Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final

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


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.


3/8


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


4/8


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


5/8


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).


6/8


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


7/8


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).


8/8


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

Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final

Documents

Transcript of Different Models Used in the Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities Final