Treatment Utility of Assessment: Myths and Realities

Braden, Jeffery P.; Kratochwill, Thomas R.

doi:10.1080/02796015.1997.12085880

Cited by 45 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Hale and Fiorello (2001) suggested that it is necessary to intervene to assess so the RTI model will have the positive effect of directing attention toward comprehensive interventions for students who truly need them. Without a comprehensive evaluation, it would be difficult to design interventions tailored to unique needs, a fundamental tenet of special education (Braden & Kratochwill, 1997).…”

Section: Sld Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

Kavale

Holdnack²,

Mostert

2006

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Sage Publications, Inc. and Hammill Institute on Disabilities are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Learning Disability Quarterly. Abstract. Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being pro-posed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. We argue that many. questions about RTI remain unanswered, and that radical changes in the proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Since many fundamental issues related to RTI have not been resolved, a better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing identification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions for how to modify present procedures are provided.

show abstract

Section: Sld Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

Kavale

Holdnack²,

Mostert

2006

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Sld Diagnosismentioning

confidence: 99%

Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

Kavale

Holdnack²,

Mostert

2005

Learning Disability Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being proposed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. We argue that many questions about RTI remain unanswered, and that radical changes in the proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Since many fundamental issues related to RTI have not been resolved, a better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing identification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions for how to modify present procedures are provided.

show abstract

“…In support of individualized ATIs, Reynolds (1988) notes that ATI failure occurs because participants are often grouped using a few levels of performance and teachers rarely provide differentiated instruction based on unique student patterns of performance. Braden and Kratochwill (1997) argue that one cannot prove the null hypothesis about ATIs and state that ATIs are possible at the single-subject level analysis. They argue that new models of cognitive processing have not been thoroughly evaluated at the group or individual level and that each technique for identifying aptitudes must be examined for ATI validity.…”

mentioning

confidence: 96%

WISC-III predictors of academic achievement for children with learning disabilities: Are global and factor scores comparable?

Hale

Fiorello²,

Kavanagh³

et al. 2001

School Psychology Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition (WISC-III) provides a Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ), four factor standard scores, and subtest scale scores. Although the incremental validity of the WISC-III factor scores over FSIQ in predicting academic achievement has been questioned, this finding was based on the assumption that FSIQ should be entered first into the regression equation and failed to examine the shared variance among predictors. In contrast with previous findings, this study of 174 children meeting criteria for learning disabilities revealed that the WISC-III factors accounted for a large portion of achievement variance during hierarchical regression analyses, yet FSIQ added little predictive power. A commonality analysis of FSIQ indicated that it is largely comprised of unique, not shared, factor variance. Analyzing the WISC-III subtests from a Gf-Gc theoretical framework, academic achievement commonality analyses revealed complex relationships among the predictors, with crystallized, quantitative, and short-term memory factors accounting for the most achievement variance, regardless of academic domain. Results suggest that simple rejection of factor or subtest scores based on hierarchical regression techniques is unwarranted and that systematic exploration of nomothetic and idiographic patterns of performance is recommended for practitioners.

show abstract

Treatment Utility of Assessment: Myths and Realities

Cited by 45 publications

References 27 publications

Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

Responsiveness to Intervention and the Identification of Specific Learning Disability: A Critique and Alternative Proposal

WISC-III predictors of academic achievement for children with learning disabilities: Are global and factor scores comparable?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About