To make a diagnosis, clinicians rely on both diagnostic criteria and clinical reasoning. In the case of learning disabilities (LDs), reliance on the latter (clinical reasoning) is likely to be heightened, given the current absence of a consistent LD diagnostic approach or definition. This study investigated the agreement between diagnostic decisions of reading LD (RLD) made by clinicians and those produced from strict adherence to 3 commonly employed diagnostic models (i.e., low achievement, abilityachievement discrepancy, processing strengths and weakness). Using a clinical sample of 313 elementary-aged children, the level of agreement between clinician and models was determined using kappa. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.: Canadian; WISC-IV CDN ;Wechsler, 2003) and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (3rd ed.: Canadian; WIAT-III CDN ; Wechsler, 2010) were used in the comparisons. Overall, the results indicate varying levels of agreement between: (a) clinician and model identification of reading disabilities, and (b) model-model agreement. The strongest agreement was between the clinician and low achievement model (LAM)-the model with the broadest LD definition. Clinicians should carefully consider the rationale for their diagnostic approach and be mindful of additional factors influencing their clinical judgment.