Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the tower of babel

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 43, Issue 7, 2006, Pages 807-825

  Flanagan, Dawn P ^a   Ortiz, Samuel O ^a   Alfonso, Vincent C ^b   Dynda, Agnieszka M ^a  

^a ST JOHN'S UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FORDHAM UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33748984796     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: 15206807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20190     Document Type: Review

References (37)

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
2. Badian, N.A. (1999). Reading disability defined as a discrepancy between listening and reading comprehension: A longitudinal study of stability, gender differences, and prevalence. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 138-148.
3. Carroll, J.B. (1998). Foreword. In K.S. McGrew & D.P. Flanagan, The intelligence test desk reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment (pp. xi-xii). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4. Dean, R., & Woodcock, R. (1999). The WJ-R and Bateria-R in neuropsychological assessment: Woodcock Psychological and Educational Assessment Research Report No. 3. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
5. Dombrowski, S.C., Kamphaus, R.W., & Reynolds, C.R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364-372.
6. Finlan, T.G. (1992). Do state methods of quantifying a severe discrepancy result in fewer students with learning disabilities? Learning Disability Quarterly, 15, 129-134.
7. Flanagan, D.P., & Harrison, P.L. (Eds.). (2005). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues. New York: Guilford Press.
8. Flanagan, D.P., & Kaufman, A.S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
9. Flanagan, D.P., McGrew, K.S. & Ortiz, S.O. (2000). The Wechsler intelligence scales and CHC theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
10. Flanagan, D.P., & Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley.
11. Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V.C., & Mascolo, J.T. (2002). The achievement test desk reference (ATDR). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
12. Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V.C., & Mascolo, J.T. (2006). The achievement test desk reference, 2nd ed. (ATDR-2). New York: Wiley.
13. Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Rourke, B.P., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, E.A. (1992). The validity of discrepancy-based definitions of reading disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 555-561, 573.
14. Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Lyon, G.R., Foorman, B.R., Stuebing, K.K., et al. (1998). Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186-203.
15. Gaskill, F.W., & Brantley, J.C. (1996). Changes in ability and achievement scores over time: Implications for children classified as learning disabled. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 14, 220-228.
16. Heath, C.P., & Kush, J.C. (1991). Use of discrepancy formulas in the assessment of learning disabilities. In J.E. Orzut & G.W. Hynd (Eds.), Neuropsychological foundations of learning disabilities: A handbook of issues, methods, and practice. New York: Academic Press.
17. Horn, J.L., & Blankson, N. (2005). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D.P. Flanagan & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 41-68). New York: Guilford Press.
18. Horn, J.L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In D.P. Flanagan, J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53-81). New York: Guilford.
19. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004). [Amending 20 U.S.C. §§1400 et seq.].
20. Kaufman, A.S. (2000). Foreword. In D.P. Flanagan, K.S. McGrew, & S.O. Ortiz, The Wechsler intelligence scales and CHC theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation (pp. xiii-xv). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
21. Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
22. Kaufman, A.S., & Kaufman, N.L. (2004). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS Publishing.
23. Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (2000). What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disability, 33(3), 239-256.
24. Mather, N., & Gregg, N. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37(1), 99-106.
25. McGrew, K.S. (2005). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities: Past, present, and future. In D.P. Flanagan, J.L. Genshaft, & P.L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 136-182). New York: Guilford Press.
26. Meyer, M.S. (2000). The ability-achievement discrepancy: Does it contribute to an understanding of learning disabilities? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 315-337.
27. Reynolds, C.R. (1990). Conceptual and technical problems in learning disability diagnosis. In C.R. Reynolds & R.W. Kamphaus (Eds.), Handbook of psychological and educational assessment of children: Intelligence and achievement (pp. 571-592). New York: Guilford Press.
28. Ross, R.P. (1992). Accuracy in analysis of discrepancy scores: A nationwide study of school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 21, 480-493.
29. Sandoval, J. (1998). Critical thinking in test interpretation. In J. Sandoval, C.L. Frisby, K.F. Geisinger, J.D. Scheuneman, & J.R. Grenier (Eds.), Test interpretation and diversity: Achieving equity in assessment (pp. 31-50). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
30. Siegel, L.S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304-319.
31. Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26, 7-29.
32. Stanovich, K.E. (2005). On the coexistence of cognitivism and intertemporal bargaining. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 661-662.
33. 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 disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469-518.
34. U.S. Department of Education, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300, 301, & 304 (2005).
35. Woodcock, R.W. (1993). An information processing view of Gf-Gc theory. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Monograph Series: WJ-R Monograph, 11, 80-102.
36. Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
37. Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities. Itasca, IL: Riverside.