Models and Theories: Their Influence on Research in Learning Disabilities

610

498

Longstanding concern about how learning disabilities (LD) are defined and identified, coupled with recent efforts in Washington, DC to eliminate IQachievement discrepancy as an LD marker, have led to serious public discussion about alternative identification methods. The most popular of the alternatives is responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI), of which there are two basic versions: the "problem-solving" model and the "standard-protocol" approach. The authors describe both types, review empirical evidence bearing on their effectiveness and feasibility, and conclude that more needs to be understood before RTI may be viewed as a valid means of identifying students with LD.

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsiveness‐to‐Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct

Fuchs

Mock

Morgan

et al. 2003

610

498

“…Yet, Ysseldyke et al (1982) were dismissive of these significant findings on grounds that "the magnitude of [the] mean differences is at best moderate" (p. 79). Kavale, Fuchs, and Scruggs (1994) to -0.17; see Kavale et al, 1994, Table 3, p. 75), with the unlabeled children scoring higher. The median ES among the eight tests and subtests in the achievement domain in Table 3 was 0.80 (range: 1.10 to -0.05; see Kavale et al,Table 4,p.…”

Section: Underestimating the Seriousness Of Swds' Learning Problemsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Students with Disabilities’ Abysmal School Performance: An Introduction to the Special Issue

Fuchs

McMaster

Lemons

2018

The academic achievement of millions of American children is abysmal. For clarity's sake, the 2018 on-line edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary says that the word "abysmal" means low or wretched, extremely poor or bad. Many of America's poorly-achieving students have significant learning or behavior disabilities. We discuss below some of the evidence of their gross underachievement and attempt to explain how come. THE EVIDENCE National EvaluationsOne form of documentation of many students with disabilities' (SWDs) low school achievement comes from federally-supported nationwide evaluations. The National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, & Marder, 2003), for example, produced a representative snapshot of the achievement of SWDs in high school. Those with learning disabilities (LD) were on average 3.4 years behind grade-level in reading; 3.2 years behind in math. Because these were averages, we can assume many were achieving at much lower levels. The Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (Schiller, Sanford, & Blackorby, 2008), meant to parallel the NLTS in earlier grades, showed that 64 percent of elementary-age children with LD scored below the 21 st percentile in reading comprehension in three consecutive years.Perhaps the most well-known federally-sponsored evaluation of SWDs' academic performance is the bi-annual National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). For her Master's thesis at Vanderbilt University, Hilary Minowitz (see Fuchs, Minowitz, & Gilbert, 2017) found national averages for the reading achievement of SWDs in 10 of the 18 years between 1998 and 2015, inclusive. The students Requests for reprints should be sent to

“…Recognition that an adult with LD demonstrates deficits with specific cognitive and linguistic processes that significantly contribute to functional limitations with different types of learning (e.g., reading, writing, mathematics) differentiates this group from adults with low literacy but no disabilities. While some critics raise the concern that one cannot differentiate between low achievement due to LD and low literacy, recent research is challenging this perspective (Bowden et al, in press; Gregg, in press; Kavale, Fuchs, & Scruggs, 1994; Mather et al, 2005). As with the ability–achievement discrepancy formula, researchers found that neither the presence nor the absence of cognitive and/or achievement discrepancies can be the sole method of valid decision making in the identification of LD (Brackett & McPherson, 1996; Hoy et al, 1996; Mather et al, 2005).…”

Section: Eligibility Methods For Determining Substantial Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Who are Most, Average, or High‐Functioning Adults?

Gregg¹,

Coleman²,

Lindstrom³

et al. 2007

The growing number of high-functioning adults seeking accommodations from testing agencies and postsecondary institutions presents an urgent need to ensure reliable and valid diagnostic decision making. The potential for this population to make significant contributions to society will be greater if we provide the learning and testing accommodations to allow them access to knowledge, as well as the means to demonstrate their extraordinary abilities. The criteria and decision making used to identify high-functioning adults with learning disabilities (LD) must be robust yet flexible enough to account for individual differences, measurement fallibility, and examiner expertise. The purpose of this article is to explore legal, measurement, and clinical issues surrounding the provision of accommodations to high-functioning individuals with LD.