After the Demise of the Discrepancy: Proposed Learning Disabilities Diagnostic Criteria.

Abstract

Pending legislation and positions taken by the U.S. Department of Education may radically alter current learning disabilities (LD) definitions and diagnostic approaches. Proposals include eliminating a discrepancy model and incorporating a more comprehensive approach to LD assessment but one based on more subjective clinical judgment. Although this effort to change is laudable, it does not address the residual problems that will continue to plague the field: the lack of specificity of the construct of LD and the inconsistent and idiosyncratic approach to diagnosis taken by practitioners and researchers across and within states. This article proposes a new LD classification model that transcends educational and psychiatric systems of diagnosis, calls for a uniform and national diagnostic system, and suggests renaming the disorder (e.g., developmental learning delay). STEFAN C. DOMBROWSKI received his PhD in school psychology from the University of Georgia and received his MBA from the University of Connecticut. He completed a postdoctoral fellowship in child-clinical psychology at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center. He is an assistant professor in the school psychology program at Rider University. His research interests include child maltreatment and the investigation of the impact of prenatal factors on later child psychological development. He also conducts research on assessment-related issues as they relate to the developmental well-being of children. RANDY W. KAMPHAUS received his PhD in school psychology from the University of Georgia. He is department head and distinguished research professor of educational psychology at the University of Georgia. His research interests include psychological assessment and classification.

Combining RTI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise

“…Additional research on the fate of students with SL status if RTI alone is implemented for SLD identification seems to be needed. Related to this topic, readers are referred to a provocative proposal by Dombrowski, Kamphaus, and Reynolds (2004) for a new category entitled "developmental learning delay" (comprising students with standard score achievement scores Յ85 and evidence of classroom failure). Adopting such a proposal may avoid, or compound, the problems associated with identifying students with scores in the SL range for special services.…”

Identificação precoce do risco para transtornos da atenção e da leitura em sala de aula

“…Porém, a identificação e intervenção precoces são difí-ceis de operacionalizar com base nos modelos diagnósticos baseados na discrepância QI-rendimento, atualmente predominantes no diagnóstico de transtorno de aprendizagem, e os quais têm sido duramente criticados (Dombrowski, Kamphaus, & Reynolds, 2004;Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009;Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004). Os modelos de discrepância QI-rendimento tiveram origem na noção de inesperado, central ao conceito de transtornos de aprendizagem (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009;.…”

“…Os modelos de discrepância QI-rendimento tiveram origem na noção de inesperado, central ao conceito de transtornos de aprendizagem (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009;. Tais modelos requerem que o rendimento em um dado domínio acadêmico (com base em testes referenciados em normas) esteja a um ou dois desvios-padrão abaixo da média do QI geral para que o escolar seja diagnosticado e encaminhado para programas de intervenção (Dombrowski et al, 2004;Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006;. Os modelos de discrepância QI-rendimento têm sido criticados não relativamente à noção de inesperado, "mas sim com o efeito prático na vida real de se implementar este modelo em um ambiente de escola primária" (Shaywitz et al, 2008, p. 454), pois deve-se aguardar até o 4º ano para que as eventuais discrepâncias entre desempenho acadêmico e QI apareçam e o diagnóstico seja feito.…”

“…Porém, esse tipo de produção ainda é muito escassa na literatura nacional (Andrade et al, 2011;Navas, 2011). Não menos importante é o papel de um pré-diagnóstico realizado pelos professores de forma competente e assertiva (Capellini & Conrado, 2009;Capellini, Tonelotto, & Ciasca, 2004) por meio de avaliações baseadas no currículo (Dombrowski et al, 2004;Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006), tal como temos no Brasil os procedimentos baseados no conceito de avaliação diagnóstica (Luckesi, 2005). Do ponto de vista prático da identificação de escolares de risco para dislexia, devemos destacar que a própria classificação proposta pelo DSM-IV (APA, 2002) indica que os prejuízos de leitura correspondem a um sintoma comum compartilhado pela maioria dos transtornos.…”

Dyslexia and Specific Learning Disorders: New International Diagnostic Criteria

“…In 1963 Kirk defined dyslexia as a kind of learning disability and defined learning disabilities as "an unexpected difficulty in learning one or more of one instrumental school abilities" [9]. Since this seminal work of Kirk [9][10][11], the idea of "an unexpected difficulty" has influenced research and clinical field, with a double interpretation of the idea of "unexpected difficulty", both interpretations are related to the "principle of discrepancy" [12]: the first interpretation is related to a discrepancy between the level of general abilities (mainly reasoning abilities) and specific learning abilities (the so called "discrepancy criterion"); the second one is related to the discrepancy between the level of achievement in specific instrumental school abilities and the level of schooling (named "low achievement criterion") [13]. In previous international diagnostic criteria (like these from DSM-IV [14] and ICD-10 [15], the two worldwide used international diagnostic classifications), the diagnosis of dyslexia was based on the "principle of discrepancy", the two criteria described above.…”