Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers

Abstract

Recent consensus reports concur in suggesting major changes in the federal regulatory approach to the identification of learning disabilities (LD). These reports recommend abandoning the IQ-discrepancy model and the use of IQ tests for identification, and also recommend incorporation of response to instruction (RTI) as one of the identification criteria. These changes are also recommended to states in the current reauthorization of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). While not mandatory, states that follow these recommendations will experience major changes in identification and treatment of students served under the LD category. This paper reviews the basis for these recommendations, summarizing four recent consensus group reports on special education that concur in suggesting these changes. Seventeen commonly asked questions about these changes are presented, with responses. In order to ensure adequate instruction for students with LD, it is essential that identification practices focus on assessments that are directly related to instruction, that any services for students who are struggling prioritize intervention over eligibility, and that special education be permitted to focus more on results and outcomes and less on eligibility and process. Identification models that incorporate RTI represent a shift in special education toward the goals of better achievement and behavioral outcomes for students identified with LD, as well as those students at risk for LD.

Neuropsychological characteristics of dyslexic children

“…Data obtained in this study corroborates with the idea of heterogeneity and multiple cognitive domains involved (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004;Hendriksen et al, 2007;Kavale & Forness, 2000) in learning disorders and countless factors which infl uence learning (Kaefer, 2006). It also reinforces the importance of an interdisciplinary investigation Bishop & Snowling, 2002;Capellini & Ciasca, 2000;Salles & Parente, 2006) and a case by case analysis (Salles & Parente, 2008), due to the variations showed in the previously mentioned neuropsychological characteristics.…”

Contextual effects on predicting risk for reading difficulties in first and second grade

“…These researchers encourage the continuation of identification and classification based on discrepancies between achievement and ability, with ability defined by scores on multiple cognitive processing tests rather than a single IQ test (Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale, 2004). However, many other researchers see RtI as a prevention model that stimulates multiple tiers of intervention and reduces the possibility that students referred to special education are academic casualties from inadequate or inappropriate instruction (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004 Otaiba & Fuchs, 2006;Mathes et al, 2005;McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2005;Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003;Vellutino et al, 1996;Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2006). A synthesis of recent research on intensive, early interventions reveals higher effects for smaller group size and for an earlier start of intervention (e.g., kindergarten-grade 1; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2006).…”

Response to early literacy instruction in the United States, Australia, and Scandinavia: A behavioral-genetic analysis

“…The general expectation is that the effects of environment on literacy skills should decrease and the genetic contribution increase as a function of intensity and consistency of instruction, across countries and time. This approach should also inform recent interest in response-to-intervention, or RTI, as a method to ascertain, define, and remediate reading difficulties (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006;Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly, & Vaughn, 2004;Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004;Fuchs & Young, 2006;Vellutino et al 1996). So, for example, if our expectation that the intensity of instruction (intervention) affects the mix of genetic and environmental influences on literacy progress is realized, practitioners might bear in mind that genetic underendowment for reading and spelling will be particularly exposed with intense intervention and calibrate the pace and persistence of their activities accordingly.…”