This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map 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 Fletcher, J. M. Articles by Francis, D. J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Fletcher, J. M. Articles by Francis, D. J. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Validity of Alternative Approaches for the Identification of Learning Disabilities

Operationalizing Unexpected Underachievement

Center for Academic and Reading Skills at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Jack.Fletcher{at}uth.tmc.edu

Carolyn Denton

Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics at the University of Houston

David J. Francis

Department of Special Education at the University of Texas at Austin, Vaughn Gross Center for Reading and Language Arts

This article reviews the validity of models based on (a) aptitude—achievement discrepancies, (b) low achievement, (c) intraindividual differences, and (d) response to instruction for the classification and identification of learning disabilities (LD). Models based on aptitude—achievement discrepancies and intraindividual differences showed little evidence of discriminant validity. Low achievement models had stronger discriminant validity but do not adequately assess the most significant component of the LD construct, unexpected underachievement. All three of these status models have limited reliability because of their reliance on a measurement at a single time point. Models that incorporate response to instruction have stronger reliability and validity but cannot represent the sole criterion for LD identification. Hybrid models combining low achievement and response to instruction most clearly capture the LD construct and have the most direct relation to instruction. The assessment of students for LD must reflect a stronger underlying classification that takes into account relations with other developmental disorders as well as the reliability and validity of the underlying classification and resultant identification system.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 38, No. 6, 545-552 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/00222194050380061101


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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Sparks and B. J. Lovett College Students With Learning Disability Diagnoses: Who Are They and How Do They Perform? J Learn Disabil, November 1, 2009; 42(6): 494 - 510. [Abstract] [PDF]