与学习障碍识别方法的优势和劣势相关的收养成本。

Jacob Williams, Jeremy Miciak
{"title":"与学习障碍识别方法的优势和劣势相关的收养成本。","authors":"Jacob Williams,&nbsp;Jeremy Miciak","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>There is controversy regarding the relative merits of cognitive assessment for the identification of learning disabilities. Proponents of cognitive assessment have suggested that multitiered systems of support (MTSS) should be supplemented with routine, systematic assessment of cognitive processes following a determination of inadequate response to evidence-based interventions in order to document a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW methods) as an inclusionary criterion for learning disabilities. However, the financial costs incurred by this addition to MTSS are not well known. In the present study, we present a systematic case study to estimate the costs associated with adopting routine assessment of cognitive processing for students referred for special education evaluation. We estimate that implementation within a district would cost between $1,960 and $2,400 per student, assuming no existing infrastructure. These expenses are discussed in relation to evidence for the educational value of such assessments and inherent trade-offs between assessment and intervention.</p>","PeriodicalId":92722,"journal":{"name":"School Psychology Forum, research in practice","volume":"12 1","pages":"17-29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d4/e0/nihms-995903.PMC6537899.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Adoption Costs Associated With Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Methods for Learning Disabilities Identification.\",\"authors\":\"Jacob Williams,&nbsp;Jeremy Miciak\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>There is controversy regarding the relative merits of cognitive assessment for the identification of learning disabilities. Proponents of cognitive assessment have suggested that multitiered systems of support (MTSS) should be supplemented with routine, systematic assessment of cognitive processes following a determination of inadequate response to evidence-based interventions in order to document a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW methods) as an inclusionary criterion for learning disabilities. However, the financial costs incurred by this addition to MTSS are not well known. In the present study, we present a systematic case study to estimate the costs associated with adopting routine assessment of cognitive processing for students referred for special education evaluation. We estimate that implementation within a district would cost between $1,960 and $2,400 per student, assuming no existing infrastructure. These expenses are discussed in relation to evidence for the educational value of such assessments and inherent trade-offs between assessment and intervention.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":92722,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"School Psychology Forum, research in practice\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"17-29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/d4/e0/nihms-995903.PMC6537899.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"School Psychology Forum, research in practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"School Psychology Forum, research in practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

认知评估在识别学习障碍方面的相对优势存在争议。认知评估的支持者建议,在确定对循证干预措施的反应不足后,多层支持系统(MTSS)应辅以对认知过程的常规、系统评估,以记录处理优势和劣势模式(PSW方法),作为学习障碍的包容性标准。然而,MTSS的增加所产生的财务成本并不为人所知。在本研究中,我们提出了一个系统的案例研究,以估计对被推荐进行特殊教育评估的学生采用认知加工常规评估的相关成本。我们估计,假设没有现有的基础设施,在一个地区内实施将花费每个学生1960美元至2400美元。这些费用是根据此类评估的教育价值证据以及评估和干预之间的内在权衡进行讨论的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Adoption Costs Associated With Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Methods for Learning Disabilities Identification.

There is controversy regarding the relative merits of cognitive assessment for the identification of learning disabilities. Proponents of cognitive assessment have suggested that multitiered systems of support (MTSS) should be supplemented with routine, systematic assessment of cognitive processes following a determination of inadequate response to evidence-based interventions in order to document a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW methods) as an inclusionary criterion for learning disabilities. However, the financial costs incurred by this addition to MTSS are not well known. In the present study, we present a systematic case study to estimate the costs associated with adopting routine assessment of cognitive processing for students referred for special education evaluation. We estimate that implementation within a district would cost between $1,960 and $2,400 per student, assuming no existing infrastructure. These expenses are discussed in relation to evidence for the educational value of such assessments and inherent trade-offs between assessment and intervention.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信