On the Importance of a Cognitive Processing Perspective: An Introduction

Abstract

Children with learning problems require early intervention. If it is evidence based and implemented with integrity and intensity, it will accelerate the academic progress of many students. This is the hope and expectation of the many supporters of responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI). A minority of children, however, will not respond sufficiently to such intervention because of learning disorders like specific learning disabilities (SLD). Some RTI models do not include research-backed methods to identify these children, nor do RTI practitioners often produce the data necessary to develop individualized instruction for them. The authors suggest practitioners go beyond typical RTI assessment data documenting responsiveness/ unresponsiveness to conduct comprehensive evaluations of these most difficult-to-teach students and to include in their evaluations carefully chosen cognitive measures. This special issue presents the work of teams of researchers, which suggests that cognitive and neuropsychological assessments can provide information to further understand SLD, which in turn can guide development of promising interventions.

Critical Issues in Specific Learning Disability Identification

“…Multiple investigations have reported that broad cognitive abilities have direct effects on reading and math achievement beyond the general factor (Benson, 2008; Floyd, Keith, Taub, & McGrew, 2007; Hajovsky et al, 2014; Taub, Keith, Floyd, & McGrew, 2008; Vanderwood, McGrew, Flanagan, & Keith, 2001), but the predictive effects associated with those abilities are relatively small (Beaujean, Parkin, & Parker, 2014; Glutting, Watkins, Konold, & McDermott, 2006; Oh, Glutting, Watkins, Youngstrom, & McDermott, 2004; Parkin & Beaujean, 2012). Whereas there is emerging evidence (e.g., Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Lambert, & Hamlett, 2012; Fuchs, Hale, & Kearns, 2011) that individuals with SLD may present with discrepant cognitive profiles when compared with normal controls, these cognitive correlates rarely mediate academic intervention outcomes (Fletcher et al, 2011; Miciak, Stuebing, et al, 2014; Stuebing et al, 2014).…”

Are Child Cognitive Characteristics Strong Predictors of Responses to Intervention? A Meta-Analysis

“…In contrast, others observe the general lack of evidence that patterns of strengths and weaknesses in cognitive attributes interact with treatment outcomes (Fuchs, Hale, & Kearns, 2011;Kearns & Fuchs, 2013;Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2009). Kearns and Fuchs (2013) reported that although cognitively focused instruction is more effective than Tier I delivered by general education teachers, cognitively focused instruction was not more effective than rigorous academically focused instruction.…”

“…In contrast, others observe the general lack of evidence that patterns of strengths and weaknesses in cognitive attributes interact with treatment outcomes (Fuchs, Hale, & Kearns, 2011;Kearns & Fuchs, 2013;Pashler, McDaniel, Rohrer, & Bjork, 2009). Kearns and Fuchs (2013) reported that although cognitively focused instruction is more effective than Tier I delivered by general education teachers, cognitively focused instruction was not more effective than rigorous academically focused instruction. Less controversial is the evidence that specific cognitive skills can serve as precursors and predict those at risk for reading failure (Scarborough, 1998) although there is disagreement and uncertainty about what variables are most predictive.…”

Professional Practice Issues in the Assessment of Cognitive Functioning for Educational Applications

“…Research literature in cognitive science and neuropsychology is replete with evidence to support our understanding of how cognition affects achievement (e.g., Fiorello, Hale, & Wycoff, ; Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, ; McGrew & Wendling, ). Entire journal issues have been devoted to how cognition and individual differences influence intervention (see Fuchs, Hale, & Kearns, ). Indeed, many have already suggested that school psychologists are in a unique position to “take the lead role in the translation of brain research, cognitive neuroscience, and neuropsychological research related to neurodevelopmental disabilities into educational practice” (Maricle, Miller, Hale, & Johnson, , p. 78; see also Decker, 2008; Flanagan & Alfonso, ; Flanagan & Harrison, ; Fletcher‐Janzen & Reynolds, ; Hale & Fiorello, ; Miller, ).…”

“…Administering specific narrowly defined cognitive tasks helps to systematically isolate the underlying problem. The purpose of administering the tests is not to get an IQ score, but to help understand learning problems (Woodcock, ) and develop effective interventions (Fuchs et al., ). This is an important distinction from viewing testing for the purpose of predicting achievement (Glutting, Watkins, Konold, & McDermott, 2006; Watkins, Lei, & Canivez, ).…”