Objective criteria for classification of postsecondary students as learning disabled: Effects on prevalence rates and group characteristics

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Volumn 42, Issue 3, 2009, Pages 230-239

  Sparks, Richard L ^a,c   Lovett, Benjamin J ^b  

^a College of Mt St Joseph ^*  (United States)

^b ELMIRA COLLEGE   (United States)

^c 5944 Crittenden Drive   (United States)

Author keywords

Identification classification; Postsecondary support services

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; CURRICULUM; DISABLED PERSON; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MODEL; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTELLIGENCE; LANGUAGE; LEARNING DISORDER; LEGAL ASPECT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PSYCHOLOGY; UNITED STATES;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; CURRICULUM; DISABLED PERSONS; EDUCATION, SPECIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; INTELLIGENCE; LEARNING DISORDERS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; MODELS, EDUCATIONAL; MULTILINGUALISM; UNDERACHIEVEMENT; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 65349177687     PISSN: 00222194     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0022219408331040     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4 th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
2. Brody, L.E., & Mills, C.J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-296.
3. 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.
4. Dorans, N. (1999). Correspondence between ACT and SAT I scores (College Board Rep. No. 99-1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
5. Dorans, N., Lyu, C., Pommerich, M., & Houston, W. (1997). Concordance between ACT Assessment and recentered SAT I sum scores. College and University, 73, 24-31.
6. Fletcher, J.M., Morris, R.D., & Lyon, G.R. (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities: An integrative perspective. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 30-56). New York: Guilford.
7. 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.
8. Gil, L.A. (2007). Bridging the transition gap from high school to college: Preparing students with disabilities for a successful postsecondary experience. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40 (2). 12-15.
9. Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Keiser, S. (1999). The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485-490.
10. Gregg, N. (2007). Underserved and unprepared: Postsecondary learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 22, 219-228.
11. Gregg, N., Coleman, C., Davis, M., Lindstrom, W., & Hartwig, J. (2006). Critical issues for the diagnosis of learning disabilities in the adult population. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 889-899.
12. 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: From research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. Harrison, S. (2003). Creating a successful learning environment for postsecondary students with learning disabilities: Policy and practice. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 33, 131-145.
14. Jastak, S., & Wilkinson, G. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test- Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
15. Kaufman, A., & Kaufman, N. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
16. 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.
17. Kavale, K.A., Holdnack, J.A., & Mostert, M.P. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2-16.
18. Kavale, K.A., Kaufman, A.S., Naglieri, J.A., & Hale, J.B. (2005). Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly supported ideas. The School Psychologist, 59, 16-25.
19. Kelman, M., & Lester, G. (1997). Jumping the queue: An inquiry into the legal treatment of students with learning disabilities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
20. Lerner, C. (2004). " Accommodations" for the learning disabled: A level playing field or affirmative action for elites ? Vanderbilt Law Review, 57, 1041-1122.
21. Lovett, B.J., & Gordon, M. (2005, June). Discrepancies as a basis for the assessment of learning disabilities and ADHD. ADHD Report, 13 (3). 1-4.
22. Lovett, B.J., & Lewandowski, L.J. (2006). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Who are they ? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 515-527.
23. Machek, G.R., & Nelson, J.M. (2007). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of practicing school psychologists. Learning Disabilities: Research and Practice, 22, 147-157.
24. 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: From research to practice (pp. 287-333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
25. Markwardt, F. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test- Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
26. Mather, N., & Gregg, N. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 99-106.
27. Mather, N., Gregg, N., & Simon, J. (2005). The curse of high stakes tests and high abilities: Reactions to Wong v. Regents of the University of California. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 13, 139-144.
28. Mapou, R.L. (2008). Comprehensive evaluation of adults with learning disabilities. In L. E. Wolf, H. E. Schreiber, & J. Wasserstein (Eds.), Adult learning disorders: Contemporary issues (pp. 247-274). New York: Psychology Press.
29. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2007). The documentation disconnect for students with learning disabilities: Improving access to postsecondary services. Learning Disability Quarterly, 30, 265-274.
30. Nielsen, M.E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93-111.
31. Proctor, B., & Prevatt, F. (2003). Agreement among four models used for diagnosing learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 459-466.
32. Rath, K.A., & Royer, J.M. (2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services for college students. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 353-381.
33. Reschly, D.J., & Hosp, J.L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197-213.
34. Shaw, S. (2006). Legal and policy perspectives on transition assessment and documentation. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 29, 108-113.
35. 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.
36. Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. (1999). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: Replication and comparison studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 329-349.
37. Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999 a). Comparison of students classified as learning disabled who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 553-565.
38. Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. (1999 b). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: A quantitative analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 566-580.
39. Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Javorsky, J. (2002). Students classified as LD who received course substitutions for the foreign language requirement: A replication study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35, 482-499, 538.
40. Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Javorsky, J. (2003). Students classified as LD who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement-Are they different? A replication study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 348-362.
41. 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, 65-83.
42. Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.L. (2004). Learning disabilities, giftedness, and gifted/LD. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities: Identification, assessment, and outcomes (pp. 17-29). New York: Kluwer.
43. 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.
44. Watkins, M.W., Glutting, J.J., & Youngstrom, E.A. (2005). Issues in subtest profile analysis. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2 nd ed., pp. 251-268). New York: Guilford.
45. Wechsler, D. (1992). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
46. Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-III. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
47. Wechsler, D. (1981). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale- Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
48. Wilkinson, G. (1993). Wide Range Achievement Test-3. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
49. Woodcock, R. (1987). Woodcock Reading Mastery Test- Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
50. Woodcock, R., & Johnson, M.B. (1989). Woodcock-Johnson-Revised Tests of Achievement. Chicago, IL: Riverside.