Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

A Rejoinder on the PSW Model for SLD Identification: Still Concerned

  • Published:
Contemporary School Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We address Christo, D’Incau, and Ponzuric’s response to our original contribution to this journal “When theory trumps science: A critique of the PSW model for SLD identification.” Christo and colleagues stated that there is an empirical support for pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) procedures as a component in the identification of specific learning disorders and raised concerns regarding our critique of the PSW model. We present further research to support our perspective and maintain that empirical data are lacking for PSW assessment in the identification of specific learning disability (SLD). School psychologists are cautioned to consider the evidence regarding the practice of PSW-related procedures.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beaujean, A. A. (2016). Reproducing the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—fifth edition factor model results. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 34, 404–408. doi:10.1177/0734282916642679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., Peterson-Brown, S., Haegele, K., Rodriguez, M., Schmitt, B., Cooper, M., Clayton, K., Hutcheson, S., Conner, C., & Hosp, J. (2016). Meta-analysis of academic interventions derived from neuropsychological data. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 28–42. doi:10.1037/spq0000117.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2016a). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—fifth edition: exploratory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28, 975–986. doi:10.1037/pas0000238.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2016b). Structural validity of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—fifth edition: confirmatory factor analyses with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/pas0000358

  • Christo, C., D’Incau, B. J., & Ponzuric, J. (2016). Response to McGill and Busse, “When Theory Trumps Science: A Critique of the PSW Model for SLD Identification.” Contemporary School Psychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1007/s40688-016-0098-6

  • Dombrowski, S. C., & Gischlar, K. L. (2014). Ethical and empirical considerations in the identification of learning disabilities. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 30, 68–82. doi:10.1080/15377903.2013.869786.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowski, S. C., Kamphaus, R. W., Barry, M., Brueggeman, A., Cavanagh, S., Devine, K., Hekimoglu, L., & Vess, S. (2006). The Solomon effect in learning disabilities diagnosis: can we learn from history? School Psychology Quarterly, 21, 359–374. doi:10.1037/h0084128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowski, S. C., Ambrose, D., & Clinton, A. (2007). Dogmatic insularity in learning disabilities classification and the critical need for a philosophical analysis. International Journal of Special Education, 22 (1), 3–10 Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ814463.pdf.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowski, S. C., Canivez, G. L., Watkins, M. W., & Beaujean, A. (2015). Exploratory bifactor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—fifth edition with the 16 primary and secondary subtests. Intelligence, 53, 194–201. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2015.10.009.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dombrowski, S. C., McGill, R. J., & Canivez, G. L. (2016). Exploratory and hierarchical factor analysis of the WJ IV cognitive at school age. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000350.

  • Elliott, J. G., & Resing, W. C. M. (2015). Can intelligence testing inform educational intervention for children with reading disability? Journal of Intelligence, 3, 137–157. doi:10.3390/jintelligence3040137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2011). A CHC-based operational definition of SLD: integrating multiple data sources and multiple data-gathering methods. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 233–298). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2016). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1093/arclin/acw103

  • Fletcher, J. M., Steubing, K. K., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2013). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: a hybrid model. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (2nd ed., pp. 33–50). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Floyd, R. G. (2010). Assessment of cognitive abilities and cognitive processes: issues, applications, and fit within a problem-solving model. In G. Gimpel Peacock, R. A. Ervin, E. J. Dally III, & K. W. Merrell (Eds.), Practical handbook of school psychology: Effective practices for the twenty-first century (pp. 48–66). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108. doi:10.1177/00222194050380020101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, J., Alfonso, V., Berninger, V., Bracken, B., Christo, C., Clark, E., & Yalof, J. (2010). Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: an expert white paper consensus. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33, 223–236. doi:10.1177/073194871003300310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kranzler, J. H., Floyd, R. G., Benson, N., Zaboski, B., & Thibodaux, L. (2016a). Classification agreement analysis of cross-battery assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children and youth. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21683603.2016.1155515.

  • Kranzler, J. H., Floyd, R. G., Benson, N., Zaboski, B., & Thibodaux, L. (2016b). Cross-battery assessment pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach to the identification of specific learning disorders: evidence-based practice or pseudoscience? International Journal of School & Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/21683603.2016.1192855.

  • Kratochwill, T. R. (2007). Preparing psychologists for evidence-based school practice: lessons learned and challenges ahead. American Psychologist, 62, 826–843. doi:10.1037/0003- 066X.62.8.829.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., Ammirati, R., & David, M. (2012). Distinguishing between science pseudoscience in school psychology: science and scientific thinking as safeguards against human error. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 7–36. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2011.09.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Macmann, G. M., & Barnett, D. W. (1997). Myth of the master detective: reliability ofc interpretations for Kaufman’s “intelligent testing” approach to the WISC-III. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 197–234. doi:10.1037/h0088959.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDermott, P. A., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Glutting, J. J. (1990). Just say no to subtest analysis: a critique on Wechsler theory and practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 290–302. doi:10.1177/073428299000800307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGill, R. J. (2016). Invalidating the full scale IQ score in the presence of significant factor score variability: clinical acumen or clinical illusion? Archives of Assessment Psychology, 6 (1), 49–79 Retrieved fromhttp://www.assessmentpsychologyboard.org/journal/index.php/AAP.

  • McGill, R. J., & Busse, R. T. (2016). When theory trumps science: a critique of the PSW model for SLD identification. Contemporary School Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s40688-016-0094-x.

  • McGill, R. J., Styck, K. M., Palomares, R. S., & Hass, M. R. (2016). Critical issues in specific learning disability identification: what we need to know about the PSW model. Learning Disability Quarterly, 39, 159–170. doi:10.1177/0731948715618504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Vaughn, S., & Tolar, T. D. (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 21–37. doi:10.1037/spq0000037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Williams, J. L., Taylor, W. P., Fletcher, J. M., Cirino, P. T., & Vaughn, S. (2015a). Do cognitive processing strengths and weaknesses predict differential treatment response? Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/edu0000096.

  • Miciak, J., Taylor, W. P., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2015b). The effect of achievement test selection on identification of learning disabilities within a patterns of strengths and weaknesses framework. School Psychology Quarterly, 30, 321–334. doi:10.1037/spq0000091.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, M. H., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 31, 459–476 Retrieved from http:www.naspoline.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schultz, E. K., & Stephens, T. L. (2015). Core-selective evaluation process: an efficient & comprehensive approach to identify students with SLD using the WJ IV. The DiaLog: Journal of the Texas Educational Diagnosticians’ Association, 44(2), 5–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steubing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Branum-Martin, L., & Francis, D. J. (2012). Evaluation of the technical adequacy of three methods for identifying specific learning disabilities based on cognitive discrepancies. School Psychology Review, 41, 3–22 Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, W. P., Miciak, J., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2016). Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/pas0000356.

  • Watkins, M. W. (2000). Cognitive profile analysis: a shared professional myth. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 465–479. doi:10.1037/h0088802.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watkins, M. W. (2003). IQ subtest analysis: clinical acumen or clinical illusion? The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice, 2, 118–141 Retrieved from http://edpsychassociates.com/Papers/ClinicalIllusion.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, J. L., Miciak, J., McFarland, L., & Wexler, J. (2016). Learning disability identification criteria and reporting in empirical research: a review of 2001–2013. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31, 221–229. doi:10.1111/ldrp.12119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, The College of William and Mary, P.O. Box 8795, Williamsburg, VA, 23187, USA

    Ryan J. McGill

  2. College of Educational Studies, Chapman University, One University Drive, Orange, CA, 92866, USA

    R. T. Busse

Authors
  1. Ryan J. McGill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. T. Busse
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ryan J. McGill.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

We wish to thank the editor-in-chief for commissioning this special section and for allowing us the opportunity to participate and respond.

The authors thank Stefan C. Dombrowski for his comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

McGill, R.J., Busse, R.T. A Rejoinder on the PSW Model for SLD Identification: Still Concerned. Contemp School Psychol 21, 23–27 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0124-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-017-0124-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation