Learning Disability IdentificationLearning Disability IdentificationEngaging in Expert Dialogue

ObjectivesObjectives

Become fluent with vocabulary and concepts related to LD identification issues

Practice having conversations with: Experts who do not have current information Novices who need to understand this approach Individuals who have questions

AssumptionsAssumptions

Learning disabilities are real.A meaningful definition of a disability

that is used for classification should emphasize what it is rather than what it is not.

When a person has a “real” disability, it does not go away or get fixed.

Why?Why?

Individuals on evaluation teams are supposed to be experts in the areas they are evaluating.

There are passionately held beliefs about LD in and out of the educational arena.

You can become a resource to others.

SourceSource

Classification of Learning Disabilities, an Evidence-Based Evaluation, Fletcher et al, 2002

Topics to Speak of MasterfullyTopics to Speak of Masterfully

Historical Context

Bimodal Distribution

Does discrepancy account for something important?? Prognosis Neurobiology Other domains

How “real” is LD as traditionally defined?

How does a normal distribution affect the way

you think about discrepancy?

Shouldn’t “discrepant” and “non discrepant”

groups differ in important ways?

StructureStructure

What are the “facts”

What questions might be asked?

But First, Remember the But First, Remember the HistoryHistory

Prior to 94-142Clinical descriptionsPerceptual-motor theoriesMinimal brain dysfuntionProcessing disorders

94-142DefinitionRegulations: severe discrepancy

How Did We Get Here?How Did We Get Here?1977 Regulations

1997 Reauthorization

2001 LD Summit

2002 LD Roundtable

2004 Reauthorization

Why is the Distribution of Why is the Distribution of Reading Skills so Important?Reading Skills so Important?

Bimodal distribution Isle of Wight Studies (Rutter and Yule) Why did they find a tail?

individuals with low IQs and mental retardation ceiling effects on measures

Failure to replicate Accurate representation of

exceptionalities So what?

How How is is Reading Distributed?Reading Distributed?

Epidemiological studies: random selection and assignment large scaleAustralia, New Zealand, Great Britain,

and US

Reading is NORMALLY distributed

Examining the Discrepancy Examining the Discrepancy HypothesisHypothesis

Bimodal Distribution

Draw a picture of the “expected” distribution of reading if discrepancy definition is valid.

Draw a picture of the “true” distribution of reading.

Ensure each person at your table understands the importance of this information and can explain it.

PrognosisPrognosis Don’t “discrepant” children benefit more from

instruction than “non discrepant” children?

Connecticut Longitudinal Study: tracked children in 3 groups

A=not reading impaired B=reading impaired with discrepancy C=reading impaired without discrepancy

“C” students had IQs 18 pts lower than “B’s”!!

B’s and C’s had achievement that was virtually identical

Absolute achievement growth curve

Neurobiological DifferencesNeurobiological Differences

Hereditability factors

Higher IQ RD appears to have more robust hereditability

Lower IQ RD appears to be more affected by environmental changes

Neuro-imaging information

Assessment ProfilesAssessment Profiles

Assessment that focuses on: intra-individual differences skills such as: phonological awareness, rapid naming,

vocabulary, visual motor skills, memory

Do such profiles reliably differentiate students? profiles are more similar than different difficulty creating measures that are “pure” processing

measures do not improve educational outcomes

Assessment ProfilesAssessment Profiles

If LD and non LD students do not differ substantially on most cognitive measures, then what would you say to an evaluator who purports that a student has a learning disability as evidenced by problems with visual motor skills?

Is there Research about Is there Research about Patterns of Performance?Patterns of Performance?

Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Practice, Fletcher, et.al. 2007.

Weaknesses (SS < 90, or

percentile rank <25)

Strengths (SS 7 points/ ½ SD or more

above weakness)

Possible sources of difficulty

Intervention targets to consider

1. Word recognition and spelling

Math calculation(and ≥90)

Phonological processing

Phonemic awareness, phonics, single word decoding

2. Reading fluency Word recognition Automaticity of word reading; rapid naming of letters

Rapid naming of letters; Oral reading fluency;

3. Reading comprehension

Word recognition Problems with vocabulary, receptive language, working memory, attention

Specific skill or strategy instruction for reading comprehension; vocabulary development

4. Math computation

Word recognition and spelling (and ≥ 90)

Executive functions & attention, working memory, motor and spatial skills

Math concepts and procedures

5. Spelling Motor skills in younger children;

Residual from phonological language problems in older children

Spelling, letter patterns (orthography), practice in writing

6 Word recognition, reading fluency, reading comprehension, spelling, math computation

Word recognition and math problems characterized by pervasive language and working memory problems

Reading (especially word recognition) and math concepts and procedures

Stability?Stability?• Shifting the rules:

• Find “Dot” as a marginally LD Discrepant student on figure 5 (page 203).

• Describe Dot to each other.

• Shift the IQ line 5 points. Now describe Dot to each other.

In your group, discuss the significance of the fact that over time large percentages of students shift around in the groups described in figure 6.

Wrap up: State of the FieldWrap up: State of the Field

LD is real

LD is probably caused by underlying processing disorders Processing measurement is not established IQ and Language test profiles DO NOT differ for LD/non LD groups

except on phonemic awareness measures

Aptitude-achievement discrepancy is not a valid LD marker

Low achievement alone is not LD

SO?

So, “dual discrepancy”. . .So, “dual discrepancy”. . .

The student’s achievement is substantially lower than peers

The student’s progress is substantially lower than peers

Necessary conditions: Solid, research based instruction

General education instruction Interventions

Addressing other issues affecting progress