Education.com

Learning Disabilities (page 3)

By M.A. Mastropieri|T.E. Scruggs
Pearson Allyn Bacon Prentice Hall

Issues in Identification and Assessment of Learning Disabilities

One controversial issue involves whether students classified as learning disabled represent a truly specific category; that is, that they are distinguishable from students who are simply low achievers (e.g., the bottom 25% in achievement). Some researchers have maintained that there are few meaningful differences between the two groups of students (Fletcher et al., 2002). However, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, and Roberts (2002) conducted a meta-analysis (research synthesis) of 86 studies comparing students with LD and low-achieving students in reading and found that students with LD generally scored considerably lower than low-achieving students. Debate on this issue continues.

Another related issue is the use of IQ–achievement discrepancy criteria. Lyon et al. (2001) argued that discrepancy criteria are not conceptually sound, are vulnerable to measurement error, and inhibit early identification of learning disabilities. In addition, MacMillan and Siperstein (2002) suggested that schools may not always apply discrepancy criteria correctly in identifying students with LD. Nevertheless, students with learning disabilities are generally thought to experience serious academic problems in spite of average or above-average general ability, and therefore could be expected to demonstrate some type of discrepancy (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2002b). However, schools are no longer required to use IQ-achievement discrepancy criteria for identification.

As an alternative to discrepancy criteria, schools are now encouraged to employ a response-to-intervention (RTI) approach, where general education teachers implement scientifically-based practices and use curriculum-based measurement to document student progress on a regular basis. Students who prove to be “treatment resisters” (do not show adequate progress in spite of extra attention) may be eligible for more intensive interventions or referral to special education (Gresham, 2002). These criteria are now specifically encouraged in the new IDEA amendments (Wright & Wright, 2005).

RTI procedures are also associated with some controversy. Specific implementation procedures have not yet been developed, the degree to which RTI discriminates between learning disabilities and other disabilities such as mental retardation is not known, and procedures for identification are less clear in areas other than early reading (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Gerber, 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002). However, these issues may be addressed in the future, as schools begin to implement RTI procedures.

View Full Article

Add your own comment

Ask a Question

Have questions about this article or topic? Ask
Ask
150 Characters allowed