407924

is and PadeliaduJournal of Learning Disabilities

LDX46210.1177/0022219411407924Siderid

Journal of Learning Disabilities

Creating a Brief Rating Scale for the

46(2) 115­–132
© Hammill Institute on Disabilities 2011
Reprints and permission:

Assessment of Learning Disabilities sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/0022219411407924
journaloflearningdisabilities.sagepub.com
Using Reliability and True Score
Estimates of the Scale’s Items
Based on the Rasch Model

Georgios Sideridis, PhD1 and Susana Padeliadu, PhD2

Abstract
The purpose of the present studies was to provide the means to create brief versions of instruments that can aid the
diagnosis and classification of students with learning disabilities and comorbid disorders (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder). A sample of 1,108 students with and without a diagnosis of learning disabilities took part in Study 1. Using
information from modern theory methods (i.e., the Rasch model), a scale was created that included fewer than one third of
the original battery items designed to assess reading skills. This best item synthesis was then evaluated for its predictive and
criterion validity with a valid external reading battery (Study 2). Using a sample of 232 students with and without learning
disabilities, results indicated that the brief version of the scale was equally effective as the original scale in predicting reading
achievement. Analysis of the content of the brief scale indicated that the best item synthesis involved items from cognition,
motivation, strategy use, and advanced reading skills. It is suggested that multiple psychometric criteria be employed
in evaluating the psychometric adequacy of scales used for the assessment and identification of learning disabilities and
comorbid disorders.

Keywords
Rasch model, psychometrics, learning disabilities, rating scale, item analysis, classical test theory, modern theory methods,
item response theory

Assessing students with learning disabilities (LD) is an
important challenge for the field of LD, particularly more
so given the fact that recent identification criteria (i.e., the
responsiveness-to-intervention model; Fuchs & Deshler,
2007; Swanson, 2008; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003) rely heavily
on the use of curriculum-based measures (Deno, 1989)
compared to normative assessments (as the severe discrep-
ancy model posited; see Stanovich, 1991; Swanson, 1991;
see Note 1). That is, during implementation of the model
that depended on a significant discrepancy between stu-
dents’ potential and achievement, the gold standard came
from standardized normative assessments. With the newly
formed response to intervention (RTI), however, teachers
need to construct frequent tests based on the curriculum to
monitor responsiveness to a valid treatment (Compton,
2006). In fact, the whole RTI concept is based on frequent
and valid assessments (Burns, Dean, & Klar, 2004). Thus,
the need to have reliable and valid measurements of stu-
dents’ competencies at various skills is imperative, whereas
their absence will contribute confusion, false positive and
negative cases, psychological distress, and despair. As
Ysseldyke, Burns, Scholin, and Parker (in press) stated,
“Dramatic reforms in assessment practices within special
education have occurred over the past 30 years, but the
practice has not yet caught up to research.” One purpose of
the present studies is to provide a psychometric technology
that will lead to the valid assessment in LD.
Importance of Valid
Assessments in LD
Teacher ratings are often used for the assessment and identi-
fication of LD (Goodman & Webb, 2006; Ritter, 1989).
Teachers have proven to be good and consistent judges of
1
University of Crete, Rethymno, Greece
2
University of Thessaly,Volos, Greece
Corresponding Author:
Georgios Sideridis, University of Crete, Galou, Rethymno 74100, Greece
Email: sideridis@psy.soc.uoc.gr
116 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)
students’ academic skills and competencies (Podell &
Soodak, 1993; Rescorla et al., 2007). Nevertheless, teachers
are as good judges as the instruments they use. That is, use
of invalid instruments would nonetheless lead to false posi-
tive or false negative classifications or diagnoses because of
the potential error contributed by the testing conditions, the
person’s preconditions, and biases from the part of the teach-
ers. Particularly with regard to the latter, Cassidy (2008)
argued that teacher subjectivity can potentially contribute to
valid assessments and differentiated it from invalid subjec-
tivity. Thus, as much as the field relies on teacher ratings for
valid identification of LD, more so do rating scales need to
be accurate and reflective of true student abilities, rather than
measurement error. In the present studies, a rating scale that
provides a screening for LD is evaluated for its validity using
a small portion of its full potential. The importance of this
endeavor is discussed below.
Importance of Creating
Brief Scales for Assessing
Skills and Competencies
There are several reasons that necessitate the need for brief
assessments in LD. First, fatigue is an issue that should be
taken into consideration as students with LD may allocate
unnecessary resources (oftentimes inappropriate) when
putting forth effort relating to a skill. In fact, studies have
pointed to the fact that students with LD tire easily (Kripke,
Lynn, Madsen, & Gay, 1982; Morgan, 1977). Furthermore,
fatigue during a task will likely be associated with effort
withdrawal and poor achievement outcomes.
A second reason for the assessment of brief scales lies
with the fact that students with LD oftentimes possess
comorbid characteristics of attention deficit and/or attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Mayes, Calhoun, &
Crowell, 2000). In fact, the comorbidity of the two disorders
ranges between 20% and 30% based on U.S. estimates
(National Institute of Mental Health, 2003) or between 35%
and 46% based on epidemiological studies (Karakas, Turgut,
& Bakar, 2008). Thus, we hypothesize that prolonged atten-
tion required by lengthy tests will likely lead to failure,
regardless of levels of ability because of the moderating role
of poor attention. Brief tests will certainly “correct” achieve-
ment levels for the parameter “fatigue.”
A third consideration relates to the above two in that
fatigue and lack of attention may relate to a lack of motiva-
tion and consequently effort withdrawal (either at the ante-
cedent level or as a consequence). For example, Kane
(2008) pointed to the fact that the effort provided by stu-
dents with LD and ADHD during the assessment process is
of very poor quality. Furthermore, several studies have
associated effort withdrawal with the employment of mal-
adaptive goals by students with LD (Sideridis, 2005) or
ADHD (Barron, Evans, Baranik, Serpell, & Buvinger,
2006) and consequently poor achievement outcomes
(Barron et al., 2007; Sideridis, 2007). Furthermore, Morgan,
Fuchs, Compton, Cordray, and Fuchs (2008) linked early
failure in reading to motivational deficits, a fact that has
been evidenced in recent meta-analyses of reading (Morgan
& Sideridis, 2006).
A last important reason is the role of valid assessments
within the RTI framework. RTI requires constant use of
assessments to monitor and evaluate growth. This evalua-
tion will form the basis for subsequent decision making.
Thus, students will be placed in certain environments or
will be given (or withdrawn from) interventions based on
these assessments. To make things worse, research that
assesses the reliability of those assessments has pro-
duced worrisome findings. For example, Burns, Scholin,
Kosciolek, and Livingston (2010) reported that the reli-
ability of two similar decision-making models that were
based on frequent assessments within RTI was only .29,
and that estimate reflected only consistency. It is possible
that besides being inconsistent, neither one of these mod-
els represented valid assessments of students’ potential
and actual performance. As things are today in the field
of LD, the success of our current practices (RTI) relies
on valid inferences of students’ abilities. Fortunately,
advances in statistics and measurement provide us with
the hope that valid assessments are possible at minimum
effort and cost. This is particularly more so with the use
of contemporary test theory methods, such as the Rasch
model (Rasch, 1980).
The Contribution
of the Rasch Model
The Rasch model (Rasch, 1980) has been particularly
useful in evaluating the psychometric adequacy of scales
(Smith & Smith, 2004; Wright & Stone, 1979). Recently,
Dimitrov (2003) provided a series of useful criteria for
evaluating scales using information about reliability and
population estimates of variance. The present work relies
heavily on the psychometric criteria developed by Dimitrov
(2003) and extends it by providing a 12-index taxonomy
that can be used for evaluating the psychometric adequacy
of scales used for research or practice.
Thus, the purpose of the present studies was to provide
the means to create brief instruments for the assessment of
LD based on information from classical test theory and
modern theory analytic methods. Initially, a brief reading
rating scale was created based on psychometric standards
and contributions from both classical test theory and mod-
ern methods (i.e., the Rasch model). Then, the brief reading
scale was evaluated for its validity against the full version
of the reading rating scale (Study 1) and an objective “gold
standard” of reading ability (Study 2).
Sideridis and Padeliadu 117
Study 1
Method
Participants and Procedures. There were 1,105 students,
763 with a diagnosis of LD from state multidisciplinary
teams and 342 typical students (351 girls, 595 boys, data on
gender were missing for 159 students). Students were
tested for the presence of LD by state multidisciplinary
teams of experts whenever they exhibited a significant dis-
crepancy between potential and achievement. In all, 381
students were receiving supplementary services in special
education (segregated) settings, and the rest were educated
in general education settings. The participating students
came from Grades 3 to 9 as follows: Grade 3 = 108, Grade
4 = 149, Grade 5 = 15, Grade 6 = 119, Grade 7 = 134, Grade
8 = 118, and Grade 9 = 150; data were missing for 162 stu-
dents. School selection followed the demographic charac-
teristics of the country in terms of school distribution on
geographical areas (rural, urban, and suburban). Student
ratings were completed from 798 teachers during out of
school hours.
Measures
Teachers who were well acquainted with students’
behaviors, academic work, and achievement completed
the Learning Disabilities Screening Scale for Teachers
(Padeliadu & Sideridis, 2008), which is a scale that is
based on the U.S. version of the Learning Disabilities
Diagnostic Inventory developed by Hammill (1995; also
see Hammill & Bryant, 1998). Teachers were asked to pro-
vide ratings of identified students during the last 2 months
of the academic year (spring 2008). They were asked to
rate each item of the scale in terms of frequency and occur-
rence of specific academic behaviors (rated between 1 =
always and 9 = never). For the purpose of the present
study, only the 20-item Reading subscale was used.
Furthermore, the nine response option system was substi-
tuted with a dichotomous 0–1 system to have a yes–no
system with regard to the presence of an LD (rather than a
probabilistic scheme). Sample items were (a) “reads text
silently very slowly” and (b) “has difficulty decoding two-
digit words when reading” (also see Table 1 for the full
scale). The internal consistency (reliability) estimate of
the Reading subscale using Cronbach’s alpha was .949 for
the full sample. When estimating alpha separately for stu-
dents with and without LD, the estimates of alpha were
.939 and .933, respectively.
Data Analyses. We employed the Rasch model to evaluate
the adequacy of the full rating scale and to derive the brief
form. All analyses were conducted using Winsteps 6.7
(Linacre, 1999). Appendix A provides the code for creating
the brief form of the scale.
Rasch model description. The Rasch model for dichoto-
mous items posits that an item can be evaluated for its
quality based on two parameters: (a) the ability of the per-
son (termed β or b) and (b) the difficulty of the item (termed
δ or d). The mathematical expression that estimates the
probability of person n solving item i correctly is as
follows (Bond & Fox, 2001; Rasch, 1980; Wright &
Stone, 1979),
e ( Bn - Di )
Probabilityni (xni = 1/Bn, Di) = (1)
1 + e ( Bn - Di )
with Pni (xni = 1/Bn, Di) being the probability of person
n getting item i correct given a person’s level of ability
B and an item’s difficulty level D. The term e = 2.71828.
Thus, the probability of getting an item correct involves
the natural logarithmic transformation of a person’s
ability (Bn) and an item’s level of difficulty (Di). The
way the Rasch model works, once we know the ability
level of a person and the difficulty level of the item, it is
easy to estimate the probability of correct responding
(Wilson, 2005). This is also called the conditional indepen-
dence assumption. Let’s try to understand how Equation 1
works for an item of above average difficulty level (i.e., 1
on the logit scale) and a person of above average ability
(i.e., also 1 on the logit scale, which is conceptually similar
to the standard deviation metric). Equation 1 then becomes,
e (1-1) e( 0 ) 1
Probabilityni (xni = 1/1.0, 1.0) = (1-1)
= = = 0.50
1+ e 1 + e( 0 ) 1 + 1
and the probability of a person of above average ability
solving an above average difficulty item (1) equals 50%.
If we apply Equation 1 to the same difficulty item but for
a person of higher ability (i.e., 2.0 in the logit scale), then
the probability of solving that item equals 73%. Obviously,
when the ability B of the person (e.g., 2 in the above case)
exceeds that of the difficulty D of the item (e.g., 1) then the
probability of getting the item correct would be greater than
50%. All Rasch models across Studies 1 and 2 were run
with ample levels of power as the recommended number of
participants for a one-parameter model (N = 100; Morizot,
Ainsworth, & Reise, 2007) was greatly exceeded in the
present studies (N sizes were 1,108 and 232 in Studies 1
and 2, respectively).
Psychometric criteria for creating a brief rating scale for the
assessment of LD. In psychometrics (e.g., Anastasi & Urbina,
1997) there are several criteria that are indicators of valid
assessments. For the purpose of the present study we
employed criteria from modern theory methods and the
Rasch model (Rasch, 1980). Furthermore, we employed
newly developed criteria for expected true-score measures
and reliability, relying heavily on the pioneering mathemat-
ical work of Dimitrov (2003). Thus, the following 12 means
guided our development of psychometric technology.
118
Table 1. Salient Parameters That Are Indicative of Adequate Psychometric Properties at the Item Level.

Point Test–
Item of Reading Scale Infit-ms Outfit-ms Biserial DIF Discrim. LEV HER LETV Retesta
  1.  Reads text out loud very slowly 1.32 1.74 .61 No 0.34 .1670 .1485 .0291 .931
  2.  Reads text silently very slowly 1.36 1.97 .58 No 0.23 .1844 .1603 .0352 .934
  3.  Substitutes, reverses, adds, or omits letters when reading 1.06 1.09 .63 No 0.90 .1901 .1644 .0374 .928
  4.  Substitutes, reverses, adds, or omits syllables when reading 1.02 0.92 .61 No 0.99 .1989 .1707 .0409 .908
  5.  Has difficulty decoding double digit words when reading 0.94 0.86 .68 Yes 1.13 .2007 .1721 .0417 .908
  6.  Substitutes phonologically similar words when reading 1.06 0.92 .60 No 0.94 .2010 .1723 .0418 .912
  7.  Commits errors when reading unknown words 1.06 0.97 .74 No 0.93 .2027 .1736 .0426 .901
  8.  Has difficulties to understand abstract meanings when reading text 0.97 0.96 .70 No 1.04 .2048 .1751 .0435 .910
  9.  Has difficulties in understanding text when reading compared to when listening to it 1.20 1.34 .69 No 0.65 .2053 .1755 .0437 .922
10.  Has difficulties in identifying the main idea of a text 0.92 0.85 .74 No 1.15 .2059 .1759 .0440 .908
11.  Has difficulties in answering questions that require deep processing of information 0.91 0.80 .70 No 1.19 .2057 .1758 .0439 .915
12.  Has difficulties in predicting the content/plot of a text 0.89 0.78 .71 No 1.22 .2051 .1753 .0436 .918
13.  Has difficulties to distinguish salient and important features of a text (from unimportant ones) 0.85 0.71 .75 Yes 1.29 .2047 .1750 .0434 .927
14.  Has difficulties in processing information that will aid text comprehension 0.83 0.71 .78 No 1.28 .2041 .1746 .0432 .934
15.  Has difficulties to memorize information from a text 0.86 0.79 .75 No 1.25 .2031 .1739 .0427 .928
16.  Gives up easily his/her efforts when reading text 1.02 0.99 .71 No 0.96 .2025 .1734 .0425 .931
17.  Has difficulties in implementing strategies that would aid understanding of the text 1.01 1.01 .77 No 0.99 .1986 .1705 .0408 .923
18.  Uses poor and inefficient strategies that do not belong to his/her age group 0.89 0.80 .73 No 1.22 .1918 .1655 .0380 .927
19.  Uses appropriate strategies in inefficient ways 0.93 0.92 .69 No 1.12 .1743 .1534 .0316 .900
20.  Has difficulties in implementing a plan of action when reading 0.89 0.83 .75 No 1.20 .1670 .1485 .0291 .926
Note: Shaded items are those selected in the brief reading rating form (i.e., Items 7, 8, 3, 15, 16 and 17). DIF = differential item functioning for two groups of students, those with a diagnosis of
learning disabilities and typical students; LEV = low expected variance; HER = high expected reliability; LETV = low expected true variance.
a
Test–retest estimates of difficulty parameters across items are shown in Figure 1.
Sideridis and Padeliadu 119
1. Acceptable infit mean square statistic. The formula used
for that assessment came from Wright and Masters (1981),
N N
InfitMSi = ∑ Yin2 / ∑ Win
n =1 n =1
N criminant validity. Nonuniform DIF was run with the two
which is the ratio between the observed residuals n∑=1Yin
N the slopes of the items are equivalent in shape (i.e., parallel)
and the average expected residuals ∑ Win / N (also see
n =1
Wilson, 2005). The expected value is around unity, and de-
viations of 0.5 from those estimates are indicative of dis-
torted items (i.e., items that did not perform at the level of
difficulty it was expected of them). Furthermore, values
that deviate more than one unit from 1 suggest severe dis-
tortion or in other words items that do not provide con-
structive information to the scale of interest.
2. Acceptable outfit mean square statistic based on
z score estimates. The following formula was used for that
estimation,
∑ Z ni
2 the lower the error of measurement, the higher the probabil-
OutfitMSi =
N amounts of error variance is as follows,
which represents the average of the standardized residual
variance across individuals and items (i.e., Zni). This un-
weighted estimate gives more impact on responses that are
away from a person’s (or item’s) measures (Bond & Fox,
2001; Linacre & Wright, 1994). The expected value of this
parameter is also around unity.
3. High biserial correlation between an item and the scale’s
total score. As Krus and Ney (1978) pointed out, when point
biserial correlations are positive and high, this is indicative
of high convergent validity for that specific item. The for-
mula to transform point biserial correlations into biserial
correlations (because of the presence of normality in the
sample) was the following,
RBiserial = PBs ( p(1 − p))
with PBs being the point biserial correlation and p being the
proportion of data with Y = 1.
4. Presence of differential item functioning (DIF) between
children with a diagnosis of LD versus typical students. As Lina-
cre (1999) pointed out, the difference in item difficulties
between two groups must exceed .50 in logit units to be
meaningful. Paek (2002) added that difficulty difference
estimates less than .42 are negligible, those between .43 and
.64 are of medium size, and those exceeding .64 are large.
Thus, only DIF estimates that met the criterion of medium
effect counted in favor of specific items (see Note 2). The
formula applied in Winsteps is the following,
2
L D 2j L Dj  L 1
χ = ∑
2
j =1 SE j
−
2  ∑ 2
j =1 SE j
 /∑
 j =1 SE 2j
) (5)
  one sample (one version of the scale) is contrasted to the
which tests the hypothesis that all difficulty parameters D
with standard errors SE are equivalent across items L.
5. Presence of nonuniform DIF. As Linacre (1999) pointed
(2) out, the presence of nonuniform DIF is indicative of dis-
2
ability groups (typical and LD) to test the hypothesis that
across ability groups.
6. Discrimination parameter close to the expected value of 1.
As Linacre (1999) pointed out, when a discrimination
parameter value exceeds unity, then that specific item dis-
criminates high and low ability groups more than expected
(for the item’s difficulty level). On the contrary, when a
discrimination value is less than 1, then the item discrimi-
nates high from low ability groups less than expected. Thus,
the closer the discrimination values were to 1, the more
likely was the item to behave according to expectations
(i.e., Rasch model’s expectations).
7. Low expected error variance. Based on Dimitrov (2003),
(3) ity that a test is valid. The formula for the estimation of
n
σ2e = ∑ σ2 (e i ) (6)
i =1
which represents the accuracy of correct versus incorrect
scorings.
8. High expected reliability. As error variance goes down,
reliability goes up. Based on the work of Dimitrov (2003)
the following was assessed,
ρ xxτ = σ2x / σ2 = στ2 / (στ2e + σ2 ) (7)
which represents the ratio of true error variance to total
variance (i.e., observed variance).
9. Low expected true variance. Again following the pio-
(4) neering work of Dimitrov (2003), expected true variance
was estimated using his conventions,
n n
σ2τ = ∑ ∑ [πi (1 − π i ) − σ 2 (e i )][π j (1 − π j ) − σ 2 (e j )] (8)
i =1 j =1
which relate to the items’ mean πi and their error variance σ2e.
10. Test–retest reliability of person and difficulty estimates.
The repeated measurement of a scale is the best index of its
reliability. For this purpose, all items were subjected to
test–retest reliability using a subsample of 185 participants.
Two types of reliability were estimated: correlations between
participants’ scores across two time points and correlations
between difficulty estimates (b) across the two time points
(Luppescu, 1991), a fact that is particularly important for
item calibration (Lunz & Bergstrom, 1995).
11. LZ statistic that is indicative of person misfit. When
comparing two scales, the proportion of participants in
120 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)
proportion of participants (in the other version of the scale)
who misfit the Rasch model. The estimation of misfitting
participants was conducted using the LZ statistic (Drasgow,
Levine, & Williams, 1985). This statistic is distributed nor-
mally, it is standardized, and values in the software reflect
the probability that this person fit the Rasch model. Thus,
estimates below 5% reflect misfitted participants. The LD
statistic was computed as follows,
L0 − E ( L0 )
LZi = (9)
[Var ( L0 )]1/ 2
with L0 being the log peak of the likelihood function, E(L0)
being the expectation of L0 and Var(L0) being the variance
of L0. The analysis ran with software developed by Liang,
Han, and Hambleton (2008). Further comparisons between
full and brief forms implemented the general linear model.
12. Content balance. As Chang (2004) has nicely pointed
out, “The set of items selected for each examinee must sat-
isfy certain non-statistical constraints such as content bal-
ance” (p. 122). This was the final criterion in determining
inclusion of an item to the brief form of the scale in terms
of adequately capturing the latent construct of reading. In
other words, items that represented various aspects of read-
ing (i.e., fluency, comprehension, etc.) were better candi-
dates for inclusion compared to items representing one area
only (e.g., only comprehension). Appendix B displays an
SPSS syntax file for running some of the commands.
Results of Study 1
Using the criteria described above, this section provides
comparative information with regard to the psychometric
adequacy of the full scale compared to the brief scale that
was composed using fewer than one third of the total items.
Construction of Brief Rating Scale. Table 1 provides
item information regarding the evaluative criteria of good
items. Based on that evaluation, a best synthesis of six items
was selected that met high standards of psychometric qual-
ity and content balance. Given the exploratory nature of the
present studies, no attempt was made to differentially weigh
the criteria. Instead, an additive model was used in which
the items that met most of the above criteria were included
in the brief form (in an effort to involve as few items as pos-
sible, without loosing content validity). As shown in Table 1,
the six-item synthesis included items with low measure-
ment error and high internal consistency, discrimination,
item–total correlation, and test–retest reliability (e.g., of
parameter’s difficulty levels; see Figure 1). Below the full
and brief versions of the reading rating scale are compared
across various estimates of psychometric adequacy.
Comparisons Between Full and Brief Scales
Dimensionality indices between full and brief rating scales.
Using a principal components analysis of the residuals,
results indicated that one dimension accounted for 35% of
the total variance (explained by items and participants). The
respective amount for the brief scale was 24.2%. Certainly
the heterogeneity of the items that composed the brief scale
accounted for the fact that the items contained much more
information compared to a single reading dimension. Nev-
ertheless the amount of variance explained was significant.
Internal consistency estimates. Using the Kuder–Richardson
formula for dichotomous items we assessed the internal
consistency of both forms of the scale. Estimates for the full
scale were equal to .949 and for the brief, six-item form
equal to .879. Item total correlations ranged between .52
and .74 for the full scale and between .61 and .74 for the
brief scale.
Test–retest reliability estimates. Using an interval of 1 week,
the rating scale was subjected to another testing for 185 par-
ticipating teachers. Results indicated that the test–retest
correlation coefficient was .974 for the full reading scale
and .960 for the brief rating scale.
Test characteristic curves (TCC). As Crocker and Algina
(1986) have stated, TCCs reflect regression curves for pre-
dicting observed scores (X) from latent trait scores (θ).
Figure 2 shows the TCCs of the full and brief scales. At the
medium reading trait level (θ), it is obvious that the two
tests are equivalent (having equal thresholds and location
on the latent trait). However, the slope of the full scale is
steeper compared to that of the brief scale, suggesting that
higher ability levels are required to achieve a high proba-
bility of success (different levels of discrimination, i.e.,
alpha parameter). That is, the difference between the two
tests is on discrimination but not in location, suggesting that
the full scale is better at discriminating individuals in the
latent trait range around the point of inflection (Morizot
et al., 2007).
Test information function (TIF). TIF is extremely important
in test construction because it provides information regarding
the “precision” of a scale across levels of the latent trait
(Morizot et al., 2007). Ideally a researcher would want to
develop a scale that would have equal precision across the
trait range, unless the purpose of the test is to identify sub-
groups of individuals with specific levels of performance on
the latent trait. A normative test, however, should always aim
to describe individuals at all levels of ability to be potentially
unbiased with regard to any level of ability. Furthermore, the
concept of “information” in Rasch modeling is very impor-
tant because it relates to the standard error of measurement
(SEM), which represents the inverse square root of informa-
tion at each and every point along the trait continuum (Rob-
ins, Fraley, & Krueger, 2007; Simms & Watson, 2007),
1
SE(θ ) = (10)
I(θ)
with I(θ) representing TIF and SE(θ) representing the SEM.
Conversely, the information function θ of an item is esti-
mated using the formula by Wilson (2005),
Sideridis and Padeliadu 121

Figure 1. Regression of difficulty parameters between Time 1 and Time 2 measurements for full scale.

Figure 2. Test characteristic curves between brief and full scales using Rasch model estimates.
122 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)

Figure 3. Test information function between brief and full scales using Rasch model estimates.

Figure 4. Standard error curves for the two scales (full with 20 items and brief with 6 items).
Scales were placed on the same metric to be comparable.

1 of examinees having different levels of ability (see Note 3).

Inf (θ ) = (11)
sem(θ )2
and when adding the individual information functions we
can estimate the TIF, which represents the mean of informa-
tion for the whole scale (Lord, 1980):
I
Test − Inf (θ ) = ∑ Inf (θ ) (12)
i =1 i distribution.
As shown in Figure 3, the test information curves looked
bell shaped across both forms of the scale, suggesting that
most information for each version of the test was provided
for mean levels of ability. This fact strengthens the norma-
tive function of the tests and the lack of bias for any group
Figure 3 indicates that both forms of the scale provide in-
formation across a wide range of ability (–4 to +4 logits),
with the brief form of the scale actually being more sensi-
tive to lower (and higher) ability groups. This fact may be
particularly more important when evaluating students with
learning problems who represent the left tail of a normal
SEM. It was estimated using Equation 9 and is low when
scales provide large amounts of information (have high
information functions). As shown in Figure 4, the standard
error curves were parallel between the full and brief version
of the scale, suggesting that the two scales had the ability to
Sideridis and Padeliadu 123

Figure 5. Frequency distributions between typical students and students with a learning disability on the full reading rating scale.
Indices of sensitivity and specificity are shown for each level of the rating scale.

discriminate individuals at most of the latent trait range
except the tails (which is expected). Obviously, for both
scales the greatest precision is evident in theta values that
range between –2 and +2 (see Figure 3) or between raw
scores of approximately +4 and +18 (see Figure 4). Although
low discrimination is expected in the tails of the distribu-
tion, Sykes and Hou (2003) suggested that there may be
some guessing involved at that range of ability, which
explains that fact (see the work of Karabatsos, 2003, for
types of aberrant responding).
Discriminant validity. It was evaluated by estimating the
ability of the brief and full forms of the scale to discriminate
students with and without identified ld by use of receiver
operating characteristic (ROC) curves (Grilo, Becker, Anez,
& McGlashan, 2004; Hanley & McNeil, 1982; Hsu, 2002).
For this purpose the distributions of the two groups of stu-
dents are plotted for the full scale (Figure 5) and the brief
scale (Figure 6), and indices of sensitivity and specificity
are displayed for each score level (dark and light lines).
Then ROC curves were constructed to test the ability of
each scale (full and brief forms) to identify students having
identified LD (Figure 7). The discriminant validity of each
scale was evaluated first, and then their areas under the
curve (AUCs) were compared using z difference tests
(Hanley & McNeil, 1983).
When looking at the full scale (Figure 5), it is apparent
that most of the typical student group had scores around
zero (dark bars above the X line), whereas students with LD
124 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)

Figure 6. Frequency distributions between typical students and students with a learning disability on the brief reading rating scale.
Indices of sensitivity and specificity are shown for each level of the rating scale.

had a wide range of scores beyond zero, suggesting the

presence of various behaviors that define reading disabili-
ties. The area under the curve when trying to predict group
membership from the full rating scale was .828, which was
significant (z = 25.654, p < .001). Specifically, the full scale
had a sensitivity index of 78.9 (i.e., probability of a test
result being positive given the presence of a condition) and
a specificity index of 79.7 (i.e., probability of a test result
being negative when the condition is not present). The
respective estimates for the brief form of the rating scale
were as follows: AUC = .811 (z = 22.985, p < .001), sensi-
tivity = 72.5, and specificity = 85.7. These values were all
indicative of discriminant validation.
When comparing the AUCs (Figure 7) between the two
forms of the scale, results indicated that there were no
significant differences between the two areas (z = 0.859,
p = .3905). This finding supports the null hypothesis that Figure 7. Receiver operating characteristic curves showing
both forms of the scale were equally effective into discrimi- the discriminant ability of the full and brief scales in identifying
nating students with LD from typical students. students with a learning disability.
Sideridis and Padeliadu 125
Figure 8. Probability of misfit for each participant in the full scale versus brief scale.
Values were estimated using the LZ statistic.
Person fitting comparison. Using the LZ test described
above, participants were evaluated for their personal contri-
bution to model fit. Figure 8 displays the probability values
for each participant (small values represent misfitted par-
ticipants, and large values substantial contribution of each
participant to the Rasch model’s theses). As shown in Fig-
ure 8, more participants in the full scale appear to be on the
right of the distribution compared to the brief scale. This
finding was confirmed by use of a means analysis for which
the mean probability of misfit was equal to .531 for the full
scale participants and .423 for the participants in the brief
scale. When this difference was tested using student’s t test,
results supported the alternative hypothesis that there was a
significantly smaller amount of misfitted participants in the
brief scale compared to the full scale, t(1960) = 9,830, p < .001.
Item fitting comparison. Items were evaluated for model
fit by estimating the discrepancy between their empirical
estimate and that posited by the Rasch model (theory). Dis-
crepancies were assessed using chi-square tests. These find-
ings are presented in Figure 9 for both the brief form of the
scale and the full scale. As shown in Figure 9, the full scale
seems to have items that have large discrepancies between
empirical estimations and expectations of the model. Visu-
ally speaking, the discrepancies appear to be smaller with
regard to the brief scale items. The ICCs for the final brief
six-item scale are shown in Figure 10.
Brief Discussion of Study 1
Study 1 was designed to provide a taxonomy for which
one can construct brief forms of a scale, with an applica-
tion in LD. This taxonomy was provided using informa-
tion from classical and modern theory methods and is
primarily proposed for LD, for which brief scales may be
particularly more suitable, appropriate, and necessary.
Results indicated that the brief form possessed highly
desirable psychometric properties and was psychometri-
cally comparable to the full version of the reading rating
scale (at times even more so). Study 2 sought to test the
validity of the brief scale further (compared to the full
form) using external evaluative criteria as suggested
by Simms and Watson (2007). Thus, using a normative
reading scale, both full and brief forms were tested for the
presence of external criterion validity and discriminant
validity.
Study 2
Method
Participants and Procedures. There were 232 students,
with 22 of them having a diagnosis of LD from state multi-
disciplinary teams. The remaining 210 students were typical
126 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)
Figure 9. Chi-square values for each item reflecting discrepancies between empirical estimates and theoretical postulates.
Large values are indicative of item misfit.
and were educated in general education settings (122 boys,
108 girls; data on gender were missing for 2 students). Stu-
dents were identified as having LD as in Study 1 (i.e., using
multidisciplinary team criteria). The distribution of students
per age was as follows: Grade 3 = 33, Grade 4 = 39, Grade
5 = 35, Grade 6 = 36, Grade 7 = 35, Grade 8 = 28, and Grade
9 = 17; data on grade were missing for 4 students. Schools
were selected for inclusion as in Study 1 using stratified
random sampling with region being the stratum.
Learning Disabilities Screening Scale for Teachers. The same
scale used in Study 1 was also implemented in Study 2.
The internal consistency estimate of the Reading subscale
was .929.
Learning Disabilities Reading Inventory. This normative
scale was developed by Padeliadu and Antoniou (2008) and
assesses four aspects of reading (i.e., decoding, fluency,
morphology and syntax, and comprehension). Internal con-
sistency estimates ranged between .605 and .853 using the
present data.
Data Analyses. Latent variable modeling was implemented
using EQS 6.1 (Bentler, 2006). The purpose of this model-
ing was twofold: (a) to correlate the latent “reading” trait with
objective measurements of reading skills and (b) to
compare groups of individuals (with and without LD) on
the latent reading trait (latent means model). Evidence in
favor of (a) would be manifested with significant correla-
tions between the latent trait and objective reading mea-
sures and for (b) would be manifested with a significant
coefficient linking a dummy (grouping) variable to the
latent reading trait. For the purpose of (a) and (b) model-fit
indices (e.g., chi-square values and fit indices such as com-
parative fit index, etc.) were not relevant, as overall fit was
not an objective of either the (a) or (b) goal. Instead, the
structural coefficients and their respected significance were
of interest.
Results and Discussion of Study 2
External criterion validity of full and brief rating scale. As
mentioned above, Model 1 tested the hypothesis that the
rating scales would correlate significantly with objective
indices of reading achievement (i.e., the Learning Disabili-
ties Reading Inventory). As shown in Figure 11, there were
significant correlations between the latent teacher rating
scale of reading and decoding (r = .21, p < .05), fluency
(r = -.28, p < .05), and comprehension (r = .12, p < .05, on
a one-tailed test), but not morphology and syntax (r = .03, ns)
Sideridis and Padeliadu 127

Figure 10. Item characteristic curves for the brief six-item rating scale.

for the brief scale. These coefficients were very similar to reveal differences across scales (full form and brief) on
those for the full scale (estimates in parentheses of Figure 11). their relation with the external criterion. Interestingly, flu-
Furthermore, between-correlation-coefficient tests failed to ency correlated negatively with the latent rating of reading,
128 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)
Figure 11. Correlations between reading latent construct (rating scale) and the subscales of the gold standard.
The sign of the estimates was reversed for clarity (because learning disability ratings were reversely coded).
most likely because of an emphasis on reading comprehen-
sion and the fact that reading fast may be associated with a
lack of processing deep information from text.
Discriminant validity of full and brief rating scales: Latent
means model. A latent means model was fit to the data to
test the hypothesis that the latent reading rating would be
different across students with and without LD. Results from
that modeling confirmed this hypothesis (see Figure 12).
The effect was significant, suggesting that typical students
had, on the average, a .69 higher reading score compared to
students with LD. The respective estimate for the full scale
was .64, very similar to that for the brief scale.
ROC analyses. When comparing the AUCs between the
two forms of the scale, results indicated that both scales
provided exceptional discrimination (AUCFull Scale = .913,
AUCBrief Scale = .919). Furthermore, there were no significant
differences between the two areas (z = 0.240, p = .810), a
finding that supports the null hypothesis that both forms of
the scale were equally effective at discriminating students
with LD from typical students.
General Discussion
The purpose of the present studies was to provide the means
to create brief instruments for the assessment and screening
of LD based on information from classical test theory and
modern theory analytic methods. Using a large sample of
students with and without LD, a subscale that comprised
one third of the items of the total scale was created in
Study 1 based on multiple and rigorous psychometric crite-
ria. Study 2 attempted to validate the findings of Study 1
using an objective measurement of reading achievement.
Results indicated that the brief rating scale significantly
discriminated between students with and without LD. In
fact, the discriminant ability of the brief rating scale was
even better, compared to the full item scale, across various
psychometric indices.
The most important finding of the present study was that
the use of multiple criteria proved to be extremely useful for
identifying effective items and creating a short form of the
rating scale. Using multiple criteria results showed that the
brief scale, composed of fewer than one third of the total
scale’s items, possessed no inferior psychometric properties
compared to the full scale. At first, this is very encouraging
given the fact that brief scales are needed for assessing
skills and competencies in LD. The second important find-
ing was that the use of an external gold standard further
substantiated the predictive and criterion validity of the
brief scale, which is very important for scale evaluation
(Messe, Crano, Messe, & Rice, 1979). This fact was evidenced
more so even when comparing the brief scale to the full
scale.
Interestingly, the brief reading scale involved a combi-
nation of items related to reading. For example, Item 7 was
about fluency, Item 8 was about comprehension, Item 13
was about deep versus surface processing (cognitive strategy
Sideridis and Padeliadu 129
Figure 12. Latent means model between students with and without learning disabilities on latent reading construct (rating scale).
Group was coded as 0 = learning disabilities, 1 = typical.
use), Item 15 was about memorization (cognitive ability,
Item 16 was about motivation and the ability to not give up
easily, and Item 17 was about strategy implementation. In
other words, the brief form contained a mixture of factors
that are accelerators of reading, without belonging to one
unified aspect of reading (e.g., strategy use only or reading
comprehension only, motivation, etc.). The unified theme
was reading but the content of the items belonged to con-
ceptually different variables.
Limitations of the Study
The present study is also limited for several reasons. First,
the criteria used by the multidisciplinary teams to identify
students with LD in Greece vary. Thus, we cannot judge the
validity of these ratings beyond the fact that these students
were identified as having LD by the designated authority.
Second, the identified students did not have a specific diag-
nosis of reading disabilities. Thus, the absence of this infor-
mation and the heterogeneity observed in the LD population
with regard to various language characteristics even within
the population partly explain the modest relationship found
between the rating scale scores and the objective (gold)
reading criterion. Third, the equal weight applied to all
criteria has been a crude approximation of the actual
“quality” of each criterion. However, given the exploratory
nature of the present work, our knowledge did not allow us
to differentially weigh the respective criteria. Also, the large
sample of identified students with LD provides strong sup-
port with regard to the viability and usefulness of the iden-
tifying criteria for creating a brief rating scale. Certainly,
attempting to replicate the present criteria in the future will
aid the generalizability of the present psychometric attempt.
Future Directions
The present study provides the means to create brief scales
for the assessment and identification of LD. It is strongly
recommended that researchers in the field of LD carefully
design their scales to meet the psychometric criteria pre-
sented herein to examine their validity and usefulness. Only
valid assessments will aid the field in evaluating effective
practices that will subsequently guide appropriate policies.
This is particularly more so given the frequency and variety
of curriculum-based assessments required by the recent
RTI model (see Keogh, 2005, for a discussion) and the
presence of concerns regarding the use of current assess-
ment practices (Mashburn & Henry, 2004).
130 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)

Appendix A SPSS Syntax File Code:

COMPUTE ve = .011 + .195*exp(-.5*((b/1.797)**2)).
Winsteps 3.67 (Linacre, 2006) ELSE.
Code for Estimating Various Parameters of COMPUTE ve = .0023 + .171*exp(-.5*((b/2.023)**2)).
the Brief (Six-Item) Reading Rating Scale END IF.
COMPUTE p = -.0114 + 1.0228/(1 + exp(b/1.226)).
&INST COMPUTE vt = p*(1 - p) - ve.
TITLE = “Creating A Brief Rating Scale in LD” IF(vt < 0) vt = 0.
NI = 6 FLIP
ITEM1 = 2 VARIABLES b ve p vt.
NAME1 = 1 VECTOR V = VAROO1 TO VAR010.
xWIDE = 1 LOOP #I = 1 TO 10.
NAMLEN = 1 LOOP #J = 1 TO 10.
DIF = $S1W1 END LOOP.
PERSON = STD END LOOP.
ITEM = Reading item FLIP VAR001 TO VAR010.
STBIAS = Y VARIABLE LABELS b “Item difficulty.”
PFILE = PF.txt VARIABLE LABELS ve “Expected error variance.”
IFILE = IF.txt VARIABLE LABELS p “Expected item mean.”
CODES = 01 VARIABLE LABELS vt “Expected true variance.”
TOTAL = YES RENAME VARIABLES (CASE_LBL = ITEM).
CHART = YES EXECUTE.
CLFILE = *
* Declaration of Conflicting Interests
&END The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
READ7 to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
READ8
READ13 Funding
READ15 The authors received financial support for conducting the study
READ16 from the Greek Ministry of Education (EPEAEK Programme).
READ17 We are grateful to Professor Porpodas for putting the research
END LABELS proposal together.
2110000 507
2001111 508 Notes
11110112020 1. This model for some researchers has outlived its usefulness, given
11100112022 its implementation since 1975 (Fletcher et al., 1998; Fletcher,
Francis, Morris, & Lyon, 2005; Francis et al., 2005).
2. In favor because of the fact that significant differential item func-
Appendix B tioning would point to the presence of discriminant validation.
3. This is important for scales designed to evaluate students with
This appendix provides an SPSS syntax from which one learning problems because a subgroup of students should be
can derive estimates of expected error variance, expected evaluated against normative criteria. Thus, a scale must be sen-
item mean, and expected true variance for a 10-item scale. sitive to the mean of the normative group for the scale to have
This syntax has been modified from the original (Dimitrov, a valid assessment of the reference group to which the target
2003), which also provides estimates of reliabilities (same group will be compared.
variable names are used for correspondence). For the origi-
nal SPSS and SAS codes, the reader is advised to read the References
original work of Dimitrov (2003). For the present syntax Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper
file to work, the reader needs to provide a column with dif- Saddler River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
ficulty estimates “b” from the Rasch model. The actual Barron, K. E., Evans, S.W., Baranik, L. E., Serpell, Z. N., &
Rasch difficulty estimates need to be in an SPSS data file Buvinger, E. (2006). Achievement goals of students with
column labeled “b.” After running the syntax, the results ADHD. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 137–158.
are shown in a new SPSS data file and need to be saved with Bentler, P. M. (2005) EQS 6.1: Structural equations program
a new name. manual. Multivariate Software, Inc., Encino, CA.
Sideridis and Padeliadu 131
Bond, T., & Fox, C. M. (2001). Applying the Rasch model: Fun-
damental measurement in the human sciences. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Burns, M., Dean, V., & Klar, S. (2004). Using curriculum-based
assessment in the responsiveness to intervention diagnostic
model for learning disabilities. Assessment for Effective Inter-
vention, 29, 47–56.
Burns, M., Scholin, S., Kosciolek, S., & Livingston, J. (2010).
Reliability of decision making frameworks for response to
intervention for reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assess-
ment, 28, 102–114.
Cassidy, S. (2008). Subjectivity and the valid assessment of pre-
registration student nurse clinical learning outcomes: Implica-
tions for mentors. Nurse Education Today, 29, 33–39.
Chang, H. H. (2004). Understanding computerized adaptive test-
ing: From Robbins-Monro to Lord and Beyond. In D. Kaplan
(Ed.), The sage handbook of quantitative methodology for the
social sciences (pp. 117-131). CA, Thousand Oaks: Sage
Compton, D. L. (2006). How should “unresponsiveness” to sec-
ondary intervention be operationalized? It is all about the
nudge. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 170–173.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical
and modern test theory. Philadelphia, PA: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich.
Deno, S. L. (1989). Curriculum based measurement and special
education services: A fundamental and direct relationship.
New York, NY: Guilford.
Dimitrov, M. D. (2003). Reliability and true-score measures of
binary items as a function of their Rasch difficulty parameters.
Journal of Applied Measurement, 4, 222–233.
Drasgow, F., Levine, M. V., & Williams, E. A. (1985). Appropri-
ateness measurement with polytomous item response models
and standardized indices. British Journal of Mathematical and
Statistical Psychology, 38, 67–86.
Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Morris, R., & Lyon, R. (2005). Evidence-
based assessment of learning disabilities in children and
adolescents. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psy-
chology, 34, 506–522.
Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Shaywitz, S., Lyon, R., Foorman, B.,
Stuebing, K., & Shaywitz, B. (1998). Intelligence testing and
the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 186–203.
Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Stuebing, K., Lyon, R., Shaywitz, B., &
Shaywitz, S. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identi-
fication of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–108.
Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about
responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask).
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129–136.
Goodman, G., & Webb, M. M. (2006). Reading disability referrals:
Teacher bias and other factors that impact response to inter-
vention. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 4,
59–70.
Grilo, C. M., Becker, D. F., Anez, L. M., & McGlashan, T. H.
(2004). Diagnostic efficiency of DSM-IV criteria for border-
line personality disorder: An evaluation in Hispanic men and
women with substance use disorders. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 72, 126–131.
Hammill, D. D. (1995). The Learning Disability Diagnostic Inven-
tory (LDDI). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Hammill, D. D., & Bryant, B. R. (1998). Learning Disabili-
ties Diagnostic Inventory examiner’s manual. Austin, TX:
Pro-Ed.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1982). The meaning and use of
the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve.
Radiology, 143, 39–46.
Hanley, J. A., & McNeil, B. J. (1983). A method for comparing the
areas under a receiver operating characteristic curves derived
from the same cases. Radiology, 148, 839–843.
Hsu, L. M. (2002). Diagnostic validity statistics and the MCMI-III.
Psychological Assessment, 14, 410–422.
Kane, S. T. (2008). Minimizing malingering and poor effort in the
LD/ADHD evaluation process. ADHD Report, 16, 5–9.
Karabatsos, G. (2003). Comparing the aberrant response detection
performance of 36 person fit statistics. Applied Measurement
in Education, 16, 277–298.
Karakas, S., Turgut, S., & Bakar, E. (2008). Neuropsychometric
comparison of children with pure learning disabilities, pure
ADHD, comorbid ADHD with learning disability and normal
controls using the Mangina test. International Journal of Psy-
chophysiology, 69, 147–148.
Keogh, B. K. (2005). Revisiting classification and identification.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 100–102.
Kripke, B., Lynn, R., Madsen, J., & Gay, P. (1982). Familial
learning disability, easy fatigue, and maladroitness: Prelimi-
nary trial of monosodium glutamate in adults. Developmental
Medicine & Child Neurology, 24, 745–751.
Krus, D. J., & Ney, R. G. (1978). Convergent and discriminant
validity in item analysis. Educational and Psychological Mea-
surement, 38, 135–137.
Liang, T., Han, K. T., & Hambleton, R. K. (2008). User’s guide
for ResidPlots-2: Computer software for IRT graphical resid-
ual analyses, Version 2.0 (Center for Educational Assessment
Research Rep. No. 688). Amherst: University of Massachu-
setts, Center for Educational Assessment.
Linacre, J. M. (1999). A user’s guide and manual to Winsteps.
Chicago, IL: Mesa Press.
Linacre, J. M., & Wright, B. D. (1994). Chi-square fit statistics.
Rash Measurement Transactions, 8, 360–361.
Lord, F. M. (1980). Applications of item response theory to practi-
cal testing problems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Lunz, M. E., & Bergstrom, B. A. (1995). Item recalibration and
ability estimate stability. Rasch Measurement Transactions, 8,
396–397.
Luppescu, S. (1991). Graphical diagnosis. Rasch Measurement
Transactions, 5, 136.
132 Journal of Learning Disabilities 46(2)
Mashburn, A. J., & Henry, G. T. (2004). Assessing school readiness:
Validity and bias in preschool and kindergarten teachers’ ratings.
Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 23, 16–30.
Mayes, S. D., Calhoun, S. L., & Crowell, E. W. (2000). Learn-
ing disabilities and ADHD: Overlapping spectrum disorders.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 417–424.
Messe, L. A., Crano, W. D., Messe, S. R., & Rice, W. (1979).
Evaluation of the predictive validity of tests of mental ability
for classroom performance in elementary grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 71, 233–241.
Morgan, P. L. (1977). The differential effects of visual background
and fatigue on automatized task performance in learning dis-
abled and normal children. Dissertation Abstracts Interna-
tional, 37, 4695–4696.
Morgan, P. L., Fuchs, D., Compton, D., Cordray, D., & Fuchs, L.
(2008). Does early reading failure decrease children’s reading
motivation? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 387–404.
Morgan, P. L., & Sideridis, G. D. (2006). Contrasting the effec-
tiveness of fluency interventions for students with or at risk for
learning disabilities: A multilevel random coefficient model-
ing meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities: Research and Prac-
tice, 21, 191–210.
Morizot, J., Ainsworth, A. T., & Reise, S. P. (2007). Toward
modern psychometrics: Application of item response theory
models in personality research. In R. W. Robbins, C. Fraley,
& R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in
personality psychology (pp. 407–423). New York, NY: Guilford.
National Institute of Mental Health. (2003). Attention deficit hyper-
activity disorder. Bethesda, MD: Department of Health and
Human Services, National Institutes of Health.
Padeliadu, S., & Antoniou, F. (2008). Learning Disabilities Read-
ing Inventory. Athens: YPEPTH, EPEAEK.
Padeliadu, S., & Sideridis, G. D. (2008). Learning disabilities
screening for teachers. Athens: YPEPTH, EPEAEK.
Paek, I. (2002). Investigations of differential item functioning:
Comparisons among approaches, and extension to a multidi-
mensional context. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of California, Berkeley.
Podell, D., & Soodak, L. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in spe-
cial education referrals. Journal of Educational Research, 86,
247–253.
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and
attainment tests. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Rescorla, L. A., Achenbach, T. M., Ginzburg, S., Ivanova, M.,
Dumenci, L., Almqvist, F., & . . . Verhulst, F. (2007). Con-
sistency of teacher-reported problems for students in 21 coun-
tries. School Psychology Review, 36, 91–110.
Ritter, D. (1989). Teachers’ perceptions of problem behavior
in general and special education. Exceptional Children, 55,
559–564.
Robins, R. W., Fraley, C. R., & Krueger, R. F. (2007). Handbook
of research methods in personality psychology. New York,
NY: Guilford.
Sideridis, G. D. (2005). Performance approach-avoidance motiva-
tion and planned behavior theory: Model stability with Greek
students with and without learning disabilities. Reading and
Writing Quarterly, 21, 331–359.
Sideridis, G. D. (2007). Why are students with learning disabilities
depressed? A goal orientation model of depression vulnerability.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40, 526–539.
Simms, L. J., & Watson, D. (2007). The construct validation
approach to personality scale construction. In R. W. Robbins,
C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research meth-
ods in personality psychology (pp. 240–258). New York, NY:
Guilford.
Smith, E. V., & Smith, R. M. (2004). Introduction to Rasch mea-
surement: Theory, models and applications. Maple Grove,
MN: JAM Press.
Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Discrepancy definition of reading disability:
Has intelligence led us astray? Reading Research Quarterly, 26,
7–29.
Swanson, L. (1991). Operational definitions and learning disabilities:
An overview. Learning Disability Quarterly, 14, 242–254.
Swanson, L. (2008). Neuroscience and RTI: A complemen-
tary role. In E. Fletcher-Janzen & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in
the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention
(pp. 28–53). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Sykes, R. C., & Hou, L. (2003). Weighting constructed-response
items in IRT-based exams. Applied Measurement in Education,
16, 257–275.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities
as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and poten-
tial problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,
137–146.
Wilson, M. (2005). Constructing measures: An item response
modelling approach. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wright, B. D., & Masters, G. N. (1981). Rating scale analysis.
Chicago, IL: Mesa Press.
Wright, B. D., & Stone, M. H. (1979). Best test design. Chicago,
IL: Mesa Press.
Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Scholin, S., & Parker, D. (2010). Instruc-
tionally valid assessment within response to intervention.
Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(4), 54–62.