Alternative approaches to the definition and identification of learning disabilities: Some questions and answers
Tóm tắt
Recent consensus reports concur in suggesting major changes in the federal regulatory approach to the identification of learning disabilities (LD). These reports recommend abandoning the IQ-discrepancy model and the use of IQ tests for identification, and also recommend incorporation of response to instruction (RTI) as one of the identification criteria. These changes are also recommended to states in the current reauthorization of the U.S. Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (IDEA). While not mandatory, states that follow these recommendations will experience major changes in identification and treatment of students served under the LD category. This paper reviews the basis for these recommendations, summarizing four recent consensus group reports on special education that concur in suggesting these changes. Seventeen commonly asked questions about these changes are presented, with responses. In order to ensure adequate instruction for students with LD, it is essential that identification practices focus on assessments that are directly related to instruction, that any services for students who are struggling prioritize intervention over eligibility, and that special education be permitted to focus more on results and outcomes and less on eligibility and process. Identification models that incorporate RTI represent a shift in special education toward the goals of better achievement and behavioral outcomes for students identified with LD, as well as those students at risk for LD.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Aaron P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
Al-Otaiba, S., & Fuchs, D. (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 300–315.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. www.air.org/ldsummit
Burt, C. (1937). The backward child. London: University of London Press.
Christensen, C. A. (1992). Discrepancy definitions of reading disability: Has the quest led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 276–278.
Denton, C., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice to scale. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 15, 74–94.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html
Ellis, A. W. (1985). The cognitive neuropsychology of developmental (and acquired) dyslexia: A critical survey. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 169–205.
Finn, C. E., Jr., Rotherham, R. A. J., & Hokanson, C. R., Jr. (Eds.). (2001). Rethinking special education for a new century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute. www.edexcellence.net/library/special_ed/index.html
Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Morris, R. D., & Lyon, G. R. (in press). Evidence-based assessment of learning disabilities in children and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.
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. 185–250). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
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, and S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 30–56). New York: The Guilford Press.
Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, B. A., Shaywitz, S. E., & Rourke, B. P. (1996). Defining learning and language disabilities: Conceptual and psychometric issues with the use of IQ tests. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 132–143.
Francis, D. J., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, B. A., & Shaywitz, S. E. (in press). Psychometric approaches to the identification of learning disabilities: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities.
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.
Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204–219.
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.
Gresham, F. M., Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., Cohen, S., & Rosenblum, S. (1993). Treatment integrity of school-based intervention studies: 1980–1990. School Psychology Review, 22, 254–272.
Gresham, F. M., MacMillan, D. L., & Bocian, K. M. (1996). Learning disabilities, low achievement, and mild mental retardation: More alike than different? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 570–581.
Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Developmental dyslexia: An update on genes, brains, and environments. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42, 91–125.
Kavale, K. A. (1988). Learning disability and cultural disadvantage: The case for a relationship. Learning Disability Quarterly, 11, 195–210.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed.) (pp. 984–1024). New York: Wiley.
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.
Learning Disabilities Roundtable. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Finding common ground. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Office of Innovation and Development.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., & Barnes, M. C. (2002). Learning disabilities. In E. Mash & R. Barkley (Eds.), Child psychopathology (vol. II) (pp. 520–586). New York: Guilford.
Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J. M., Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Torgesen, J. K., Wood, F. B., Schulte, A., & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking learning disabilities. In C. E. Finn, Jr., R. A. J. Rotherham, & C. R. Hokanson, Jr. (Eds.), Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259–287). Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and Progressive Policy Institute.
MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (2002). Learning disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 287–333). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
MacMillan, D. L., & Speece, D. L. (1999). Utility of current diagnostic categories for research and practice. In R. Gallimore, L. P. Bernheimer, D. L. Macmillan, D. L. Speece, & S. Vaughn (Eds). Developmental perspectives on children with high-incidence disabilities (pp. 111–133). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2002). Early help for struggling learners: A national survey of parents and educators. Author. (http://www.ld.org/press/PR2003/survey_findings.pdf).
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. www.nationalreadingpanel.org/
Nelson, J. R., Benner, G. J., & Gonzalez, J. (2003). Learner characteristics that influence the treatment effectiveness of early literacy interventions: A meta-analytic review. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 255–267.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards
RAND Reading Study Group. (2002). Reading for understanding. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation. www.rand.org/multi/achievementforall/
Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. P. (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Reschly, D. J., Hosp, J. L., & Schmied, C. M. (2003). And miles to go. ...: State SLD requirements and authoritative recommendations. Nashville, TN: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. www.nrcld.org
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.
Shaywitz, S. E. (1996). Dyslexia. Scientific American, 275, 98–104.
Shepard, L. (1980). An evaluation of the regression discrepancy method for identifying children with learning disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 14, 79–91.
Simos, P. G., Fletcher, J. M., Bergman, E., Breier, J. I., Foorman, B. R., Castillo, E. M., Fitzgerald, M., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (2002). Dyslexia-specific brain activation profile becomes normal following successful remedial training. Neurology, 58, 1203–1213.
Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. www.nap.edu/catalog/6023.html?se_side
Stanovich, K. E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 469–518.
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. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 565–613). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. (2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33–58.
United States Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education for handicapped children: Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42, G1082-G1085.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Lyon, G. R. (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-Achievement discrepancy definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 223–238.
Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., & Jaccard, J. (2003). Toward distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as primary sources of difficulty in learning to read: A two-year follow-up of difficult to remediate and readily remediated poor readers. In B. R. Foorman (Ed.), Preventing and remediating reading difficulties: Bringing science to scale (pp. 73–120). Baltimore: York Press.
Ysseldyke, J. E., Vanderwood, M. L., & Shriner, J. (1997). Changes over the past decade in special education referral to placement probability: An incredibly reliable practice. Diagnostique, 23, 193–201.