Learning Disability Identification Engaging in Expert Dialogue

Objectives Become fluent with vocabulary and concepts related to LD identification issues Practice having conversations with: Experts who do not have current information Novices who need to understand this approach Individuals who have questions

Assumptions Learning disabilities are real. A meaningful definition of a disability that is used for classification should emphasize what it is rather than what it is not. When a person has a “real” disability, it does not go away or get fixed.

Why? Individuals on evaluation teams are supposed to be experts in the areas they are evaluating. There are passionately held beliefs about LD in and out of the educational arena. You can become a resource to others.

Source Classification of Learning Disabilities, an Evidence-Based Evaluation, Fletcher et al, 2002

Topics to Speak of Masterfully Historical Context Bimodal Distribution Does discrepancy account for something important?? Prognosis Neurobiology Other domains How “real” is LD as traditionally defined? How does a normal distribution affect the way you think about discrepancy? Shouldn’t “discrepant” and “non discrepant” groups differ in important ways?

Structure What are the “facts” What questions might be asked?

But First, Remember the History Prior to Clinical descriptions Perceptual-motor theories Minimal brain dysfuntion Processing disorders Definition Regulations: severe discrepancy

How Did We Get Here? 1977 Regulations 1997 Reauthorization 2001 LD Summit 2002 LD Roundtable 2004 Reauthorization

Why is the Distribution of Reading Skills so Important? Bimodal distribution Isle of Wight Studies (Rutter and Yule) Why did they find a tail? individuals with low IQs and mental retardation ceiling effects on measures Failure to replicate Accurate representation of exceptionalities So what?

How is Reading Distributed? Epidemiological studies: random selection and assignment large scale Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, and US Reading is NORMALLY distributed

Examining the Discrepancy Hypothesis Bimodal Distribution Draw a picture of the “expected” distribution of reading if discrepancy definition is valid. Draw a picture of the “true” distribution of reading. Ensure each person at your table understands the importance of this information and can explain it.

Prognosis Don’t “discrepant” children benefit more from instruction than “non discrepant” children? Connecticut Longitudinal Study: tracked children in 3 groups A=not reading impaired B=reading impaired with discrepancy C=reading impaired without discrepancy “C” students had IQs 18 pts lower than “B’s”!! B’s and C’s had achievement that was virtually identical Absolute achievement growth curve

Neurobiological Differences Hereditability factors Higher IQ RD appears to have more robust hereditability Lower IQ RD appears to be more affected by environmental changes Neuro-imaging information

Assessment Profiles Assessment that focuses on: intra-individual differences skills such as: phonological awareness, rapid naming, vocabulary, visual motor skills, memory Do such profiles reliably differentiate students? profiles are more similar than different difficulty creating measures that are “pure” processing measures do not improve educational outcomes

Assessment Profiles If LD and non LD students do not differ substantially on most cognitive measures, then what would you say to an evaluator who purports that a student has a learning disability as evidenced by problems with visual motor skills?

Is there Research about Patterns of Performance? Learning Disabilities: From Identification to Practice, Fletcher, et.al

Weaknesses (SS < 90, or percentile rank <25) Strengths (SS 7 points/ ½ SD or more above weakness) Possible sources of difficulty Intervention targets to consider 1. Word recognition and spelling Math calculation (and ≥90) Phonological processing Phonemic awareness, phonics, single word decoding 2. Reading fluencyWord recognition Automaticity of word reading; rapid naming of letters Rapid naming of letters; Oral reading fluency; 3. Reading comprehension Word recognition Problems with vocabulary, receptive language, working memory, attention Specific skill or strategy instruction for reading comprehension; vocabulary development 4. Math computationWord recognition and spelling (and ≥ 90) Executive functions & attention, working memory, motor and spatial skills Math concepts and procedures 5. Spelling Motor skills in younger children; Residual from phonological language problems in older children Spelling, letter patterns (orthography), practice in writing 6 Word recognition, reading fluency, reading comprehension, spelling, math computation Word recognition and math problems characterized by pervasive language and working memory problems Reading (especially word recognition) and math concepts and procedures

Stability? Shifting the rules: Find “Dot” as a marginally LD Discrepant student on figure 5 (page 203). Describe Dot to each other. Shift the IQ line 5 points. Now describe Dot to each other. In your group, discuss the significance of the fact that over time large percentages of students shift around in the groups described in figure 6.

Wrap up: State of the Field LD is real LD is probably caused by underlying processing disorders Processing measurement is not established IQ and Language test profiles DO NOT differ for LD/non LD groups except on phonemic awareness measures Aptitude-achievement discrepancy is not a valid LD marker Low achievement alone is not LD SO?

So, “dual discrepancy”... The student’s achievement is substantially lower than peers The student’s progress is substantially lower than peers Necessary conditions: Solid, research based instruction General education instruction Interventions Addressing other issues affecting progress