Learning Disabilities Definitions and Criteria Used by State Education Departments

Mercer, Cecil D.; Jordan, LuAnn; Allsopp, David; Mercer, Ann R.

doi:10.2307/1511208

Cited by 111 publications

(47 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The stipulation of a severe discrepancy between achievement and IQ was retained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) amendments of 1997. The majority of state definitions have included a discrepancy criterion for many years (Frankenberger & Fronzaglio, 1991;Mercer, Jordan, Allsopp, & Mercer, 1996;Mercer, King-Sears, & Mercer, 1990), and 96% of states were continuing to use IQ-achievement discrepancy in their classification criteria as recently as 2002 (Reschly & Hosp, 2004). More than half of the states reported using standard scores, and 90% of those specified a discrepancy cutoff of 1 SD or greater (Frankenberger & Fronzaglio, 1991).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Underachievement Among Children With Epilepsy

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study assessed rates of learning disabilities (LD) by several psychometric definitions in children with epilepsy and identified risk factors. Participants (N = 173, ages 8-15 years) completed IQ screening, academic achievement testing, and structured interviews. Children with significant head injury, chronic physical conditions, or mental retardation were excluded. Using an IQ-achievement discrepancy definition, 48% exceeded the cutoff for LD in at least one academic area; using lowachievement definitions, 41% to 62% exceeded cutoffs in at least one academic area. Younger children with generalized nonabsence seizures were at increased risk for math LD using the IQachievement discrepancy definition; age of seizure onset and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) were risk factors for reading and math LD using low-achievement definitions. Writing was the most common domain affected, but neither ADHD nor seizure variables reliably identified children at risk for writing LD. Although children with earlier seizure onset, generalized nonabsence seizures, and comorbid ADHD appear to be at increased risk for some types of LD by some definitions, these findings largely suggest that all children with epilepsy should be considered vulnerable to LD. A diagnosis of epilepsy (even with controlled seizures and less severe seizure types) should provide sufficient cause to screen school-age children for LD and comorbid ADHD. Keywords underachievement; epilepsy; IQ-acheivement discrepancies; writing; seizures assessment identification; attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) One percent of children will develop epilepsy by 20 years of age (Hauser, 1994). Children with epilepsy are at greater risk for academic difficulties compared to healthy children and compared to those with many other chronic illnesses of childhood (Austin, Huberty, Huster, & Dunn, 1998;Fowler, Johnson, & Atkinson, 1985;Westbrook, Silver, Coupey, & Shinnar, 1991). Furthermore, children with epilepsy are less successful than their peers without epilepsy at obtaining gainful employment as adults (Dodrill & Clemmons, 1984;Sillanpää, Jalava, Kaleva, & Shinnar, 1998). Although many studies have documented that children with epilepsy tend to have difficulties in school, it is unclear how many of these children would meet criteria for learning disabilities (LD) or for obtaining services. NIH Public Access LD ScreeningWith the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, the U.S. Office of Education provided an operational definition of LD that required a "severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more … areas" of achievement (Assistance to States for Education of Handicapped Children: Procedures for Evaluating Specific Learning Disabilities, 1977). The stipulation of a severe discrepancy between achievement and IQ was retained in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) amendments of 1997. The majority of state definitions have included a discrepancy criterion fo...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Academic Underachievement Among Children With Epilepsy

et al. 2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The term does not include children who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (USOE, 1977, p. 65083) Mercer, Hughes, and Mercer (1985) found that 72% of the states used the 1977 definition or a variation thereof-a trend that has persisted to the present time, as 71 % were found to use the same in the most recent survey (Mercer et al, 1996). The linkage between authoritative definitions and federal and state regulations defining MR and LD are fairly evident as most states have modeled their definitions and criteria after those suggested in authoritative definitions.…”

Section: Focus On Exceptional Children October 1997mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That definition reads: "Mental retardation refers to significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior, and manifested during the developmental period" (Grossman, 1973, p. 5). The authoritative definition produced by the NACHC (1968) was adopted in the federal regulations authored by the U.S. Office of Education (1977), defining LD (Mercer, Jordan, Allsopp, & Mercer, 1996). That definition reads:…”

Section: Influence Of Authoritative Definitions On Federal and State mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Role of Assessment in Qualifying Students as Eligible for Special Education: What Is and What's Supposed To Be

MacMillan¹,

Gresham²,

Bocian³

et al. 2017

focusXchild

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since PL 94-142 was signed into law by President Gerald Ford in 1975, three procedures have to be followed in sequence:1. The child has to be qualified as eligible for special education and related services by meeting criteria for one of the sanctioned disability categories. 2. A "free appropriate public education" (F APE) must be provided for in the formalized individual Education Plan (IEP), which specifies short-term and long-term goals agreed upon as appropriate, and the services and supports required to achieve them. 3. The setting in which FAPE is to be accomplished is to be specified in keeping with the principle of least restrictive environment (LRE).This article is concerned with the first requirement, qualifying students as eligible for special education and related services. Moreover, the focus is on high-incidence disability cases in which qualification is highly dependent on assessment of children using psychometric instruments and scales.Two clearly different routes can be defined whereby children come to be qualified, or diagnosed, as eligible for special education. We specify Route 1 as being traversed by children whose disability is detected soon after birth or during the first few years of life. Children diagnosed via Route 1 include, among others, those with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, autism, and severe sensory impairments. These cases typically are diagnosed by physicians employing medical histories, physical examinations, and laboratory tests to arrive at the diagnosis.Frequently these children participate in early childhood programs for children with disabilities and arrive at the public schools with a diagnosis and transition plan in hand. The public schools "accept" the diagnosis and set about designing an IEP for the child. Students traveling Route 1 tend to exhibit "visible" disabilities, professionals tend to agree concerning the validity of the diagnosis, and the students who come to the public schools with a diagnosis tend to remain in the disability category throughout their public school careers.A second route to be described has been followed more commonly by children identified as having mild mental retardation (MMR), learning disabilities (LD), emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), and speech and language impairments (SU). These frequently are Donald MacMillan, Frank Gresham, and Kathleen Bocian are with the University of California at Riverside. Gary Siperstein is with the University of Massachusetts, Boston.© Love Publishing Company, 1997 FOCUS ON EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN OCTOBER 1997referred to as the "high-incidence disabilities." Although some cases served under each of these categorical headings are detected prior to enrollment in school, most of these children proceed through the preschool years "on schedule" for developmental tasks. There are few or no indicators of a disability for parents and preschool teachers to note. These children enter public schools as "normal" and are detected only after they fail to fulfill the role of the "normal student" (Ashurst & Meyer...

show abstract

“…E-Mail: mdwairy@construct.haifa.ac.il mentioned very frequently (Katz & Slomka, 2000). Despite the increased criticism of this discrepancy criterion, it is still included in the definition and/or criteria of 98% of the states in the USA (Mercer, Jordan, Allsopp, & Mercer, 1996).Inherent in most of the conceptualization of LD is the potential for at least average intellectual functioning while academic performance is well below grade or age expectations. This low academic performance is due, typically, to a deficiency in some specific cognitive functions that are needed for learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic approach to learning disability assessment: DLD test

Dwairy

2004

Dyslexia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement is one major criterion for diagnosis of learning disability (LD). This manuscript describes the shortcomings of this paradigm and offers a new dynamic approach for LD assessment based on evaluation of LD during a standard learning process of how to read and write a new language. The dynamic learning disability (DLD) test, K-ABC IQ test, and K-ABC reading test were administered to 56 normal 4th grade students and to 48 LD students. It was hypothesized that the results using the conventional criteria may mismatch the results of DLD, and that DLD predicts the progress of students in a long-term group learning process better. The results indicated that LD students, as a group, manifested significant difficulties in the DLD test. Among 48 students who meet the conventional criteria for LD diagnosis 14 students (29.16%) were able to learn a new language in the DLD test (Inconsistent LD sub-group). From the 14 students who have low achievement in reading without serious indications of cognitive difficulties, six students (42.857%) manifested serious difficulties in learning a new language in the DLD test (Latent LD sub-group). The DLD test as well as the labels of the sub-groups was validated by the amount of progress in the long-term group learning process. The DLD test proved to have high reliability and predictive validity coefficients. It is suggested that it become part of the diagnostic battery of tests of LD.

show abstract

Learning Disabilities Definitions and Criteria Used by State Education Departments

Cited by 111 publications

References 21 publications

Academic Underachievement Among Children With Epilepsy

Academic Underachievement Among Children With Epilepsy

The Role of Assessment in Qualifying Students as Eligible for Special Education: What Is and What's Supposed To Be

Dynamic approach to learning disability assessment: DLD test

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About