Abstract
As states increasingly adopt actuarial models to aid learning disability (LD) identification, microcomputer programs are being used to accurately measure the primary LD criterion: severe discrepancies between IQ and achievement. First-generation programs offered little flexibility in regression parameters and user-defined options. This paper describes Standard Score Comparison 2.0 (SSC 2.0), a second-generation regression program that calculates multiple discrepancies, and provides options for Type I error rates, SEM confidence levels, correction for multiple comparisons, and the cut-off value that defines severe discrepancy. Application of SSC 2.0 to non-LD areas and potential features of third-generation software are discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Evans, L. D. (1990). A conceptual overview of the regression discrepancy model for determining severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement scores.Journal of Learning Disabilities,23, 406–412.
Evans, L. D. (1991).Standard score comparison 2.0 [Computer program]. North Little Rock, AR: WtL.
Evans, L. D. (1992a). Multiple IQ-achievement comparisons: Effects on severe discrepancy determination.Learning Disability Quarterly,15, 167–174.
Evans, L. D. (1992b). Severe does not always imply significant: Bias of a regression discrepancy model.Journal of Special Education,26, 57–67.
Evans, L. [D.], &Hilden, A. (1986).Regression analysis program [Computer program]. Helena, MX: Office of Public Instruction.
Forness, S. R., Sinclair, E., &Guthrie, D. (1983). Learning disability discrepancy formulas: Their use in actual practice.Learning Disability Quarterly,6, 107–114.
Frankenberger, W., &Fronzaglio, K. (1991). A review of states’ criteria and procedures for identifying children with learning disabilities.Journal of Learning Disabilities,24, 495–500.
Furlong, M. J. (1985).Ability-achievement discrepancy [Computer program], Burlington, NC: Southern Micro Systems.
Hammill, D. D. (1990). On defining learning disabilities: An emerging consensus.Journal of Learning Disabilities,23, 74–84.
Iowa Department of Public Instruction (1981).The identification of pupils with learning disabilities. Des Moines, IA: Author.
Macmann, G. M., Barnett, D. W., Lombard, T. L, BeltonKocher, E., &Sharpe, M. N. (1989). On the actuarial classification of children: Fundamental studies of classification agreement.Journal of Special Education,23, 127–149.
Mercer, C. D., King-Sears, P., &Mercer, A. R. (1990). Learning disability definitions and criteria used by state education departments.Learning Disability Quarterly,13, 141–152.
Psychological Corporation (1992).Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities.Journal of Special Education,18, 451–476.
Reynolds, C. R., &Stowe, M. L. (1985).Severe discrepancy analysis [Computer program]. Bensalem, PA: Train.
Thorndike, R. L. (1963).The concepts of over-and underachievement. New York. Teachers College Press, Columbia University.
Tomko, T. M., &Campbell, F. (1989).A screening strategy for learning disabled student. Unpublished manuscript, Edmonton Catholic School System, Edmonton, Canada.
U.S. Office of Education (1977). Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities.Federal Register,42, 65082–65085.
Washington Office of Public Instruction (1984). The identification of students as learning disabled. Olympia, WA: Author.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Standard Score Comparison 2.0 is available from WtL Publishing, 6929 JFK Blvd., Suite 20-120, North Little Rock, AR 72116.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Evans, L.D. Standard Score Comparison 2.0: Second-generation learning disability regression software. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 25, 199–202 (1993). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204495
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03204495