Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal

Learning Disability Quarterly

Volumn 29, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 113-127

  Kavale, Kenneth A ^a   Holdnack, James A ^b   Mostert, Mark P ^a  

^a REGENT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b Harcourt Assessment Inc   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33745310348     PISSN: 07319487     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/30035539     Document Type: Article

References (99)

1. Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461-502.
2. Ackerman, P. T., Holloway, C. A., Youngdahl, P. L., & Dykman, R. A. (2001). The double-deficit of reading disability does not fit all. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 152-160.
3. Algozzine, B., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1980). Decision makers' prediction of students' academic difficulties as a function of referral information. Journal of Educational Research, 73, 145-150.
4. Algozzine, R., Ysseldyke, J. E., & McGue, M. (1995). Differentiating low-achieving students: Thoughts on setting the record straight. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 140-144.
5. Allor, J. H. (2002). The relationship of phonemic awareness and rapid naming on reading development. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 47-57.
6. Artley, A. S., & Hardin, V. L. (1976). A current dilemma: Reading disability or learning disability? The Reading Teacher, 29, 361-366.
7. Bergmann, G. (1961). Sense and nonsense in operationism. In P.G. Frank (Ed.), The validation of scientific theories (pp. 45-56). New York: Collier.
8. Braden, J. P., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1997). Treatment utility of assessment: Myths and realities. School Psychology Review, 26, 475-485.
9. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
10. Brophy, J. E., & Good, T. L. (1974). Teacher-student relationships: Causes and consequences. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
11. Buckhalt, J. A. (2002). A short history of g: Psychometrics' most enduring and controversial construct. Learning and Individual Differences, 13, 101-114.
12. Coutinho, M. (1995). Who will be learning disabled after the reauthorization of IDEA? Two very distinct perspectives. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 664-668.
13. D'Angiulll, A., & Siegel, L. S. (2003). Cognitive functioning as measured by the WISC-R: Do children with learning disabilities have distinctive patterns of performance? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 48-58.
14. Donahue, W. T., Coombs, C. H., & Travers, R. W. M. (1949). The measurement of student adjustment and achievement. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
15. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Stahl, S. R., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Systematic phonics instruction helps students learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 71, 393-447.
16. Ehri, L. C., Nunes, S. R., Willows, D. M., Schuster, B. V., YaghoubZadeh, Z., & Shanahan, T. (2001). Phonemic awareness instruction helps children learn to read: Evidence from the National Reading Panel's meta-analysis. Reading Research Quarterly, 36, 250-287.
17. Elksnin, L. K., Gartland, D., King-Sears, M., Bryant, D. P., Rosenberg, M. S., Scanion, D., et al. (2001). LD Summit: Important issues for the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 297-305.
18. Finlan, T. G. (1993). Learning disability: The imaginary disease. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
19. Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley.
20. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2002). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR): Comprehensive assessment and learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
21. Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B. R., Stuebing, K. K., & Shaywitz, B. A. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 186-203.
22. Forness, S. R. (1985). Effects of public policy at the state level: California's impact on MR, LD, and SED categories. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 36-43.
23. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Bahr, M. W., Fernstrom, P., & Stecker, P. M. (1990). Prereferral intervention: A prescriptive approach. Exceptional Children, 56, 493-513.
24. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., Lipsey, M. W., & Roberts, P. H. (2002). Is "learning disabilities" just a fancy term for low achievement? A meta-analysis of reading differences between low achievers with and without the label. In R. Bradley, I. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan (F,ds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 737-762). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 204-219.
26. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities label. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 157-171.
27. Gaskins, L. W. (1982). Let's end the reading disabilities/learning disabilities debate. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 81-83,
28. Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Kelser, S. (1999). The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485-490.
29. Gottlieb, J., Alter, M., Gottlieb, B. W., & Wishner, J. (1994). Special education in urban America: It's not justifiable for many. Journal of Special Education, 27, 453-465.
30. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
31. Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 570-581.
32. Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2001). Beyond the academic rhetoric of g: Intelligence testing guidelines for practice. The School Psychologist, 55, 113-139.
33. Hallahan, D. P., & Mercer, C. D. (2002). Learning disabilities: Historical perspectives. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 1-67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Hartman, N. C., & Hartman, R. K. (1973). Perceptual handicap or reading disability? The Reading Teacher, 26, 684-695.
35. Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102-119.
36. Jenkins, J. R., & O'Connor, R. E. (2002). Early identification and intervention for young children with reading/learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 99-149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Kaplan, E., Fein, D., Kramer, J., Delis, D., & Morris, R. (1999). The WISC-III as a process Instrument. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
38. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (Eds.). (2001). Specific learning disabilities and difficulties in children and adolescents: Psychological assessment and evaluation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
39. Kavale, K. A. (1987). Theoretical issues surrounding severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 12-20.
40. Kavale, K. A. (1995). Setting the record straight on learning disabilities and low achievement: The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 10, 145-152.
41. Kavale, K. A. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 369-426). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
42. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1984). A meta-analysis of the validity of Wechsler Scale profiles and recategorizations: Patterns or parodies? Learning Disability Quarterly, 7, 136-156.
43. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1985a). Learning disability and the history of science: Paradigm or paradox? Remedial and Special Education, 6, 12-23.
44. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1985b). The science of learning disabilities. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
45. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
46. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245-273.
47. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239-256.
48. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2003). Learning disability as a discipline. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 76-93). New York: Guilford Press.
49. Kavale, K. A., & Nye, C. (1985-1986). Parameters of learning disabilities in achievement, linguistic, neuropsychological, and social/behavioral domains. Journal of Special Education, 19, 443-458.
50. Kavale, K. A., & Nye, C. (1991). The structure of learning disabilities. Exceptionality, 2, 141-156.
51. Kavale, K. A., Forness, S. R., & Lorsbach, T. C. (1991). Definition for definitions of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 257-266.
52. Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disabilities and low achievement. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 70-77.
53. Kavale, K. A., & Reese, J. H. (1992). The character of learning disabilities: An Iowa profile. Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 74-94.
54. Keogh, B. K. (1994). A matrix of decision points in the measurement of learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities: New views on assessment issues (pp. 15-26). Baltimore: Brookes.
55. Klatt, H. J. (1991). Learning disabilities: A questionable construct. Educational Theory, 41, 47-60.
56. Konoid, T. R. (1999). Evaluating discrepancy analyses with the WISC-III and WIAT. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 77, 24-35.
57. Lerner, J. W. (1975). Remedial reading and learning disabilities: Are they the same or different? Journal of Special Education, 9, 119-131.
58. Lester, G., & Kelman, M. (1997). State disparities in the diagnosis and placement of pupils with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 599-607.
59. Lopez, M. F., Forness, S. R., MacMillan, D. L., Bocian, K. M., & Gresham, F. M. (1998). Children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and emotional or behavioral disorders in primary grades: Inappropriate placement in the learning disorder category. Education and Treatment of Children, 19, 286-299.
60. Lovitt, T. C., & Cushing, S. (1999). Parents of youth with disabilities: Their perceptions of school programs. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 134-142.
61. MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K. M. (1998). Discrepancy between definitions of learning disabilities and school practices: An empirical investigation. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 314-326.
62. MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Bocian, K. M., & Lambros, K. M. (1998). Current plight of borderline students: Where do they belong? Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 83-94.
63. MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287-333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
64. MacMillan, D. L., Siperstein, G. N., & Gresham, F. M. (1996). A challenge to the viability of mild mental retardation as a diagnostic category. Exceptional Children, 62, 356-371.
65. McKnight, R. T. (1982). The learning disability myth in American education. Journal of Education, 164, 351-359.
66. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
67. Mercer, C. D., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D. H., & Mercer, A. R. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions and criteria used by state education departments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 217-232.
68. Morison, P., White, S. H., & Fever, M. J. (Eds.). (1996). The use of IQ tests in special education decision making and planning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
69. Naglieri, J. (2001). Do ability and reading achievement correlate? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 304-306.
70. Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Current advances in assessment and intervention for children with learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities: Identification and assessment (Vol. 16, pp. 163-190). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
71. National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
72. Norman, C. A., & Zigmond, N. (1980). Characteristics of children labeled and served as learning disabled in school systems affiliated with Child Service Demonstration Centers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 13, 542-547.
73. Peterson, K.M.H., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Sever discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 31(4), 459-476.
74. Pressley, M., & Allington, R. (1999). What should reading instructional research be the research of? Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5, 1-35.
75. Reynolds, C. R. (1985). Measuring the aptitude-achievement discrepancy in learning disability diagnosis. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 37-55.
76. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 155-168.
77. Shepard, L. A. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 14, 79-91.
78. Shepard, L. A., & Smith, M. L. (1983). An evaluation of the identification of learning disabled students in Colorado. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 115-127.
79. Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is Irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 469-478, 486.
80. Siegel, L. S. (2003). IQ-discrepancy definitions and the diagnosis of LD: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 2-3.
81. Singer, J., Palfrey, J., Butter, J., & Walker, D. (1989). Variation in special education classification across school districts: How does where you live affect what you are labeled? American Educational Research Journal, 26, 261-281.
82. Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education Instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 147-156.
83. Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7-29.
84. Strauss, S. L. (2001). An open letter to Reid Lyon. Educational Researcher, 30, 26-33.
85. Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading difficulties: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
86. Swanson, H. L. (1999). Has the importance of phonological awareness training been greatly overstated? Issues in Education: Contributions from Educational Psychology, 5, 125-139.
87. Swanson, H. L., & Alexander, J. E. (1997). Cognitive processes as predictors of word recognition and reading comprehension in learning-disabled and skilled readers: Revisiting the specificity hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 128-158.
88. Torgesen, J. K. (1979). What shall we do with psychological processes'? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 12, 514-521.
89. Torgesen, J. K. (2002). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic processing weaknesses. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565-613). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
90. Troia, G. A. (1999). Phonological awareness intervention research: A critical review of the experimental methodology. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 28-52.
91. U.S. Office of Education. (1977, December 29). Assistance to states for education of handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42(250), 65082-65085. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
92. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 137-146.
93. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99-114.
94. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223-238.
95. Wilson, L. R., & Cone, T. (1984). The regression equation method for determining academic discrepancy. Journal of School Psychology, 22,.95-110.
96. Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415-438.
97. Wong, B.Y.L. (1996). The ABCs of learning disabilities. New York: Academic Press.
98. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Richey, L. (1982). Judgment under uncertainty: How many children are handicapped? Exceptional Children, 48, 531-534.
99. Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., Shinn, M. R., & McGue, M. (1982). Similarities and differences between low achievers and students classified learning disabled. Journal of Special Education, 16, 73-85.