State learning disability eligibility criteria: A comprehensive review.

Abstract

For many decades, discussions regarding the definition and identification of learning disabilities have been contentious; one result is the varied practices across states and school districts. This study reviewed learning disability (LD) regulations and guidelines from the 50 United States and the District of Columbia that were employed during 2013. Two authors independently coded components of all LD regulations and guidelines. Results showed considerable variability in the state policies and practices governing LD identification. Only 67% of states allow for use of the ability-achievement discrepancy approach, and 20% of states explicitly prohibit its use. Approximately 16% of states require the sole use of response to intervention (RtI) models in LD identification, and there is considerable variability in the guidance states provide regarding how to implement RtI models to identify LD. Finally, about half of states do not allow use of "pattern of strengths and weaknesses" (PSW) models, and most states allowing these models provide little information regarding ideal identification practices. These results can inform school psychology practice, training, and related research.

A current landscape of specific learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implications

“…The results of this study in conjunction with previous research (e.g., Cottrell & Barrett, ; Reschly & Hosp, ; Maki et al, ) suggested a changing landscape in SLD identification. The declining, but still regular, use of ability–achievement discrepancy alongside the increasing use of PSW methods underscores the need for enhanced graduate training and professional development in SLD identification to support the implementation of evidence‐based practices to the maximum extent possible.…”

“…In addition to variable practices across states and over time, state special education regulations do not always provide a clear indication of the SLD identification practices in which states and LEAs engage. Oftentimes, state regulations provide limited information regarding how SLD identification methods should be implemented including a lack of operationalization of severe discrepancy, inadequate response, or a PSW, nor do state regulations comprehensively describe additional procedures for identification (e.g., classroom observations; Maki et al, ). Because state regulations are often limited in the extent to which they describe identification procedures, state departments of education frequently provide additional guidance outlining identification procedures (Maki et al, ).…”

“…Oftentimes, state regulations provide limited information regarding how SLD identification methods should be implemented including a lack of operationalization of severe discrepancy, inadequate response, or a PSW, nor do state regulations comprehensively describe additional procedures for identification (e.g., classroom observations; Maki et al, ). Because state regulations are often limited in the extent to which they describe identification procedures, state departments of education frequently provide additional guidance outlining identification procedures (Maki et al, ). However, the extent to which such guidance documents are incorporated into SLD identification practice and decision‐making is unknown; and yet, use of such documents could significantly alter one’s SLD identification practices.…”

“…108–446 § 300.309[a][1]). However, IDEA provides relatively limited regulation regarding application of SLD identification methodology; thus, much regulation of SLD identification is left up to individual states and local education agencies (LEAs; Maki, Floyd, & Roberson, ).…”

“…In fact, SLD identification under IDEA requires a severe deficit in at least one of eight academic achievement areas [1]). However, IDEA provides relatively limited regulation regarding application of SLD identification methodology; thus, much regulation of SLD identification is left up to individual states and local education agencies (LEAs; Maki, Floyd, & Roberson, 2015).…”