different models used in the assessment of specific learning disabilities final
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
1/8
Running Head: SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 1
Different Models Used In The Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities
Luisa Fernanda Hernandez
Carlos Albizu University
-
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
2/8
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 2
Abstract
The following paper discusses the different models that have been commonly used to diagnose
Specific Learning Disabilities. A brief overview of the Achievement-Discrepancy model is
provided, as well as of the Response to Intervention model, in order to understand and discuss
more in detail the currently suggested Hypothesis-Testing Cattell-Horn-Carroll model.
-
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
3/8
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 3
Different Models Used In The Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities
Children are different in many ways, particularly when it comes to their physical
attributes and their learning abilities. Usually, those differences are small and allow them to
receive the benefits of general education. However, those considered to be exceptional children
are above or below from the norm and require individualized programs of special education, and
related services, to learn. Thus, according to Heward (2006), exceptional children is a term that
refers to children with learning and/or behavior problems, children with physical disabilities or
sensory impairments, and children who are intellectually gifted or have a special talent (p. 10).
The purpose of this paper is to discuss some of the models used to identify those exceptional
children with learning difficulties, based on the current accepted definition of Specific Learning
Disabilities.
The reason why there is a need of labeling a child as having a learning disability comes
from the fact that it is required under the present law in order to receive special education
benefits, services, and accommodations. The current accepted definition of Specific Learning
Disabilities (SLD) comes from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEIA) of 2004, which was adopted by all the States. Based on this Act, the Florida Department
of Education defines a Specific Learning Disability as:
A disorder in one or more of the basic learning processes involved in
understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest in significant
difficulties affecting the ability to listen, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematics.
Associated conditions may include, but are not limited to, dyslexia, dyscalculia,
dysgraphia, or developmental aphasia. A specific learning disability does not include
-
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
4/8
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 4
learning problems that are primarily the result of a visual, hearing, motor, intellectual, or
emotional/behavioral disability, limited English proficiency, or environmental, cultural,
or economic factors. (Florida Department of Education:
http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asp)
The IDEA Improvement Act also states that in order to identify a child with a specific
learning disability, the child must have difficulties achieving adequately for the childs age or
has failed to meet State-approved grade-level standards in oral expression, written expression,
listening comprehension, reading comprehension, basic reading, reading fluency, mathematics
calculation, and/or mathematics problem solving (U.S. Department of Education,http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2C). In
addition, a local educational agency must assess if the child responds to scientific, research-
based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures (Heward, 2006, p.28), model known as
Response-to-Intervention (RTI). If despite of the interventions and efforts made, the childs
achievement in a particular area does not improve, then the child is considered to have a Specific
Learning Disability. This form of conceptualizing SLDs does not take into consideration
cognitive abilities that underlie academic difficulties. In fact, it states that there is no need of
establishing discrepancies between these two areas, which is considered one of its major flaws
(Newton & McGrew, 2010; Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008).
This model deviates from the federal guidelines provided previously, where a marked
discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability were required for children to be
identified as learning disabled (Heward, 2006; Herr & Bateman, 2003; Fletcher, Morris an&
Lyon, 2003; Newton & McGrew, 2010; Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz, 2010). According to
Heward (2006), this other method known as the Achievement-Discrepancy model involved the
http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asphttp://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asphttp://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2Chttp://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2Chttp://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2Chttp://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asp -
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
5/8
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 5
comparison ofa students score on an IQ test with his score on a standardized achievement test.
In order to unify criteria for the diagnosis of SLDs, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; APA, 2000) stated that this
discrepancy must be of more than two standard deviations. Nevertheless, this model has been
severely criticized because the diagnosis of a SLD is primarily made on the basis of test scores
without taking into consideration the childs classroom performance, teachers input, or
observations. In addition, it was noticed that some children with relatively flat test profiles,
where no severe discrepancies were apparent, did not receive appropriate services despite being
struggling academically because they did not fit in the definition of SLDs (Herr & Bateman,
2003; Fletcher, Morris & Lyon, 2003).
Critics to both models (Kavale et al., 2008) stressed the need of finding a model that
combined RTI and psychometric assessment in order to align the diagnostic procedure with the
construct and current definition of SLD, since it is believed that children with SLDs have
cognitive deficits and integrities in the basic psychological processes, which often lead to
academic failure(p.144). Therefore, a third method within the RTI framework has been
suggested for the identification of SLDs, known as the Hypothesis-Testing CHC Approach
(HT-CHC) (Newton & McGrew, 2010). This method is based on the Catell-Horn-Carroll
(CHC) theory, which is the foundation of almost all existing IQ tests. The CHC theory is a
hierarchical model of intelligence that measures abilities such as fluid reasoning, comprehension-
knowledge, visuospatial ability, long-term storage and retrieval, auditory processing, cognitive
processing speed, short-term memory, quantitative knowledge and reasoning (Newton &
McGrew, 2010).
-
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
6/8
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 6
The proponents of this model state that the cognitive abilities and processes measured in
the CHC model are related to academic outcomes. Thus, understanding this relationship provides
insights into why certain methods of instruction or interventions are not effective for a certain
child, and sheds light into the type of intervention that might be more effective. Therefore, since
there is no single IQ test that measures all the above mentioned abilities and processes, the use of
a flexible battery approach to assess and interpret them, named Cross-Battery Assessment
(XBA), has been strongly suggested (Flanagan et al, 2010).
According to Flanagan and colleagues (2010), the four-tier method used by the HT-CHC
model relies on a hypothesis-testing approach to SLDs assessment, which pretends to ensure
that appropriate questions and necessary data are collected throughout the different levels of
intervention. Therefore, Tier I consists of delivering scientifically based instruction to all
children, conducting universal screening to measure both achievement and cognitive abilities,
and determining if there are students at risk of academic failure. If it is considered that a child is
at risk of failure, then it is determined if eligibility for a comprehensive evaluation for special
education is met, which would require to go directly to Tier IV, or if a Standardized Treatment
Protocol (STP) is implemented. Consequently, Tier II involves interventions that require greater
time and intensity, as well as smaller groups, to address any difficulty found. Hence, these
interventions are closely matched to the students areas of cognitive and academic deficit
(Flanagan et al., 2010, pg. 751), based on the preliminary findings from universal screening
procedures.
After implementation, intervention results are evaluated and it may be decided to
discontinue services if they were successful, continue with them to consolidate improvement, or
to move the student to Tier III for individualized intervention based on the Problem Solving
-
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
7/8
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 7
Model (PSM). Within this third tier, the purpose is to get more specific information about the
area(s) of difficulty, so that an individualized intervention can be developed and implemented.
Moreover, ecological factors are examined more in detail, and the participation of other experts
may also be requested. If interventions the interventions performed work and are generalized to
the classroom, services may be discontinued, but if they are not generalized, they will continue.
However, when the interventions are not successful, the student is moved to Tier IV, where a
more comprehensive evaluation for special education eligibility covering all areas of suspected
disability is conducted in order to gain a better and more thorough understanding of the students
strengths and weaknesses (Flanagan et al, 2010).
It is believed by the proponents of this third model that it is better than RTI alone, and is
also an important improvement of the ability-achievement discrepancy model (Newton &
McGrew, 2010). Moreover, they firmly state that acknowledging the relations between ability
and achievement assists practitioners in understanding what cognitive abilities and processes
may be deficient in a student with specific academic difficulties and, therefore, interfering in the
learning process (Flanagan et al., 2010, p. 741).
-
7/30/2019 Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final
8/8
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 8
References
American Psychiatric Association (2000).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders.
Text revision (4th
d., DSM-IV ed.). Washington, D.C.: American Psychiatric Association.
Flanagan, D., Fiorello, C., & Ortiz, S. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell-
Horn-Carroll Theory and research: a third method approach to specific learning
disability identification.Psychology in the Schools, 47 (7), 739-760. Doi:
10.1002/pits.20501
Fletcher, J., Morris, R., & Lyon, G (2003). Classification and definition of learning disabilities:
and integrative perspective. In Swanson, L., Harris, K, & Graham, S. (Eds.),Handbook of
Learning Disabilities, pp. 30-57.New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Florida Department of Education (2013)Exceptional education and student services: Specific
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from: http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asp
Herr, C., & Bateman, B. (2003). Learning disabilities and the law. In Swanson, L., Harris, K, &
Graham, S. (Eds.),Handbook of Learning Disabilities, pp. 58-78.New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
Heward, W. (2006).Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education.(8th
ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.
Kavale, K, Kauffman, J., Bachmeier, R., & Le Fever, G. (2008). Response to intervention:
separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation form the reality of specific learning
disability identification.Learning Disability Quarterly, 31(3),pp. 135-150. Retrieved
from: hhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/25474644
Newton, J., & McGrew, K. (2010) Introduction to the special issue: current research in Cattell-
Horn-Carroll-based assessment. Psychology in the schools, 47(7)pp 621-634. Doi:
10.1002/pits.20495
US. Department of Education (2004).Building the legacy: IDEA 2004. Identification of
Learning Disabilities. Retrieved from:
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2C
http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asphttp://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asphttp://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2Chttp://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2Chttp://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2Chttp://www.fldoe.org/ese/sld.asp