Learning Disability Discrepancy Formulas: Their Use in Actual Practice

1983 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 107-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steven R. Forness ◽  
Esther Sinclair ◽  
Donald Guthrie
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Actual Practice ◽  
Achievement Scores ◽  
Significant Discrepancy

Commonly accepted definitions of learning disability require the presence of a significant discrepancy between a child's potential and his/her achievement. Eight commonly used “discrepancy” formulas were applied to the IQ and achievement scores of a sample of 92 potentially learning disabled youngsters. Extremely variable results were found depending on the formula used. Implications of these findings for actual practice are suggested.

Questioning Discrepancies: Retaking the First Step 20 Years Later

1988 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 307-318 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Algozzine ◽  
James E. Ysseldyke
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Achievement Scores ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
General Difference ◽  
Political Economic

The term learning disability was scarsely off the breath of the early pioneers when a profession began questioning its own integrity. Today, the proliferation of students classified as learning disabled (LD) has caused social, political, economic, and educational concerns that, in turn, have produced serious questioning of practices. The driving force behind most conceptualizations of learning disabilities is the discrepancy between ability and achievement; yet, the dimensions of this parameter have not been documented. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the nature and occurrence of discrepancies between ability and achievement scores of students demonstrating average overall performance on commonly used assessment devices. Ability and achievement scores in several domains on individual and group-administered tests were compared. In general, difference patterns of students with average overall performance scores were similar across grade levels and achievement tests. Average discrepancies were generally small; however, wide (30–50 points) ranges were evident at all grade levels for individual and group-administered tests. Implications of these findings for current and future use of discrepancies as estimators of disabilities are discussed.

Questioning Discrepancies: Retaking the First Step 20 Years Later

1987 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 301-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bob Algozzine ◽  
James E. Ysseldyke
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Driving Force ◽  
Achievement Tests ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Achievement Scores ◽  
Grade Levels ◽  
Overall Performance ◽  
General Difference ◽  
Political Economic

The term learning disability was scarsely off the breath of the early pioneers when a profession began questioning its own integrity. Today, the proliferation of students classified as learning disabled (LD) has caused social, political, economic, and educational concerns that, in turn, have produced serious questioning of practices. The driving force behind most conceptualizations of learning disabilities is the discrepancy between ability and achievement; yet, the dimensions of this parameter have not been documented. The purpose of this investigation was to examine the nature and occurrence of discrepancies between ability and achievement scores of students demonstrating average overall performance on commonly used assessment devices. Ability and achievement scores in several domains on individual and group-administered tests were compared. In general, difference patterns of students with average overall performance scores were similar across grade levels and achievement tests. Average discrepancies were generally small; however, wide (30–50 points) ranges were evident at all grade levels for individual and group-administered tests. Implications of these findings for current and future use of discrepancies as estimators of disabilities are discussed.

Use of Deficits to Identify the Learning Disabled

1973 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-308 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Salvia ◽  
John Clark
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Age Differences ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Educational Planning ◽  
Achievement Scores ◽  
Difference Scores ◽  
The Difference

This article discusses the use of significant deficits as a defining characteristic of learning disability. Reliable measures of achievement and intelligence are used to compute the reliability of mental and achievement age differences, and the difference scores are demonstrated to be considerably less reliable than either the intelligence or achievement scores. Implications for educational planning are discussed.

Learning Disability: 10-Year Follow-up

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1984 ◽  
Vol 74 (6) ◽  
pp. 1058-1064
Author(s):  
Harry E. Hartzell ◽  
Carolyn Compton
Keyword(s):  
Job Satisfaction ◽  
Academic Success ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
School Success ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Social Success ◽  
School Attainment ◽  
Severe Degree ◽  
Negative Factors

A 10-year follow-up of 114 learning-disabled students has been conducted, gathering information on their academic achievement, social success, and job satisfaction. These students have been compared with 144 siblings without learning disabilities. Significantly lower levels of school attainment, academic success, and social success are found for the learning-disabled group. No difference is found in level of job satisfaction. Significant positive factors contributing to school success in the learning-disabled group were high IQ, less severe learning disability, positive personality characteristics in the child, effective family function, strong family support, high occupational level of family breadwinner, and high education level attained by the mother. Negative factors are a more severe degree of learning disability, the presence of hyperactivity, and a concomitant disability in mathematics.

Learning Disability Research: How Far Have We Progressed?

1981 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 372-381 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean R. Harber
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Control Groups ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Experimental Learning ◽  
Quasi Experimental ◽  
And Control ◽  
Disability Research

This article presents an analysis of the 229 research reports which have appeared in two major learning disability journals since 1978. Findings indicate that (1) the vast majority of these studies are quasi-experimental in nature; (2) control of extraneous variables (e.g., intelligence) was not appropriately demonstrated in many studies; (3) comparability between experimental and control groups was not adequately established in numerous reports; (4) fewer than half of the studies utilized subjects classified as learning disabled; (5) in more than two-fifths of the studies involving learning disabled subjects, the criteria for such classification were not provided; (6) studies which did operationally define learning disabilities utilized a wide range of criteria. The ethical limitations of conducting experimental learning disability research are discussed and suggestions for enhancing such research are offered. Finally, the importance of focusing research efforts on homogeneous populations (e.g., the severely learning disabled) is illustrated.

Learning Disabilities and the Professional Educator

1978 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 5-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Larsen
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Educational Practice ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Professional Standards ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Professional Educator

Dr. Stephen Larsen, President of D.C.L.D., has identified four central issues in the learning disability field as they relate to the educator: 1) determining the true parameters of the learning disabilities field; 2) monitoring the proliferation of tests and materials presumed relevant to educational practice; 3) insuring that learning disabled students are provided instructional opportunities in accordance with their educational needs and civil rights; and 4) determining professional standards that are necessary for competent and ethical practice. The professional educator is seen as the central person in the resolution of these issues as well as the central professional in planning, conducting, and/or coordinating the overall diagnostic and remedial efforts used with the learning disabled individual.

Differentiating LD and Normal Children: The Utility of Selected Perceptual and Perceptual-Motor Tests

1979 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 70-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jean R. Harber
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Motor Functioning ◽  
Perceptual Functioning ◽  
Motor Tests ◽  
Iq Scores ◽  
Age Range

Instruments intended to measure perceptual functioning present a major thrust in the learning disability field for differentiating learning disabled from normal peers. This investigation is an attempt to improve on some of the limitations noted in other research efforts in this area. First, only instruments which are generally accepted as measures of perceptual and perceptual-motor functioning were used. Second, in order to avoid ceiling effects, all subjects were within the age range for which normative data on the selected instruments were available. Third, IQ scores and chronological age were partialled out in order to remove the effects of these variables.

Reliability of Standardized Assessment Instruments When Used with Learning Disabled Children

1978 ◽  
Vol 1 (3) ◽  
pp. 23-31 ◽  
Author(s):  
Monte D. Smith ◽  
Carl M. Rogers
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disability ◽  
Basic Assumption ◽  
Field Work ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Standardized Assessment ◽  
Assessment Instruments ◽  
Disabled Children ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Normative Population ◽  
Affective Assessment

Many practitioners and researchers in the learning disability field work under the basic assumption that the various assessment instruments commonly used with learning disabled populations exhibit the same reliability when used with learning disabled students as when used with a more normative population. The purpose of this study was to test this assumption by examining the reliabilities of several tests of intellectual, academic, and affective assessment when administered to learning disabled students.

Discrepancy and Severity in the Learning Disabled: A Consolidated Perspective

1980 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 84-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Weller
Keyword(s):  
Social Skills ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Disabled Students ◽  
Severity Level ◽  
Socialization Skills

This paper presents a consolidated criteria model which can be used to identify the discrepancy and severity level of learning disabled students. Academic and socialization skills are evaluated in light of seven considerations: 1) the problem's effect on other abilities, 2) academic and socialization problem correspondence, 3) alteration of future life needs, 4) remediation versus compensation, 5) effect on social skills with peers and adults, 6) strengths and weaknesses, and 7) avoidance of problem areas. The seven criteria are applied to a mild, moderate, and severe learning disability grouping. Research indicating the need for continued investigation into the use of the model is reported. Recommendations for research and educational uses of the model are also presented.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document