A logical and empirical analysis of current practice in classifying students as handicapped

Response-To-Intervention in Finland and the United States: Mathematics Learning Support as an Example

Response to Intervention (RTI) was accepted in the early 2000s as a new framework for identifying learning difficulties (LD) in the U.S. In Finland, a similar multi-tiered framework has existed since 2010. In the present study, these frameworks are presented from the viewpoint of the role of assessment and instruction as expressed in documents that describe the frameworks, as it seems that these two components of RTI are the most disparate between the U.S. and Finland. We present a suggestion for the Finnish framework as an example of support in mathematics learning that incorporates principles of RTI (such as systematized assessment and instruction, cyclic support, and modifiable instruction). Finally, recommendations are presented for further refining and developing assessment and instruction policies in the two countries.

Is Intelligence Stable in Learning-Disabled Children?

This study investigated the stability of the WISC-R over a 3-year span for 60 students classified as learning disabled and who were receiving special education services. The subjects were identified as learning disabled by use of an ability/achievement discrepancy formula between the WISC-R and the Metropolitan Achievement Test. The initial hypothesis was that learning-disabled subjects would exhibit stable WISC-R scores and, consequently, may not require repeated WISC-R evaluations. The learning disabled subjects demonstrated stable WISC-R scores, and correlation coefficients were significant, but generally lower than previous WISC-R stability studies. Implications for the special education reevaluation process are discussed.

Meta-Analytic Review of Responsiveness-To- Intervention Research: Examining Field-Based and Research-Implemented Models

A responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) approach to diagnosing LD is a leading alter native to current practice. This study con ducted a meta-analytic review of research on four existing large-scale RTI models and other models implemented for research. Twenty-four effect sizes and unbiased esti mates of effect (UEE) were computed. Results found a larger UEE for studies of existing RTI models than those implemented by university faculty for research, but both were strong. The UEE for student achievement and sys temic outcomes both exceeded 1.0, but the UEE for systemic outcomes among field-based RTI models was nearly twice as large as for stu dent outcomes. Further, RTI models imple mented for research led to an UEE of 1.14 for student outcomes and 0.47 for systemic out comes. The mean percentage of nonrespon ders in the studies was 19.8% ( SD= 12.5), and an average of 1.68% ( SD = 1.45) of the stu dent population was placed into special edu cation. Implications for practice and future research are included.

Prevalence of LD From Parental and Professional Perspectives: A Comparison of the Data From the National Survey of Children's Health and the Office of Special Education Programs' Reports to Congress

Since the emergence of the field of learning disabilities (LD) in the late 1960s and early 1970s, controversy has surrounded issues regarding methods used for identification. The prevalence of students identified as LD increased steadily from the 1970s until the beginning of the 21st century, at which time it has decreased until at least 2011 (the most current data available from the U.S. Office of Education). In this article, I compare the prevalence rates of children aged 6 to 17 years being served in schools according to the Office of Special Education Programs with the prevalence rates as reported by parents on the National Survey of Children's Health. To date, no such comparison has been made that takes into account parents' knowledge of their children's disabilities. Results of the analyses reveal that parents report that their children have LD at a significantly higher rate than what is reported by schools of students receiving LD services. Most important, the longitudinal trend from 2001 to 2011 indicates that parents are reporting a slight increase whereas the Office of Special Education Programs is reporting a dramatic decrease in LD.

The Special Education Assessment and Decision-making Process in The Netherlands and the USA

For the last seven years researchers in both The Netherlands and the United States have been studying the assessment and decision-making process that leads to the placement of students in special education programmes. Researchers at the Institute of Educational Research (RION) in Groningen, The Netherlands and at the University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities (IRLD), Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA, have been asking the same kinds of research questions and collecting similar kinds of data. In both countries, early research on the use of assessment data to make placement decisions about students led to a recognition of the importance of referral decisions, and thus to subsequent research on referral decisions and on factors influencing referral. In this paper, we bring together the results of the research conducted separately by two sets of investigators in two countries with different social/governmental structures and different special education delivery systems in order to reach some conclusions about the process of making referral decisions, about pre-referral intervention and about the purposes served by referral of children and placement in special education. It is not our purpose here to review the many specific studies conducted in the two research institutes, but to make some general observations based on what we have learned. The work at RION resulted in the development of many research reports. The original reports are available from C.J.W. Meijer. The work at the IRLD resulted in the development of more than 160 monographs and research reports. An annotated bibliography of these is available from James Ysseldyke. The reports are on the ERIC system* or they may be ordered from Ysseldyke.

Questões e modelos de avaliação e intervenção em Psicologia Escolar: o caso da Europa e América do Norte

As práticas da Psicologia Escolar parecem ser cada vez mais marcadas pelas necessidades de referenciação/diagnóstico de crianças para o subsistema de educação especial, em detrimento do desenho e implementação de intervenções dirigidas aos problemas específicos dos alunos. A aparente insatisfação dos psicólogos escolares com essa tendência, bem como as dificuldades na utilização de modelos categoriais de diagnóstico em contexto escolar, têm dado origem à progressiva implementação de modelos alternativos de avaliação e intervenção, principalmente de modelos Response to Intervention, Curriculum-Based Measuremente Problem Solving. A controvérsia quanto à natureza verdadeiramente alternativa desses modelos parece, no entanto, longe de se esgotar. Neste artigo são discutidas vantagens e limitações dos diferentes modelos, de acordo com a melhor evidência disponível na literatura, e são ainda equacionadas as suas implicações nas práticas da Psicologia Escolar.

Smart RTI: A Next-Generation Approach to Multilevel Prevention

During the past decade, responsiveness to intervention (RTI) has become popular among many practitioners as a means of transforming schooling into a multilevel prevention system. Popularity aside, its successful implementation requires ambitious intent, a comprehensive structure, and coordinated service delivery. An effective RTI also depends on building-based personnel with specialized expertise at all levels of the prevention system. Most agree on both its potential for strengthening schooling and its heavy demand on practitioners. In this article, we describe Smart RTI, which we define as making efficient use of school resources while maximizing students' opportunities for success. In light of findings from recent research, we discuss three important features of Smart RTI: (a) multistage screening to identify risk, (b) multistage assessment to determine appropriate levels of instruction, and (c) a role for special education that supports prevention.

Accuracy of teacher assessments of second-language students at risk for reading disability

This study examined the accuracy of teacher assessments in screening for reading disabilities among students of English as a second language (ESL) and as a first language (L1). Academic and oral language tests were administered to 369 children (249 ESL, 120 L1) at the beginning of Grade 1 and at the end of Grade 2. Concurrently, 51 teachers nominated children at risk for reading failure and completed rating scales assessing academic and oral language skills. Scholastic records were reviewed for notation of concern or referral. The criterion measure was a standardized reading score based on phonological awareness, rapid naming, and word recognition. Results indicated that teacher rating scales and nominations had low sensitivity in identifying ESL and L1 students at risk for reading disability at the 1-year mark. Relative to other forms of screening, teacher-expressed concern had lower sensitivity. Finally, oral language proficiency contributed to misclassifications in the ESL group.

Diagnosing written language disabilities using the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement-Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test

The writing portions of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement-Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test are often administered when establishing eligibility for special education services due to learning disabilities. The scores on these measures are typically regarded as equivalent although little is known about how scores on the two measures differ for the same students. Differences of only a few points, however, may affect eligibility for special education services. These tests were administered to 25 sixth grade students previously diagnosed with learning disabilities in written expression only. Students' Wechsler scores were consistently higher on the overall writing composite, while there was no difference in the mean scores on the language mechanics subtests. The WIAT Written Expression subtest mean, however, was significantly higher than the Woodcock-Johnson Writing Samples subtest mean. Use of the Wechsler test would be less likely to identify children for special education services in written expression when point discrepancy criteria are utilized for eligibility. Clinicians should be cognizant of the effect of the specific test chosen on eligibility outcome.

The LD label for relatively well-functioning students: a critical analysis

The number of students identified since the mid-1970s as having learning disabilities has produced a corresponding increase in the population of such individuals in postsecondary programs. The Americans with Disabilities Act, along with Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973, provide the basis for civil rights for students in higher education. These laws protect individuals who have a substantial limitation in a major life activity when compared with the general population. A disparity between the legal definition and the clinical definition of learning disabilities, which can encompass those identified on the basis of academic underachievement relative to intellectual potential, has stimulated debate about the fairest, most appropriate standard for declaring a student functionally impaired. Extending services to individuals without significant academic impairment may tax or even deplete scarce resources for others in greater needs, distort the normal processes by which individuals select careers, and diminish the credibility of the diagnosis itself.

Early reading performance: a comparison of teacher-based and test-based assessments

An unresolved question in early screening is whether test-based or teacher-based assessments should form the basis of the classification of children at risk of educational failure. Available structured teacher rating scales are lacking in predictive validity, and teacher predictions of students likely to experience reading difficulties have yielded disappointing true positive rates, with teachers failing to identify the majority of severely disabled readers. For this study, three educational screening instruments were developed: (a) a single teacher rating, categorizing children into three levels of reading ability (advanced, average, poor); (b) a 15-item teacher questionnaire designed to measure students' cognitive and language ability, attentional and behavioral characteristics, and academic performance; and (c) a battery of language and reading tests that are predictive of, or correlate with, reading failure. The concurrent validity of each instrument was assessed in a sample of 312 Australian schoolchildren from kindergarten, Year 1, and Year 2. Students were assessed at the end of the 1989 school year after having completed 1, 2, or 3 years of schooling. The results suggest that the nature of the skills required for success in reading changes in the first 3 years of schooling. Both teachers and tests concur more closely as children progress through the elementary years and as the risk behavior (reading) becomes more accessible to direct measurement. Carefully focused teacher rating scales may be a cost-effective means of identifying children at risk of reading failure. Improved teacher rating scales should be developed and used to assist in the early screening process.

Social skills in the context of learning disability definitions: a reply to Gresham and Elliott and directions for the future

In this article we review the evidence on the status of a social skills deficit as a learning disability (LD) by examining social skills deficits in the context of learning disability definitions. For the most part, social skills deficits fall within the terms that are specified in the definitions; that is, when there is evidence of neurological involvement, social skills deficit as a learning disability is consistent with the focus on listening and speaking that is characteristic of most definitions of learning disabilities. We also conclude that the absence of limiting conditions in extant definitions of learning disabilities makes it difficult to exclude any particular skill or type of knowledge from falling within the bounds of the definitions. Furthermore, we argue that the critical issue centers on the reformulation of the definition of learning disabilities. We suggest two directions in future work: First, the term "learning disability" should be limited to intentional learning contexts. Acceptance of this limitation would clarify at least some of the confusion regarding the domain of learning disabilities. Second, learning disability definitions should become more responsive to recent research on the nature of learning.

A Functional Classification for Independent Living for Persons with Visual Impairments

A meaningful classification for living, work, and education was achieved by grouping 159 persons who were blind or visually impaired according to seven independent living skills. The use of functional skills for placement and training would allow providers of services to respond to clients’ individual strengths and needs.