Discussion

Report Text

• Introduction
• SLD Definitions and Classification Criteria
• Historical Overview
• Questioning the Ability-Achievement Discrepancy
• Recommendations for Change in SLD Definition and Classification Criteria
• State Education Agency SLD Definitions and Criteria
• Methodology
• Results
• Analysis of Discrepancy Determination Methods
• Summary of Trends
• SLD Beliefs
• Further Analyses
• Discussion
• References

Figures and Tables

• Figure 1: Distribution of State SLD Prevalence
• Table 1: Consensus Conclusions: LD Summit Follow-Up (Bradley et al., 2002)
• Table 2: Components of State Definitions and Criteria
• Table 3: Methods used to determine the discrepancy
• Table 4: LD Beliefs

Two broad conclusions are supported by the data reported in this study. First, the state SLD classification criteria depend heavily on a discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement. Considerable change is necessary in state criteria and practices to implement a response to treatment methodology in SLD identification. The second conclusion is that state SLD authorities are generally ready to change SLD identification toward a response to treatment approach. The remainder of the discussion is devoted these conclusions.

Current SLD Identification

These data revealed increasing consensus across the states on SLD definition and on several of the SLD classification criteria including the achievement areas in which SLD can exist, exclusion factors, and the requirement of an IQ-achievement discrepancy. The consensus about the IQ-achievement criterion, however, is deceiving. Enormous variation exists in how the IQ-discrepancy is implemented. Methods vary from explicit numerical criteria to no guidance at all in state special education rules and guidelines. Some of the state criteria for IQ-achievement discrepancy determination are impossible to implement or open to widely varying interpretations.

Authoritative groups have rejected the IQ-achievement discrepancy classification method due to reliability and validity issues (e.g., LD Roundtable, 2002). Most important, this method often delays SLD classification until 3rd or 4th grade when academic achievement problems are more difficult to resolve successfully (Fletcher, et al., 2002). These are fatal flaws. The most salient of these flaws is treatment validity. Few argue currently that the IQ-achievement discrepancy is related to decisions about intervention methods or goals. Virtually no one claims at this time, at least with empirical support, that IQ-achievement discrepancy is related to the results of interventions.

The original purpose of the IQ-achievement discrepancy in the federal regulations was guidance to states on SLD identification and control over SLD prevalence (Federal Register, 1976, 1977). The results of this survey are consistent with the conclusion that neither goal was achieved. States continue to vary dramatically in SLD classification criteria. Clearly, two children with the same test scores and learning needs could receive different SLD diagnoses depending on their state of residence. Although no data are reported here on within state variations, it appears from other work that SLD eligibility also varies as a function of local district characteristics (Bocian, Beebe, MacMillan, & Gresham, 1999; Gottlieb, Alter, Gottlieb, & Wishner, 1994; MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian, 1998; Peterson & Shinn, 2002).

The goal of control over prevalence also has not been achieved. Prevalence continues to vary significantly across the states for reasons that are not simply related to the stringency of the SLD IQ-achievement criteria. For example, Georgia, Nebraska, and North Carolina use the same IQ-achievement discrepancy criterion, 20 points with no correction for regression, but report prevalence rates of 3.29%, 5.28%, and 5.25%, respectively. Moreover, SLD prevalence varies dramatically across the states.

Response to Treatment

Perhaps the most salient conclusion of this study is that state authorities in learning disabilities generally recognize the need to change current identification procedures. Approximately two-thirds of participants endorsed response to treatment ideas and rejected the IQ-achievement component of SLD classification criteria. State SLD authorities clearly are knowledgeable about the multiple forces that have converged to produce the research foundation and political support for exploration of different ways to accomplish a critical task, deciding who among children with serious achievement problems will receive the substantially more intensive and costly special education services. Most appear ready to abandon the IQ-achievement discrepancy and begin implementation of response to treatment approaches.

The most important promise of a response to treatment approach is the emphasis on treatment validity, i.e., connections between identification and effective treatment (Gresham, 2002). A results oriented identification approach or an outcomes criterion for deciding about the usefulness of educational practices (Reschly, 1979; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002) provides a clear principle to guide decision making. Application to identification implies the development of practices that are related to important outcomes such as prevention, early identification-effective treatment, and effective programming in special education. Other factors also should influence identification practices such as legal defensibility, reasonable numbers of students placed in special education, and consumer acceptability. The top priority, however, is the degree to which SLD identification methods are related to determination of effective intervention methods and the success of those interventions.

A clear model of what should be expected in a diagnostic construct and the procedures used to operationalize it was described eloquently over 25 years ago (Cromwell, Blashfield, & Strauss, 1975). Their criteria focused on the relationship of identification (based on currently assessable characteristics and historical information) to interventions and the outcomes of those interventions. Application of these criteria to SLD means that identification must be related to treatment and treatment outcomes. Absent such relationships, diagnostic constructs are not valid. Response to treatment has the promise of establishing the validity of the SLD diagnostic construct using the Cromwell et al. criteria.

Much is yet to be learned about response to treatment. Response to treatment can be operationalized in different ways including standard protocol, problem solving, or a combination of both. The critical features of response to treatment are explicit definition of problem behaviors and goals, application of empirically validated principles of instructional design and behavior change, monitoring progress with formative evaluation, and subsequent decisions based on information from treatment results. Response to treatment assessment and intervention becomes increasingly intense and individualized as it proceeds from general education screening, early identification/early intervention (standard protocol intervention), to eligibility determination (individualized problem solving), and special education placement (IEP development) (Grimes, 2002; Reschly, et al., 1999; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002; Tilly, 2002; Upah & Tilly, 2002).

Summary

This research supports several conclusions. SLD conceptual definitions are increasingly standardized across the states; however, increasing discrepancies between conceptual definitions and classification practices are apparent. The original aims of the IQ-achievement discrepancy in Federal EHA/IDEA regulations have not been achieved. Increasing support exists for alternatives for IQ-achievement discrepancy. In view of current practices, however, it is clear that there are miles to go before response to intervention models are implemented widely and successfully in state and local agencies across the U.S.

Previous Page | Next Page
(Further Analysis) | (References)