Literature DB >> 23060685

Evaluation of the Technical Adequacy of Three Methods for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities Based on Cognitive Discrepancies.

Karla K Stuebing1, Jack M Fletcher, Lee Branum-Martin, David J Francis.   

Abstract

This study used simulation techniques to evaluate the technical adequacy of three methods for the identification of specific learning disabilities via patterns of strengths and weaknesses in cognitive processing. Latent and observed data were generated and the decision-making process of each method was applied to assess concordance in classification for specific learning disabilities between latent and observed levels. The results showed that all three methods had excellent specificity and negative predictive values, but low to moderate sensitivity and very low positive predictive values. Only a very small percentage of the population (1%-2%) met criteria for specific learning disabilities. In addition to substantial psychometric issues underlying these methods, general application did not improve the efficiency of the decision model, may not be cost effective because of low base rates, and may result in many children receiving instruction that is not optimally matched to their specific needs.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 23060685      PMCID: PMC3466817     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  School Psych Rev        ISSN: 0279-6015


  9 in total

1.  Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores.

Authors:  P E MEEHL; A ROSEN
Journal:  Psychol Bull       Date:  1955-05       Impact factor: 17.737

2.  Temporal stability of WISC-III subtest composite: strengths and weaknesses.

Authors:  Marley W Watkins; Gary L Canivez
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2004-06

3.  Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient.

Authors:  David J Francis; Jack M Fletcher; Karla K Stuebing; G Reid Lyon; Bennett A Shaywitz; Sally E Shaywitz
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2005 Mar-Apr

Review 4.  Playing statistical ouija board with commonality analysis: good questions, wrong assumptions.

Authors:  W Joel Schneider
Journal:  Appl Neuropsychol       Date:  2008

5.  The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities.

Authors:  Donald L Compton; Lynn S Fuchs; Douglas Fuchs; Warren Lambert; Carol Hamlett
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2011-03-28

6.  Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.

Authors:  Harold Pashler; Mark McDaniel; Doug Rohrer; Robert Bjork
Journal:  Psychol Sci Public Interest       Date:  2008-12-01

7.  Response to Intervention: Ready or Not? Or, From Wait-to-Fail to Watch-Them-Fail.

Authors:  Cecil R Reynolds; Sally E Shaywitz
Journal:  Sch Psychol Q       Date:  2009-06-01

8.  Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first-grade interventions.

Authors:  Frank R Vellutino; Donna M Scanlon; Sheila Small; Diane P Fanuele
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2006 Mar-Apr

9.  Cognitive Correlates of Inadequate Response to Reading Intervention.

Authors:  Jack M Fletcher; Karla K Stuebing; Amy E Barth; Carolyn A Denton; Paul T Cirino; David J Francis; Sharon Vaughn
Journal:  School Psych Rev       Date:  2011
  9 in total
  11 in total

1.  The Multiple Deficit Model: Progress, Problems, and Prospects.

Authors:  Lauren M McGrath; Robin L Peterson; Bruce F Pennington
Journal:  Sci Stud Read       Date:  2019-12-24

2.  Classification and identification of reading and math disabilities: the special case of comorbidity.

Authors:  Lee Branum-Martin; Jack M Fletcher; Karla K Stuebing
Journal:  J Learn Disabil       Date:  2012-12-11

3.  Incorporating RTI in a Hybrid Model of Reading Disability.

Authors:  Mercedes Spencer; Richard K Wagner; Christopher Schatschneider; Jamie Quinn; Danielle Lopez; Yaacov Petscher
Journal:  Learn Disabil Q       Date:  2014-08

Review 4.  Comprehensive Cognitive Assessments are not Necessary for the Identification and Treatment of Learning Disabilities.

Authors:  Jack M Fletcher; Jeremy Miciak
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 2.813

5.  Cognitive Dimensions of Learning in Children With Problems in Attention, Learning, and Memory.

Authors:  Joni Holmes; Jacalyn Guy; Rogier A Kievit; Annie Bryant; Silvana Mareva; Susan E Gathercole
Journal:  J Educ Psychol       Date:  2020-11-12

6.  Cognitive discrepancy models for specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations.

Authors:  W Pat Taylor; Jeremy Miciak; Jack M Fletcher; David J Francis
Journal:  Psychol Assess       Date:  2016-08-08

7.  Do Processing Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Predict Differential Treatment Response?

Authors:  Jeremy Miciak; Jacob L Williams; W Pat Taylor; Paul T Cirino; Jack M Fletcher; Sharon Vaughn
Journal:  J Educ Psychol       Date:  2015-12-14

8.  The effect of achievement test selection on identification of learning disabilities within a patterns of strengths and weaknesses framework.

Authors:  Jeremy Miciak; W Pat Taylor; Carolyn A Denton; Jack M Fletcher
Journal:  Sch Psychol Q       Date:  2014-09-22

9.  Using Simulations to Investigate the Longitudinal Stability of Alternative Schemes for Classifying and Identifying Children with Reading Disabilities.

Authors:  Christopher Schatschneider; Richard K Wagner; Sara A Hart; Elizabeth L Tighe
Journal:  Sci Stud Read       Date:  2016-01-05

10.  Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification.

Authors:  Jeremy Miciak; Jack M Fletcher; Karla K Stuebing; Sharon Vaughn; Tammy D Tolar
Journal:  Sch Psychol Q       Date:  2013-11-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.