Cross-Battery Assessment pattern of strengths and weaknesses approach to the identification of specific learning disorders: Evidence-based practice or pseudoscience?

A current landscape of specific learning disability identification: Training, practices, and implications

“…This finding may be a reflection of the larger paradigm shift within the field of school psychology which describes the changing landscape of the field from assessing for within child problems to a prevention and intervention focus within the environmental context (Reschly, ). Moreover, school psychologists should be knowledgeable about statistical and measurement concepts (National Association of School Psychologists, ), and thus participants may have reported less preference for ability–achievement discrepancy and PSW due to research showing that these SLD identification methods lack adequate psychometric properties (Francis et al, ; Kranzler et al, ; Stuebing et al, ). However, despite decades of research undermining the ability–achievement discrepancy method, this study suggested that a considerable number of school psychologists continue to use and prefer this method for SLD identification.…”

“…PSW methods typically require demonstration of a cognitive deficit that theoretically aligns with an achievement deficit (Alston-Abel & Berninger, 2018;Hale et al, 2008), but how such deficits are determined differs across models (e.g., normative vs. ipsative deficits; Stuebing, Fletcher, Branum-Martin, & Francis, 2012). There is a lack of empirical research, though, supporting the technical adequacy of such approaches to SLD identification (Kranzler, Floyd, Benson, Zaboski, & Thibodaux, 2016;McGill &Busse, 2017;Stuebing et al, 2012). Conversely, there is a growing body of research suggesting that PSW models do not result in reliable or valid SLD identification decisions (e.g., Kranzler et al, 2016;Miciak, Fletcher, Stuebing, Vaughn, & Tolar, 2014;Miciak, Taylor, Denton, & Fletcher, 2015;Stuebing et al, 2012;Taylor, Miciak, Fletcher, & Francis, 2017).…”

“…There is a lack of empirical research, though, supporting the technical adequacy of such approaches to SLD identification (Kranzler, Floyd, Benson, Zaboski, & Thibodaux, 2016;McGill &Busse, 2017;Stuebing et al, 2012). Conversely, there is a growing body of research suggesting that PSW models do not result in reliable or valid SLD identification decisions (e.g., Kranzler et al, 2016;Miciak, Fletcher, Stuebing, Vaughn, & Tolar, 2014;Miciak, Taylor, Denton, & Fletcher, 2015;Stuebing et al, 2012;Taylor, Miciak, Fletcher, & Francis, 2017). PSW models have not demonstrated treatment validity and lack evidence supporting their ability to predict student responsiveness to intervention (Miciak et al, 2016).…”

Preferred Learning Styles among Students with Learning Disabilities

“…These disorders resulting from central nervous dysfunction can interfere with basic learning skills such as reading, writing, mathematics, spoken and written language skills, visual processing, and visual-spatial. These disorders might also interfere with higher mental skills such as International Journal of Education ISSN 1948-5476 2020 organizational skills, time planning, abstract thinking, long and short-term memory, and attention (Fuchs et al, 2004;Kranzler et al, 2016). LD can also affect an individual's life in non-academic situations; as relationships with family, friends, and work (Silver et al 2008).…”

“…The fact that students with LD do not prefer the visual style in learning and receiving information in classroom contexts may be due to the visual perceptual/visual motor deficits which are related to LD, and these resulting in deficiencies in understanding visual information, and maintain attended with teachers (Mazher, 2018). Such conditions are familiar in students with LD and manifest themselves in non-verbal learning difficulties (Kranzler et al, 2016;McLaughlin et al, 2015) and this make them less preferring for the visual style of learning.…”