The Demise of IQ The Demise of IQ Testing for Children with Testing for Children with

Learning DisabilitiesLearning Disabilities

The Demise of IQ The Demise of IQ Testing for Children with Testing for Children with

Learning DisabilitiesLearning DisabilitiesPresented by Presented by

Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D.Robert H. Pasternack, Ph.D.Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education Assistant Secretary, Office of Special Education

and Rehabilitative Servicesand Rehabilitative Services

National Association of School Psychologists National Association of School Psychologists 2002 Annual Convention2002 Annual Convention

Chicago, IllinoisChicago, Illinois

March 1, 2002March 1, 2002

O S

E R

S

Main PointsMain Points

Validity of the Validity of the conceptconcept of LD does of LD does NOTNOT hinge on the hinge on the validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy as a means for validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy as a means for identifying individuals with LD.identifying individuals with LD.

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a valid means for IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a valid means for identifying individuals with LD.identifying individuals with LD.

There is no compelling need for the use of IQ tests in There is no compelling need for the use of IQ tests in the identification of LD.the identification of LD.

Elimination of IQ tests in the identification of LD will Elimination of IQ tests in the identification of LD will help shift the emphasis in Special Education away help shift the emphasis in Special Education away from eligibility and towards getting children the from eligibility and towards getting children the interventions they need to be successful learners.interventions they need to be successful learners.

O S

E R

S

Why Discrepancy?Why Discrepancy?

““Capacity must obviously limit content. It is Capacity must obviously limit content. It is impossible for a pint jug to hold more than a impossible for a pint jug to hold more than a pint of milk and it is equally impossible for a pint of milk and it is equally impossible for a child’s educational attainment to rise higher child’s educational attainment to rise higher than his educable capacity (Burt, 1937, p. than his educable capacity (Burt, 1937, p. 477).”477).”

The impetus for the discrepancy model The impetus for the discrepancy model involved the concept of unexpected involved the concept of unexpected underachievement - the otherwise bright child underachievement - the otherwise bright child who struggled with reading or math.who struggled with reading or math.

O S

E R

S

What is IQ-Achievement What is IQ-Achievement Discrepancy?Discrepancy?

The IQ-Achievement Discrepancy modelThe IQ-Achievement Discrepancy model Is a model for identifying children with LD, i.e., low achievers Is a model for identifying children with LD, i.e., low achievers

who are not intellectually deficient.who are not intellectually deficient.

It presumes that children whose low achievement is It presumes that children whose low achievement is discrepant from their IQ constitute a class of children with discrepant from their IQ constitute a class of children with unexpected low achievement.unexpected low achievement.

It further presumes that such children are qualitatively It further presumes that such children are qualitatively distinct from children whose low achievement is consistent distinct from children whose low achievement is consistent with their IQ.with their IQ.

O S

E R

S

Levels of Levels of Classification for LDClassification for LD

The concept of LD is valid!The concept of LD is valid!LD vs. typically achieving - yesLD vs. typically achieving - yes

LD vs. mentally deficient - yesLD vs. mentally deficient - yes

Reading vs. math disabled - yesReading vs. math disabled - yes

IQ-discrepant vs. low achieving - noIQ-discrepant vs. low achieving - no

O S

E R

S

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

SustainedAttention

ProceduralLearning

ConceptFormation

PhonologicalAwareness

Rapid Naming Vocabulary PairedAssociateLearning

Visual Motor

Profile Variables

Ag

e A

dju

ste

d S

tan

da

rdiz

ed

Sc

ore

NLRDMD

O S

E R

S

Origins of IQ-Origins of IQ-DiscrepancyDiscrepancy

IQ-Achievement discrepancy represented an IQ-Achievement discrepancy represented an attempt to operationalize criteria for LD. When attempt to operationalize criteria for LD. When PL 94- 142 was passed, states asked for PL 94- 142 was passed, states asked for assistance in identifying children with LD. The assistance in identifying children with LD. The result was regulations in the 1977 Federal result was regulations in the 1977 Federal Register that are still part of IDEA regulations. Register that are still part of IDEA regulations.

Consider the Federal definition of LD and the Consider the Federal definition of LD and the subsequent regulations involving discrepancy subsequent regulations involving discrepancy in 1977 and 1997:in 1977 and 1997:

O S

E R

S

Statutory Definition of Statutory Definition of LDLD

The term “specific learning disability” means The term “specific learning disability” means a disorder a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processesin one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning disabilities which are children who have learning disabilities which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental retardation, or emotional handicaps, or mental retardation, or emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (USOE, 1968).disadvantage (USOE, 1968).

O S

E R

S

1977 Federal 1977 Federal RegulationsRegulations

A severe discrepancy between A severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the areas: or more of the areas:

1.1. oral expression; oral expression;

2.2. listening comprehension; listening comprehension;

3.3. written expression; written expression;

4.4. basic reading skill; basic reading skill;

5.5. reading comprehension; reading comprehension;

6.6. mathematics calculation; or mathematics calculation; or

7.7. mathematic reasoningmathematic reasoning. .

O S

E R

S

1977 Federal 1977 Federal RegulationsRegulations

The child may not be identified as having a The child may not be identified as having a specific learning disability if the discrepancy specific learning disability if the discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the between ability and achievement is primarily the result of: result of:

1.1. a visual, hearing, or motor handicap; a visual, hearing, or motor handicap;

2.2. mental retardation; mental retardation;

3.3. emotional disturbance; or emotional disturbance; or

4.4. environmental, cultural, or economic environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage (USOE, 1977).disadvantage (USOE, 1977).

O S

E R

S

1997 Federal 1997 Federal RegulationsRegulations

A team may determine that a child has A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if: a specific learning disability if: the child does not achieve commensurate with his the child does not achieve commensurate with his

or her age and ability levels in one or more of the or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age and ability levels; appropriate for the child’s age and ability levels; and and

the team finds that a child has a severe the team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one or more of the following areas (IDEA, ability in one or more of the following areas (IDEA, 1997).1997).

O S

E R

S

Types of Validity Types of Validity EvidenceEvidence

Is there a natural break in the distribution of Is there a natural break in the distribution of reading skills?reading skills?

Qualitatively distinct cognitive profiles?Qualitatively distinct cognitive profiles?

Differential prognosis?Differential prognosis?

Differential response to intervention?Differential response to intervention?

O S

E R

S

Is There a Break?Is There a Break?Isle of Wight StudiesIsle of Wight Studies

Initial studies in the Isle of Wight in the early Initial studies in the Isle of Wight in the early 1970’s suggested that there was a natural 1970’s suggested that there was a natural break in the distribution of reading scores, break in the distribution of reading scores, with a group of IQ- discrepant poor readers with a group of IQ- discrepant poor readers and a group of IQ- consistent poor readers.and a group of IQ- consistent poor readers.

These results have not been replicated in 5 These results have not been replicated in 5 subsequent epidemiological studies.subsequent epidemiological studies.

O S

E R

S

Is there a break?Is there a break?

*Only one subgroup of older children*Only one subgroup of older children

StudyStudy CountryCountry p?p?

Rodgers, 1983Rodgers, 1983 UKUK NoNo

Silva, 1985Silva, 1985 New New ZealandZealand

NoNo

Jorm et al., 1986Jorm et al., 1986 AustraliaAustralia NoNo

Stevenson, 1988Stevenson, 1988 UKUK Yes*Yes*

Shaywitz, et al., Shaywitz, et al., 19921992

USAUSA NoNo

O S

E R

S

Validity of IQ-Achievement Validity of IQ-Achievement DiscrepancyDiscrepancy

Even if there is not a natural break and Even if there is not a natural break and academic skills are dimensional, IQ-discrepant academic skills are dimensional, IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent children may differ.and IQ-consistent children may differ.

Differences between IQ-discrepant and IQ-Differences between IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent poor readers have been proposed in consistent poor readers have been proposed in several domains: several domains:

cognitive characteristics cognitive characteristics

prognosis prognosis

response to interventionresponse to intervention

O S

E R

S

What is Meta-Analysis?What is Meta-Analysis?

Empirical method for aggregating Empirical method for aggregating research studies research studies

Compute effect sizes for constructs of Compute effect sizes for constructs of interestinterest

<< .2- not clinically or practically significant.2- not clinically or practically significant

.2- small.2- small

.5- medium.5- medium

>> .8- large.8- large

O S

E R

S

Cognitive DifferencesCognitive DifferencesHoskyn and Swanson (2000) Meta-Hoskyn and Swanson (2000) Meta-AnalysisAnalysis

Coded 19 studies with stringent IQ and Coded 19 studies with stringent IQ and achievement criteria:achievement criteria:

IQ-discrepant:IQ-discrepant: Verbal IQ >80Verbal IQ >80

Reading recognition <90Reading recognition <90Designated as discrepancy groupDesignated as discrepancy group

Low achievement:Low achievement:Verbal IQ 70-94Verbal IQ 70-94

Reading recognition <96Reading recognition <96Designated as low achievement Designated as low achievement groupgroup

O S

E R

S

Real Word ReadingReal Word Reading NegligibleNegligible -.02 (-1.44, -.02 (-1.44, 1.05)1.05)

Pseudo Word ReadingPseudo Word Reading SmallSmall .29 (-0.50, .29 (-0.50, 1.01)1.01)

Phonological ProcessingPhonological Processing SmallSmall .27 (-0.67, .27 (-0.67, 1.36)1.36)

AutomaticityAutomaticity NegligibleNegligible .05 (-1.21, .05 (-1.21, 0.85)0.85)

“…“…our synthesis concurs with several individual our synthesis concurs with several individual studies indicating that the discrepancy… is not studies indicating that the discrepancy… is not an important predictor of cognitive differences an important predictor of cognitive differences between low achieving children and children between low achieving children and children with RD (reading disabilities).” (p. 117)with RD (reading disabilities).” (p. 117)

Cognitive DifferencesCognitive DifferencesHoskyn and Swanson (2000) Meta-Hoskyn and Swanson (2000) Meta-AnalysisAnalysis

O S

E R

S

Cognitive DifferencesCognitive DifferencesStuebing et al. (in press) Meta-Stuebing et al. (in press) Meta-AnalysisAnalysis

Coded 46 studiesCoded 46 studies

Groups could be clearly identified as IQ-Groups could be clearly identified as IQ-discrepant or IQ-consistentdiscrepant or IQ-consistent

Criteria for selecting studies more liberal than Criteria for selecting studies more liberal than Hoskyn and SwansonHoskyn and Swanson

Coded behavior, achievement, and cognitive Coded behavior, achievement, and cognitive domainsdomains

O S

E R

S

Cognitive DifferencesCognitive DifferencesStuebing et al. (2001) Meta AnalysisStuebing et al. (2001) Meta Analysis

Behavior:Behavior: -0.05-0.05 (-0.14, 0.05)(-0.14, 0.05) NegligibleNegligible

Achievement:Achievement: -0.12-0.12 (-0.16, -0.07)(-0.16, -0.07) NegligibleNegligiblePseudo Word readingPseudo Word reading -0.23-0.23 (-0.34, -0.12)(-0.34, -0.12)SmallSmallReal Word readingReal Word reading-0.25-0.25 (-0.39, -0.11)(-0.39, -0.11) SmallSmallReading comprehensionReading comprehension -0.04-0.04 (-0.17, 0.08)(-0.17, 0.08)NegligibleNegligible

Cognitive Ability:Cognitive Ability: 0.300.30 (0.27, 0.34)(0.27, 0.34) SmallSmallPhonological awarenessPhonological awareness -0.13-0.13 (-0.23, -0.02)(-0.23, -0.02)NegligibleNegligibleRapid namingRapid naming -0.12-0.12 (-0.30, 0.07)(-0.30, 0.07) NegligibleNegligibleVerbal memoryVerbal memory 0.100.10 (-0.01, -0.19)(-0.01, -0.19) NegligibleNegligibleVocabularyVocabulary 0.100.10 (-0.02, 0.22)(-0.02, 0.22) NegligibleNegligible

O S

E R

S

Cognitive DifferencesCognitive DifferencesStuebing et al. (2001) Meta Stuebing et al. (2001) Meta AnalysisAnalysis

Overall difference in cognitive ability: 3/10 Overall difference in cognitive ability: 3/10 standard deviation despite large differences in IQ.standard deviation despite large differences in IQ.

Substantial overlap of IQ-discrepant and IQ- Substantial overlap of IQ-discrepant and IQ- consistent groups.consistent groups.

The small magnitude of these differences is The small magnitude of these differences is apparent on the accompanying figure. Note how apparent on the accompanying figure. Note how similar the 2 groups are to one another in similar the 2 groups are to one another in cognitive functions despite an 18 point difference cognitive functions despite an 18 point difference in IQ (from Fletcher et al., OSEP, in press).in IQ (from Fletcher et al., OSEP, in press).

O S

E R

S

Reading Disabilities GroupsReading Disabilities Groups

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

Problem Solving ConceptFormation

PhonologicalAwareness

Rapid Naming Vocabulary Paired AssociateLearning

Visual Motor

IQ- Consistent

Ag

e A

dju

ste

d S

tan

dard

ized

S

core

IQ-Discrepant

Cognitive DifferencesCognitive Differences

O S

E R

S

What about other forms of What about other forms of LD?LD?

Studies of children who are IQ-Studies of children who are IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent in math discrepant and IQ-consistent in math and in speech and language have not and in speech and language have not supported IQ-discrepancy model.supported IQ-discrepancy model.

O S

E R

S

Discrepancy Speech Discrepancy Speech and Language Disordersand Language Disorders

“… “… the children with general delay closely parallel the children with general delay closely parallel the specifically language-impaired group … the specifically language-impaired group … current diagnostic methods and standards for current diagnostic methods and standards for specific language impairment do not result in a specific language impairment do not result in a group of children whose profiles of language group of children whose profiles of language achievement are unique.” (Tomblin & Zhang, achievement are unique.” (Tomblin & Zhang, 1999, p. 367)1999, p. 367)

Consensus report from the National Institute of Consensus report from the National Institute of Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIH) Deafness and Communication Disorders (NIH) specifically recommended that “IQ referencing” specifically recommended that “IQ referencing” not be used for identifying children with speech not be used for identifying children with speech and language disorders. (Tager- Flusberg & and language disorders. (Tager- Flusberg & Cooper, 1999)Cooper, 1999)

O S

E R

S

PrognosisPrognosis

Children who are IQ-discrepant and IQ-Children who are IQ-discrepant and IQ-consistent do not differ in the long-term consistent do not differ in the long-term development of reading ability. (Francis et al., development of reading ability. (Francis et al., 1996; Silva et al., 1987)1996; Silva et al., 1987)

O S

E R

S

PrognosisPrognosis

Connecticut Longitudinal Study- Followed Connecticut Longitudinal Study- Followed epidemiological cohort from KG to adulthood- epidemiological cohort from KG to adulthood- yearly assessments of reading using the yearly assessments of reading using the Woodcock Johnson.Woodcock Johnson.

Children defined as IQ- discrepant, low Children defined as IQ- discrepant, low achieving, and not reading impaired in G3 achieving, and not reading impaired in G3 using rigorous definitions.using rigorous definitions.

O S

E R

S

Prognosis - Francis et al. Prognosis - Francis et al. (1996)(1996)

O S

E R

S

Response to Response to InterventionIntervention

Studies of responsiveness to intervention Studies of responsiveness to intervention generally do not find relationships with IQ or generally do not find relationships with IQ or IQ-discrepancy.IQ-discrepancy.

May seem counterintuitive, but IQ tests do not May seem counterintuitive, but IQ tests do not measure cognitive skills like phonological measure cognitive skills like phonological awareness that are closely associated with LD awareness that are closely associated with LD in reading.in reading.

O S

E R

S

Intervention Studies Intervention Studies Addressing the Discrepancy Addressing the Discrepancy HypothesisHypothesis

Relationship with Word Recognition Relationship with Word Recognition Outcomes?Outcomes?

StudyStudy IQIQ IQ-DiscrepancyIQ-Discrepancy

1. Foorman et al., 19981. Foorman et al., 1998NoNo ----2. Hatcher & Hulme, 19992. Hatcher & Hulme, 1999 NoNo ----3. Torgesen et al., 20003. Torgesen et al., 2000 NoNo ----4. Torgesen et al., 20014. Torgesen et al., 2001 NoNo ----5. Vellutino et al., 20005. Vellutino et al., 2000 NoNo NoNo6. Wise et al., 19996. Wise et al., 1999 Yes*Yes* ----

*Only 1 of 3 outcome measures, 5% of variance*Only 1 of 3 outcome measures, 5% of variance

O S

E R

S

Response to InterventionResponse to Intervention

“… “… the IQ-achievement discrepancy does the IQ-achievement discrepancy does not reliably distinguish between disabled not reliably distinguish between disabled and non-disabled readers … children who and non-disabled readers … children who were found to be difficult [and easy] to were found to be difficult [and easy] to remediate … and it does not predict remediate … and it does not predict response to remediation.”response to remediation.”

Vellutino et al. (2000), p. 235Vellutino et al. (2000), p. 235

O S

E R

S

Summary of Validity Summary of Validity Evidence Evidence for IQ-Achievement for IQ-Achievement DiscrepancyDiscrepancy

““neither the phenotypic nor the genotypic indicators neither the phenotypic nor the genotypic indicators of poor reading are correlated in a reliable way with of poor reading are correlated in a reliable way with IQ discrepancy...” (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994, p. 48).IQ discrepancy...” (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994, p. 48).

IQ- Discrepant and IQ- Consistent groups do not differ IQ- Discrepant and IQ- Consistent groups do not differ qualitatively in qualitatively in

Individual CharacteristicsIndividual Characteristics

Cognitive Profiles, Cognitive Profiles,

Prognosis,Prognosis,

Response to interventionResponse to intervention

Failure of validity evidence is expected due to the Failure of validity evidence is expected due to the quantitative and arbitrary nature of discrepancy quantitative and arbitrary nature of discrepancy model.model.

O S

E R

S

Discrepancy – Discrepancy – Psychometric FactorsPsychometric Factors

We could continue to study IQ-discrepancy, but We could continue to study IQ-discrepancy, but psychometric factors alone make it unlikely to be psychometric factors alone make it unlikely to be a reliable procedure. We have known this since a reliable procedure. We have known this since 1984.1984.

Academic skills are normally distributed. Academic skills are normally distributed. Subdividing a normal distribution with cut-points Subdividing a normal distribution with cut-points that are inherently arbitrary leads to that are inherently arbitrary leads to unacceptable instability in who scores above and unacceptable instability in who scores above and below the cut-point.below the cut-point.

Designations of IQ-Discrepant are Designations of IQ-Discrepant are NOT STABLE NOT STABLE OVER TIME.OVER TIME.

O S

E R

S

Discrepancy – Discrepancy – Psychometric FactorsPsychometric Factors

In real data and simulated data, classifications In real data and simulated data, classifications of IQ- consistent and IQ-discrepant children of IQ- consistent and IQ-discrepant children change with repeated administrations of the change with repeated administrations of the tests, reflecting their measurement error, the tests, reflecting their measurement error, the lower reliability of a difference score, and the lower reliability of a difference score, and the arbitrariness of any subdivision of a normal arbitrariness of any subdivision of a normal distribution.distribution.

The problems with reliability and validity are The problems with reliability and validity are apparent using different kinds of IQ tests and apparent using different kinds of IQ tests and scores (Verbal IQ, Performance IQ), methods scores (Verbal IQ, Performance IQ), methods for measuring achievement, definitions of for measuring achievement, definitions of discrepancy, cut points, and ages.discrepancy, cut points, and ages.

O S

E R

S

Discrepancy – Discrepancy – Psychometric FactorsPsychometric Factors

A single set of test scores should never be the A single set of test scores should never be the basis for placing children in special education basis for placing children in special education as that assessment is not adequately reliable as that assessment is not adequately reliable to identify the child’s “true” level of to identify the child’s “true” level of performance. performance.

Test scores are never sufficient, but federal Test scores are never sufficient, but federal regulations encourage the interdisciplinary regulations encourage the interdisciplinary team to focus on test scores.team to focus on test scores.

O S

E R

S

Learning Disabilities as Learning Disabilities as Operationally Defined by Operationally Defined by Schools Schools Siperstein, McMillanSiperstein, McMillan

Identification of children with LD at the school Identification of children with LD at the school level exhibits great variability.  level exhibits great variability.  

Schools have opted to ignore exclusionary Schools have opted to ignore exclusionary criteria criteria

Identification is further complicated by one-Identification is further complicated by one-time assessments based on assumptions that time assessments based on assumptions that LD is caused by intrinsic neurological difficulty LD is caused by intrinsic neurological difficulty as opposed to poor instruction.  as opposed to poor instruction.  

Great heterogeneity within LD populations with Great heterogeneity within LD populations with differing etiologies and presumably differing differing etiologies and presumably differing educational needs. educational needs.

O S

E R

S

What Role for IQ Tests What Role for IQ Tests in LD Identification? in LD Identification?

There is an emerging consensus! There is an emerging consensus!

The concept of intelligence in LD outmoded.The concept of intelligence in LD outmoded.

IQ tests lead to a focus on eligibility by which IQ tests lead to a focus on eligibility by which children are quantitatively sorted by IQ and children are quantitatively sorted by IQ and achievement.achievement.

IQ-Discrepancy does not identify distinct IQ-Discrepancy does not identify distinct groups of individuals who differ in groups of individuals who differ in characteristics, cognitive strengths and characteristics, cognitive strengths and weaknesses, or response to intervention. weaknesses, or response to intervention.

We do not need IQ tests to identify LD.We do not need IQ tests to identify LD.

O S

E R

S

What’s the Alternative?What’s the Alternative?

There is a better way!There is a better way!

Focus on intervention and outcomes, not Focus on intervention and outcomes, not eligibility and test scores.eligibility and test scores.

Prioritize diagnosis for instruction, not Prioritize diagnosis for instruction, not classification.classification.

O S

E R

S

2002 NRC Report on Minority 2002 NRC Report on Minority Representation in Special Representation in Special EducationEducation

““While an IQ test may provide supplemental While an IQ test may provide supplemental

information, no IQ test would be required, and information, no IQ test would be required, and

results would not be a primary criterion on results would not be a primary criterion on

which eligibility rests…the committee regards which eligibility rests…the committee regards

the effort to assess students’ decontextualized the effort to assess students’ decontextualized

potential or ability as inappropriate and potential or ability as inappropriate and

scientifically invalid.” (p. 8- 23).scientifically invalid.” (p. 8- 23).

O S

E R

S

NRC AlternativesNRC Alternatives

Early identification: Screen all children for Early identification: Screen all children for learning and behavior problems.learning and behavior problems.

Traditional disability definitions should be Traditional disability definitions should be “revised to focus on behaviors directly related “revised to focus on behaviors directly related to classroom and school learning and behavior to classroom and school learning and behavior (e.g., reading failure, math failure, persistent (e.g., reading failure, math failure, persistent inattention…).” (p. 8-22)inattention…).” (p. 8-22)

O S

E R

S

NRC ReportNRC Report

“…“…federal guidelines for special education federal guidelines for special education

eligibility should be changed to encourage eligibility should be changed to encourage

better integrated general and special education better integrated general and special education

services. We propose that eligibility should services. We propose that eligibility should

ensue when a student exhibits large differences ensue when a student exhibits large differences

from typical levels of performance …with from typical levels of performance …with

evidence of insufficient response to high quality evidence of insufficient response to high quality

interventions…” (p. 8- 22)interventions…” (p. 8- 22)

O S

E R

S

NRC ReportNRC Report

Focus shifts from eligibility and compliance to Focus shifts from eligibility and compliance to results: A shift from who has the correct test results: A shift from who has the correct test scores to what can we do for this child in the scores to what can we do for this child in the classroom.classroom.

Key is the monitoring of progress for all Key is the monitoring of progress for all children and response to intervention for any children and response to intervention for any child who is enrolled in or is a candidate for child who is enrolled in or is a candidate for special education.special education.

O S

E R

S

Consensus Report – Consensus Report – LD SummitLD Summit

IQ/Achievement Discrepancy is neither IQ/Achievement Discrepancy is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying necessary nor sufficient for identifying individuals with SLD (specific learning individuals with SLD (specific learning disabilities). disabilities).

IQ tests do not need to be given in most IQ tests do not need to be given in most evaluations of children with SLD.evaluations of children with SLD.

There should be alternate ways to identify There should be alternate ways to identify individuals with SLD in addition to individuals with SLD in addition to achievement testing, history, and achievement testing, history, and observations of the child.observations of the child.

O S

E R

S

Consensus Report - Consensus Report - AlternativesAlternatives

Response to quality intervention is the most Response to quality intervention is the most promising method of alternate identification and can promising method of alternate identification and can both promote effective practices in schools and help both promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and to close the gap between identification and treatment.treatment.

Any effort to scale up response to intervention should Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be based on problem solving models that use be based on problem solving models that use progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in relation to the student’s response to intervention in relation to the student’s response to intervention. intervention.

Problem solving models have been shown to be Problem solving models have been shown to be effective in public school settings and in research.effective in public school settings and in research.

O S

E R

S

Early Identification and Early Identification and Intervention – LD SummitIntervention – LD SummitJenkins, O'ConnorJenkins, O'Connor

Children with reading disabilities lag behind.  Children with reading disabilities lag behind.  

Research shows that early training of phonological Research shows that early training of phonological awareness facilitates decoding and explicit awareness facilitates decoding and explicit decoding instruction produces better orthographic decoding instruction produces better orthographic reading skill.reading skill.

Early identification constitutes the first step in Early identification constitutes the first step in reducing the severity of reading disabilities, reducing the severity of reading disabilities, identification must take place much earlier than it identification must take place much earlier than it usually occurs. usually occurs.

A sizable number of children remain resistant to A sizable number of children remain resistant to early intervention- these are the kids who need early intervention- these are the kids who need special education.special education.

O S

E R

S

Responsiveness to Intervention: Responsiveness to Intervention: An Alternative Approach to An Alternative Approach to Identification - LD SummitIdentification - LD SummitGreshamGresham

A responsiveness to intervention approach to A responsiveness to intervention approach to eligibility determination identifies students as eligibility determination identifies students as having a learning disability if their having a learning disability if their performance does not change in response to performance does not change in response to validated intervention implemented with validated intervention implemented with integrity. integrity. 

Exposure to intensive reading instruction Exposure to intensive reading instruction should be used to distinguish between reading should be used to distinguish between reading problems caused by cognitive deficits and problems caused by cognitive deficits and those caused by poor reading instruction.those caused by poor reading instruction.

O S

E R

S

Why give IQ Tests?Why give IQ Tests?

Eligibility evaluations are costly: IQ tests are time Eligibility evaluations are costly: IQ tests are time consuming and do not contribute to treatment consuming and do not contribute to treatment planning.planning.

Wait to fail model- we wait for kids to fail to Wait to fail model- we wait for kids to fail to provide services.provide services.

All the research we have points to the value of All the research we have points to the value of early intervention.early intervention.

IQ tests contribute to over- representation of IQ tests contribute to over- representation of minorities in special education. minorities in special education.

Role of school psychologist should change.Role of school psychologist should change.

CHANGE IS GOOD!CHANGE IS GOOD!

O S

E R

S

Heartland AEA (IA) vs. National Heartland AEA (IA) vs. National Patterns of School Psychology Patterns of School Psychology PracticePractice

Reschly, D. J., Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, W. D. III., Allison, Reschly, D. J., Ikeda, M. J., Tilly, W. D. III., Allison, R., Grimes, J. P., & Upah, K. .F. (2000, April). R., Grimes, J. P., & Upah, K. .F. (2000, April). School psychology without IQ: Roles, School psychology without IQ: Roles, assessment, satisfaction, supervision, and assessment, satisfaction, supervision, and evaluation. Symposium, Annual Convention of evaluation. Symposium, Annual Convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA.New Orleans, LA.

Compared Heartland school psychologists Compared Heartland school psychologists (N=60) to a national sample (N=900)(N=60) to a national sample (N=900)

O S

E R

S

02468

1012141618202224262830

US IA

US 18.16 12.89 10.64 17.59 10.49 1.76 20.44

IA 0.04 12.3 28.69 0.44 0 0.81 7.11

Ability EducationalBehavior

ObservationProjectives V-M

Pre-school/Family

Social/Emotional A.B

School Psychology Assessment School Psychology Assessment in Traditional and Alternative in Traditional and Alternative Delivery SystemsDelivery Systems

O S

E R

S

0123456789

10111213

US IA

US 1.49 0.42 0.69 0.68 1.43 1.61 3.51 4.04 2.88

IA 0 0.03 0 0.03 0.03 12.12 0 0 0.52

K-TEA Key-Math PIAT WRAT CBM/CBE W-J ACH WIAT Other

Assessment of Assessment of Educational Skills: U.S. Educational Skills: U.S. and Iowaand Iowa

O S

E R

S 0

1

2

3

4

5

<Lo

w Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n H

igh>

Job Satisfaction Dimension

US IA

US 3.54 4.01 3.34 3.03 2.29

IA 3.81 4.13 4.64 2.95 2.95

Work Colleagues Supervision Pay Promotion

School Psychologists’ Job School Psychologists’ Job Satisfaction in the U.S. and Satisfaction in the U.S. and IowaIowa

O S

E R

S 02468

1012141618202224

Estim

ated

Hours

Per

Wee

k

School Psychology Role

US IA

US 22.6 7.3 6.6 2.6 1

IA 14.6 9.2 12.2 3.6 0.8

Assessment Direct Intervention Problem SolvingSystems

Organizational Consultation

Research/Evaluation

Current Roles of School Current Roles of School Psychologists in the U.S. and Psychologists in the U.S. and IowaIowa

O S

E R

S

Despite what Despite what some would say…some would say…

““When the discrepancy formula disappears When the discrepancy formula disappears from the educational scene, so will the from the educational scene, so will the concept of LD.” (Aaron, 1997, p. 489)concept of LD.” (Aaron, 1997, p. 489)

“…“…the notion of discrepancy… has led to a the notion of discrepancy… has led to a confounding… most clearly seen in the confounding… most clearly seen in the suggestion that there are more similarities suggestion that there are more similarities than differences between LD and low than differences between LD and low achieving students. Such a suggestion calls achieving students. Such a suggestion calls into question the very notion of LD.” (Kavale into question the very notion of LD.” (Kavale & Forness, 1994, p. 43)& Forness, 1994, p. 43)

O S

E R

S

Despite what Despite what some would say…some would say…

Validity of LD does not hinge on IQ-Validity of LD does not hinge on IQ-Discrepancy.Discrepancy.

Classifications may be valid even though a Classifications may be valid even though a particular method may not be capable of particular method may not be capable of identifying such individuals. identifying such individuals.

IQ tests provide no added value in IQ tests provide no added value in identification or intervention with LD. identification or intervention with LD.

O S

E R

S

Recap - Main PointsRecap - Main Points

Validity of the Validity of the conceptconcept of LD does of LD does NOTNOT hinge hinge on the validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy on the validity of IQ-Achievement Discrepancy as a means for identifying individuals with LD.as a means for identifying individuals with LD.

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a valid IQ-Achievement Discrepancy is not a valid means for identifying individuals with LD.means for identifying individuals with LD.

There is no compelling need for the use of IQ There is no compelling need for the use of IQ tests in the identification of LD.tests in the identification of LD.

Elimination of IQ tests in the identification of Elimination of IQ tests in the identification of LD will shift the emphasis in special education LD will shift the emphasis in special education away from eligibility and towards getting away from eligibility and towards getting children the interventions they need to be children the interventions they need to be successful learners.successful learners.

O S

E R

S

AcknowledgementsAcknowledgements

The material in this presentation is based in part The material in this presentation is based in part on presentations by on presentations by Lyon et al., 2000 at the Fordham/PPI Conference (Lyon et al., 2000 at the Fordham/PPI Conference (

www.edexcellence.net/library/special_edwww.edexcellence.net/library/special_ed), ),

Fletcher et al., 2001 at the OSEP LD Summit (Fletcher et al., 2001 at the OSEP LD Summit (www.air.org/ldsummitwww.air.org/ldsummit), and ), and

testimony by D.J.Francis for the President’s Commission testimony by D.J.Francis for the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (on Excellence in Special Education (www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducationwww.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation))

O S

E R

S

Special ThanksSpecial Thanks

Special thanks to Dr. Jack M. Fletcher of the Special thanks to Dr. Jack M. Fletcher of the University of Texas Health Science Center at University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston and Dr. David J. Francis of the Houston and Dr. David J. Francis of the University of Houston, both of whom provided University of Houston, both of whom provided significant technical assistance in the significant technical assistance in the development of this presentation.development of this presentation.