnostic information. Thus, predictions regarding identification rates based on studies of different formulas in calculating a severe discrepancy might fail to identify accurately those students who ultimately are labeled LD. Nonetheless, 37 states recommend quantitative analysis of discrepancy between ability and achievement to aid in identifying students being considered for LD eligibility (Frankenberger & Fronzaglio, 1991).Several researchers have examined the match between team decisions regarding classification and the existence of a severe discrepancy. Y sseldyke, Thurlow, Graden, Wesson, Algozzine, and Den0 (1983), in their generalizations from five years of analogue research on the assessment and decision-making processes with students considered LD, found that team placement decisions had very little to do with the data collected on students. Instead, they found that sex, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, and reason for referral were influential factors in decisions made by school personnel. Availability of services and the student's parental influence were also important variables. In contrast, Huebner (1991) concluded that there is evidence that assessment data typically influence special education decisions. In his own series of analogue studies, he noted, however, that the influence of test data appears to be less in cases where the test results are borderline or ambiguous. In exploring how many students placed in programs for students with LD actually sho...

Despite some controversy, there is an emerging body of knowledge regarding the nature, prevalence, assessment, and treatment of childhood depression. The following study was undertaken to determine how this knowledge compares with the perceptions and practices of school psychologists in two north central states. A need for school psychologists to define the concept of childhood depression is identified. Use of DSM 111-R for the diagnosis of childhood depression in the schools and the inclusion of standardized measurement techniques in the assessment process are advocated. Involvement of school psychologists in the treatment process, either directly or indirectly, is also recommended.

No abstract

Concern over the growing number of students identified as learning disabled has led school districts to examine the criteria for determination and the means by which they are operationalized. Two frequently used methods for determining a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement, a key criterion in LD determination, were applied to a sample of 344 students to determine how a change in method might influence the rates and characteristics of students meeting this criterion. The results indicate an increase in numbers when a regression method is used over a simple difference score method. When the change proposed included moving to a more severe cutoff score, the pattern reversed and a 20% decrease was observed. Although IQ correlated with the discrepancies when the simple difference score method was used, no correlation was observed when regression was employed, indicating that regression may be a more equitable method for calculating severe discrepancies. Neither method resulted in disproportionate racial representation among those meeting the severe discrepancy criterion.A severe discrepancy does not constitute the determination of learning disability (LD). It establishes only that underachievement exists. In the final analysis, professional judgment constitutes an important role in integrating all the diagnostic information. Thus, predictions regarding identification rates and characteristics based on studies of different equations in calculating a severe discrepancy might fail to accurately identify those students who ultimately are labeled LD.Several researchers have examined the match between team decisions regarding classification and the existence of a severe discrepancy. Y sseldyke, Thurlow, Graden, Wesson, Algozzine, and Den0 (1983), in their generalizations from five years of analogue research on the assessment and decision-making processes with students considered LD, found that team placement decisions had very little to do with the data collected on students. Instead, they found that sex, socioeconomic status, physical appearance, and reason for referral were influential factors in decisions made by school personnel. Availability of services and the power of the students' parents were also important variables. In contrast, Huebner (1991) concluded that there is evidence that assessment data typically influence special education decisions. In his own series of analogue studies, however, he noted that the influence of test data appears to be less in cases where the test results are borderline or ambiguous.In questioning how many students placed in programs for students classified as LD actually showed a severe discrepancy, both Valus (1986) and McLeskey (1992) found that one third of their sample of LD placements did not have a severe discrepancy. Valus concluded that slow learners might be overrepresented among students who did not demonstrate a severe discrepancy. Furlong (1988) found that 43% of those students placed in special education as LD did not meet the State of California's severe ...