| Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools. |
Objective Criteria for Classification of Postsecondary Students as Learning DisabledEffects on Prevalence Rates and Group CharacteristicsCollege of Mt. St. Joseph, richard_sparks{at}mail.msj.edu
Elmira College
This study examined the consequences of classifying postsecondary students as learning disabled (LD) using five objective sets of criteria: IQ-achievement discrepancies (1.0 to 1.49 SD, 1.5 to 1.99 SD, and
Key Words: postsecondary support services • identification/classification
This version was published on May
1, 2009 Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 42, No. 3,
230-239 (2009) This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
 |
|
Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
2.0 SD), DSM-IV criteria, and chronic educational impairment beginning in childhood. The participants were 378 postsecondary students from two universities who had been previously classified as LD and were receiving instructional and/or testing accommodations. The agreement between diagnostic models was often low, both in terms of the proportion of students identified as well as which students were identified by the models. The discrepancy models identified the largest proportions of students as LD (10% to 42%), whereas fewer than 10% of participants met either of the other sets of criteria, and 55% of the participants were not classified as LD by any of the models. Implications for further research and practices in postsecondary settings are discussed. 
