Learning disability identification consistency: The impact of methodology and student evaluation data.

2017 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-267 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrin E. Maki ◽  
Matthew K. Burns ◽  
Amanda Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Data ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Disability Identification ◽  
The Impact

School Psychologists’ Confidence in Learning Disability Identification Decisions

2018 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 243-256 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrin E. Maki ◽  
Matthew K. Burns ◽  
Amanda L. Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
School Psychologists ◽  
Graduate School ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
School Psychologist ◽  
Identification Methods ◽  
Student Data ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Disability Identification ◽  
And Training

Many school psychologists spend a large portion of their time conducting evaluations for special education, but school psychologists’ confidence in learning disability (learning disability[ies] [LD]) identification has not been examined experimentally. This study examined differences in 376 school psychologists’ confidence in their identification decisions across LD identification methods, student evaluation data conclusiveness level, school psychologist experience, identification consistency, and identification methods used in practice, preferred identification methods, and identification methods taught in graduate school. The school psychologists reported lower levels of confidence when using response to intervention (RtI) compared with ability-achievement discrepancy, and they reported lower levels of confidence when student data were inconclusive compared with when student data were conclusive that a student did not have LD. Higher levels of experience and training did not increase the likelihood of greater confidence compared with lower levels of experience and training. However, school psychologists who reported “somewhat confident ratings” were more likely to make inconsistent identification decisions than school psychologists who reported “not very confident” ratings. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

scholarly journals Counting Differently: Assessing Mathematics Achievement in Signing Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children Through a Unique Lens

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jon Henner ◽  
Claudia Pagliaro ◽  
SaraBeth Sullivan ◽  
Robert Hoffmeister
Keyword(s):  
Mathematics Achievement ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Hard Of Hearing ◽  
Mathematics Performance ◽  
Hearing Status ◽  
Signed Language ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Disability Identification ◽  
Hearing Children

Limited studies exist that connect using signed language with mathematics performance in deaf and hard of hearing children. Here we examine 257 participants and compare their results on the NWEA MAP to their results on an assessment of ASL skills. We found that better ASL skills tended to result in better MAP performance. These results are moderated by factors such as age, gender, parental hearing status, and learning disability identification.

Comparing Math LD Diagnostic Rates Obtained Using LDAC and DSM-5 Criteria: Implications for the Field

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (3) ◽  
pp. 175-196
Author(s):  
Meadow Schroeder ◽  
Michelle A. Drefs ◽  
Michael Zwiers
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Classification Systems ◽  
Math Learning ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Learning Disability Identification ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Disability Identification

Within the Canadian context, the two major learning disability classification systems are arguably the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the Learning Disabilities Association (LDAC) of Canada’s Official Definition of Learning Disabilities. Several of the more recent changes to the fifth edition of the DSM contrast with the LDAC definition, which establishes them as competing diagnostic frameworks. We investigated the frequency of math learning disability identification when both the LDAC and DSM-5 criteria were modelled and applied to an archived data set (2011–2016). Results support generally similar percentages of math learning disability cases identified when employing LDAC or DSM-5 criteria; however, the two methods identified a different set of cases. Implications for using DSM-5 versus LDAC criteria in diagnosing learning disabilities are discussed, including the need to consider adopting a national diagnostic standard.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document