This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Van den Broeck, W. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Van den Broeck, W. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Will the Real Discrepant Learning Disabilit Please Stand Up?

University of Leiden, broeck{at}fsw.leidenuniv.nl

Willson and Reynolds (in this issue) challenged my thesis that the regression-based discrepancy method (RDM) is not a valid tool to detect aptitude-achievement discrepancies. In this response, I show that the statistical and theoretical counterarguments of Willson and Reynolds are based on a misreading of the statistical models presented. Furthermore, I demonstrate that the regression adjustment, which is largest for lower correlations, is the direct source of the lack of validity of the RDM procedure. Nevertheless, RDM can be considered a valid method to measure an achievement component that is unrelated to intelligence.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 35, No. 3, 209-213 (2002)
DOI: 10.1177/002221940203500303


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. Proctor and F. Prevatt Agreement Among Four Models Used for Diagnosing Learning Disabilities J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2003; 36(5): 459 - 466. [Abstract] [PDF]