Response to Intervention (RTI) has been proposed as a positive alternative to the present discrepancy-based methods for identifying learning disabilities (LD) (Gresham, 2002; Speece, Mollow, & Case, 2003). There are several reasons why such an approach offers several benefits. First, there are numerous difficulties to the use of ability-achievement discrepancies as an important component of contemporary LD identification. Degree of discrepancy differs from state to state, the nature of tests differs, and the psychometric validity of using such difference scores has been questioned. Further, the validity of the discrepancy construct has been considered questionable. It has been argued that discrepancy based definitions lack conceptual credibility, that discrepancies fail to identify numerous children in need of remediation, and that discrepancy-based methods do not identify a homogeneous population of students and do not provide information relevant to planning interventions (e.g., Lyon et al., 2001).

Scruggs and Mastropieri (2002) provided a number of additional concerns that have been voiced about current procedures for identification of LD. Current procedures, it is argued, overidentify students as having learning disabilities, identify populations that vary considerably from state to state and region to region, and underidentify needy students at primary grade levels. Overall, it can be argued that concerns about discrepancy-based procedures are very substantial.

Previous Page | Next Page
(Abstract) | (Advantages)