LEARNING DISABILITIESLearning Disabilities From Identification to Intervention JACK M. FLETCHER G.REID LYON LYNN S. FUCHS MARCIA A. BARNES & THE GUILFORD PRESS New York LondonTo our spouses—Patricia McEnery, Diane Lyon, Doug Fuchs, and Mark Drummond— for many years of love and support 72 Spine eect, Ne Yr NY 10812 A ihn er No pat of iba ay Be pad ated stn ‘real pmo raed iy far a ‘nom cmap hin ne ray of Cones Caliban Due Leaing sii: ro ict neato ok M. ee eal 1 amigas exe dire -Rewach, {Feces Jak M tha crt About the Authors Jack M. Fletcher, PAD, is 2 Disinguised University Professor of Pay- ‘chology athe University of Houston, For the past 30 years, Dr Fetches, 4 child neuropsyehologst, has completed tesearch om many ses re lated to learning deabiite, inclaing. definition aod clasification, rearobilogical correlates, and ineesenion, and har writen over 200 Ales ia peerreviewed journals. He is Principal Iavestzator of a earning Dsbilty Research Center grant funded by the National Inst tute of Child Health and Homan Development (NICHD), ax well NICHD progam project grant on math disabilities. De. Fletcher has served on and chaired the NICHD Mental Retadaton-Developmestal Disables sudy section and is a. former member of the NICHD [National Advsory Council He was the 2005 recipient ofthe Samuel T, (Orton Award Irom the Inerational Dyslexia Assocation and 3 co- recipient of the 2006 Albert J. Hers Award from the International Reading Asocation G. Reid Lyon, PAD, is the Executive Vie President for Research and Evaluation at Best ‘Associates and Whitey Ineraatonal University, headquartered in Dallas, Texas. rir t0 joining Best Associates, Dr [jon served as a esearch psjchologis and the Chief ofthe Cald Devel ‘opment and Behavior Branch wid the NICHD at the National ns ‘utes of Health, where he was responsible forthe direction of research Programs in developmental psychology, cognitive neuroscience, behav feral pediatrics, eeading, al leaning disorders. In addon, he has ‘aught children with Ienming disables and was a thirdprae clase ‘oom teacher as well a a school psjchologs inthe public schools in New Mexico, North Carolina, and Vermont. De Lyon has authored, conuthored and edited more than 120 journal aves, books, ana bookchapters addeessing evidence-based eduction and learingdilerencts nd sais tn children, ‘Lym S. Fach, PRD, is Nicholas Hobbs Profesor of Special Education and Human Development at_Vanderile University, where she aso odiects the Kennedy Center Reading Clic, She as published more ‘than 200 aces in peerrevicwed journals snd sits om the editorial boards of several journal including the Journal of Edacaional Psycho gy. Scientific Studies of Reading, Elementary School urna, onal of Lezmning Disabiies, and Exceptional Children. Her research focses ‘on classroom-based asessment ay well sistactional methods for dents ‘with teading disables and math disables, In addition, De. Fuchs has conducted programmatic esearch on assessment methods for enhancing insuctional planning. and on ststroctional methods for Improving reading and math outcomes for students with leming die athe, Marcia A. Barnes, PAD, is an Associate Profesor of Psychology and Univrity Reseach Chair atthe Universy of Guelph and Asxiate Professor of Pedacs atthe University of Toronto. She it also aad junet scent atthe Toronto Hospital fr Sck Chien, Dr. Barner’ research focuses on math al eading compyheasion disabilities in hi ‘ren with and withou Bai injusies She ls stax the sypial devel ‘opment of read compechesion silly and has writen over 60 papers. Sheisa member af the editorial board of the Journal ofthe ntermaional [Newropaychology Society aoa ational grant review panels inthe United States and Canada, De. Barnes recently sensed asa member af he Expert Panel on Literacy and Numeracy Instruction for Students with Spoval Education Needs forthe Ontario Minsty of Edeation, Preface In an era of increased focus on the evidence base that suppors dif ferent educational praceies, this book integrates dllerent domains of scientific inguin, practice, and policy involving learning. diabiis {(LDs). Representing several displies in psychology and education, the bool a exposition and analysis the sient research base hat has sccamlated er the past 30 years on LDs, ranging from ideation fn asesmen, to cognitive and neurobologieal factors, to intervention, ‘The bears of the hook i focus esearch on diferent domains of [Ls involving reading (word rcogntion,faeney, and comprehension), snathematcs [computations and problem solving and writen language (handweting, spelling and composition) A clea link is made ereen ‘what is known about the typical development ofthese sls and how £0 ‘each them, reflecting evidence thatthe academic difiulties of LDs are ‘ot qualativly discrete entities bat the lower end of «continuum of ssdemie ably “We argue that a9 understanding of LDs must stem fom a casifia tion model that lends to definitions of and methods for identifying LDs tha epitomize the historically centgal conseuce of unexpected under. ‘chctement, Abo base onthe dasistion, specie Ls can be ented ‘Sccordng eo their core aedemc deficits, providing the expaciy for sys ‘ematical studying the neurobiological and environmental factors chat Interact to peodace an LD. Althoogh the book has a research focus i cstends into prac, with considerable attention vo asessinnt and tervention methods that have demonstrable efficacy im each domain of Ibe ‘Our inverse in writing the hook was simulated in part by recogni ‘ion ofthe major changes in US public policy involving eatin bei ing with the focus on scientifically based insect i the rauthorzation of the Elementary and Secondary Edvation Act, ehough the No ‘Child Tet Behind Ac of 2001, aed eonsnuing with the 2004 Reauthoe ization ofthe Individuals with Disabiives Edocation Act (IDE 2008), For the frst ime since the intial legislation supporting IDEA in 1975, IDEA'2004 allows the US. publi education system to extn new approaches to idenying and treating LD under the earl rubric of response to inerventon (RTT) models and specific expectations fo ap propeate instruction in general education s 3 preregister idenying tbs. [Although RT models canbe used to help identify LDs, a major pat= pose ofthese modes iso ethance education outcomes forall chile through closer iteration of general and special education. Ategusny asked question about thee models is wheter the necessary assessment 2 intervention methods needed for implementation ae aici de "eloped. We review much of this research, ity gaps i the knowl ‘ge base, and conclude that, although some fut require atonal Scientific inquiry a substantial researc base does exist amd many of he ises regarding RTT models sepreene nor an abaence of assessed Intervention tools, but rather the need to acle th Wi hope this book faites the capacity of edvcstors and schools to ientiy Sound tools for assessment and instruction snd to nipleneat them inthe sevice of beter outcomes for stants at rs for or ent fied with LDs. We hive thatthe research incorporated im this book shows that LDs are eal hat the eld does have 3 srong scientific basi, and tha the development of the fill continues in postive direction nd will conrinue to flourish Most important, eobust instructional ‘methods foreach ofthe specific LDs ste denied inthe hook, ellen the accumulation of subsentil scenic information on LD that can be used to snform practice and poli. “Thisvolume evolved foma sens ofchapterson Dschat appeared in several recent books published by The Galfrd Pres [Plichen Morr Francis & Lyon, 2003 Lyon, ercher,& Barnes, 2003; Lyon, Fletch, Fuchs, & Chhabra, 2006). For par of this book, we reorganized thee chaptersintofvespeciie domains ofLDs and dist lke the interven tion componcets withthe components invalving wdenifeation cognisne correlates, and neurobiological factors. New chapters were Witte on ‘lasifcation and definition and aseament of LDs The eseaech has been ‘thoroughly update, and an overarching mode is proposed to integrate the diferent sources of scentificevidence reviewed nthe book, The result ‘sa single volume that integrates research on classification and definition, ogntie processing, newrobiologial factors, a instruction ‘We thank Rochelle Serwatog our editor at Guilford, who proposed the idea for this Book, and Esc J. Mas, Leif G,Terdal and Ruste A, Barkley, who edited two ofthe volumes in which parts of some ofthe chapters were orginally composed. We alo thank Rita Taylor Michele ffm and Susan Chane for many hours of suppor in completing the book Gans from the National laste of Child Hes and Human DDeselopmen {NICHD} 0 Jack M. Fletcher helped spore some of he research inthe book, ineluding PSO HDOSZI17, Texas Center for {earning Disables, and POI HD46261, Cognitive, Insertional and [Neuroimaging Factor in Math (which also seppored research by Lyn S- Fuchs and Marca A Bares). Additional support for De Fletcher was ‘obtained from NSF9979968, Farly Development of Readiag hile A Cognitive Neuroscience Approach (funded under the Ineragency Eds ‘onal Research ntti bythe National Science Foundation, NICHD, and the Insti for Educational Sciences J. M. Fletcher, Pricial ln ‘estgator); PSO HD2S802, Cente for Leariag and Arzention Disorders {S.E Shaywits and B.A. Shaywit, Principal Investigators; and ROL 138346, Brain Activation Profiles in Dyslexia (A. C. Papanicolaou, Principal lavestigator. De Fuchs’ work was also supported by NICHD Grane ROI HD#618401, Undertandingreventing, Math. Problem Solving Dsbiliy 1524980001, Center on Accelerating Student Lear ing, and 3240010004, National Research Center on Learning Disabil ihe, Ofce of Special Education Programs inthe US. Deparment of FEdacation, Dr Barnes’ work was also supported by funding tom the Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network aad NICHD Grant POL HDOS8497, Prechool Carrculs: Outcomes and Developments! Processes. The contets are solely the responsiblity ofthe authors and do nor necessary reeset theofficial views of any af the sources of tran suppor.CHAPTER | cuaerer2 CHAPTER CHAPTER 4 CHAPTERS CHAPTER 6 CHAPTER? CHAPTER CHAPTERS (CHAPTER 10 Contents Ineroduction History of the Feld Classification Defirion, and denciason of Learning Disbies Assessment of Leaning Disables Reading Disables: Word Recognition Reading Disabilities: Fuency Reading Disbitios: Comprehension Mathematics Disab: \Wauen Expression Disabities Conclusions and Future Directions References Index as 1 14 27 26 260 ws a7Introduction Since learning disabiies (LDs) were federally designated in the United States as “handicapping conditions” in 1968, te proportion of shildren denied with LDs a incresed tea with such stents how representing approximately one-half of al childen receiving special Education seviews (US. Deparment of Eduction, 1999). Albough ‘here was relatively ile research on LDS 3¢ the time that te orginal Federal disables lgnlation was enacted, sigificane progress has been made in understanding and treating LDs involving reading, nathemat ics and weisen expeersion, Wath the aca of sword reading leading the ‘rays major advances have been made in classification and definition i Sues (ltches, Moris, & Lyon, 203; Lyon eta, 2001), cogaiive peo esses [Stegel, 2003), neurobiological correlates involving the brain (Paden & Zero, 1998; 8. F- Shaye & B.A. Shaywiee, 2008) and ge netics (Grigrenko, 2005; Plomia & Kovas, 2005), assessment practices (Fac 8 Fuchs, 198; pecce 8 Case, 2001), and ieerention (Swanson, Harris, & Graham, 2003). The advances in imerventon ae especially promising inthe reading area, asthe esearch shows that reading sabi ics ae preventable in many children, and that intensive interventions «am be effective with older children wi have severe reading dificale, “Moreover inthe reading area, research is converging ona comprehen sive model of the most common LD—dyslxia~that is grounded in Feading development theory and acount for neurobiological and env onmentl factors aswell as forthe effect of intervention (yon ta. 200s Plomin & Kovas, 2005; Rayner Foorman, Pee, Pees, Sedenberg, 2002; Vellutno, Fiche, Scanlon, & Snowting, 2004) deed the same theory tht explains how children develop reading sil explains wy sone fa uifyng the research on LDs in reading ad the normative development of reading ability.a LEARNING OSABILTIES Given these advances for dyslesia, simile advances foe other LDs ‘cannot be far behind. Presently the construct of LDs and the many def hitions tha seeve as conceptual ameworks for thee idensication and ‘weatment continue wo be frequently misunderstood. The fd is beset by pervasive disagreements shout the definition of LDs, diagnostic eter, Swsessment practies, treatment procedures, and educational polices {tym etal, 200%) In wating his book, our goal iw help iterate the lspacate sources of information into 4 more coherent aseount of LDs, beginning with an evidence based approach to deinton and casi tion andthe implications ofthis approach fr assessment and dentica tion. With an adeguat classification, i becomes possible to comprehen sively dincss research on the natn, types eases, and treatment of [EDs thus Beginning integrate science and practice This book about the horizaral integration af kaowledge on LDs, proving less depth within diferent domains of knowledge in favor of the connections {ctor these domaine and the boudaves across discipline. It fess bout new ideas on LDs and more about a compeehemsiveaecouning of the evidence base and its imphatons fr enhancing outcomes for LDS AN OVERARCHING MODEL, Figuce 1.1 presents a feamework for under wing the diferent sources of variability that inflsence outcomes in cieen with LDs, We used this framework to organize cur reviews ofthe major pet of LD in reading, ‘mathematics, and writen expression. The framework ie anchored in 8 Iypothericalclasieation of LDs based on strengths and weskcsce academic skill For each LD, the primary manifestation ofthe disability ‘epreseats specific academe shill deft (en word ecorition read. ing comprehension, reading flency, mathemsncscomputationsprolen solving, and written expresion. We beleve thats classification of LDs an be validated that has its orga these academic sil deficits, rep ‘esensnga set of achievement markers tht are the Basis for the clasih- “The second level of analysis involves child characteristics, inclding core cognitive process (es phonological awareness and rapid eter framing) that directly determine the academic shall deficts(e,, word ‘ecogaition skill and reading Mency) ax well a4 academic strengths “The performance or operation of academic strengths and weakness is also influenced by a second set of characterise that are i the psichesocal domain, suchas the childs motivation, socal kilo be- favioral probleme involving anxieny depresion, andor attention that interfere with performance in academe dans. The arrow between triroduton a FIGURE Lt. Franek premio diferent pues of warily de nace Soden tent pay manson fhe ay en ih LD ‘one cognitive procenes and behasiorallpsychosodal factors is bie Tonal cognitive difficulties can alo Tend to problems with for exam ple attention and social sil The third level of analysis represents the influence of aerobic logical and environmen Factors. The neaobiolgial factor ince neural and gonesie sures of variability that impact academic sil df ‘is ether through thei nfuence on eld characteris or dietly 00 the academic skis hemselves,Envitonmenta facto nee the sa find economic ateumstances that attend the chil, 36 wel a5 schooling influences, sch a8 the quality ofthe school and decent interven “The arow linking neurobiological and environmental factors s bie ‘onal, indicating an snteracoon of thee domains. In an integrated fccount of Ds all of these level of analyse must be considered in ths bool we focur on the relation of seademic sls and core cogmtive pro cesses, neurobiological factors and intervention. We used diferent em Pirtal and concepealsyachesrs of a parscalar domain whenete poss bea opposed co dete reviews ofindividval studies, ORGANIZATION OF THE BOOK “To understand advances involving LDS, and the material in Chapters Shane most understand the Reis stragale For 4 scenic foundation,We believe ha thee efforts are ied to progres incasifction and et inion, and we presenta hypothecal cassiscation of LDs based on ‘aration in achievement markers Ia Chapter 2, we review the historical evens thar have molded the fed of Ls int is preset or, wth a fo- {08 onthe crigins of eurret policy-based definiions of LD theoogh the 2004 reauthonzaton of the Individuals with Disables Edoction Act UUDEA, 2004}. 4 review ofthe history shows that LDs have been dif Cul o define, partly hecause they’ donot constitute homogeneous is fede In fact LD By definion refer to defcin n ane or more of sees domains of academic achievement, coding reading disses mate imate disables, and diablines in writen expression. Each type of LD is characterized by dssine deisitional and digo sues a ell 1s ies associated with heterogeneity. However the eterogeaciy Is best accounted for hy variations im academic lle so that »clasifca ‘ion tha explicitly incorporates this variation permits strong linkages ‘with normative research on the development of eliferentacadeic do ‘mains and a coherent framework for onpanizing cogative, neuro biological, and intervention research, asin Figure 1 “The cave for this approach fs made in Chapter 3 which discusses clasificason and definition, and Chapter which discuss sss tnd identification. We argue that although LDs ae heterogeneous they are best defined hy markers involving academic sil Evidence suggest five major eypes of 1D involving word recognition, seg Huey, and reading comprehension; mathemati sid written expresion, These do mains have been selected rh because of thet prominence in cuerent tale Lyon, Fetches, Fuchs, & Chhabra, 2006). Rather thought in ‘egzation ofthese models resuling in moeeeffcacons interventions for individuals with diferene types of LDs- eeu hat academic th anes that involve substantial exposore ro reading mathemati and “wetng ae most efletive; older approuches fo ttrventions that teach processes or foes on aspects of the disc eg isin) that are a di ‘eal ted tothe academe skill donot ress improved ousomes or Studens with LDs. Further, the teraure i plete with claims for in Steusional and treatment methods that ate ved on subjective, ott teplcaed clinical reports, testimonial information, and anced state ‘ments on groups broadly defined ay lacning disabled. We have limited ‘ur discussion to empineal research that extends beyond testimony ot tvidence of efficacy inthe absence of sppropnate comparison groups or thearly defined groups of student wih specie scadene type af LD Finally we atempred to review resatc fom around the world ot out focus on history and poy i narrowiy focused onthe United States. We do not have good acces o policy in ether countries an do noe always Ihave good access to the many excelent staies completed by our inte ‘ational colleagues, expilly inthe inierventon ea ven with these stipulations, he range of rscarch covered in his book is broad and there is wide aration in the quality ofthe stoies and syntheses we have selected for discussion. We generally ted to se lec the strongest posible studies and syntheses for review. The quality fof many ofthese pieces of informacion leads us to he optimistic about the continued development of bath sine and practe for LD A the ‘example of dyslexia in Chapter § shows LDs are unique smoag devel ‘opmental disorders not only inthe dramatic growth of knowledge across ferent domains, bur also in the extent of vera, coset tegration thar has occurred (Shavelson & Towne, 2002). the fata, twe believe tha this type of eros diiplinary iteration is essential the development of 2 comprehensive model encompassing al forms of [IDs and offer this book ia anspation of continued developmen of an ineegrated understanding of LDs RR History of the Field ‘Since the designation of LD a a dsbity in US. federal lesion in 1968, LDs now represent appzoxiately one-alf of all tens = iving special education nationally (Donavon 8 Cross, 2002; Presi ‘Sens Commission on Excelence it Special Education, 2002). Yer LDs ave eraditionaly heen among the last understood and most debate y Gln the context of his work on disorder of spoken anguage i he carly 19th century (Wiederole, 1974). In describing the characteristics ‘fone paen with bein damage, Gall recorded the following: Incomeguens fan stack of poplsy a oliie funditimponabeto ‘xpensin poe ngusgeis felis 2d ens: sfc ote os ‘faderamged itelet His nd esr) found the mer to questions ‘dstedSohimandbecacredoutalhewstlde do shown a. ‘hi and ke the ew whats, be ansered by sean isl Inc Hecold or rol onthe sora word pronounced for eno fs ew moments ate te ord sped om hs ips tai Iw nochin eo wich wat emtoreseds fore ovedie ‘rth erst git odcould pono gue wel age number oo Inet word: Hi memory was na a fue fore igi his age at ‘eng ube to express Rei cocening many tings, whch he ‘ibedtocommanete man th cy of po lame whch at otc quoted i eed 1926, p11) “The relevance of Calls obveretions to present concepeiaiations| ‘of LDs was accurately summarized by Hamma (1993) Hamm post lated that Gall noted that some of is patients could noe speak but could produce thoughts in weiting, thus maniesing a pattern of relative ‘Ecenghe and wesknesies in oral and writen language. In addition, Gall, ‘Sealihel shat such patter of sengths and weakness were fun ion of brain damage, and that rain damage could selectively impair ‘ne patculr language capability but aot affect others. Thus, the ch al ots tere established nthe area of brain injury forthe present-day ‘Sbservation that many sldren with LDs manifest “specific” defi father chan pervasive or “generalized” deficits. Finally, Call argued that ieeas eset o rule out other disabling conditions, ike metal tar davon or defnes, tha could impair a patents performance. Within2 LEARNING DisaBLUTES this content, the origin forthe “exclusion” component of cutrent di ‘ions of LDs is evident, Early Neurology and Acquired Language Disorders [A numberof other medical professionals also began ro observe andre Pot on patients demonstrating intaindvidual strengths and weaknesses that inloded specific deists a linguist, reading, and cognitive sbi ties. For example, Broa (1865) provided imporeant observations that have seve to build the foundation of the “specifiy hypothesis in learning disables. Broca 1885} eported that "expressive aphasia” 0 the inability to speak, resulted rom selective (rather than ise) sins Inthe anterior regions ofthe lett Remispher, pinay localized in the Second fronal onvolution. The ellcts of = lesion inthis area of the bran were highly consistent in right-handed individuals did no a pear to affect eceptve language ability stening or oer noalangvage Functions (eg sel percecin, spi aware) Simi, Wericke (1894) noose te concep of “diconnston| syndrome" predicting thatthe aphasi syndrame tera "conduction aphasia” could real from a daconasction ofthe seceptve (senso) speech aa from the motor speech zone bya poncate lesion in the let hemisphere, Wericke’s obserations have aso been tlevant to theory building in LDs. Wennicke reported that + complex function such as te- cept language could be impazed within an individual who did aot Aisplay other signficane cognitive or Hingustic dysfunctions, Hence, the ‘concept of intandvidual ferences ia information procesing, ws ‘bor, primanly using observations and clinical ies with als with speci brain damage In the late 1800% and early 1900s, additional caes of unexpected ‘cognitive and linguistic dfcalis within the content of otherwise nor inal functioning Were reported. These eases were unigue because they thd not sem to have the same neurological chaactrtice ae aequiced disorders of language occuring with impsirment of sensory oF moor functions, Kussmaol (1877) desecbed «print who was unable osead ‘despite having sufcien inellectal and perceptual kills Additonal re ports by Hinthehvood (1895, 1917), Morgan (1896), and other (Bas tian, 1898; Chirborn, 1908) dissingushed «specific pe of lesen etic characterized by an inabiley to read aginsea background of nor mal inlgence and adequate opportunity to learn. Hinselwood (1917) dsribed & 10-year-old Youngster a follows: ‘he oy had Ben a schol hee year ad a ot on well with vey subjstecepe edi He was aparenyavihand in every espe ior of he Fle » amine oy He ha heen kang msifor ayer and had made fod progres nal department in aces ee the se fon was eal he had made fod progres showing ha hi auory ‘memory was god He pers spe sme que corr and ie rpsen arte han ben eared gute attr Hess 00 {hey in ening eo wee. Fal acy od Ip 46-4) By the begining ofthe 20eh century, evidence from several sources oneaibured to 4st of observations that defined + unsgue eye of ear ing ical ia aduls and cildeen—spectc rather than general in re Sentaton, and dint from disorders associated with sensory handicap fd subaverage general itligence. Ax Fly and Wills (1985) have ‘Suramaried the most salient and reliable ary obsersatins of individ “ls with ening dfs included the fllowing: (1) the siren had Some form of congenital earning problem; (2) more male than female thle were affected: (3} the disotder was heteogencous with respect, to the specific pattern and the severity of deficits (4) the disorder might berelated roa developmental paces allecting puma lef-hemisphere ‘eral language processes; and (3) sypial classroom instruction was not ‘sdequae in meeting the children’s educational needs. Orton and the Origins of Dyslexia Dung the 1920s, Samuel Orton extended the study of reading ds sulies with clinical studies designed 10 rest the hypothesis that cea ing deficis were a function of delay oe flare of the let cereal Hemisphere o establish dominance for language Kneions. Aesordin to Orton (1928), caldren with reading dsabiitis tended 10 reverse leers sich 95 ld and plg, and words such as snwhews and oon, cause ofthe ack of ltsRemisphene dominance for te processing oF nguinc symbol "Neher Orton's theory of reading disabilities nor his observation thar reversals were sympromatic of the disorder has stood the test of ‘ime [Torgesen, 1991}, However, Orton's watings were highly inven In simulating research, mobilizing eacher and parear groups to bing ateation zo ean disorders and ther LDS, and onthe development of ‘estrcional echmgues foe teaching children with eading disabilities. ‘Moreover, Orton's inflence on prsen-day concepualizations of _LDs an be seen indirectly in is early stems to clas a range of ln fue and moor dibilies in ain to reading disabilities (Dorn, 1995), More specifically in 1937, Orton seported a number af casts it ‘which children of average to above average itlience manifeed one (of these si dab (1) "developmental alexa,” or dificulty inlearing to seas (2) “developmental araphi,” o significant difficulty in luring to wre; (3) “developmental Word deafness,” oF a specie {efi n verbal understanding within a conext of norma auditory acu ity () “developmental motor aphasia," oe motoe speech delay (5) ab rormal clumsiness and (6) string, Orton (1937) way the fist t0 firs ha ending diablis manifested a a symbolic level appeared to be rlaed to cerebral dysfunction rather tha a specific Baia Kesion (a5 postulated by Hinselwood and eters) and could e nentified among {hldren with average to above-average inteligence- ‘The Straussian Movement and the Concept of Cerebral Dysfunction ‘Wheress Oreo’ contributions are inked primasly to the development of sent a cinta eres in eeading dealt (paroclary ds Tex) twas the work of Stas and Werner (1943) and thee collages (Strass 8 Lebtin, 1947) afer World War I that led directly ro the emergence ofthe general catagory of LDs asa formally recognied eld {Dons 1993; Rute, 1982; Torgesen, 1991). This work built on eater tstemprs ro understand che behavioral dels of childeen who subse ‘quently were decribed as hyperactive In thin seres of clinical obsess ton, cide’ overetvin, impulsivity and concrete thinking were at tebuted to brain damage the sbsence of physical evidence of injury to the neous system. Sraus and Werner expanded this concep in research involving children with meatal retardation. They were particulary terested Comparing the behavior of children whose retardation was associated ‘uth owen brain damage, with tae ofchillen whose retardation was not associated with neurological impairment bu was presumably far {ahin nate Sauss and Lebtinen (1947) zeported that children with fentalsetardtion and brain injury manifested cifficres on tare ae essing gore ground perception, atenton, and concept formation is ‘eit to hyperactiity. However, childen widhooe brain damage but ‘vith atl retardation peeformed in a manner similae to chien who srere noe meatal impaired and were less likly 10 show behavioral ‘Wihia the comext ofthese studies, Strauss group subsequently cbverved what they believed were similar patterns of Behavior aad per formance in cidrea wih average ineligene who diaplayed behavioral and leaning difiuies, They attributed the behavior of ll these groups fof ehldren to 2 syndrome they called "minimal bein ajay” (MB, Trom sexe stds, the concep of “mininal bran dysfunction” [MBD} emerged inthe 1960s (Clemens, 1966), with an emphasis on the Seraustan thesis that MB or MBD could be identified solely o the basso behavioral sigs, even when physial and neurological examina tions were normal. ‘when o nena don x he presence of prychlaga dtr ‘nce con dcneed by the a of sone fo guste efor Feepualand copia daurbncr bough phyla fio be mgatine hc the behave tbc ingueston reser, ‘hatchet foran injury seven tbh he pefonmancesot the child on or ts are ne sromgly native of ram ry. Ss be rename to omer degoss of rin in Seat 8 einen, 1947, 112) “The Straussan movement hada profound in uence onthe develop meat af the eld of LDs (Does, 1998; Harmil, 1993; Kavale 8 Foeness 1983). Tongesn (1981) concleded that three conceps emerging from the Seaussan moverene provided rationale forthe development ofthe fil fof LDssepacaey from other field of education: (1) Individual diferences nearing could be understood by examining the diferent ways that l= dren approach larning tasks (che peocesses that aid or inerfere with Tesring(2) educational procedures should betaloredo patterns of pro~ ‘esi strength and weaknesses nthe individual hl ap (3) chide with deficient leaning processes may be helped to learn noxmally by en Poying teachiag methods that focus on their processing serengths rather than their weaknesses Expanding on this ist, Kavale and Forness (1985) Include (1) The locus of an LD t within the affected individual and rhs represents a medical (disease) mode, (2) LDs are assosiated with (or ‘ised by] nesrlogieal dysfunction; 3) the academic problems observed Inchldeen with LDs are related to prychologieal proesing deficits, most totaby in the perceptual-motor domain (4) the academic fare of chi {ren with LDe occurs despite the presence of normal intligence and (5) [LDs cantor primarily be de to other handieapping conditions. ‘Cruickshank Myldebust, Johnson, and Kirk land the Concept of LD: Among the mos sigiticant behavioral scinists involved in the easly ‘onceptiliation ad study of LDs were Willam Cruickshank, Helmet Mykisbust, Doris Johnson, and Samael Kick al f whom propelled the Feld aay fo focus om etiology toward an emphasis on learer chat steric and educational interventions to addres lacing defi. For ‘ample Cruickshank and his colleagues (Crekshank, Bice, 8 Wallen, 1957) studi and recommended modifications in claszroom envioLEARNING oisasiunes rents to reduce stimuli hypothesized to be distracting for children with, learning and atndon dest Helmer Mykcbust and Doris Johnson a Northwestern University conducted numerous studies of the elles of Aiferet types of language and perecptal deficits on academic ands al leaming in children. They were alo among the isto develop wel Aesgned intervention procedures forthe remediation of dailies in Skills elated co school learning Johnson 8 Mylebust, 1967). How re it was Samuel Kitk who proposed the term “learing disabilities” Ina 1963 conference devored to exploring problems of perceptually andicapped children. Kick (1963) sated: hae el set “laring diss” describe oup of il dren eho hve dsr nh develop of lng spec ed ing and snstd communicational ede or oa eric, Tnthingoop Ld notncledechen wh have semory hee sh ‘Binds; bcane we have metodo unig tnd ein the ‘fafandbind locale mth groupes maa ave ene ‘ited mena earn. (pp231 By 1963 the new field was moving roward the formal laglaive esignation of LD asa specific disability with cttlements for cil rights Protections and spel series. Thi movement was based largely on ‘the arguments of Kitk and otbers chat citen with LDs (1) had fe. ‘nt earning characteristics than children diagnosed with mental retard tion or emotional disturbance; (2) manifested learning characteristics that resold from intense ie neurobiological) rater than enzo ‘mental factors: (3} demonstrated leaning dificabies chat were nen fected,” given the children's strengths i other areas and (4) roid Specialized educational interventions. Note chat i this sight defn fhm, no mention is made of intelligence. Rates, the focus on soa interaction and “normal” adaptive behavior Exchsonary conditions ate identified onthe bass of diferent intervention needs, no inp ‘fining LDs in terms of what conditions re not LD. Whats interest ings three ld eecived tinal momensom on the strength of lin tal observation and ada ‘THE INFLUENCE OF ADVOCACY ON DEFINITIONS ‘AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE FIELD. Not uncommonly in both the educational and public health domains, [Ds weee inital and formally deified as disabilities on the Bais of ‘advocacy rather dan systematic scene ini In fact, nthe United Seats, the msjrity of cent advances are eypicaly ximulted by vo al eis ofthe educational or medical status quo, Ite rre that py hologcal condition, dines, or educational prolem i afforded ser tion until politcal forces are mobilized by parents, patent, or other ete invidals expressing thee concerns about thee quality of lie {other lected officials. Clery this was dhe ease in the Bld of LD, i (shih parents and child advocates successfully lobbied Congress 1 em 1c leglation in 1969 though the Education ofthe Handicapped Act (Dubie Law 91-230) This lw authorized research and waning pro rams to addres the needs of children with specific LDs (Doris, 1993), “The diagnostic concep of LDs gained significant momentum during the 1960s and 1970s As Zigmond (1993 explained, dhe proliferation of ‘hldren diagnosed as having LDs during theve tro decades wa related to moll factors. Fist, the label “Ls” was not a stigmaczing one. Parts au teachers were more comforable withthe er tha wh et ‘ological base labels suck a “rain njrien” "MB," and "percep Handicaps” Moreove receiving a dignosis of an LD did nor imply low imtligenc, behavioral diicalis, of sensory handicaps. Oa the com teary children with [Ds manifeed fc in learning devpte “noe mmal”adapcve behavior and intelligence, and intact heating, vision, ad ‘motional status. The fat shat youngsters with [Ds displayed sons i telgence gave parents and teachers hope tht learning sfc could be surmounted given thatthe right set of instructional methods, eon ‘ons, and setting could be identified. Advocacy efforts used a seis of ‘onsensis conferences, fe of avhich ae noeworthy: one om MII a the other on LDs. Both atempeed to identify a single overarching dag nostic eategory that could define the dsaiies widely believed to ham per the educational and behavioral performance of many culden MINIMAL BRAIN DYSFUNCTION In the 19605, the ein stands of individual dilerences and socal and politcal advocacy joined ogether through a common endeavor to deine Unexpected behavioral dificules and underachievement dependent on faerorsintriai to the child. The fst sialiant efor involved the de ‘lopment of a denition of MBI in 1962, A formal definition ofa sy rome called “minimal brain dysfunction” was formlated ina meeting between the Easter Seas Sit and wha is now the National Istiute (of Neurological Disorders and Stroke: The tem “inna ba sanction syle” fs wo chien of nearseage stra or above serge gencaliteligence witherslearning or bail dbs ranging om mio severe, whic samc wh dorsi of apn thee ere. These devon ay mis thane by various combining of impasmon in prepion, concepualiation aga, 620", oot of tenon, imple, e motor fcon (Clemente, 196, pret) This definition eseaily substiuted the term “dysfunction” for “inj” recognizing the etilegea npictons of tem ike “ny” lesuesied that MED was a heterogeneous category, encompassing both Ilavioeal and leering dilicules. As noted earths definition tp- ‘slated thar brain dystoncrion could be iene solely on the bass oF hehavioral signs. However, the definition of MBD was controversial (Rutter 1982; Sate && Fache, 1980), Educators objected to the com ‘ey espe the fac that this defination was asd on ver halla centary ‘tcl observation and research in cinta neurology aswell sem Piscl support fom emergent peychophysilogcal methods to study brain faneton (Dylan, Ackerman, Clements, 8 eters, 1971). To the sfucational community, MBD was closely connected oa medical model nd implied char psychologists and physicians would ave ro work in ‘School in order to make s diagnos. Others found the eoneept Furry Sind too broad (Rarer, 1982). The later concer was magnified inthe 1970s with the development of checklists for MBD tha included more than 30 symptoms (Peter, Davis, Goolsby, &© Clements, 1973). Thee "ymproms ranged from difclies with academic silk to aggressive ‘Sutingout behavior The syndrome encompared such a broad range of “Symptoms thatthe eeatment implications of sdentifing a child with IBD were unclear (Rusts, 1982 Sate & Fletcher, 1980 American Psychiatric Association ‘When the shied edition ofthe Digostic and Sttscal Manual of Mew fal Disorders (DSM) was published by the American Pape Ax “ciation (1980, che concep of MBD wa dropped and th earning an Behavioral charters were separately dened as "specific develop- mental diorders” and “atention defi dsordee" This division aptly folved the clsscnton problem of the comorbidity of earings Benton dsordets that plagued thse inerested in MBI and MBD. Al ‘hough many childeen wah LDs also meet eri fr attention dei hyneractvey disorder (ADHD), these are separate disorder (ten, 1982), Howeses both require intervention, Herta, neurobiological correlates, and otrvntion neds are difezent, 50 unifying thers 38 2 sine symrome dd oe faciate research or practice. US. Federal Definition of LDs Not suprisingly he development of che definition of MBD led to eac- ‘ions among educators and other professionals working in schools. In 1966, the US. Office of Edeation organized a mecing in which the aticipans formally defined Kirk 1963) concepeof “lacing disabil fy as follows: ‘These “specif eeingdsbilty” means dsr in one ot more ofthe han patcholgicl proces saved i andenanding = ‘hing igang ape wren whch my anf el! in an tee at sense, en, wre, pl oto do mathemati {NiSlssone: the tm lacs sch soonest prepa han fos ain intr minimal sin con, dae, and deen ‘mena eas Th te doe ct cad Cen wh ave eg Sabi, which re pearly the rele of val, aig ose banca, or meal aration or emotional diane, one foment carl or ecmoms advantage, [US Of of Ede fom, 196 8 ‘The resemblance of this 1966 definition of LD to the 1962 defini: ‘on of MID i srking Sat & Fletcher, 1980). Reflecting more than 60 yeas of work, the notion of MED as an “unexpected” dborder ao 2 Trbotable to mental defisency, sensory donde, emotional diator bance, or cultural or economic disturbance ws resind, Exologial terms were dropped and replaced by educational descriptors. The defini- ton acknowledged intros factors within a child and intended to be Casive of minimal brain éyshuncion and other formulations derived feom neurology and psychology (Dots, 19935 Rute, 1982; Sate & Flercheg 1980), However the pivotal importance ofthis definition i thar ircontinues ro serve ae the US, federal statuary defincon of LD, Te has persisted through a seis of parental and professional alvocacy ‘Hforts that edt the proviso of special education serics For eden ‘with LDs. This occurred inially theough the 1969 Learning Disabilities ‘Ace The statutory deinition of LDs in the 1969 Act appeared inthe Ea ‘seation for All Handicapped Children Ac of 1975 (Public Law 94-142) Sand x curently in IDEA 2004. This definition has enlred despite the face that it does nor specify any inclusionary eta foe LDS. I sen tally supp that LDs are heterogeneous, eeflct problems with copnitive rocesing, and ace not robe commingied with other disorders that ep- ‘esentexclusionary conivons. Ina sense, LDs became leptimized and odiied in US. public law mostly onthe bass of what they were not The absence of incisiomay eters became an immediate problem Jn 1975, with passage of Public Law 9442 and the expectation tha thestates would identify and serve children with LDs. In response eo this problem, the US. Office of Education (1977) published recommends ‘Sons for procedures for ilenfying LDs that incladed the naion of 3 Alscrpaney hereon 1Q and achievement ae-a marker for [Ds 3 Fl lows severe dcrepancyhmeen achievement anneal ile none fr moc fe areas (1 oa expression (2) seningcompeeersions [Syren expression: (4b aig (5) resting compre ‘oo, ) mathemati alan (7) mathe reson The ‘ikdmay nr beled shaving» spec ening dab the Sserpany ee ality ad atcvemer sperma ther {1)'2 noua ening a met hac (eal recs (3) ‘tional dstrbuneo 8) envionment clr oreo di vantage. p. G10) ‘The use of IQ-achevement discrepancy as a marker for LDs has had a profound impact on how LDs are conceptualize, There was some research atthe tte validating an TQ-achievemeat discrepancy model [Ruter 8 Yale, 1975), which has no tod sp overtime (Fletcher ea 2002). However, researcher, practioner, abd the public continue co Assume that such adseepancy isa marke foe specie types of LDs that fre unexpected au extegorically dint from other forms of under "chievement. Some researchers continue to use IQ-achievement discrep fancy a8 Key aspect of the Menlication process (Kavale 8 Forney 2000), despite the fact that the evidence base for is Yat a3 cer feature of LD clsiicstion i weak ro nonexistent (se Chapter 3). Bat the impact of IQ-achievement dscrepancy was claely apparent i the regelations concerning LD ientifiaton in the 1992 and 1997 eautor- lesions of IDEA. The saute has maintained the definition of LDs for ‘mulated inthe 1966 meeting, andthe regulations mainsined the 1977 Procedures unl the 2004 reauthorization Other Definitions of LDs “The federal definition of LDs has been widely crtcied (Fletcher etal 20025 Kavale & Forness, 1985; Lyon, 1987, Lyon et aly 2001; Seni, 1987), As Torgesen (1991) has posted out, this defisition has a lest four major problems that render it ineesve: (I) Ie des nt eleaty in dicate that LD area heterogeneous group of disorders (2) fal 0 eee ognize that LDs frequently persist and are manifested in adults as well 8 {hulden; (3) doesnot clsny specify that, whatever the ease of LD, the “final common path" consis of inherent alerauons nthe way History of the Fels n information is processed and (4) ie doesnot adequately recognize that pesos with oder anicapping or environmental mations may have fn LD comearrenly with these conditions. Other formal stems © tighten the federal dfivon of LDs have no aed significa betes, 25 «an be sen inthe revised defniion produced by dhe Nationa Joust Com ‘nits oa Leaesing Dsailes (NJCLD, 1988 se also Hamil, 1993): Looming dais ic 3 yea cm tat refers to 3 hecopetous troup donde msn sgn diay nce acqesion de feng, peaking, eng, wring rssoing, of mate ful able, Tew doer are nin tothe nial, pre ‘Sted to edo cen eres sytem dyfnction and may oat ‘ro the if span. roles in serpy bavi, Sota fe ‘hoy and wih nraton may evi i arming des bet Jo tov by thane one ering dst” Akhough ering ‘ibis ny acer concrtzanywk ther hancpping on ‘Som ferme sensory apatea, ent tration scl ad ‘noon dursanee or ith et inlenes acs it ‘snc infin nappropete inseacton, they are no he ‘esl tee condone tatoos. (p. Although the NJCLD definition addeesses the issues of heteogene iy persistence, ineinsi ecology and comocbity discussed by Tonpesen (1991), tcomtnues to elecea vague and ambiguous description of ma Tple and hereogencous disorders Thee types of defiaisons cannot be tly operationalized or mpincalyvaidted and donot provide ela ‘tans, teacher, or researchers with useful information to enhance com ‘munication or improve predictions. There are no inclusionary eter, tin! the definition 1s based on excasion. Given thi tate of he fel ‘many scholars have calle for a moratorium on the development of broad definitions and. advocate definitions cha address LDs only in ‘tems of coferene and operational domains. For instance, Sanovich (1993) has stated Seif vetgtiony of some gener defined ety lle la ine duty spy ake lasers given what we sted ow ‘Meurhecogeney aco varies lersny domains, Research sve tone mas dfn groupe psi in emo he damn of ee (eeading aay, athe aby The eet ofo-ocuroee of those dyfonsios ten Recome ap empl geen or someng ‘cis prety dfaion protic Ip 273) Both the DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) and che International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD10s Word2 LEARNING OVSABILTIS Heath Organization, 1992), have define, classified nd coded ering disorders and specie developmental disorders of academic kil nro Spec deft domains Foe example, DSM-IV provides crite fr the 100) and lower {« 100) 1Q scores, Athowgh the overall eritabiyof reading sls was 0.58, citeen with eading debits land lower IQ scores had 4 ertabity estimate of 03, 35 compared ‘with 0.72 for the higher IQ group. These stasticll significant fer cs ia estabiigy are nonetheless stall, Wadsworth etal 2000) re ‘pied love 40D pis of ins in order vo detect he diference, “There ae also stoic of cldren with reading disblites that Hae functional imaging methods, suchas funcional magnetc resonance Ctseation, Detoon, and Idnaietion » ‘maging (IMR and magnetic source imaging (MSI (ee Chaper 5). A ‘omg wo stady hata sample that Large enough eo actually compare thilren with and without IQ—sehievement discrepancy. who read ood itis noteworthy that no stady includes only those children with Unerepaney. There is a0 evidence from these studs that these 60 roupe of children have diferent neuroimaging profes. In paricalas, ‘Muhes that permit examination of individel Brain activation profiles tsnecally MS, show a diflerences in betin maps from ehilden who fend poorly with and with IQ-achievement dnexepancy: ‘Akeratve Approaches to Apttude-Achevement Discrepancy Are 1Q indices or assessments of listening comprehension better mea sues of aptitude? Some have advocited the use of nonverbal 1Q mes ‘ores (eg performance IQ; PIQ) because this type of meanore less onfounged by language, and many student with Ls have langage “iicules. Scores on aonverbl 1Q measures ate believed co beter ‘eal a students aptitade for leaning (Pere, 1985; Rutter & Yee, 1975). Alternatives, Heser (1987) and Beringer etal (2003) sm gested that a verbal measure of IQ was a beter apuude assessment Fecsase dial in Teasing 40 cead should represent 3 discrepancy relative to language portal. Here the diinstion i esenially be fen sadents who do nor learn 10 ready despite adequate verbal sills, and those whose eading dificules ae pat ofthe constellation ‘of langage problems. Finally, others have aged tata lseing com prehension measure i @ beter index of apttae for legning to read Teeause a reading diab should represent a discrepancy heeveen lintening comprehension and reading comprehension (Spring & French, 1590), “There iso support for the greater validity of these approaches Fletcher eal (20050) summarized evidence pertaining alternative ap proaches to operationalizing apie and achievement fr stunts who fe poor readers and found negigble to small eet sizes across mew ture, For example, in Petcher ct al. (1994) elect since i relation © ‘word rcogniton were 0.14 for Fall cae 1Q and Verbal IQ, and 022 {or Peformance 1Q Stanovich and Siegel (1994) found incosistne and stall ferences om coitive measures mos oie the langue do- ‘main, based on the use of Verbal 1Q versus Performance IQ. Like Aaron Kuch, and Grapeathin (1988), Fletcher etal. (1994) found small di ferences between discrepant and nondinerepane poor readers bated om 3 iscrepaney berween listening comprehension and reading comprehen Sion (tfc size = 0.20) Badian (1999) found that chese definitions ete Uistable over te.* LEARNING OvsaatuTIEs IQ Achievement Discrepancy and Math Discs Flecher (2005) compared IQ-achevementdiseépant a low-achiving {groups of mathsmpared children who did nor show evdence of word Fecopation problems oa cogaive Yaiable involving attention, lan foage, problem solving, concept formation, and vnual-spatial proces ing. The results showed tae the dscrepane group had higher peor ‘mance levels om al variable. The group that ha nondiserepanc low chievement in math wae notably poorer in vocabulary despite average treading sil. The cial ise, fr ceading disables, snot eat the troupe ifr Diferences in level of pevformance are expected because {IQ tes are ase to define ehe groups one group has higher 1Q scores, tnd IQ is mosdertcly to highly corelated with each of the measures {ergs vocabulary! used to evaluate the children, More sgficant isthe patton fohape} of difereaces between the groups, Testing the profs for ditferences in pattern did not fella statically sigan differ ence, and the eflect size was negligible (0.06) As we have shown i the ‘reading area (Fatcher eal, 1994), eliminating variability due wo adit ference in vocabulary proxy fr Qin many sadie—elimintes mont ofthe differences in level of petformance apparent berween the 0 tnath groups. The dflerncesappeat robe a product ofthe definitions, tnd the correlates of poor math achievement do aot appear to vary once the difereaces induced by the definition are ten into account. The Aitierenees in vocabulary beeen those with IQ-achievemene discrep fsncy and nondisrepant low achievement in math and reading mont likely reflec a higher conslaton benreen reading and vocabulary than between vocabulary and math, Mazzoceo and Myers (2003) also found lee valiey forthe use of Q-aehievement discrepancy in defi math IDs 1Q and Reoding Comprehension Discbites “The roe of 10 in defining the reading comprehension subgroup has emerged diferent in studies of poor comprehenders from the way it has in stacy of chose with dysesa, There ae fe studies tha use IQ achievement discepancies 10 define groups of poor comprehenden. ‘Thos, he se of IQ or IQ-achievementdcrepaney has had ie im pace on research on reading comprehension disability. Some studies of reading comprehension have wsed 1Q as an outcome measure or covariate rather than a a nclsionay ererion fo denying disability Fr ex ample, children with specie reading comprebeasion dificltis show Phonological skill and nonverbal iatligence similar to those of spi Eally achieving children, but thst verbal IQ scores ace lower [eg Stochard 8 Hulme, 1996), These findings suggest that more general ver bal processing dificulies under the reading comprehension disability in some children with good decoding but poor comprehension, high Uighrng the dificlees that would emerge f1Q sere controled im td its of poor eompechenders. As vocabulary and other lexical measures fre celated 10 oth eadingcompechenson and verbal IQ, te lower ver bal scores are hardly surprising (Fletcher etal, 19960), However in re en study of ppl achieving readers, verbal Q was found to account {or only 4 small amount of the varailty in teaing comprehension shill (Oakhill, Cai, 8 Bryant, 203). Ater verbal intletal skis ‘were accounted for in diferent models significant anigue wanance in Comprehension was predicted by text integration sil, metacogniive monitoring and working memory. Q-Achievement Dsereponey and Speech-Language Disorders “The federal deiniion of LDs icles disorders of oral expression and listening comprehension, These diordes can also be represented as di orders of expresve and receptive language, which constitate separate “ategry in speci edneaton under IDEA. A comsenais group cmened by the National Intute of Deafness and Communication Disodets concluded thatthe paetice of using IQ scores o identify childeen with, these disorders was not supported by research and practice (Taser Fisberg 8 Cooper, 1999, This conch was basd on an emerging database o the Valdty of “copiiv referencing” the term for derep ney identification used in tis area (Casby, 1992) In this database, the most convincing evidence came ftom. an epidemiological study by ‘Tomblin and Zhang (1999). The inventigators wed mesures of nonver bal 1Q snd oral langage ability ro create three groupe of children from a large epidemiological sample: geoup with o umpaiement a group with specie language mpainnene 1Q> 87 and componte langage sks © 1.25, Standard deviations below ages and a group with general delay 1Q < #7 dnd composite language shils «1.25 standatd deviations below age) Comparisons ofthe thee groups on diferent language measures showed conn eliferenesherween the nonimpaired group and both language: impaired groups. However, diferences herween the two language- Impaired groups wore abo apparente “Children with ener dey closely parallel the specifically langoage-impaired group except that he children with general delay were more impaired and noticeably poorer fon the ust involving comprehension of sentences (grammatiel tinder ‘anding) ip. 367). Fomiin nd Zhang (1999) questioned whether chis Tamer ditference in grammatical understanding specifi to either group, ‘oti cht "cuzene diagnostic methods snd wandard for specie layage impairment do aot sexu in a group of chen whose profiles of Tanguage achievement are unigue™ (py. 367) PSYCHOMETRIC FACTORS IN DISCREFRNCY MODELS “Thus far, we have addressed the validity ofthe 1Q-achievemear dis crepancy approach fo identification, falling to find much evidence sup Porting the validity of definitions and identification procedures based fon apiude-achiovement dicrepancis. The reasons for these weak Tait eeultsundoubredly stm fom issn concering the relay of any toe sed model fo iensiving individual studens with LD. Ale though these problems have been well documented for various ap prc to the eximation of discrepancy, many of the Same sus wl fer the we ofa deinion based low achicvement. Sach problems involve the measurement error af the tess, dhe unseliably of diffe fence score and the tse oF ct pins #0 sulivide 3 aoenal dieu Approaches to IQ-achievement discrepancy that are based on regres son methods adjnting fr the corelation of 1Q and achievement re Superior to other ethodssuhen wo texts are smvolved (Bennett SS ‘Garivio, 1968; Reynolds, 1984-1985). 1Q and achievement test scores are moderately correlated, so the faire to adjust for this corelation Teads to segrension to the mean. Regression effec: indicate that when individoale are chosen because of low perfomance on ope tes, they will on average, score closer tothe mean onthe second test. This phe omenon reals in overdenification of LDs at upp levels of 1Q and tndendentfeation at lower levels of 1Q. A regression approach a juss for the condition of 1Q’and achievement, thus coreting this problem Discrepancy models involve the estimation ofa sore that reflects the ference betveen to test eis well known tha dtference scores ate ‘ppcily oer im rly than she measures used to compute de di ference (Bact, 1957). The low rly of difereace sores can be cxacerbated because they atficialy consain the variance in scores {Rogosa, 1995), asin the case when 1Q and achievement sores are used to tdenay che lower performing segment ofthe population. ‘We described the problems associated with the use of cutoff scores to subdivide 4 normal distribution. The empirical fects of his bison ‘vere studied! by 8. E. Shayit tal (1992), tho found tha definitions Based on IQ-achievement discrepancy were cepecilly unstable from trades 1 to 3, but were more sable from grades 310. Homes hi Study didnot examine definitions of fow achievement, In a systematic stud of his issue, Francis eal. (2008) wed simulated data and actual {ats om the Connecticvt Longtodinal Sry o vate te stably of ‘lasfcations based on definitions of IQ-achivementdicrpancy and rondiscrepant low achievement. I the groups formed by citer defn ‘on represented mesningfal subdivisions of the achievement distrib tion, some degree of stably over me would be expected. The results tf the simulations showed that groups formed by imposing eut-points tased on either definition of LDs ere unstable ver time, even when the simulations were designed with high rliaiity of measurement and to Iminimize individual change, Similar istabny was apparent longi inal data Trom the Connecsicat Longitudinal Study a which 39% of ‘iron designated ss having Ls in grage 3 using diferent definitions ‘hanged group placement with epeatd texting in grade 3 Ts noe surpesing dha ferent approaches o apicadeschieement screpanies are ot likely to produce valid closifcations, because the Uunderying psychomearc models the same and de meanares are moder aly correlate, Individuals who clater around a cutpoint are more Similar than diferent, so diferencs in identification reflect the differ fences inthe corelaion ofthe two teste with achievement. Thos, he Slope of the epresion line wl hit, depending onthe cocreltion of he pttude and achievement measres ogardess of how the construct ae Ssssed or che domain in which the discrepancy i compared. In Figure 5.5 Fletcher eal, 2008), the zeresion line steeper For Verbal 1Q than Performance 1Q bocatne ofthe higher population coreation oF ‘eading 69) and Verbal IQ than foe reading nd Performance IQ (40, “Theditference in slopes and in measures shits individuals a the edge of the egression cut pein on one IQ measure to iter 3 dicate ot low schiving subgroup When the other IQ measure i used. Bees the Corsation of 1Q and reading is lowe, effect sizes would be larger for Performance 1Q than Verbsl IQ (ce Hetcher eta, 1994), Nonetheless, collapsing across IQ discrepancy and lw achievement defintons, 30% fof the sample is consistently identified as LD, simply sing from one TLD group to another Changing the IQ measure moves the observations let or eight across the cue-poin, bur dors aot move them por down