Updated Tables Needed to Determine a Severe Discrepancy Under California’s Title 5 Regulations

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-33
Author(s):  
David P. Helm ◽  
Dearme E. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Severe Discrepancy

Do State Methods of Quantifying a Severe Discrepancy Result in Fewer Students with Learning Disabilities?

1992 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Finlan
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Total Population ◽  
Students With Learning Disabilities ◽  
Students With Ld ◽  
Severe Discrepancy ◽  
The Way

Minimizing misclassification of students with LD is a major concern for policymakers, particularly if financial incentives are available for placing children in such programs. In the current study, individual states' methods of defining a severe discrepancy for determining LD eligibility are examined, as well as the way use of such methods influences misclassification. The percentage of the total population identified as LD by individual states (as reported to the federal government) was compared. Results showed variations from 2.19% to 8.66% in the percentage of students aged 7 to 16 identified as LD across states. Seven of the states in the lowest percentage decile used a method for determining a severe discrepancy; in comparison, only two of the states in the decile identifying the most students used a method of determining a severe discrepancy. It was concluded that use of any method to determine a severe discrepancy may help reduce the number of inappropriate placements resulting from labeling students as LD.

Toward Defining Discrepancies for Specific Learning Disabilities: An Analysis and Alternatives

1979 ◽  
Vol 2 (4) ◽  
pp. 25-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Algozzine ◽  
Charles Forgnone ◽  
Cecil Mercer ◽  
John Trifiletti
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Specific Learning Disability ◽  
The United States ◽  
Specific Learning Disabilities ◽  
Significant Discrepancy ◽  
Severe Discrepancy ◽  
Specific Learning

According to the United States Office of Education, the only generally accepted manifestation of a specific learning disability is the existence of a significant discrepancy between expected and actual achievement. Within this context methods for determining the significance of any achievement discrepancies in children's performances become important. The research reported here attempted to evaluate the utility of two procedures for determining severe discrepancy levels; the benefits and liabilities of each are discussed.

Two Key Concepts in the Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities and the Habilitation of Learning

1992 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cecil R. Reynolds
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Process Models ◽  
Academic Attainment ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Severe Discrepancy ◽  
Strength Models

Two key concepts in diagnosing learning disabilities (“severe discrepancy” and “process dysfunction”) are reviewed and their relationship to the habilitation of learning is discussed. Specific guidelines are delineated for correctly calculating a severe discrepancy between an individual's age and ability and level of academic attainment. Methods and reasons for evaluating processing skills are also discussed. Process models of deficit-centered remediation are dismissed in favor of strength models of remediation.

Multiple IQ-Achievement Comparisons: Effects on Severe Discrepancy Determination

1992 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 167-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Larry D. Evans
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Type I Error ◽  
Multiple Comparisons ◽  
Type I ◽  
Discrepancy Model ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Severe Discrepancy ◽  
Disability Identification ◽  
Woodcock Johnson

Increased Type I error resulting from multiple IQ-achievement comparisons may inflate learning disability identification rates for discrepancy models. The magnitude of such inflation was investigated with 87 referred students given the WISC-R and Woodcock-Johnson (R) Tests of Achievement. Five IQ-achievement comparisons were made for each student. Correction for multiple comparisons significantly decreased the number of students and achievement areas found to demonstrate significant IQ-achievement differences. However, less dramatic decreases were found for students and achievement areas determined to show discrepancies. It was concluded that the magnitude of inflation is a function of number of comparisons, degree of correction for multiple comparisons, and discrepancy model used.

Effects of simple and regressed discrepancy models and cutoffs on severe discrepancy determination

1995 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 93-102 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen A. Payette ◽  
Harvey F. Clarizio ◽  
S. E. Phillips ◽  
Deborah E. Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Severe Discrepancy

Achievement-Potential Discrepancy Status of Students in LD Programs

1986 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 200-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann Valus
Keyword(s):  
Regression Analysis ◽  
Random Sample ◽  
Significant Relationship ◽  
Analysis Procedure ◽  
Standard Score ◽  
Slow Learners ◽  
Iq Scores ◽  
Severe Discrepancy

This study addresses the issue of achievement-potential discrepancy by applying a standard-score and regression-analysis procedure to data on new LD placements. Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of teachers of LD students in Kansas and Iowa. Results indicated that only two-thirds of the initially placed pupils exhibited a severe discrepancy. A comparison between IQ scores of underachievers and non-underachievers suggested that the latter tended to be slow learners. A comparison between the results of the standard-score and regression-analysis procedures revealed a large overlap between the two as well as a statistically significant relationship. The use or nonuse of the regression analysis did not have the expected effects on identifying a severe discrepancy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document