Critical Issues in Specific Learning Disability Identification

Abstract

As a result of the upcoming Federal reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA), practitioners and researchers have begun vigorously debating what constitutes evidence-based assessment for the identification of specific learning disability (SLD). This debate has resulted in strong support for a method that appraises an individual's profile of cognitive test scores for the purposes of determining cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses, commonly referred to as patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW). Following the Fuchs and Deshler model, questions regarding the psychometric and conceptual integrity of the PSW model are addressed. Despite the strong claims made by many PSW proponents, the findings by this review demonstrate the need for additional information to determine whether PSW is a viable alternative to existing eligibility models and worthy for large scale adoption for SLD identification. Implications for public policy and future SLD research are also discussed.

Difference score reliabilities within the RIAS‐2 and WISC‐V

“…Given the average CI width and the rules offered by Charter (1999) and Charter and Feldt (2009), the findings from this analysis support the view that high-stakes clinical decisions, including diagnostic or educational classification determinations, should not typically be informed by difference scores (Canivez, 2013;McGill, Styck, Palomares, & Hass, 2016).…”

“…When that data is unreliable, there is a higher risk for data to suggest a false positive or false negative, potentially misinforming IEP teams during the decision making process. Due to inconsistencies across age ranges and across tests, the necessity to individually calculate the confidence interval of each difference score (Charter, 1999;Charter & Feldt, 2009), and the poor diagnostic and treatment utility offered by profile analysis methods in general (Canivez, 2013;John H Kranzler, Floyd, Benson, Zaboski, & Thibodaux, 2016;McGill, 2018;McGill et al, 2018;McGill et al, 2016;Miciak, Fletcher, Stuebing, Vaughn, & Tolar, 2014;Watkins, 2003), clinicians will likely make more reliable clinical decisions if they avoid the use of difference scores. That said, difference scores, when used, should be interpreted with caution and only under the circumstances prescribed by Charter and colleagues (1999;.…”

The Critical Role of Instructional Response for Identifying Dyslexia and Other Learning Disabilities

“…Comparisons of groups of struggling readers formed on the presence or absence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses do not demonstrate distinct academic needs (Miciak, Fletcher, et al, 2014) and do not respond differently to intensive interventions (Miciak et al, 2016). Although intuitively appealing, recent reviews have highlighted the paucity of empirical support for PSW methods for SLD and dyslexia identification (McGill et al, 2016; Schneider & Kaufman, 2017).…”

Specific learning disability in mathematics: a comprehensive review

“…Another approach emphasizes the role of strengths and weaknesses in cognitive processing measured by individually administered standardized tests. This patterns of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach needs additional empirical evidence to determine the robustness of this model as an alternate to existing procedures (82). There continues to be considerable variability in the state practices using identification techniques, with 34 states continuing to use the discrepancy model, and 10 states explicitly prohibiting its use.…”