School psychologists' perceptions regarding the practice of identifying reading disabilities: Cognitive assessment and response to intervention considerations

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 47, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 230-245

  Machek, Greg R ^a   Nelson, Jason M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MONTANA   (United States)

^b AUGUSTA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 77955600909     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: 15206807     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20467     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
2. Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bramlett, R. K., Murphy, J. J., Johnson, J., Wallingsford, L., & Hall, J. D. (2002). Contemporary practices in school psychology: A national survey of roles and referral problems. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 327-335.
4. Caffrey, E., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Differences in performance between students with learning disabilities and mild mental retardation: Implications for categorical instruction. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 119-128.
5. Canivez, G. L., & Watkins, M. W. (2001). Long-term stability of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Third Edition among students with disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30, 361-376.
6. Canter, A. (2006). Problem solving and RTI: New roles for school psychologists. Communique, 34, insert.
7. Casey, A., & Howe, K. (2002). Best practices in early literacy skills. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (4th ed., pp. 721-735). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
8. Chafouleas, S. M., Clonan, S. M., & Vanauken, T. L. (2002). A national survey of current supervision and evaluation practices of school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 317-325.
9. Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T., & Eckert, T. L. (2003). A comparison of school psychologists' acceptability, training, and use of norm-referenced, curriculum-based, and brief experimental analysis methods to assess reading. School Psychology Review, 32, 272-281.
10. Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671-684.
11. Curtis, M. J., Lopez, A. D., Batsche, G. M., & Smith, J. C. (March, 2006). School psychology 2005: A national perspective. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Anaheim, CA.
12. Demaray, M. K., Schaefer, K., & Delong, L. K. (2003). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD): A national survey of training and current assessment practices in the schools. Psychology in the Schools, 40, 583-598.
13. Denckla, M. B., & Rudel, R. G. (1974). Rapid " automatized" naming (R.A.N.): Dyslexia differentiated from other learning disabilities. Cortex, 14, 471-479.
14. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
15. Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
16. Eckert, T. L., Hintze, J. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (1997). School psychologists' acceptability of behavioral and traditional assessment procedures for externalizing problem behaviors. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 150-169.
17. Fagan, T. K. (1994). A critical appraisal of the NASP's first 25 years. School Psychology Review, 23, 604-618.
18. Fletcher, J. M., Foorman, B. R., Boudousquie, A., Barnes, M. A., Schatschneider, C., & Francis, D. J. (2002). Assessment of reading and learning disabilities: A research-based intervention-oriented approach. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 27-63.
19. Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Lyon, G. R., Foorman, B. R., Stuebing, K. K., et al. (1998). Intelligence testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 13, 186-203.
20. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157-171.
21. Fuchs, D., & Young, C. L. (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction. Exceptional Children, 73, 8-30.
22. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D. L. (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 33-45.
23. Good, R. H., Vollmer, M., Creek, R. J., Katz, L., & Chowdhri, S. (1993). Treatment utility of the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: Effects of matching instruction and student processing strength. School Psychology Review, 22, 8-26.
24. Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1997). Teachers as "tests" : Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. School Psychology Review, 26, 47-60.
25. Gresham, F. M., & Witt, J. C. (1997). Utility of intelligence testing for treatment planning, classification, and placement decisions: Recent empirical findings and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 249-267.
26. Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. K. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integration response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 753-770.
27. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), Public L. No.108-446, §614 (2004).
28. Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. H. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-227.
29. Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is responsiveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 553-562.
30. 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.
31. 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.
32. Kazdin, A. E. (2000). Perceived barriers to treatment participation and treatment acceptability among antisocial children and their families, Journal of Child and Family Studies, 9, 157-174.
33. Kruk, R. S., & Willows, D. M. (2001). Backward pattern masking of familiar and unfamiliar materials in disabled and normal readers. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 18, 19-37.
34. Lerner, J. (1989). Educational intervention in learning disabilities. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 326-331.
35. Levinson, E. M., Fetchkan, R., & Hohenshil, T. H. (1988). Job satisfaction among practicing school psychologists revisited. School Psychology Review, 17, 101-112.
36. Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgeson, J. K., Wood, F. B., et al. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.
37. Machek, G. R., & Nelson, J. M. (2007). How should reading disabilities be operationalized?: A national survey of school psychologists. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22, 147-157.
38. 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.
39. Mather, N., & Gregg, N. (2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 37, 99-106.
40. 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.
41. Mather, N., & Wendling, B. J. (2005). Linking cognitive assessment results to academic interventions for students with learning disabilities. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment (pp. 269-294). New York: The Guilford Press.
42. 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.
43. Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological measurement: Validation of inferences from persons' responses and performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741-749
44. National Association of School Psychologists (2003). NASP recommendations for IDEA reauthorization: Identification and eligibility determination for students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved August 14, 2005, from http://www.nasponline.org
45. Nelson, J. M., & Machek, G. R. (2007). A survey of training, practice, and competence in reading assessment and intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 311-327.
46. O'Malley, K. J., Francis, D. A., Foorman, B. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Swank, P. R. (2002). Growth in precursor and reading-related skills: Do low-achieving and IQ-discrepant readers develop differently? Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 19-34.
47. Prifitera, A., Weiss, D., Saklofske, L. G., & Rolfhus, E. (2005). The WISC-IV in the clinical assessment context. In A. Prifetera, D. H. Saklofske, & D. Weiss (Eds.), WISC-IV clinical use and interpretation (pp. 3-32). Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
48. Reschly, D. J. (1997). Utility of individual ability measures and public policy choices for the 21st century. School Psychology Review, 26, 234-242.
49. 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.
50. Share, D. L., McGee, R., & Silva, P. A. (1989). IQ and reading progress: A test of the capacity notion of IQ. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 97-100.
51. Siegel, L. S. (2003). Basic cognitive processes and reading disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 158-181). New York: The Guilford Press.
52. Speece, D. L., & Hines, S. J. (2007). Learning disabilities. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Barkley (Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (pp. 598-638). New York: The Guilford Press.
53. Speece, D. L., & Shekitka, L. (2002). How should reading disabilities be operationalized? A survey of experts. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17, 118-123.
54. Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden variety poor reader: The phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 590-612.
55. Swanson, H. L., & Saez, L. (2003). Memory difficulties in children and adults with learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 182-198). New York: The Guilford Press.
56. 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.
57. 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 (pp. 251-268). New York: The Guilford Press.
58. Watkins, M. W., Kush, J. C., & Glutting, J. J. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of the WISC-III ACID profile among children with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 34, 309-319.
59. Wodrich, D. L., Spencer, M. L. S., & Daley, K. B. (2006). Combining RTI and educational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 797-806.