Identifying Specific LD (taken from Maryland Public Schools Publications)
According to the 19 th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1997), more children with
learning disabilities are being served through special education than any
other single category of exceptionality. In addition, the number of children
identified nationally as having specific learning disabilities has grown more
rapidly than any other area of exceptionality from 1977 - 1995.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) emphasizes the need
for students with disabilities to participate in the general education
curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate. Therefore, this guide
contains information to assist educators in their efforts to collaborate with
parents and other professionals in order to provide appropriate supports for
student success. Professionals should keep in mind that within this guide,
the term “parents” may refer to another family member or guardian who is
acting as a parent of a student.
The identification of specific learning disabilities continues to generate
controversy. Professionals in the field of learning disabilities recognize the
need for ongoing research in the areas of assessment and identification.
Under the direction of the United States Department of Education's Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP) an initiative has been underway to
develop recommendations regarding assessment and identification practices
that could impact definitions, regulations, and/or research investments. In
response to this effort, a group of the foremost researchers, authors, and
professors in the field of special education, particularly in learning
disabilities, will be reviewing current guidelines that are being utilized
nationally.
While recognizing the national need for updated research to resolve
controversies and to support more reliable and valid procedures,
contributors to this guide have outlined processes and best practices that
may enable Maryland school personnel to refine current practices in
screening, assessing, and identifying students with specific learning
disabilities. (page 8)
COMAR 13A.05.01.03B(62) Definitions
(62) Special Education
(a) “Special education” means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the
parents, to meet the unique needs of a student with a disability, including instruction conducted in the classroom, in the home, in hospitals and institutions,
and in other settings.
(b) “Special education” includes speech-language pathology services, career and
technology education, and instruction in physical education if the service
consists of specially designed instruction.
COMAR 13A.05.01.03B(63) Definitions
“Specially designed instruction” means the adaptation of content, methodology, or delivery
of instruction to address the unique needs of a student with a disability to ensure access to
the general curriculum, so that the student can meet the educational standards that apply
to each student within the jurisdiction of the public agency.
COMAR 13A.05.01.03B(68) Definitions
“Student with a disability” means a student, 3 through 20 years old:
(a) evaluated in accordance with Regulation .06 of this chapter as having: autism,
deaf-blindness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, including deafness,
mental retardation, multiple disability, orthopedic impairment, other health
impairment, specific learning disability, speech or language impairment,
traumatic brain injury, or visual impairment, including blindness; and
(b) who, because of the impairment, needs special education and related services.
These State regulations indicate that, in order to be eligible for services
under IDEA, a student must meet the disability definition and require
special education and related services. For specific learning disabilities, the
regulations provide additional criteria to aid in the identification process.
This entails the application of the definition in conjunction with specific
procedures outlined in the regulations.
According to COMAR 13A.05.01.03B(64), the definition of a specific
learning disability (SLD) is as follows:
(a) “SLD” means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes
involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may
manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell,
or to do mathematical calculations.
(b) “SLD” includes conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal
brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
(c) “SLD” does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily
the result of visual, hearing, or motor impairments, mental retardation,
emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (Page 9)
COMAR 13A.05.01.04A Identification
(A) Referral to an IEP Team
(1) A student with a suspected disability who may need special education shall be
referred, in writing, to an IEP team.
(2) An IEP team shall meet to review:
(a) existing data
(b) information from the parent
(c) instructional interventions and strategies
(d) current classroom-based assessments, and
(e) observations by teachers and related service providers. (page 10)
COMAR 13A.05.01.04B Identification
(B) Determination of Need for Assessment
(1) On the basis of the review of the information described in A(2) of this regulation,
the IEP team shall determine if additional data is needed.
(2) If the IEP team determines that additional data is needed, the IEP team shall
ensure that assessment procedures are administered as needed, in accordance with
Regulation .05 of this chapter.
(3) If the IEP team determines that no additional data is needed and the parent
disagrees, the parent may appeal the decision in accordance with Regulation .15B
and C of this chapter. (page 10)
(4) If the IEP team does not suspect the student of being a student with a disability,
and the parent disagrees, the parent may appeal the decision in accordance with
Regulation .15B and C of this chapter.
COMAR 13A.05.01.05B(4) Assessment
(4) Observation for the Determination of an SLD
(a) If a student is suspected of being a student with an SLD, or is a student with an
SLD, at least one member of the IEP team, other than the student’s regular
education teacher, shall observe the student’s academic performance in the
regular classroom setting.
(b) If a student is younger than school age or not in school, an IEP team member
shall observe the student in an environment appropriate for a student of that
age.
COMAR 13A.05.01.06B(3) Evaluation and Reevaluation
(3) The IEP team may not determine that a student is a student with a disability if the
IEP team determines that the student’s lack of educational performance is the
result of:
(a) a lack of instruction in reading or mathematics, or
(b) limited English proficiency. (Page 10)
COMAR 13A.05.01.06C(1) Evaluation and Reevaluation
C. Determination of an SLD
(1) The IEP team shall determine that a student has an SLD if:
(a) The student does not achieve commensurate with the student’s age and ability
levels in one or more of the areas listed in § C(1)(b) of this regulation, when
provided with learning experiences appropriate for the student’s age and ability
levels;
(b) The student has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual
ability in one or more of the following areas:
(i) oral expression
(ii) listening comprehension
(iii) basic reading skills
(iv) reading comprehension
(v) written expression
(vi) mathematics calculation, or
(vii) mathematics reasoning.
(c) The severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is not primarily the
result of:
(i) a visual, hearing, or motor impairment
(ii) mental retardation
(iii) emotional disturbance, or
(iv) environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (11 page)
COMAR 13A.5.05.01.06C(2) Evaluation and Reevaluation
(2) When a student is suspected of having an SLD, the IEP team shall prepare a written
report that includes:
(a) a statement of whether the student has a specific learning disability
(b) the basis for making the determination
(c) the relevant behaviors noted during the observation of the student
(d) the relationship of the behaviors to the student’s educational performance
(e) the educationally relevant medical findings, if any
(f) a statement whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and
ability that is not correctable without special education and related services;
(g) the determination of the IEP team concerning the effects of environmental,
economic, or cultural disadvantage, and
(h) the written certification of each IEP team member as to whether the report
reflects the member’s conclusion.
(3) If the written report in § C(2) of this regulation does not reflect an IEP team
member’s conclusion, the team member shall submit a separate statement presenting
the team member’s conclusion. (Page 11)
Difficulties in the Practical Application of the Definition of
Specific Learning Disabilities
Specific learning disabilities (SLD) has been included as an identifiable
disability since the passage of PL 94-142 Education For All Handicapped
Children Act in 1975. Between one-third and one-half of students receiving
special education are reported to have a learning disability (U.S. Department
of Education, 1994). While it is widely accepted as an area of exceptionality
in educational practice, no single definition has achieved universal support
(Iowa Department of Education, 1997). Kavale, Forness, and Bender (1987)
state that it is a “field fraught with controversy, even in terms of its most
basic diagnostic criteria and remedial methods”.
Disagreements generally focus on problems with identification (i.e., how to
apply the definition), and whether or not children with SLD need
fundamentally different instructional programs than other children
experiencing learning problems (Torgesen, 1991).
The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD 1997, 2001)
specifies the following five constructs that underlie their definition of
learning disabilities.
1. “Learning disabilities are heterogeneous, both within and across
individuals. Intra-individual differences involve varied profiles of
learning strengths and needs and/or shifts across the life span
within individuals. Inter-individual differences involve different
manifestations of learning disabilities for individuals.
2. Learning disabilities result in significant difficulties in the
acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing,
reasoning, and/or mathematical skills. Such difficulties are
evident when an individual’s appropriate levels of effort do not
result in reasonable progress given the opportunity for effective
educational instruction and with the recognition that all individuals
learn at a different pace and with differing effort. Significant
difficulty cannot be determined solely by a quantitative test score. (Page 12)
3. Learning disabilities are intrinsic to the individual. They are
presumed to be related to differences in central nervous system
development. They do not disappear over time, but may range in
expression and severity at different life stages. (Page 13)
4. Learning disabilities may occur concomitantly with other
disabilities that do not, by themselves, constitute a learning
disability. For example, difficulty with self-regulatory behaviors,
social perception, and social interactions may occur for many
reasons. Some social interaction problems result from learning
disabilities; others do not. Individuals with other disabilities, such
as sensory impairments, attention deficit hyperactivity disorders,
mental retardation, and serious emotional disturbance, may also
have learning disabilities, but such conditions do not cause or
constitute learning disabilities.
5. Learning disabilities are not caused by extrinsic influences.
Inconsistent or insufficient instruction or a lack of instructional
experience cause learning difficulties, but not learning disabilities.
However, individuals who have had inconsistent or insufficient
instruction may also have learning disabilities. The challenge is to
document that inadequate or insufficient instruction is not the
primary cause of a learning disability. Individuals from all cultural
and linguistic backgrounds may also have learning disabilities;
therefore, assessments must be designed acknowledging this
diversity in culture and language, and examiners who test children
from each background must be sensitive to such factors and use
practices that are individualized and appropriate for each child.”
(NJCLD 1997, 2001) (13)
some researchers recommend dividing learning
disabled students into groups that have either verbal or nonverbal learning
disabilities:
(a) Verbal learning disabilities tend to involve general verbal/language
deficits or more specific phonological processing disorders. Verbal
learning disabilities may result in significantly impaired reading,
written language, and/or spelling skills (Stanovich, 1991; Torgesen
& Wagner, 1998).
(b) Nonverbal learning disabilities are characterized by problems in
visual-spatial-organizational, tactile-perceptual, psychomotor,
and/or nonverbal problem-solving skills. Academic difficulties in
computational mathematics and/or writing skills may be related to
nonverbal or performance based disabilities. These students may
also be at increased risk for social and behavioral difficulties
(Harnadek & Rourke, 1994; Torgesen, 1993). (14)
After the student has been assessed, the IEP team must determine whether
or not the student meets the eligibility criteria for the identification of a
specific learning disability. Although the Code of Federal Regulations
supplies a definition for specific learning disabilities and criteria for
eligibility under IDEA, several components within the identification process
need further clarification. Issues related to determining a discrepancy
between ability and achievement, identifying processing disorders, and ruling
out exclusionary factors deserve further exploration.
Discrepancy Between Intellectual Ability and Achievement (Page 15)
The U.S. Office of Education in 1977 introduced the requirement that a
student demonstrate a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and
achievement. The discrepancy requirement is an operational guideline for
the identification of a specific learning disability. According to Swanson
(2000), research fails to support the validity of an IQ-based, ability-achievement
discrepancy as a sufficient indicator of a learning disability.
Evidence of a discrepancy between ability and achievement is necessary to
identify a specific learning disability; however, it cannot be the sole
criterion upon which the identification is made. All data collected needs to
be considered during IEP team decision-making.
An aptitude-achievement discrepancy is a
necessary indicator, but not the exclusive indicator,
of a specific learning disability.
Although an increasing number of states are using the discrepancy model for
identification purposes, it has been widely criticized for a variety of reasons
(Aaron, 1997; Iowa Department of Education, 1997; Shaw, Cullen, McGuire, &
Brinckerhoff, 1995):
1. Significant variations in discrepancy formulas from state to state
contribute to inconsistencies in identification.
2. Overly liberal applications of discrepancy formulas result in
inaccurate and over-identification of students.
3. Overly strict or rigid discrepancy formulas do not allow for
professional and informed clinical judgment. Students who are
truly learning disabled may not demonstrate a required
discrepancy.
4. Discrepancy models focus on learning failure and deficits, requiring
students to fall significantly below their predicted performance
potential before they can be identified for services.
5. Discrepancy formulas can often make early identification difficult.
Processing Disorders
COMAR 13A.05.01.03B(64) makes reference to a processing disorder in the
definition of a specific learning disability. A specific learning disability is
defined as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes
involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may
manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
spell, or to do mathematical calculations.” Federal regulations in IDEA
highlight the relationship between disorders in basic psychological processes
and a resultant learning disability. However, evaluating and identifying basic
psychological processes is controversial. There have been years of research
and debate, yet educators and researchers have not yet reached a consensus
on how to apply the definition of processing disorders effectively.
Evaluating and identifying psychological
processes is controversial. (16)
Research suggests that providing appropriate reading instruction may
prevent many children who are at risk of having reading problems from being
identified as having specific learning disabilities. Approximately 80% of
students identified as having specific learning disabilities have reading
problems (Lyon, 1996). However, the National Reading Panel (Langenberg &
Dommel, 2000) found that students identified as having learning disabilities
and other low-achieving (non-disabled) students benefit from similar
phonemic awareness and phonics instructional programs and techniques.
“Most of the reading problems faced by today’s adolescents and adults are
the result of problems that might have been avoided or resolved in their
early childhood years” if appropriate instruction and preventative measures
had been provided (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). (Page20)
Referrals to a school-based problem-solving team could be based on the
following problems:
· academic difficulties
· poor work habits
· poor organizational skills
· short attention span or inability to concentrate
· difficulty retaining information
· disruptive behavior
· poor self-esteem/self-concept
· poor peer relationships, and
· difficulty relating appropriately with adults.
At the elementary and intermediate levels, teams should be comprised of
general education teachers, specialists (e.g., guidance counselor, school
nurse, reading specialist, special educator, social worker, school
psychologist), and any others who have knowledge of the referred student,
including an administrator and/or the parents. At the secondary level,
teachers in a department, if appropriate, or on an interdisciplinary team may
constitute a school-based problem-solving team. Students may participate
as appropriate. The process should provide a framework for teachers and
specialists to collaborate and solve problems using a systematic, data-based,
and solution-focused approach. (Page 22)
An assessment is a comprehensive process that may begin with determining
whether the problem is situation-specific or pervasive. Preliminary
information may be obtained by reviewing records. It is important to review
the cumulative file, as well as any other records in order to obtain
information regarding the following:
· patterns of attendance
· academic history (e.g., number of school transfers; where and when
they occurred; previous grades repeated; and report card grades)
· current performance on Maryland Learning Outcomes or Core
Learning Goals
· English language proficiency
· patterns in group-administered tests
· scores on statewide or district wide assessments
· patterns of weakness in a subject or subjects over the years
· medical issues and medications
· vision or hearing screenings
· current classroom-based assessments and observations
· interventions and outcomes
· significant traumas
· sociocultural background
· previously administered individualized assessments
· previous qualification and/or dismissal from special education services
· progress as compared to classroom peers, and
· other information which may impact the student’s ability to
succeed. (page 40)
References
Aaron, P.G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of
Educational Research, 67 (4), 461-502.
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2000). Diagnosis and evaluation of the child with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. [On-line]. Pediatrics, 105 (5). Available:
http://www.aap.org/policy/ac0002.html.
Baum, S.M., Neu, T.W., & Cooper, C.R. (in press). Project HIGH HOPES.
Braden, J. (1999). Performance Assessment and Diversity. School Psychology Quarterly, 14
(3), 304326.
Brody, L., & Mills, C. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30 (3), 282-296.
Clark, R. (1983). Family Life and School Achievement: Why Poor Black Children Succeed or
Fail. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Clark-Johnson, G. (1988). Black children. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2, 46-47.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (1999). Guidelines for Identifying Children
with Learning Disabilities. Connecticut: Author.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingual Special Education: Issues in Assessment and Pedagogy. San
Diego, CA: College-Hill.
Figueroa, R.A. (1989). Psychological testing of linguistic-minority students: Knowledge gaps
and regulations. Exceptional Children, 56 (2), 145-152.
Ford, B. (1992). Multicultural education training for special educators working with African-American
youth. Exceptional Children, 59 (2), 107-114.
Frisby, C.L. (1999). Straight talk about cognitive assessment and diversity. School
Psychology Quarterly, 14 (3), 195-207.
Graham, S. & Harris, K.R. (1989). The relevance of IQ in the determination of learning
disabilities: Abandoning scores as decision-makers. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
22, 500-503.
Hammill, D.D. (1993). A brief look at the learning disability movement in the United States.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26 (5), 295-310.
Harnadek, M., & Rourke, B. (1994). Principle identifying features of the syndrome of
nonverbal learning disabilities in children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27 (3),
144-154.
Heller, K.A., Holtzman, W.H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing Children in Special
Education: A Strategy for Equity. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Hilliard III, A.G. (1992). The pitfalls and promises of special education practice.
Exceptional Children, 59 (2), 168-172.
Iowa Department of Education. (1997). LD Assessment and Decision-Making Technical
Assistance Guide for Learning Disability. Iowa: Author.
Iowa Department of Education. (2000). Educating Iowa’s English Language Learners - A
Handbook for Administrators and Teachers. Iowa: Author.
Kavale, K.A, Forness, S.R., & Bender, M. (1987). Handbook of Learning Disabilities (Vol. 1
Dimensions and Diagnosis). Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Langenberg, D.N., & Dommel, F.W. (2000). National reading panel releases report on
research- based approaches to reading instruction. [On-line]. The National Reading
Panel. Available:
http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/documents/pr_finalreport.html
Leung, B. (1996). Quality assessment practices in a diverse society. Teaching Exceptional
Children, 28 (3), 42-45.
Lopez, M.E., & Ramirez, C.M. (1998). Best practices, considerations, and promising
developments in the assessment of language minority children. Paper presented at
the National Association of School Psychologists Conference.
Lyon, R.G. (1996). Learning disabilities. The Future of Our Children: Special Education for
Students with Learning Disabilities, 6 (1), 54-76.
Maryland State Department of Education. (1988). Learning Di sabilities: A Diagnostic
Handbook. Maryland: Author.
Moore. S. M., & Bealty, J. (1995). Developing Cultural Competence in Early Childhood
Assessment. Boulder, CO: University of Colorado at Boulder.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2001). Operationalizing
the NJCLD Definition of Learning Disabilities for Ongoing Assessment in
Schools. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, Collective
Perspectives on Issues Affecting Learning Disabilities, (Second Edition,
pp.39-53, 191). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Original work published in 1997.
Obrzut, J.E., & Boliek, C.A. (1991). Neuropsychological assessment of childhood learning
disabilities. In: H.L. Swanson (Ed.), Handbook on the Assessment of Learning
Disabilities, (pp. 265-284). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Office of Special Education Programs. (1995). Letter to Lillie/Felton, 23 IDELR 714 (OSEP
1995). In response to Letter to Hartman, 1989, and Letter to Ulissi, 1992.
Reschly, D.J. & Ysseldyke, J. (1995). School psychology paradigm shift. In: A. Thomas & J.
Grimes (Eds.). Best Practices in School Psychology-III, (pp. 17-31). Washington,
D.C.: National Association of School Psychologists.
Rosenfield, S.A. (1987). Instructional Consultation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1995). Assessment. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Shaw, S. F., Cullen, J. P., McGuire, J. M., & Brinckerhoff, L. C. (1995). Operationalizing a
definition of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28 (4), 586-597.
Shinn, M.R., Plasencia-Peinado, J., & Lezcano-Lytle, V. (1997). Curriculum-based
measurement and its use in a problem-solving model with students from minority
backgrounds. In: M.R. Shinn (Ed.). Advanced Applications of Curriculum-Based
Measurement. New York: Guilford.
Singer, J.D., & Butler, J.A. (1987). The education for all handicapped children act: Schools
as agents of social reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57 (2), 125-152.
Snow, C. E., Burns, S. M., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing Reading Difficulties in
Young Children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Spear-Swerling, L. (1998). The uses and misuses of processing tests [On-line]. Available:
Http://www.ldonline.org/ld_indepth/assessment/swerling_assessment.html
Speece, D.L., & Harry, B. (1996). Classification for children. In: J.W. Lloyd, E. Kameenui, &
D. Chard (Eds.). Issues in Educating Students with Disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Stanovich, K.E., (1991) Reading disability: Assessment issues. In: H.L. Swanson (Ed.),
Handbook on the Assessment of Learning Disabilities, (pp. 265-284). Austin, TX:
PRO-ED.
Swanson, H. (2000). Issues facing the field of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities
Quarterly, 23, 37-50.
Taylor, R. L. (1997). Assessment of Exceptional Students: Educational and Psychological
Procedures. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Telzrow, C.F. (1990). Best practices in reducing error in identifying specific learning
disabilities. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes, (Eds.). Best Practices in School Psychology-II.
(pp. 607–620). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
Torgesen, J. K. (1991). Learning disabilities: Historical and conceptual issues. In B. Y. L.
Wong, (Ed.), Learning About Learning Disabilities (pp. 3-39). New York: Academic
Press.
Torgesen, J. K. (1993). Variations on theory in learning disabilities. In G. R. Lyon, D. B.
Gray, J. F. Kavanagh, & N. A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Better Understanding Learning
Disabilities (pp. 153-170). Balti more, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Torgesen, J.K., & Wagner, R.K. (1998). Alternative diagnostic approaches for specific
developmental reading disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13,
220-232.
U.S. Department of Education. (1994). Sixteenth Annual Report to Congress. Washington,
DC: Author.
U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education Programs. (1997). Nineteenth
Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. (2000). The underlying message in LD intervention
research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67 (1), 99-114.
Willard-Holt, C. (1999). Dual Exceptionalities. Reston: Virginia: ERIC clearinghouse on
disabilities and gifted education, The council for exceptional children. (ERIC
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 430 344).
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children - Third Edition. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wong, B.L. (1991). Assessment of metacognitive research in learning disabilities: Theory,
research, and practice. In: H.L. Swanson (Ed.), Handbook on the Assessment of
Learning Disabilities, (pp. 265-284). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Supplemental Resources
Baum, S., Owen, S., & Dixon, J. (1991). To Be Gifted and Learning Disabled. Mansfield
Center, CT: Creative Learning Press, Inc.
Burns, E. (1982). The use and interpretation of standardized grade equivalents. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 15 (1), 17-18.
Chalfant, J. C., Pysh, M. V., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for
within building problem-solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85-96.
Gregorc, A.F. (1997). Gregorc Mind Styles ™ Learner Characteristics Extenda-Chart.
Columbia, CT: Gregorc Associates.
Mather, N., & Healey, W.C. (1990). Deposing aptitude achievement discrepancy as the
imperial criterion for learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 1 (2), 40- 48.
Morison, P., White, S. H., & Feuer, M. J. (Eds.). (1996). The Use of IQ Tests in Special
Education Decision Making and Planning. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Reschly, D. J. (1997). Utility of individual ability measures and public policy choices for the
21st century. School Psychology Review, 26, 234-241.
Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of Children (3 rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.
Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22 (8), 469-518.
|