Do processing patterns of strengths and weaknesses predict differential treatment response?

Abstract

Objective No previous empirical study has investigated whether the LD identification decisions of proposed methods to operationalize processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approaches for LD identification are associated with differential treatment response. We investigated whether the identification decisions of the concordance/discordance model (C/DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004) and Cross Battery Assessment approach (XBA method; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) were consistent and whether they predicted intervention response beyond that accounted for by pretest performance on measures of reading. Method Psychoeducational assessments were administered at pretest to 203 4th graders with low reading comprehension and individual results were utilized to identify students who met LD criteria according to the C/DM and XBA methods and students who did not. Resulting group status permitted an investigation of agreement for identification methods and whether group status at pretest (LD or not LD) was associated with differential treatment response to an intensive reading intervention. Results The LD identification decisions of the XBA and C/DM demonstrated poor agreement with one another (κ = −.10). Comparisons of posttest performance for students who met LD criteria and those who did not meet were largely null, with small effect sizes across all measures. Conclusions LD status, as identified through the C/DM and XBA approaches, was not associated with differential treatment response and did not contribute educationally meaningful information about how students would respond to intensive reading intervention. These results do not support the value of cognitive assessment utilized in this way as part of the LD identification process.

Cognitive, Intervention, and Neuroimaging Perspectives on Executive Function in Children With Reading Disabilities

“…Yet, analyses of this nature help to answer important questions about whether knowledge of individual students’ EF profile can help predict who will or will not respond to intensive interventions, or whether routine assessment of EF is advisable for intervention planning. The negative results from Study 1e are consistent with earlier studies that question the utility of routine assessment of cognitive processes for intervention planning even though they largely did not include specific measures of EF (Fletcher & Miciak, ; Miciak et al., ; Miciak et al., ; Stuebing et al., ).…”

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

“…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, ; Miciak, Fletcher, Stuebing, Vaughn, & Tolar, ; Miciak, Taylor, Denton, & Fletcher, ; Stuebing et al, ; Taylor, Miciak, Fletcher, & Francis, ). PSW models have not demonstrated treatment validity and lack evidence supporting their ability to predict student responsiveness to intervention (Miciak et al, ). Moreover, although there is some evidence that cognitive processing deficits improve with training (Kavale & Forness, ; Kearns & Fuchs, ), such cognitive processing training has not been shown to meaningfully transfer to academic achievement skills (Burns et al, ; Kearns & Fuchs, ; Melby‐Lurvag & Hume, ).…”

The cognitive assessment course: Two decades later

“…In addition to changes in practice and legislation, research on the ontological (e.g., Jauk, Benedek, Dunst, & Neubauer, 2013;Zaboski, Kranzler, & Gage, 2018) and epistemological (e.g., van der Maas et al, 2006) nature of intelligence continues. Other researchers have focused on specific practices related to cognitive assessment (e.g., McGill, 2016;Miciak et al, 2017).…”