Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 43, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 883-888

  Ofiesh, Nicole ^a,b  

^a CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33750525767     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: 15206807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20195     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., Text Rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
2. Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C.A. § 12101 et seq. (West, 1993).
3. Bender, W.N. (2004). Learning disabilities: Characteristics, identification, and teaching strategies. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
4. Chalfant, J. (1985). Identifying learning disabled students: A summary of the national task force report. Learning Disabilities Focus, 1, 9-20.
5. Clements, S.D. (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children (National Institute of Neurological Diseases Monograph No. 3, U.S. Public Health Service Publication No. 1415). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
6. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, Pub. L. No. 94-142.
7. Federal Register. (1977). Procedures for evaluating specific learning disability. December 29, 42(250), pp. 65082-65085.
8. Gerber, M. (2005). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to instruction strategies for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 516-524.
9. Gormley, S., Hughes, C., Block, L., & Lendman, C. (2005). Eligibility assessment requirements at the postsecondary level for students with learning disabilities: A disconnect with secondary schools? Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability, 18, 63-70.
10. Henderson, C. (2001). College freshman with disabilities: A biennial statistical profile. Washington, DC: HEATH Resource Center.
11. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-117 [Amending 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.].
12. Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 118 Stat. 2647 [Amending 20 U.S.C. § 1462 et seq.].
13. Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. (2000). What definitions of learning disabilities say and don't say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239-256.
14. Kirk, S.A. (1963). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Exploration into the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child (p. 64). Evanston, IL: Fund for the Perceptually Handicapped Child.
15. Learning Disabilities Act. (1969-1970). Title VI, Pub. L. No. 91-230.
16. Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 525-531.
17. Mercer, C., Jordan, L., Allsopp, D., & Mercer, A. (1996). Learning disabilities definitions used by state education depart-ments. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 8, 45-55.
18. National Center for Education Statistics. (2005, June). Stats in brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
19. Ofiesh, N., Hughes, C., & Scott, S. (2004). Extended test time and postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A model for decision making. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19, 57-70.
20. Ofiesh, N.S., & McAfee, J.A. (2000). Results of a nationwide survey on using psychoeducational evaluations for LD service delivery in postsecondary settings. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 14-25.
21. Reschly, D.J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510-515.
22. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. No. 93-112 [Amending 29 U.S.C. § 794.].
23. State of Connecticut Interagency Transition Task Force. (2005). Summary of performance. Hartford: Connecticut State Department.
24. Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International.