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

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

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.

School Psychologists’ Confidence in Learning Disability Identification Decisions

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.