Specific Learning Disabilities Identification: Do the Identification Methods and Data Matter?

IF 1.6 4区教育学 Q2 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Learning Disability Quarterly Pub Date : 2020-05-01 DOI:10.1177/0731948719826296

Kathrin E. Maki, Sarah R. Adams

引用次数: 18

Abstract

Specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification has consistently been shown to be problematic; however, research has largely focused on SLD identification using test scores only. The present study, therefore, examined SLD identification decisions across identification methods and student evaluation data levels, including test scores, background information, and observations. Participants included 461 school psychologists who were randomly assigned to one of 12 conditions to make identification decisions. Results indicated that response to intervention (RtI) methods resulted in greater identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy while pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) resulted in lower identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy. However, background information and observation data did not impact SLD identification consistency. Implications for practice and research are also discussed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

特定学习障碍识别：识别方法和数据重要吗？

特定学习障碍的识别一直被证明是有问题的；然而，研究主要集中在仅使用考试成绩识别SLD上。因此，本研究考察了不同识别方法和学生评估数据水平的SLD识别决策，包括考试成绩、背景信息和观察结果。参与者包括461名学校心理学家，他们被随机分配到12种条件中的一种，以做出识别决定。结果表明，干预反应（RtI）方法导致的识别一致性高于能力成就差异，而优势和劣势模式（PSW）导致的识别连贯性低于能力成就差异。然而，背景信息和观测数据并不影响SLD识别的一致性。还讨论了对实践和研究的启示。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Learning Disability Quarterly Multiple-

CiteScore

3.50

自引率

11.10%

发文量

期刊介绍： Learning Disability Quarterly publishes high-quality research and scholarship concerning children, youth, and adults with learning disabilities. Consistent with that purpose, the journal seeks to publish articles with the potential to impact and improve educational outcomes, opportunities, and services.