Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification

Learning Disability Quarterly

Volumn 31, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 135-150

  Kavale, Kenneth A ^a   Kauffman, James M ^b   Bachmeier, Randy J ^a   LeFever, Gretchen B ^a  

^a REGENT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 51549087021     PISSN: 07319487     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/25474644     Document Type: Review

References (123)

1. Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461-502.
2. Ardoin, S. P., Witt, H. J. C., Connell, J. E., & Koenig, J. L. (2005). Application of a three-tiered response to intervention model for instructional planning, decision making, and the identification of children in need of services. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 362-380.
3. Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically based special services decisions from single-case designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66-79.
4. Barnett, D. W., Elliott, N., Graden, J., Iblo, T., Macmann, G., Nantais, M., & Prasse, D. (2006). Technical adequacy for response to intervention practices. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 20-31.
5. Bateman, B. D. (2007). Law and the conceptual foundations of special education practice. In J. B. Crockett, M. M. Gerber, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman (pp. 95-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., Reschly, D., Schrag, J., & Tilly, D. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
7. Batsche, G. M., Kavale, K. A., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2006). Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6-19.
8. Bergmann, G. (1961). Sense and nonsense in operationism. In P. G. Frank (Ed.), The validation of scientific theories (pp. 45-56). New York: Collier.
9. Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (1994). Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude-achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. In G. R. Lyon (Ed.), Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities (pp. 163-184). Baltimore: Brookes.
10. Boardman, A. G., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Response to intervention as a framework for prevention and identification of learning disabilities: Which comes first, identification or intervention? In J. B. Crockett, M. M. Gerber, & T. J. Landrum (Eds.), Achieving the radical reform of special education: Essays in honor of James M. Kauffman (pp. 15-35). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
11. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. (2005). Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 485-486.
12. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., Smith-Thomas, A., & Cook, K. W. (2003). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 349-360.
14. Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducatinoal Assessment, 23, 381-394.
15. Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406.
16. Burns, M. K., & Symington, T. (2002). A meta-analysis of prereferral intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 437-447.
17. Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Using response to intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3-5.
18. Burns, M. K., Vanderwood, M. L., & Ruby, S. (2005). Evaluating the readiness of pre-referral intervention teams for use in a problem solving model. School Psychology Quarterly, 20, 89-105.
19. Collaborative Project. (November, 2006). New roles in response to intervention: Creating success for schools and children. Available from www.nasponline.org/advocacy/newroles.pdf
20. Council of Chief State School Officers. (1992). Special education and school restructuring. Concerns, 35, 1-7.
21. Cortiella, C. (2006, August). NCLB and IDEA: What parents of students with disabilities need to know and do. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
22. Cruey, G. (2006). Response to intervention: The pros. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://specialneedseducation.suitel01. com/response_to_intervention_the_pros
23. Dean, V. J., Burns, M. K., Grialov, T., & Varro, P. J. (2006). Comparison of ecological validity of learning disabilities diagnostic models. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 157-168.
24. Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201-211.
25. Deshler, D. D., Mellard, D. F., Tollefson, J. M., & Byrd, S. E. (2005). Research topics in responsiveness to intervention: Intervention to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 483-484.
26. 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.
27. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
28. Finlan, T. G. (1994). Learning disability: The imaginary disease. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey.
29. Finn, C. E., Rotherham, A. J., & Hokanson, C. R. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
30. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Dynda, A. M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 807-825.
31. Fletcher, J. M., Coulter, W. A., Reschly, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers. Annals of Dyslexia, 54, 304-331.
32. Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545-552.
33. Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 185-261). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34. Fletcher, J. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of perpetuating old ideas. The School Psychologist, 59, 10-15.
35. Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98-108.
36. Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 129-136.
37. Fuchs, D., Deshler, D. D., & Reschly, D. J. (2004). National Research Center on Learning Disabilities: Multimethod studies of identification and classification issues. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 189-195.
38. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 57-61.
39. Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 92-99.
40. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disabilities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216-227.
41. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., McMaster, K. N., & Al Otaiba, S. (2003). Identifying children at risk for reading failure: Curriculum-based measurement and dual discrepancy approach. In H. L. Swanson & K. R. Harris (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 431-449). New York: Guilford.
42. Fuchs, D., & Young, C. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8-30.
43. Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 172-186.
44. 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.
45. Gartner, A., & Lipsky, D. K. (1989). The yoke of special education: How to break it. Rochester, NY: National Center on Education and the Economy.
46. Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to Intervention): Rethinking special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99-108.
47. Grenz, S. (1996). A primer on postmodernism. Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.
48. Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
49. Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner's handbook. New York: Guilford Press.
50. Hollenbeck, A. F. (2007). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 137-146.
51. 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.].
52. Johns, B. (2004). NCLB and IDEA: Never the twain should meet. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from http://ourchildrenleftbehind.yuku.com/topic/1571/ t/NCLB-amp-IDEA-Never-the-Twain-Should-Meet-Bev-Johns.html
53. Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention: How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from www.nrcld.org
54. Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2001). Assessment of specific learning disabilities in the new millennium: Issues, conflicts, and controversies. In A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman (Eds.), Specific learning disabilities: Psychological assessment and evaluation (pp. 433-461). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
55. Kauffman, J. M. (2004). The President's Commission and the devaluation of special education. Education and Treatment of Children, 27, 307-324.
56. Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Waving to Ray Charles: Missing the meaning of disability. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 520-521, 524.
57. Kauffman, J. M., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.). (2005). The illusion of full inclusion (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
58. Kauffman, J. M., & Konold, T. R. (2007). Making sense in education: Pretense (including NCLB) and realities in rhetoric about schools and schooling. Exceptionality, 15, 75-96.
59. Kauffman, J. M., & Wiley, A. L. (2004). How the President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE) devalues special education. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13(1), 3-6.
60. Kavale, K. A. (1995). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: The tortuous path of ideology. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 10, 145-152.
61. Kavale, K. A. (2002). Discrepancy models in 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: Erlbaum.
62. Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553-562.
63. Kavale, K. A., & Flanagan, D. P. (2007). Ability-achievement discrepancy, response to intervention, and assessment of cognitive abilities/processes in specific learning disability identification: Toward a contemporary operational definition. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 130-147). New York: Springer Science.
64. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
65. Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245-273.
66. 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.
67. Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Setting the record straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for policy making. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 9, 70-77.
68. Kavale, K. A., Kaufman, A. S., Naglieri, J. A., & Hale, J. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 59, 15-25.
69. Kavale, K. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2003). River of ideology, islands of evidence. Exceptionality, 11, 191-208.
70. Keogh, B. K. (1987). Learning disabilities: In defense of a construct. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 4-9.
71. Keogh, B. K. (2005). Revisiting classification and identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 100-102.
72. Klotz, M. B., & Canter, A. (2006). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer for parents. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from www. nasponline.org/resources/factsheets/rtiprimer.aspx
73. LD Talk. (2007). Response-to-intervention: A question-and-answer session with Dr. Judy Elliot. Retrieved from July 23, 2007, www.ncld.org/index2.php
74. Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2005). Comments and recommendations on regulatory issues under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (PL 108-446). Retrieved January, 18, 2007, from www.ncld.org/advo-cacy/2004LDRoundtableRecs.pdf
75. Lloyd, J. W. (2002). There's more to identifying learning disability than discrepancy. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 427-435). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
76. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability: A response to Kavale. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 449-455). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
77. Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. (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, 38, 525-531.
78. Mather, N., & Gregg, N. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 99-106.
79. Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (2006). Introduction to the special issue, part one: It's about the what, the how well, and the why. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 747-752.
80. McKnight, P. T. (1982). The learning disability myth in American education. Journal of Education, 164, 351-359.
81. McMaster, K. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention methods. Exceptional Children, 71, 45-463.
82. Mellard, D. F. (2004). Understanding responsiveness to intervention in learning disabilities determination. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from www.nrcld.org/publications/papers/mellard.html
83. Mellard, D. F., Byrd, S. E., Johnson, E., Tollefson, J. M., & Boeshe, L. (2004). Foundations and research on identifying model responsiveness-to- intervention sites. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 243-256.
84. Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., & Barth, A. (2004). LD identification: It's not simply a matter of building a better mousetrap. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 229-242.
85. 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, Vol. 16: Identification and assessment (pp. 163-190). New York: JAI.
86. Naglieri, J. A., & Bornstein, B. T. (2003). Intelligence and achievement: Just how correlated are they? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 21, 244-260.
87. National Association of State Boards of Education. (1992, October). Winners all: A call for inclusive schools. Washington, DC: Author.
88. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). Myths about response to intervention (R+I) implementation. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from www.nasdse.org/ projects.cfm
89. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) and Council of Administrators of Special Education (CASE). (2006). Response to intervention: A joint paper. Retrieved January, 18, 2007, from www.nasdse.org/projects.cfm
90. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from www.lkonline.org/njcld
91. No Child Left Behind. (2001). Executive summary of the No Child Left Behind act. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from www.ed.gove/print/nclb/ overview/intro/execsumm.html
92. Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assuring the form has substance: Treatment plan implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 32-39.
93. Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 883-888.
94. Olinghouse, N. G., Lambert, W., & Compton, D. L. (2006). Monitoring children with reading disabilities response to phonics intervention: Are there differences between intervention aligned and general skills progress monitoring assessments? Exceptional Children, 73, 90-106.
95. Pasternak, R. H. (2002, March). The demise of IQ testing for children with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Chicago.
96. Peterson, K.M.H., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Severe discrepancy models: Which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 31, 459-476.
97. President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE). (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
98. Reschly, D. J. (1988). Obstacles, starting points, and doldrums notwithstanding: Reform/revolution from outcomes criteria. School Psychology Review, 17, 495-501.
99. Reschly, D. J. (2004). Commentary: Paradigm shift, outcomes criteria, and behavioral interventions: Foundations for the future of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 33, 408-416.
100. Reschly, D. J. (2005). Learning disabilities identification: Primary intervention, secondary intervention, and then what? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 510-515.
101. Ross, R. P. (1995). Best practices in implementing intervention assessment teams. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 227-237). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
102. School Social Work Association of America (SSWAA). (July 19, 2006). Response to intervention. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from www.sswaa.org/about/resolutions/RTIFinal.html
103. 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.
104. Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2006). Response to "Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 62-64.
105. Sowell, T. (1995). The vision of the anointed: Self-congratulation as a basis for social policy. New York: Basic Books.
106. Sowell, T. (2002). A conflict of visions: Ideological origins of political struggles. New York: Basic Books.
107. 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.
108. Speece, D. L., & Shekitka, L. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 118-123.
109. Stanovich, K. E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience? Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 103-106.
110. Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2002). Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: It's time to use a different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 65-85.
111. 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: Erlbaum.
112. Truscott, S. D., Cohen, C. E., Sam, D. P., Sanborn, K. J., & Frank, A. J. (2005). The current state(s) of prereferral intervention teams: A report from two national surveys. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 130-140.
113. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Barnett, D. W. (2005). The emergence and possible futures of response to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 339-361.
114. VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, H.J.C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a Response to Intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225-256.
115. 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.
116. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). A response to "Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention": Why response to intervention is necessary but not sufficient for identifying students with learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 58-61.
117. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391-409.
118. West, Ed. R&D Alert. (2004). A promising alternative for identifying students with learning disabilities. Retrieved January 25, 2007, from www.wested.org/cs/we/view/feat/48
119. Willis, J. O., & Dumont, R. (2006). And never the twain shall meet: Can response to intervention and cognitive assessment be reconciled? Psychology in the Schools, 43, 901-908.
120. Wodrich, D. L., Spencer, M.L.S., & Daley, K. B. (2006). Combining RTI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 797-806.
121. Wright, P., & Wright, P. (2007). What you need to know about IDEA 2004 specific learning disabilities: Discrepancy & response to intervention models. Retrieved July 23, 2007, from www.wrightslaw. com/idealart/Id.rti. discrep.htm
122. 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.
123. Zach, L. J. (2005). Déjà vu all over again: The current controversy over the identification of learning disability. The School Psychologist, 59, 151-155.