Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification E-Book

Dawn P. Flanagan

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Fachliteratur
• Serie: Essentials of Psychological Assessment
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 659

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010

Beschreibung

* Complete coverage on how SLD manifests in academicperformance * Expert advice on theory- and research-based approaches to SLDidentification * Conveniently formatted for rapid reference Quickly acquire the knowledge and skills you need toaccurately identify specific learning disabilities Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identificationprovides a brief overview examining the definitions andclassification systems of--and methodsfor--identification of specific learning disabilities (SLDs).Focusing on descriptive efforts of the manifestations of SLDs inthe academically critical areas of reading, writing, math, oralexpression, and listening comprehension, this book featurescontributions by leading experts in the field, including VirginiaBerninger, Steven Feifer, Jack Fletcher, Nancy Mather, JackNaglieri, and more. Like all the volumes in the Essentials of PsychologicalAssessment series, each concise chapter features numerouscallout boxes highlighting key concepts, bulleted points, andextensive illustrative material, as well as test questions thathelp you gauge and reinforce your grasp of the informationcovered. With multiple perspectives spanning several differenttheoretical orientations and offering various approaches to SLDidentification that can be put into practice right away--fromRTI methods to cognitive strengths and weaknessesapproaches--this book offers important content forprofessionals who work with children and youth at risk for learningdisabilities. With a Foreword by Cecil Reynolds, Essentials ofSpecific Learning Disability Identification presents rich andup-to-date information on models and methods of SLDidentification.

Leseprobe

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.

Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.

Published simultaneously in Canada.

No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, [phone], fax [phone], or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, [phone], fax [phone].

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifically disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical, psychological or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.

For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at [phone], outside the United States at [phone] or fax [phone].

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our website at www.wiley.com.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:

Flanagan, Dawn P.

Essentials of specific learning disability identification / Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso.

p. cm.—(Essentials of psychological assessment; 82)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

ISBN 978-0-470-58760-7 (pbk.); 978-0-470-92058-9 (ePDF); 978-0-470-92059-6 (eMobi); 978-0-470-92060-2 (ePub)

1. Learning disabilities—United States. 2. Learning disabled children—Education—United

States. I. Alfonso, Vincent C. II. Title.

LC4704.F575 2010

371.9′043—dc22

2010026662

To my darling daughter, Megan:

For your wit, patience, and love;

For understanding beyond your years;

For finding the positive in every situation; and

For teaching me how to keep work in perspective.

You are a blessing.

I love you.

—Mom

In loving memory of my mother, Mary Alfonso—you are always on my mind!

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Dedication

Foreword

Series Preface

Acknowledgments

Chapter 1 Overview of Specific Learning Disabilities

A Brief History of the Definition of Learning Disability

Classification Systems for LD

Methods of SLD Identification and the 2006 Federal Regulations

Conclusion

Resources

Chapter 2 How SLD Manifests in Reading

Defining Reading Disability

The Role of Neuropsychology in Identifying Reading Disabilities

Subtypes of Reading Disabilities

Remediation Strategies for Reading Disabilities

Future Interventions

Chapter 3 How SLD Manifests in Mathematics

Definition, Etiology, and Incidence of Mathematics Learning Disability and Low Achievement in Mathematics

Subtypes of MLD and How They Manifest Developmentally

Number Sense

Counting Knowledge

Arithmetic

Components of the Multimethod Diagnostic Approach

Conclusion

Resources

Chapter 4 How SLD Manifests in Writing

Definition, Etiology, and Incidence of Writing Disabilities

Subtypes of Writing Disability

How Writing Difficulties Manifest Developmentally

Cognitive Correlates and Diagnostic Markers of a Specific Learning Disability in Writing

Components of the Diagnostic Approach to Identifying a Specific Learning Disability in Writing

Examples of Treatment Protocols

Conclusion

Resources

Chapter 5 How SLD Manifests in Oral Expression and Listening Comprehension

Introduction

Definition, Etiology, and Incidence of Language Disabilities

Language Disability Subtypes

Developmental Manifestations

Cognitive Correlates and Diagnostic Markers

Components of a Multiscore, Multimethod Diagnostic Approach

Examples of Treatment Protocols

Resources

Chapter 6 A Response to Intervention (RTI) Approach to SLD Identification

Classification and Identification

What Is SLD?

RTI and SLD Identification

Conclusion

Chapter 7 The Discrepancy/Consistency Approach to SLD Identification Using the PASS Theory

Basic Psychological Processes

How to Use Processing for SLD Determination

Discrepancy/Consistency Model

Correspondence Between IDEA and the Discrepancy/Consistency Model

Conclusion

Chapter 8 RTI and Cognitive Hypothesis Testing for Identification and Intervention of Specific Learning Disabilities: The Best of Both Worlds

The Enigma of Specific Learning Disabilities: An Introductory Analysis

Initial Attempts at Defining and Determining Specific Learning Disability

Response to Intervention for Serving Children With SLD: Panacea or Prevention?

Addressing IDEA SLD Statutory and Regulatory Requirements Using the Third Method Approach

Ensuring Diagnostic, Ecological, and Treatment Validity: The Cognitive Hypothesis Testing Approach

Linking Assessment to Intervention: Making CHT Assessment Results Relevant for CHT Interventions

Conclusion

Chapter 9 Evidence-Based Differential Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading Disabilities With and Without Comorbidities in Oral Language, Writing, and Math: Prevention, Problem-Solving Consultation, and Specialized Instruction

Issues in Defining Specific Reading Disabilities

Hallmark Phenotypes

Evidence-Based, Theory-Guided Differential Diagnosis of SLDs

Applications of Differential Diagnosis to Prevention

Applications of Differential Diagnosis to Problem-Solving Consultation

Applications of Differential Diagnosis to Specialized Instruction: Practical Resources

Chapter 10 A CHC-based Operational Definition of SLD: Integrating Multiple Data Sources and Multiple Data-Gathering Methods

The Need for an Operational Definition of SLD

The CHC-Based Operational Definition of SLD

Beyond SLD Identification: Linking CHC Assessment Data to Instruction and Intervention

Conclusion

Chapter 11 Separating Cultural and Linguistic Differences (CLD) From Specific Learning Disability (SLD) in the Evaluation of Diverse Students: Difference or Disorder?

Evaluation of SLD in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Individuals

Enhancing Validity in Testing of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Individuals

Difference Versus Disorder

Conclusion

References

Chapter 1

Chapter 2

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 10

Chapter 11

Annotated Bibliography

About the Editors

About the Contributors

Author Index

Subject Index

Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series

Essentials of Psychological Assessment Series

Series Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman

Essentials of 16 PF® Assessment by Heather E.-P. Cattell and James M. Schuerger

Essentials of Assessment Report Writing by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Nancy Mather, Nadeen L. Kaufman, and Alan S. Kaufman

Essentials of Assessment with Brief Intelligence Tests by Susan R. Homack and Cecil R. Reynolds

Essentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development–II Assessment by Maureen M. Black and Kathleen Matula

Essentials of Behavioral Assessment by Michael C. Ramsay, Cecil R. Reynolds, and R. W. Kamphaus

Essentials of Career Interest Assessment by Jeffrey P. Prince and Lisa J. Heiser

Essentials of CAS Assessment by Jack A. Naglieri

Essentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAIT and Other Kaufman Measures by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Broadbooks, and Alan S. Kaufman

Essentials of Conners Behavior Assessments by Elizabeth P. Sparrow

Essentials of Creativity Assessment by James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John Baer

Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition by Dawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O. Ortiz, and Vincent C. Alfonso

Essentials of DAS-II® Assessment by Ron Dumont, John O. Willis, and Colin D. Elliot

Essentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventions by Barbara J. Wendling and Nancy Mather

Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment, Second Edition by Marc J. Ackerman

Essentials of Individual Achievement Assessment by Douglas K. Smith

Essentials of KABC-II Assessment by Alan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, and Nadeen L. Kaufman

Essentials of Millon™ Inventories Assessment, Third Edition by Stephen Strack

Essentials of MMPI-A™ Assessment by Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy

Essentials of MMPI-2™ Assessment by David S. Nichols

Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator® Assessment, Second Edition by Naomi Quenk

Essentials of NEPSY-II® Assessment by Sally L. Kemp and Marit Korkman

Essentials of Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Edition by Nancy Hebben and William Milberg

Essentials of Nonverbal Assessment by Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, and John Wasserman

Essentials of PAI® Assessment by Leslie C. Morey

Essentials of Processing Assessment by Milton J. Dehn

Essentials of Response to Intervention by Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Matthew K. Burns

Essentials of Rorschach® Assessment by Tara Rose, Nancy Kaser-Boyd, and Michael P. Maloney

Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment by Daniel C. Miller

Essentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assessment by Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew Barram

Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Assessment, Second Edition by Hedwig Teglasi

Essentials of WAIS®-IV Assessment by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger

Essentials of WIAT®-III and KTEA-II Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Donna R. Smith

Essentials of WISC-III® and WPPSI-R® Assessment by Alan S. Kaufman and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger

Essentials of WISC®-IV Assessment, Second Edition by Dawn P. Flanagan and Alan S. Kaufman

Essentials of WJ III™ Cognitive Abilities Assessment, Second Edition by Fredrick A. Schrank, Daniel C. Miller, Barbara J. Wendling, and Richard W. Woodcock

Essentials of WJ III™ Tests of Achievement Assessment by Nancy Mather, Barbara J. Wendling, and Richard W. Woodcock

Essentials of WMS®-III Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Alan S. Kaufman, and Zona C. Lai

Essentials of WNV™ Assessment by Kimberly A. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, and Steven T. Hardy-Braz

Essentials of WPPSI™-III Assessment by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman

Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL-2 Assessment by Wayne Adams and Cecil R. Reynolds

Foreword

According to the calculations of the United States Department of Education's National Center for Educational Statistics, the most frequently occurring disability among school-aged individuals in the United States is a specific learning disability (SLD). In fact, it accounts for nearly half of all disabilities in the school-aged population. It may well then come as a surprise to those who do not work in the field that in spite of the presence of a common definition of SLD, one that has essentially remained unchanged since 1975, there remains very little agreement about the best model or method of identifying students with SLD. Always controversial, since the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (then known as IDEIA), the most recent reauthorization, in 2004, of the first version of the federal law requiring the public schools of the United States to provide a free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities (PL 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act), the disagreements over the best approach to identification of an SLD have grown. Prior to 2004, the Federal Regulations for implementation of the various versions of IDEA required, as a necessary but insufficient condition (except in special circumstances), the presence of a severe discrepancy between aptitude and achievement for a diagnosis of SLD. The regulations accompanying IDEA (all 307 small-print Federal Register pages of them), which retained the definition of SLD essentially as written in the 1975 law, dropped this requirement, and instead allow the schools to use one or a combination of three basic approaches to SLD identification: the severe discrepancy criteria of prior regulations, a process based on the response of a student to evidence-based (aka: science) interventions for learning problems (known popularly as the RTI approach), or any other approach the state or local education agency determines to be a scientifically or research-based approach to determination of an SLD.

The vagaries and ambiguities of the Federal Regulations and the pressure on schools to do what is new, and to do so quickly, has led to chaos in the field and fed considerable polemic debate over how to best determine an SLD. As if this were not enough controversy, note that the regulations concerning the determination of SLD in school-aged individuals (basically K–12) apply only to public schools and private schools that receive federal monies. Colleges and universities, the Social Security Administration, state departments of rehabilitation, the medical community, the courts, and other agencies that are involved in SLD identification and the provision of services and/or funding for these individuals can, and most do, apply different methods and have different rules for identification of an SLD. What is adopted then as the best method of diagnosis in the K-12 school systems will often be found unacceptable to other agencies, frustrating individuals who carry such a diagnosis, their parents, and the agencies themselves. This will lead to the very strong possibility that the federal judicial system will ultimately make the major decisions concerning how SLD is diagnosed. The vagaries of the Federal Regulations and the potential for extensive litigation in the absence of clear guidance from the USDOE are the primary reasons I so often refer to IDEIA as the “education lawyers’ welfare act of 2004.”

The issues of accurate and appropriate models from which to identify individuals with SLD sorely need attention from the academic community of scholars in a format that allows academics and practitioners to understand the many and diverse models now being promoted as best practice. Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification makes a practical foray into this arena, and does so succinctly, without sacrifice of a clear understanding of each model. And although this edited book is focused on the school-aged population, you will find educational, medical, psychometric, and neuropsychological models all present in the various chapters.

The opening chapters focus on descriptive efforts of the manifestations of SLD in the academically critical areas of reading, writing, math, oral expression, and listening, though some of the authors emphasize identification and some intervention in these chapters, as well. Some argue differences in neuropsychological organization of the brain; others argue specific deficits; and still others continue to call upon developmental delay as the essence of an SLD. There is less recognition in certain chapters than one might suppose that SLD is a very heterogeneous group of disorders, and that the underlying mechanism is not at all likely to be the same for everyone, although clearly most authors recognize this reality.

The second half of the work emphasizes models and methods of SLD identification, and herein we also find divergent views. After reading the volume, it is nothing less than striking the number of seemingly sound but incompatible models that are presented, especially knowing how many other models are in existence across the various state education agencies—not to mention the many other government agencies and programs using wholly different approaches. Every model presented in the latter half of this work has strengths in the approaches recommended for SLD identification, and each set of authors presents its case well. Nevertheless, the approaches, several of which are highly similar, will identify different children. Some are also just fundamentally incompatible; for example, while most emphasize the absolute necessity for a disorder in one or more of the basic processes underlying learning, at least one dismisses this aspect of the SLD definition as unnecessary to even assess or consider.

Fletcher leads off the chapters focused on diagnostic methods and models with a clear presentation of the RTI model as he and his colleagues perceive of it as best implemented. His well-reasoned approach has much to recommend it, but unfortunately many states are adopting a far more radical RTI-only approach, which, as Fletcher laudably notes, is not just poor practice but inconsistent with the Federal Regulations. Naglieri follows with a very different model, one that is more theory-driven than any of the other models, but providing good empirical support for his approach and practical advice on its implementation. Hale and his coauthors are next, with a model that, too, has a theoretical basis and that attempts to integrate RTI approaches with more traditional neuropsychological models. Berninger then treats us to a very accomplished work that takes on the complex issues of diagnosis and treatment of several types of SLD in the face of comorbidities, an issue dealt with poorly by most existing models, particularly RTI-only models. Her case for evidence-based models and ones that emphasize early identification and intervention is well made. Flanagan and Alfonso, the volume editors, follow with an articulation of the CHC approach to SLD identification, first describing how the CHC model would define SLD, and why, and then matching this approach to assessment in a CHC context. Last, Ortiz gives us guidance, to the extent possible, in differentiating cultural and linguistic differences from disabilities in the context of SLD determination. While this is often talked about, few give us this kind of concrete guidance to avoiding such diagnostic mistakes based on culture and language. We could all benefit still from reading the works of E. Paul Torrance from the 1970s on “differences not deficits” in such a context, as well.

This work then presents a strong reflection of the state of the field, and does a great service by putting theories of the development and etiology of SLD, commentary on interventions, and the dominant models of SLD identification between common covers. The editors have done a superb job in selecting authors to represent the viewpoints given and to elaborate with sufficient specificity the identification models, in most cases to the point at which they can be put into place upon reading this volume carefully. The greatest problem readers will face will be one of deciding which model(s) to follow, as all are appealing. There are authors of chapters in this work with whom I have had scholarly exchanges, and with whom I vehemently disagree on some issues but with whom I find myself in agreement on others. So I must count myself among those who will experience great dissonance in adopting and recommending a specific model of diagnosis to others based upon the models proffered herein. We have much to learn from the disagreements in this work, and it is indeed such disagreements and lack of compatibility of models and methods upon which science thrives. I suspect that as our science moves forward, we will find that all of these models have merit and utility for accurate and appropriate identification of individuals with SLD, but not for the same individuals. Individuals with SLD make up a heterogeneous group, and we truly need different models for their accurate identification (aka: different strokes for different folks) that are objective and evidence-based, such as provided in this work. Now, if we can just make them all part of a common, coherent system and stop the search for the one answer to the diagnosis of SLD for all students—that will be progress!

Cecil R. Reynolds

Bastrop, Texas

Series Preface

In the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, we have attempted to provide the reader with books that will deliver key practical information in the most efficient and accessible style. The series features instruments in a variety of domains, such as cognition, personality, education, and neuropsychology. For the experienced clinician, books in the series will offer a concise yet thorough way to master utilization of the continuously evolving supply of new and revised instruments, as well as a convenient method for keeping up to date on the tried-and-true measures. The novice will find in this series a prioritized assembly of all the information and techniques that must be at one's fingertips to begin the complicated process of individual psychological diagnosis.

Wherever feasible, visual shortcuts to highlight key points are utilized, alongside systematic, step-by-step guidelines. Chapters are focused and succinct. Topics are targeted for an easy understanding of the essentials of administration, scoring, interpretation, and clinical application. Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of each book, but always to enhance clinical inference, never to sidetrack or overwhelm. We have long been advocates of “intelligent” testing—the notion that a profile of test scores is meaningless unless it is brought to life by the clinical observations and astute detective work of knowledgeable examiners. Test profiles must be used to make a difference in the child's or adult's life, or why bother to test? We want this series to help our readers become the best intelligent testers they can be.

IDEA 2004 and its attendant regulations provided our field with an opportunity to focus on the academic progress of all students, including those with specific learning disabilities (SLD). School psychologists, in particular, have moved from a wait-to-fail ability-achievement discrepancy model to a response to intervention (RTI) model for SLD identification. In adopting the latter method, the field has been encouraged by RTI proponents to give up cognitive and neuropsychological tests and, thus, ignore more than three decades of empirical research that has culminated in substantial evidence for the biological bases of learning disorders in reading, math, written language, and oral language. When RTI is applied in isolation, it fails to identify individual differences in cognitive abilities and neuropsychological processes and ignores the fact that students with SLD have different needs and learning profiles than students with undifferentiated low achievement. Most (but not all) of the distinguished contributors to this edited volume believe that without cognitive and neuropsychological testing, little can be known about the cognitive capabilities, processing strengths and weaknesses, nature of responses, and neurobiological correlates of students who fail to respond to evidence-based instruction and intervention.

This book, edited by the esteemed Dawn Flanagan and Vincent Alfonso, offers practitioners state-of-the-art information on specific learning disabilities in reading, math, writing, and oral language. The volume also provides practitioners with specific approaches for identifying SLD in the schools, including alternative research-based (or “third method”) approaches, which share many common features. The alternative research-based approaches may be used within the context of an RTI service delivery model, with the goal of expanding (rather than limiting) the assessment methods and data sources that are available to practitioners. It is our belief, and the belief of the editors of this book, that when practitioners use these approaches in an informed and systematic way, they will yield information about a student's learning difficulties and educational needs that will be of value to all, but most especially, to the student with SLD.

Alan S. Kaufman, Ph.D., and Nadeen L. Kaufman, Ed.D.,

Series Editors

Yale University School of Medicine

Acknowledgments

We thank Isabel Pratt, editor at John Wiley & Sons, Inc., for her encouragement and support of this project and for her assistance throughout the many phases of production. We express our appreciation to Kara Borbely, who worked diligently on countless, behind-the-scenes details necessary for publication, and Kim Nir and Janice Borzendowski for their skillful, thoughtful, and thorough copy editing of our manuscript. We are deeply indebted to Sabrina Ismailer for assisting us through every phase of this book and for often dropping everything to respond to our requests in a timely and complete manner. We also extend a heartfelt thank-you to the contributing authors, for their professionalism, scholarship, and pleasant and cooperative working style. It was a great pleasure to work with such an esteemed group of researchers and scholars! Finally, we wish to thank Alan and Nadeen Kaufman for their support, guidance, and friendship. They are not only the editors of the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, but true leaders in the field. Indeed, like the majority of books in this series, the very ideas and methods espoused in this book, in one way or another, stem from and build on the decades of teaching, writing, and research Alan and Nadeen have provided practitioners the world over.

Chapter 1

Overview of Specific Learning Disabilities

Marlene Sotelo-Dynega

Dawn P. Flanagan

Vincent C. Alfonso

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overview of the definitions and classification systems of and methods for identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD). Historically, children who did not perform as expected academically were evaluated and often identified as having a learning disability (LD) (Kavale & Forness, 2006). The number of children in the United States identified as having LD has tripled since the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142; Cortiella, 2009). This landmark legislation included criteria for the identification of exceptional learners, including children with LD, and mandated that they receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Each reauthorization of P.L. 94-142 maintained its original intent, including the most recent reauthorization, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-446; hereafter referred to as “IDEA 2004”). Rapid Reference 1.1 highlights the most salient changes to this legislation through the present day.

Rapid Reference 1.1

Salient Changes in Special Education Law From 1975 to 2004

1975Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) P.L. 94-142Guaranteed school-aged (5–21 years) children with disabilities the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE).1986EHA P.L. 99-457Extended the purpose of EHA to include children from birth to 5 years:FAPE mandated for children ages 3–21 years.States encouraged to develop early-intervention programs for children with disabilities from birth to 2 years.1990EHA renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) P.L. 101-476The term handicapped child was replaced with child with a disability. Autism and Traumatic Brain Injury classifications were added. Transition services for children with disabilities were mandated by age 16 years. Defined assistive technology devices and services. Required that the child with a disability be included in the general education environment, to the maximum extent possible.1997IDEA P.L. 105-17Extended the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) to ensure that all students would have access to the general curriculum. Schools are required to consider the inclusion of Assistive Technology Devices and Services on the Individualized Education Plans of all students. Orientation and mobility services were added to the list of related services for children who need instruction in navigating within and/or to and from their school environment.2004IDEA renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA)1 P.L. 108-446Statute is aligned with the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. Focus of statute is on doing what works and increasing achievement expectations for children with disabilities. Changes are made to the evaluation procedures used to identify specific learning disabilities.1“IDEA” (rather than “IDEIA”) is used most often to refer to the 2004 reauthorization and, therefore, will be used throughout this book.

The United States Department of Education (USDOE) has collected data on students who have qualified for special education services since 1975. The most current data show that 2.6 million school-aged children are classified as SLD. This figure represents nearly 4% of the approximate 66 million students currently enrolled in the nation's schools. Furthermore, of all students who have been classified with an educationally disabling condition, 43% are classified as SLD (USDOE, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System [DANS], 2008). Rapid Reference 1.2 shows that none of the other 12 IDEA 2004 disability categories approximates the prevalence rate of SLD in the population, a trend that has been consistent since 1980 (USDOE, 2006).

Rapid Reference 1.2

Students Ages 6–21 Years Served Under IDEA 2004

Source: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Data Analysis System (DANS). Washington, DC: IES National Center for Educational Statistics. Available from http://nces.ed.gov/das.

IDEA Disability CategoryPercentage of All DisabilitiesPercentage of Total School EnrollmentSpecific Learning Disability43.43.89Speech or Language Impairment19.21.72Other Health Impairments10.60.95Mental Retardation8.30.74Emotional Disturbance7.40.67Autism4.30.39Multiple Disabilities2.20.20Developmental DelayAges 3–9 years only1.50.13Hearing Impairments1.20.11Orthopedic Impairments1.00.09Visual Impairments.440.04Traumatic Brain Injury.400.04Deaf-Blindness.020.00

A Brief History of the Definition of Learning Disability

Definitions of LD date back to the mid to late 1800s within the fields of neurology, psychology, and education (Mather & Goldstein, 2008). The earliest recorded definitions of LD were developed by clinicians, based on their observations of individuals who experienced considerable difficulties with the acquisition of basic academic skills, despite their average or above-average general intelligence, or those who lost their ability to perform specific tasks after a brain injury that resulted from either a head trauma or stroke (Kaufman, 2008). Given that clinicians at that time did not have the necessary technology or psychometrically defensible instrumentation to test their hypotheses about brain-based LD, the medically focused study of LD stagnated, leading to the development of socially constructed, educationally focused definitions that presumed an underlying neurological etiology (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Kaufman, 2008; Lyon et al., 2001).

In 1963, Samuel Kirk addressed a group of educators and parents at the Exploration into the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child conference in Chicago, Illinois. The purposes of the conference were to (a) gather information from leading professionals from diverse fields about the problems of children who had perceptually based learning difficulties; and (b) develop a national organization that would lobby to secure services for these children. At this conference, Kirk presented a paper entitled “Learning Disabilities” that was based on his recently published book, Educating Exceptional Children (Kirk, 1962). In this paper, Kirk defined LD as

a retardation, disorder, or delayed development in one or more of the processes of speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic, or other school subjects resulting from a psychological handicap caused by a possible cerebral dysfunction and/or emotional or behavioral disturbances. It is not the result of mental retardation, sensory deprivation, or cultural and instructional factors. (p. 263)

Not only did the conference participants accept Kirk's term LD and corresponding definition, but they formed an organization that is now known as the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA). The LDA continues to influence the “frameworks for legislation, theories, diagnostic procedures, educational practices, research and training models” as they pertain to identifying and educating individuals with LD (LDA, n.d., ¶ 2).

Kirk's conceptualization of LD influenced other organizations' definitions of LD, including the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), as well as federal legislation (e.g., P.L. 94-142). In addition, 11 different definitions of LD in use between 1982 and 1989 contained aspects of Kirk's 1962 definition. Therefore, it is not surprising that a comprehensive review of these definitions revealed more agreement than disagreement about the construct of LD (Hammill, 1990). Interestingly, none of the definitions strongly influenced developments in LD identification, mainly because they tended to focus on conceptual rather than operational elements, and focused more on exclusionary rather than inclusionary criteria. Rapid Reference 1.3 illustrates the salient features of the most common definitions of LD that were proposed by national and international organizations and LD researchers, beginning with Kirk's 1962 definition. The majority of definitions depict LD as a neurologically based disorder or a disorder in psychological processing that causes learning problems and manifests as academic skill weaknesses. In addition, most definitions indicate that LD may co-occur with other disabilities.

Rapid Reference 1.3

Salient Features of Learning Disability Definitions

Although the definitions of LD included in Rapid Reference 1.3 vary in terms of their inclusion of certain features (e.g., average or better intelligence, evident across the life span), the most widely used definition is the one included in IDEA 2004 (Cortiella, 2009). Unlike other definitions, the IDEA 2004 definition refers to a specific learning disability, implying that the disability or disorder affects specific academic skills or domains. According to IDEA 2004, SLD is defined as follows:

The term “specific learning disability” means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, spell, or do mathematical calculations. Such a term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Such a term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; of mental retardation; of emotional disturbance; or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (IDEA 2004, § 602.30, Definitions)

Because definitions of LD do not explicitly guide how a condition is identified or diagnosed, classification systems of LD were developed. Three of the most frequently used classification systems for LD are described next.

Classification Systems for LD

“Classification criteria are the rules that are applied to determine if individuals are eligible for a particular diagnosis” (Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003, p. 2). Although the evaluation of LD in school-aged children is guided by the mandate of IDEA 2004 and its attendant regulations, diagnostic criteria for LD are also included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000), and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10; World Health Organization, 2006). Rapid Reference 1.4 includes the type of learning disorders and classification criteria for LD in each system. Noteworthy is the fact that all three systems use somewhat vague and ambiguous terms, which interfere significantly with the efforts of practitioners to identify LD reliably and validly (Kavale & Forness, 2000, 2006).

Caution

Because the three major classification systems use somewhat vague and ambiguous terms, it is difficult to identify SLD reliably and validly. Thus, multiple data sources and data-gathering methods must be used to ensure that children are diagnosed accurately.

Rapid Reference 1.4

Three Frequently Used Diagnostic Classification Systems for Learning Disability

Classification SystemTypes of Learning DisorderExamples of Classification Criteria1Diagnostic and StatisticalManual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision(DSM-IV-TR, 2000)Reading Disorder Mathematics Disorder Written Expression Disorder Learning Disorder NOSMathematics Disorder:

A. Mathematical ability, as measured by individually administered standardized tests, is substantially below that expected, given the person's chronological age, measured intelligence, and age-appropriate education.

B. The disturbance in Criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require mathematical ability.

C. If a sensory deficit is present, the difficulties in mathematical ability are in excess of those usually associated with it.

D. Must be differentiated from: normal variations in academic attainment, lack of opportunity, poor teaching, cultural factors, impaired vision and/or hearing, and mental retardation.

International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10, 2006)Specific Reading Disorder Specific Spelling Disorder Specific Disorder of Arithmetical Skills Mixed Disorder of Scholastic Skills Other Developmental Disorders of Scholastic Skills Developmental Disorder of Scholastic Skills, UnspecifiedSpecific Reading Disorder:A specific and significant impairment in the development of reading skills that is not solely accounted for by mental age, visual acuity problems, or inadequate schooling.Reading comprehension skill, reading word recognition, oral reading skill, and performance of tasks requiring reading may all be affected.Spelling difficulties are frequently associated with specific reading disorder and commonly remain into adolescence even after some progress in reading has been made.Specific developmental disorders of reading are commonly preceded by a history of disorders in speech or language development.Associated emotional and behavioral disturbances are common during the school-age period.Includes: Backward reading, developmental dyslexia, specific reading retardation.Excludes: Alexia, dyslexia NOS, reading difficulties secondary to emotional distress.Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004)Specific Learning Disability in: Oral Expression Listening Comprehension Written Expression Basic Reading Skill Reading Fluency Reading Comprehension Mathematics Calculation Mathematics Problem SolvingSpecific Learning Disability:

1. A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes.

2. Includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

3. Learning difficulties must not be primarily the result of:

A visual, hearing, or motor disabilityMental retardationEmotional disturbanceCultural factorsEnvironmental or economic disadvantageLimited English proficiency

1For the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 diagnostic classification systems, there are specific criteria for each disorder that are listed in the second column of this rapid reference. Criteria for only one of these disorders are included in this (third) column to serve as an example.

Despite the existence of various classification systems, students ages 3 to 21 years who experience learning difficulties in school are most typically evaluated according to IDEA 2004 specifications (IDEA 2004, § 614) to determine if they qualify for special education services. Because the classification category of SLD as described in the IDEA statute includes imprecise terms, the USDOE published the Federal Regulations (34 CFR, Part 300) with the intent of clarifying the statute and providing guidance to State Educational Agencies (SEA) as they worked to develop their own regulations. The guidelines provided by the 2006 Federal Regulations were more detailed in their specifications of how an SLD should be identified.

Methods of SLD Identification and the 2006 Federal Regulations

Although the definition of SLD has remained virtually the same for the past 30 years, the methodology used to identify SLD changed recently. According to the 2006 Federal Regulations (34 CFR § 300.307–309), a state must adopt criteria for determining that a child has SLD; the criteria (a) must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement; (b) must permit the use of a process based on a child's response to scientific, research-based interventions; and (c) may permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has SLD. Many controversies have ensued since the publication of the three options for SLD identification. The controversies have been written about extensively as they pertain to the exact meaning of the guidelines, the specifications of a comprehensive evaluation, the implications of using response to intervention (RTI) as the sole method for SLD identification, and the lack of legal knowledge among decision makers and, therefore, will not be repeated here (see Fletcher, Barth, & Stuebing, this volume; Gresham, Restori, & Cook, 2008; Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008; Reschly et al., 2003; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009a, 2009b; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010 for a summary). The remainder of this chapter focuses on clarifying the three options for SLD identification, as these three options are currently being implemented across states (see Rapid Reference 1.5).

Rapid Reference 1.5

National Investigation of State Education Agencies (Zirkel & Thomas, 2010)

Surveyed the 51 State Education Agencies (including Washington, DC) to determine which of the three options included in the 2006 Federal Regulations was selected for SLD identification.The severe discrepancy approach remains viable, rather than prohibited, in the vast majority of states, with the choice delegated to the local district level.Twelve states have adopted RTI as the required approach for SLD identification, with seven states allowing the addition of a severe discrepancy and/or an alternative research-based approach.Twenty states appear to permit the third option or a research-based alternative.

Note. For state-by-state details regarding SLD eligibility determination, see Zirkel and Thomas (2010; Table 1, pp. 59–61).

Ability-Achievement Discrepancy

A discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement continues, in one form or another, to be central to many SLD identification approaches because it assists in operationally defining unexpected underachievement (e.g., Kavale & Flanagan, 2007; Kavale & Forness, 1995; Lyon et al., 2001; Wiederholt, 1974; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010). Despite being a laudable attempt at an empirically based method of SLD identification, the traditional ability-achievement (or IQ-achievement) discrepancy method was fraught with problems (e.g., Aaron, 1997; Ceci, 1990, 1996; Siegel, 1999; Stanovich, 1988; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002; Stuebing et al., 2002), many of which are bulleted in Rapid Reference 1.6. The failure of the ability-achievement discrepancy method to identify SLD reliably and validly was summarized well by Ysseldyke (2005), who stated,

Professional associations, advocacy groups, and government agencies have formed task forces and task forces on the task forces to study identification of students with LD. We have had mega-analyses of meta-analyses and syntheses of syntheses. Nearly all groups have reached the same conclusion: There is little empirical support for test-based discrepancy models in identification of students as LD. (p. 125)

Rapid Reference 1.6

Salient Problems With the Ability-Achievement Discrepancy Method

Fails to adequately differentiate between students with LD from students who are low achievers.Based on the erroneous assumption that IQ is a near-perfect predictor of achievement and is synonymous with an individual's potential.Applied inconsistently across states, districts, and schools, rendering the diagnosis arbitrary and capricious.A discrepancy between ability and achievement may be statistically significant, but not clinically relevant.Is a wait-to-fail method because discrepancies between ability and achievement typically are not evident until the child has reached the 3rd or 4th grade.Does not identify the area of processing deficit.Leads to overidentification of minority students.Does not inform intervention.

Thus, the fact that states could no longer require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement (IDEA 2004) was viewed by many as a welcomed change to the law. The void left by the elimination of the discrepancy mandate was filled by a method that allowed states to use a process based on a child's response to intervention to assist in SLD identification.

Response to Intervention (RTI)

The concept of RTI grew out of concerns about how SLD is identified. For example, traditional methods of SLD identification, mainly ability-achievement discrepancy, were applied inconsistently across states and often led to misidentification of students, as well as overidentification of minority students (e.g., Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Learning Disabilities Roundtable, 2005; President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002). Such difficulties with traditional methods led to a “paradigm shift” (Reschly, 2004) that was based on the concept of treatment validity, “whereby it is possible ‘to simultaneously inform, foster, and document the necessity for and effectiveness of special treatment’ (L. S. Fuchs & D. Fuchs, 1998).”

Don't Forget

Although RTI may be permitted under IDEA 2004, the driving force behind promoting RTI is found in No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2001) legislation (PL 107-110).

At the most general level, RTI is a multitiered approach to the early identification of students with academic or behavioral difficulties. For the purpose of this chapter, we focus on RTI for academic difficulties only. The RTI process begins with the provision of quality instruction for all students in the general education classroom, along with universal screening to identify students who are at risk for academic failure, primarily in the area of reading (Tier I). Students who are at risk for reading failure—that is, those who have not benefitted from the instruction provided to all students in the classroom—are then given scientifically based interventions, usually following a standard treatment protocol (Tier II). If a student does not respond as expected to the intervention provided at Tier II, he or she may be identified as a nonresponder and selected to receive additional and more intensive interventions in an attempt to increase his or her rate of learning. When one type of intervention does not appear to result in gains for the student, a new intervention is provided until the desired response is achieved.

The inclusion of RTI in the law as an allowable option for SLD identification has created perhaps the most controversy since IDEA was reauthorized in 2004. This is because, in districts that follow an RTI-only approach, students who repeatedly fail to demonstrate an adequate response to increasingly intensive interventions are deemed to have SLD by default. Such an approach does not appear to be in compliance with the regulations. For example, according to the regulations, states must (a) use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information (34 CFR § 300.304[b][1]); (b) not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has a disability (34 CFR § 300.304[b][2]); (c) use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors (34 CFR § 300.304[b][3]); (d) assess the child in all areas related to the suspected disability (34 CFR § 300.304[c][4]); (e) ensure that the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs (34 CFR § 300.304[c][6]); and (f) ensure that assessment tools and strategies provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the needs of the child (34 CFR § 300.304[c][7]).

Although the use of RTI as a standalone method for SLD identification is inconsistent with the intent of the law, this type of service delivery model has been an influential force in the schools in recent years, particularly with respect to shaping Tier I and Tier II assessments for intervention in the general education setting. The emphasis in an RTI model on ensuring that students are benefitting from empirically based instruction and verifying their response to instruction, via a systematic collection of data, has elevated screening and progress monitoring procedures to new heights and has led many to embrace this type of service delivery model for the purposes of both prevention and remediation. In essence, RTI serves to improve accountability through data demonstrating whether or not learning has improved and sufficient progress has been made. Rapid Reference 1.7 highlights some of the most salient strengths and weaknesses of the RTI service delivery model regarding its use in the SLD identification process.

Rapid Reference 1.7

Strengths and Weaknesses of RTI

Source: Learning Disabilities Association of America, White Paper (Hale et al., 2010).

Salient Weaknesses of RTI as a Standalone Method of SLD IdentificationSalient Strengths of an RTI Service Delivery ModelLack of research on which RTI model works best, standard treatment protocol or problem-solving model, or under what circumstances each model should be usedLack of agreement on which curricula, instructional methods, or measurement tools should be usedConfusion surrounding what constitutes an empirically based approachLack of agreement on which methods work across grades and academic content areasDifferent methods of response/nonresponse, leading to different children being labeled as responders/nonrespondersNo consensus on how to ensure treatment integrityNo indication of a true positive (SLD identification) in an RTI modelFocus is on the provision of more effective instructionAllows schools to intervene early to meet the needs of struggling learnersCollected data better informs instruction than data generated by traditional ability-achievement discrepancy methodHelps ensure that the student's poor academic performance is not due to poor instructionHolds educators accountable for documenting repeated assessments of students' achievement and progress during instruction

Alternative Research-Based Procedures for SLD Identification

The third option included in the 2006 regulations allows “the use of other alternative research-based procedures” for determining SLD (§ 300.307[a]). Although vague, this option has been interpreted by some as involving the evaluation of a “pattern of strengths and weaknesses” in the identification of SLD via tests of academic achievement, cognitive abilities, and neuropsychological processes (Hale et al., 2008, 2010; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010). Several empirically based methods of SLD identification that are consistent with the third option are presented in this book, such as Berninger's framework of assessment for intervention (Chapter 9), Flanagan and colleagues’ operational definition of SLD (Chapter 10), Hale and Fiorello's Concordance-Discordance Model (Chapter 8), and Naglieri's Discrepancy/Consistency Model (Chapter 7). Readers may also be interested in the Response to the Right Intervention (RTRI) model proposed by Della Toffalo (2010).

Figure 1.1 provides an illustration of the three common components of third-method approaches to SLD identification (Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010; Hale et al., 2008). The two bottom ovals depict academic and cognitive weaknesses, and their horizontal alignment indicates that the level of performance in both domains (academic and cognitive) is expected to be similar or consistent. The double-headed arrow between the bottom two ovals indicates that the difference between measured performances in the weak academic area(s) is not significantly different from performance in the weak cognitive area(s). Again, in children with SLD there exists an empirical or otherwise clearly observable and meaningful relationship between the academic and cognitive deficits, as the cognitive deficit is the presumed cause of the academic deficit. The oval depicted at the top of Figure 1.1 represents generally average (or better) cognitive or intellectual ability. The double-headed arrows between the top oval and the two bottom ovals in the figure indicate the presence of a statistically significant or clinically meaningful difference in measured performance between general cognitive ability and the areas of academic and cognitive weakness. The pattern of cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses represented in Figure 1.1 retains and reflects the concept of unexpected underachievement that has historically been synonymous with the SLD construct (Kavale & Forness, 2000).

Figure 1.1 Common Components of Third-Method Approaches to SLD Identification

Source: Flanagan, Fiorello, and Ortiz (2010); Hale, Flanagan, and Naglieri (2008).

Conclusion

In this chapter we reviewed briefly the prevailing definitions, diagnostic classification systems, and methods of identifying LD. The federal definition of SLD has remained virtually the same for the past 30 years, and SLD remains the most frequently diagnosed educationally disabling condition in our nation's schools. Despite no change in the definition of SLD in the most recent reauthorization of IDEA, the methods for identifying SLD, as per the 2006 Federal Regulations, have changed. For example, ability-achievement discrepancy can no longer be mandated, although it remains a viable option in the majority of states. RTI has been adopted by several states as the required approach for SLD identification, despite the fact that using this method alone is inconsistent with the federal law. Third-option or research-based alternatives to SLD identification are permitted in more than 20 states throughout the country and hold promise for identifying SLD in more reliable and valid ways than was achieved via previous methods (e.g., the traditional ability-achievement discrepancy method).

The remainder of this book addresses in greater detail the topics discussed briefly in this chapter. For example, Chapters 2 through 5 provide in-depth coverage of how SLD manifests in reading, math, writing, and oral language. Chapters 6 through 10 include discussions of RTI and several third-method approaches for SLD identification. Finally, Chapter 11 describes how practitioners can distinguish cultural and linguistic differences from SLD in the evaluation of English Language Learners. The confusion that has surrounded methods of SLD identification for many years, along with the obvious disconnect between the definition of SLD and the most typical methods of identifying it, continue to spark controversy. The chapters that follow, written by leading experts in the field, have the potential to shape future reauthorizations of IDEA and bring greater clarity to both the definition of and methods for identifying SLD.

Resources

Council for Exceptional Children:www.cec.sped.org This Web site provides professional development resources, including a blog on response to intervention and a side-by-side comparison of the IDEA regulations and information about how the changes will impact students and teachers.

IDEA 2004:http://idea.ed.gov Statutes, regulations, and other documents related to IDEA 2004 are found here.

IDEA Partnership:www.ideapartnership.org This Web site offers resources developed by the IDEA Partnership (a collaboration of more than 55 national organizations, technical assistance providers, and organizations and agencies at state and local levels) and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).

LD Online:www.ldonline.org This Web site provides comprehensive information about learning disabilities and ADHD, with valuable resources for parents, educators, and students.

National Association of School Psychologists (NASP):www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/SLDPosition_2007.pdf This is a position statement on the identification of students with specific learning disabilities (adopted in July 2007).

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE):www.nasdse.org This is the official Web site of the NASDSE, with up-to-date information about projects and initiatives related to RTI, charter schools, and the IDEA Partnership.

National Center for Learning Disabilities:www.ld.org The NCLD works to ensure that the nation's 15 million children, adolescents, and adults with learning disabilities have every opportunity to succeed in school, work, and life.

National Center on Response to Intervention:www.rti4success.org The center provides technical assistance to states and districts and builds the capacity of states to assist districts in implementing proven models for RTI/EIS.

National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (NICHCY):www.nichcy.org/resources/IDEA2004resources.asp NICHCY serves as a central source of information on IDEA 2004. It also provides a list of resources by state. See www.nichcy.org/states.htm.

National Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center:www.nectac.org/sec619/stateregs.asp This page provides links to state regulations and other policy documents (statutes, procedures, and guidance materials) for implementing Part B of IDEA.

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD):www.ldonline.org/njcld This Web site describes the mission of the NJCLD and its member organizations. It provides research articles and contact information for associations that offer assistance to individuals with SLD.

National Resource Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD):www.nrcld.org This Web site provides resources for educators and parents, including a toolkit on using response to intervention in SLD determination.

RTI Action Network:www.rtinetwork.org A Web site dedicated to the effective implementation of RTI in districts nationwide.

State Advisory Panels

Each state has a special education advisory panel that provides the state's Department of Education with guidance about special education and related services for children with disabilities. Check your own state's Department of Education Web site for specific information about your area.

U.S. Department of Education (USDOE):www.ed.gov This is the homepage of the USDOE, which provides current information about education policies and initiatives in the United States.

What Works Clearinghouse, Institute of Education Sciences:http://ies.ed.gov.ncee/wwc This Web site offers scientific evidence about best practices in education.

Test-Yourself

1. The number of children identified with SLD has doubled since the enactment of P.L. 94-142 in 1975. True or False?

2. Historically, definitions of LD have strongly influenced how we have identified LD. True or False?

3. In the public schools, SLD is identified primarily by the following:

(a) DSM-IV criteria

(b) IDEA and its attendant regulations

(c) ICD-10

(d) All of the above

4. According to the 2006 Federal Regulations, a district must not require use of the following procedure to identify SLD:

(a) Response to intervention (RTI) process

(b) Ability-achievement discrepancy model

(c) Alternative research-based procedures

(d) Psychoeducational assessments

5. Response to intervention has not been validated as a method for SLD identification. True or False?

6. Which of the following is not a salient strength of RTI:

(a) Focus is on the provision of more effective instruction.

(b) Allows schools to intervene early to meet the needs of struggling learners.

(c) Collected data better informs instruction than data generated by traditional ability-achievement discrepancy method.

(d) A true positive (SLD identification) is evident in an RTI model.

7. The number of states that appear to permit the third option, or a research-based alternative to SLD identification, is

(a) 5.

(b) 10.

(c) 15.

(d) 20.

8. SLD has an underlying neurological etiology. True or False?

9. According to IDEA 2004, a child may have SLD in any of the following except

(a) written expression.

(b) reading fluency skills.

(c) mathematics calculation.

(d) spelling.

10. A child can have an SLD in only one academic area. True or False?

Answers:

1. False

2. False

3. b

4. b

5. True

6. d

7. d

8. True

9. d

10. False

Chapter 2

How SLD Manifests In Reading

Steven Feifer

Defining Reading Disability

The conceptualization of the term learning disabled (LD) has been at the forefront of school psychological debate, research, and practice since its inception as an educationally handicapping condition. Clearly, there has been a lack of sufficient clarity inherent within this overarching term, forcing scholars, practitioners, educational institutions, and public policy makers to craft their own interpretations and measurement techniques to best encapsulate the spirit of this disability. Today, there is little disagreement that learning disabilities represent an array of heterogeneous skill deficits in various academic domains such as reading, mathematics, written expression, and oral language. Nevertheless, most school systems have adopted inconsistent explanations and rather ill-conceived notions of how to define operationally, measure reliably, and intervene productively with children who manifest a learning disability in school. According to the United States Department of Education (2006), approximately 80% of students identified as having a learning disability primarily have deficits with reading skills. Consequently, most educational research has focused solely on reading disabilities, or what some refer to as developmental dyslexia, and delineated the disorder by using strict cut-points to classify students as either having or not having a disability (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). Therefore, students with reading disabilities are viewed from a rather binary perch, with only those students manifesting a disability being eligible for support and accommodations through an Individual Education Plan (IEP).

Don't Forget

Approximately 80% of students identified as having a learning disability have deficits in reading skills.

The literature has been rife with numerous theoretical attempts and, at times, faulty conceptual notions to identify and measure underlying reading disabilities in children accurately. For instance, the discrepancy model had been the long-standing method that school systems have adopted to assist in identifying students with a specific learning disability (SLD). This method involves assessing academic achievement in one or more major curricular areas, such as reading, math, or written language, and determining whether or not the student's achievement is significantly discrepant from his or her overall intelligence. The discrepancy model does not focus on specific neurocognitive processes inherent in reading, but rather on more global attributes of cognition and achievement. The underlying assumption is that children with reading disabilities have the intellectual wherewithal to acquire functional reading skills, but are underachieving in school due to an inherent disability with learning.

There have been numerous shortcomings associated with the discrepancy model, including overreliance on a Full Scale IQ to capture the dynamic properties of an individual's reasoning skills (Hale & Fiorello, 2004) and the lack of agreement on the magnitude of the discrepancy at various ages and grades (Feifer & DeFina, 2000). According to Kavale and Forness (2000), nearly 50% of students classified as having a learning disability do not demonstrate a significant discrepancy between aptitude and achievement, due in part to the statistical imprecision of this method. Perhaps the most notable shortcoming of the discrepancy model was that it resulted in a wait-to-fail scenario, whereby students were forced to display a certain level of reading failure in order to qualify for special education services. This was especially at odds with the National Reading Panel's (2000) conclusion highlighting the importance of early intervention services for children with reading difficulties. Simply put, the discrepancy model propagates an age-old educational myth that views reading disabilities along a one-dimensional continuum between those students with the disability and those without.

According to Reynolds (2007), the biological basis of learning disabilities has been demonstrated through various neuropsychological studies of brain functioning, with various subtypes and precise diagnostic markers clearly emerging. Therefore, creating artificial cut-points through ability-achievement discrepancy models as the sole basis for identifying a learning disability merely denies students—most notably, students with lower IQs—from receiving special education support and services. As Goldberg (2001) noted, human cognition is a multidimensional phenomenon distributed throughout the cortex in a continuous and gradiential fashion, not in a linear and modular one. Hence, there are degrees of differences in learning and cognition, which must be explored through a multidimensional survey of brain functions, as opposed to simply contriving artificial cut-points in a distribution of achievement test scores. The fact remains that LD still has not been quantified with much exactitude, leaving Kavale and Forness (2000) to conclude that an operational definition of LD remains as elusive as ever, despite the neuropsychological literature providing a much more sophisticated and substantiated view of the cognitive processes involved in learning. Notwithstanding, there has been substantial movement in crafting a more operational definition of LD, which is delineated in subsequent chapters of this book (e.g., Naglieri, Chapter 7; Hale, Wycoff, and Fiorello, Chapter 8; Flanagan, Alfonso, and Mascolo, Chapter 10). Subsequent to the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, states are no longer allowed to require