Enhancing practice through application of Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification

Abstract

This article demonstrates how the broad and narrow abilities and processes that comprise Cattell -Horn -Carroll (CHC) theory and their relations to specific academic outcomes have begun to transform our current understanding of the definition of and methods for indentifying specific learning disability (SLD), particularly in the school setting. The manner in which CHC theory has been used to guide evaluation of the academic and cognitive capabilities of students who are suspected of having SLD is described. Current psychometric methods for identifying SLD that have a foundation in CHC theory are highlighted. These newer methods are based on what is known as the "third method," a provision for SLD identification included in the federal regulations (34 CFR 300.540-543) accompanying the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act that permits the use of alternative, research-based approaches. A method based on an integration of existing third-method approaches, called the Hypothesis-Testing CHC Approach (HT-CHC), was proposed. The HT-CHC method is expected to be carried out within the context of a Response to Intervention (RTI) service delivery model. Benefits of this approach over ability -achievement discrepancy and RTI-only methods and future directions in SLD identification research are discussed. C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Introduction to the special issue: Current research in Cattell–Horn–Carroll–based assessment

“…In the last article in this special issue, Flanagan, Fiorello, and Ortiz (2010) examine a "third method" approach for the identification of SLDs within the RTI framework. The authors begin by reviewing previously proposed "third method" approaches, and then suggest a new, integrated "Hypothesis-Testing CHC Approach (HT-CHC)."…”

Intelligent Diagnosing of Intellectual Disabilities in Offenders: Food for Thought

“…This is illustrated by the discrepancies in IQ total and index scores found between IQ instruments (e.g., Canivez, Neitzel, & Martin, 2005;Floyd et al, 2008;Morgan, Sullivan, Darden, & Gregg, 1997;Robinson, 1999;Thompson, Browne, Schmidt, & Boer, 1997). Despite the decreasing disparity between total test scores across intelligence batteries -as the expanding factor structures cover an increasing amount of cognitive abilities (Flanagan et al, 2010) -Floyd et al (2008 noted that still 25% of assessed individuals will obtain a 10-point IQ-score difference with another IQ battery. Even though not all studies indicate significant discrepancies between intelligence batteries at the group level (e.g., Thompson et al, 1997), the absence of differences at the individual level cannot be automatically assumed.…”

“…As Flanagan et al (2010) state, the CHC model is a useful tool to obtain insights into why certain intervention methods do not work, what interventions, compensatory strategies, and accommodations might be more effective, and what are the most promising means of delivering instruction and implementing intervention. For (forensic) clinicians it is of fundamental importance to know how to communicate and organize their interventions to obtain a maximal result with the respective offender, especially when taking into account the responsivity principle.…”

“…After reviewing the various ways of establishing ID and associated methodological problems in current criminal justice studies, we will argue that a gap still exists between the practical assessment of intelligence and its theoretical underpinnings in this domain. Therefore, we will put forward a proposal to incorporate the well-researched, multidimensional Cattell-Horn-Caroll model (CHC; Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010) of cognitive abilities into criminal justice practice and research of offenders with ID to better capture the individual differences within this population. Finally, we will discuss the possible wide-ranging implications of using the CHC model for various purposes in criminal justice settings.…”

Mathematical development: the role of broad cognitive processes

“…Rather, cognitive research-based screening, assessment, diagnosis, and intervention represents one of the key components of a multitiered, prevention and intervention-focused model of school psychology practice (screening and intervention based on information related to specific cognitive processes involved in specific academic needs), which is in line with ethical standards and best practices of the National Association of School Psychologists, and the American Psychological Association. In particular, cognitive research-based assessment and intervention is a timely (and urgently needed) response to unsupported practices, such as ability-achievement discrepancy analysis, which has weak theoretical validity, and limited empirical support (see Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010, for a discussion on the application of cognitive research in school psychology practice, particularly in the context of specific learning disabilities). Additionally, these results support the notion of "intelligent testing" (McGrew & Wendling, 2010), which suggests that psychologists should design assessment plans that include specific narrow and/or broad cognitive factors, rather than "one size fits all" approaches (i.e., administering the same whole battery of tests for all evaluations).…”