Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Discrepancies, Responses, and Patterns: Selecting a Method of Assessment for Specific Learning Disabilities

  • Review
  • Published:
Contemporary School Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act allows three methods of determining whether a student qualifies for special education as a student with a specific learning disability (SLD). The first and most controversial is the Discrepancy model, which requires a significant discrepancy between the student’s intellectual ability and academic achievement. The second is the Response to Intervention (RTI) model, which utilizes a process to assess a student’s response to scientific, researched-based interventions. The third method involves reviewing the student’s unique pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (PSW) that result in academic deficits. The present article reviews the research regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each model. Furthermore, due to the recent emergence of PSW models, this article concludes with the authors’ recommendations for further research prior to implementation of the PSW approach.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Apgar, K., & Hanson, J. (2012). Using neuropsychology processing deficits to identify specific learning disabilities: Oregon models. Paper presented at the meeting of the California Association of School Psychologists, Costa Mesa, CA.

  • Barth, A. E., Stuebing, K. K., Anthony, J. L., Denton, C. A., Mathes, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., & Francis, D. J. (2008). Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and Individual Differences, 18(3), 296–307.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: a snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 85–95.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M., & Riley-Tillman, T. (2009). Response to intervention and eligibility decisions: we need to wait to succeed. Communiqué, 38(1), 10–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • California Department of Education. (2013). Laws and regulations: A composite of special education and related laws. Sacramento, CA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.specedlawsregs.org/.

  • Consortium for Evidence-Based Early Intervention Practices. (2010). A response to the learning disabilities association of America (LDA) white paper on specific learning disabilities identification. Retrieved from http://www.ida-umb.org/userfiles/file/Response%20to%20LDA%20paper%20on%20SLD%20Identification.pdf.

  • Dunn, M. W. (2007). Diagnosing reading disability: reading recovery as a component of a response-to-intervention assessment method. Learning Disabilities – a Contemporary Journal, 5(2), 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: is it nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 206–214.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. B., & Wycoff, K. L. (2012). Cognitive hypothesis testing: linking test results to the real world. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues (pp. 484–496). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., Fiorello, C. A., & Ortiz, S. O. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory and research: a “third method” approach to specific learning disability (SLD) identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 739–760.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Mascalo, J. T., & Sotelo-Dynega, M. (2012a). Use of ability tests in the identification of specific learning disabilities within the context of an operational disability. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 643–669). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2012b). The cross-battery assessment approach: an overview, historical perspective, and current directions. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues (pp. 459–483). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Identifying learning disabilities in the context of response to intervention: A hybrid model. RTI Action Network.

  • Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shankweiler, D. P., Katz, L., Liberman, I. Y., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Fowler, A. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 6–23. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (2005). Evidence-based assessment of learning disabilities in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical and Adolescent Psychology, 34, 506–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florida Department of Education. (2009). Questions and answers: State board of education rule 6A-6.03018, Florida Administrative Code, Exceptional Student Eligibility for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from http://info.fldoe.org/docushare/dsweb/Get/Document-5586/dps-2009-177.pdF.

  • Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2001). Responsiveness-to-intervention: a blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Bryant, J., & Davis, N. G. (2007). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: findings from the first-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gresham, F. M., & Vellutino, F. R. (2010). What is the role of intelligence in the identification of specific learning disabilities? Issues and Clarifications. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 25(4), 194–206. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: a practitioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hale, J. B., Wycoff, K. L., & Fiorello, C. A. (2011). RTI and cognitive hypothesis testing for identification and intervention of specific learning disability. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 173–201). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanson, J., Sharman, M. S., & Esparza-Brown, J. (2008). Pattern of strengths and weaknesses in specific learning disabilities: What’s it all about?Technical assistance paper. Oregon School Psychologists Association. Retrieved October 5, 2012 http://www.jamesbrenthanson.com/uploads/PSWCondensed121408.pdf.

  • Hauerwas, L. B., Brown, R., & Scott, A. N. (2013). Specific learning disability and response to intervention: state-level guidance. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 101–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to intervention: a research-based summary. Theory into Practice, 50, 4–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ikeda, M., Neesen, E., & Witt, J. (2008). Best practices in universal screening. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 103–114). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Illinois State Department of Education. (2010). Frequently asked questions about special education eligibility and entitlement within a response to intervention framework. Retrieved from http://www.dist102.k12.il.us/system/files/faq_sped_entitlement_rti.pdf.

  • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. (2004). Pub. L. No. 108–446, 20, U.S.C. 1400.

  • Jacobs, M. (2014). Top litigation trends: identifying legal vulnerabilities in your services and supports. In S. Bevilacqua (Chair), LRP’s Special Education Director’s Summit. Conference conducted at the LRP Special Education Director’s Summit, San Diego, CA.

  • Johnson, E. S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D. F., Woods, K., & Swanson, H. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: a selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33, 3–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children: technical manual (2nd ed.). Circle Pines: American Guidance Service.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kavale, K. A., & Flanagan, D. P. (2007). Ability-achievement discrepancy, response to intervention, and assessment of cognitive abilities/processes in specific learning disability identification: toward a contemporary operational definition. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: the science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 130–147). New York: Springer Science.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Kavale, K. A., & Spaulding, L. S. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23(4), 169–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lichtenstein, R., & Klotz, M. B. (2007). Deciphering the federal regulations on identifying children with specific learning disabilities. Communiqué, 36(3). Retrieved from http:// http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/.

  • Lyall, M. (2005). A comparison of specific learning disorder classification rates of inner-city African Americans and Latinos using either the WISC III or the TONI-3 (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from Dissertation abstracts international (Order No. AAI3178861).

  • Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsiveness to intervention: prevention outcomes and learning indentification patterns. Journal of Learning Disbalities, 38, 539–544.

  • Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (2006). Introduction to the special issue, part one: it’s about the what, the how well, and the why. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 747–752. doi:10.1002/pits.20185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mather, N., & Wendling, B. J. (2012). Linking cognitive abilities to academic interventions for students with specific learning disabilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 553–581). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCardle, P., Mele-McCarthy, J., Cutting, L., Leos, K., & D’Emilio, T. (2005). Learning disabilities in English language learners: identifying the issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 1–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGrew, K. S., & Wendling, B. J. (2010). Cattell–Horn–Carroll cognitive-achievement relations: what we have learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 651–675.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKenzie, R. G. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: the oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 203–215.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Mercer, A. R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Learning Disability Quarterly, 19, 217–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, M. S. (2000). The ability–achievement discrepancy: does it contribute to an understanding of learning disabilities? Educational Psychology Review, 12(3), 315–337.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miciak, J., Fletcher, J., 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(1), 21–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nagilieri, J. A., Das, J. P., & Goldstein, S. (2012). Planning, attention, simultaneous, successive: a cognitive-processing-based theory of intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues (pp. 178–194). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

  • Naglieri, J. A. (2011). The discrepancy/consistency approach to SLD identification using the PASS theory. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 145–172). Hoboken: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naglieri, J. A., & Das, J. P. (1997). Cognitive assessment system: administration and scoring manual. Rolling Meadows: Riverside Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Naglieri, J. A., & Otero, T. M. (2012). The cognitive assessment system: from theory to practice. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues (pp. 376–399). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, J. H., & McGrew, K. S. (2010). Introduction to the special issue: current research in Cattell-Horn-Carroll-based assessment. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 621–634. doi:10.1002/pits.2049.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, R. E., Bocian, K. M., Beach, K. D., Sanchez, V., & Flynn, L. J. (2013). Special education in a 4-year response to intervention (RtI) environment: characteristics of students with learning disability and grade of identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28(3), 98–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ofiesch, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883–888.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ortiz, S. O., Ochoa, S. H., & Dynda, A. M. (2012). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations: moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidenced-based practice. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: theories, tests, and issues (pp. 526–552). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Proctor, S. L., Graves, S. R., & Esch, R. C. (2012). Assessing African American students for specific learning disabilities: the promises and perils of response to intervention. The Journal of Negro Education, 81(3), 268–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reschly, D. J., & Hosp, J. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Restori, A. F., Gresham, F. M., & Cook, C. R. (2008). “Old habits die hard:” past and current issues pertaining to response-to-intervention. California School Psychologist, 1367–78.

  • Restori, A. F., Katz, G. S., & Lee, H. B. (2009). A critique of the IQ / achievement discrepancy model for identifying specific learning disabilities. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 128–145.

  • Reynolds, C. R., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2009). Response to intervention: ready or not? Or, from what-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130–145.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sattler, J. M. (2014). Foundations of behavioral, social, and clinical assessment of children (6th ed.). San Diego: Sattler.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shinn, M. (2008). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 243–261). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stecker, P., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, F. (2008). Progress monitoring as an essential practice within response to intervention. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 27(4), 10–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: a meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39(2), 469–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuebing, 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(1), 3–22.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Torgensen, J. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weakness. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: research to practice (pp. 565–650). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education for handicapped children: procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42, G1082–G1085.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Assistance to states for the education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities. Federal Register, 71(156), 46540–46845.

    Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). Identification of specific learning disabilities. Retrieved August 31, 2014 from the World Wide Web: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/,root,dynamic,TopicalBrief,23.

  • VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Jimerson, S. (2005). Using response-to-intervention to enhance outcomes for children. The California School Psychologist, 10, 21–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warner, T. D., Dede, D. E., Garvan, C. W., & Conway, T. W. (2002). One size still does not fit all in specific learning disability assessment across ethnic groups. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), 500–508.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Pupil Services Department, Las Virgenes Unified School District, 4111 Las Virgenes Road, Calabasas, CA, 91302, USA

    Derek Ihori

  2. Department of School Counseling and Psychology, School of Education, Azusa Pacific University, 701 East Foothill Avenue, PO Box 7000, Azusa, CA, 91702-7000, USA

    Pedro Olvera

Authors
  1. Derek Ihori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Pedro Olvera
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Pedro Olvera.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ihori, D., Olvera, P. Discrepancies, Responses, and Patterns: Selecting a Method of Assessment for Specific Learning Disabilities. Contemp School Psychol 19, 1–11 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0042-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-014-0042-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation