Essentials of Specific LearningDisability Identification

Essentials of Psychological Assessment SeriesSeries Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman

Essentials of 16 PF ® Assessmentby Heather E.-P. Cattell and James M. SchuergerEssentials of Adaptive Behavior Assessment of NeurodevelopmentalDisordersby Celine A. Saulnier and Cheryl KlaimanEssentials of ADHD Assessment for Children and Adolescentsby Elizabeth P. Sparrow and Drew ErhardtEssentials of Assessing, Preventing, and OvercomingReading Difficultiesby David A. KilpatrickEssentials of Assessment Report Writing, Second Editionby W. Joel Schneider, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger,and Nancy MatherEssentials of Assessment with Brief Intelligence Testsby Susan R. Homack and Cecil R. ReynoldsEssentials of Autism SpectrumDisorders Evaluation and Assessmentby Celine A. Saulnier and Pamela E. VentolaEssentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development–II Assessmentby Maureen M. Black and Kathleen MatulaEssentials of Behavioral AssessmentbyMichael C. Ramsay, Cecil R. Reynolds, andR.W.KamphausEssentials of Career Interest Assessmentby Jeffrey P. Prince and Lisa J. HeiserEssentials of CAS-2 Assessmentby Jack A. NaglieriEssentials of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, Second Editionby Linda WilmshurstEssentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAIT and Other KaufmanMeasuresby Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Broadbooks,and Alan S. KaufmanEssentials of Conners Behavior AssessmentsTM

by Elizabeth P. SparrowEssentials of Creativity Assessmentby James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John BaerEssentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Third EditionbyDawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O.Ortiz, and Vincent C. AlfonsoEssentials of DAS-II ® Assessmentby Ron Dumont, John O. Willis, and Colin D. ElliotEssentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Interventionby Nancy Mather and Barbara J. WendlingEssentials of Evidence-Based Academic Interventionsby Barbara J. Wendling and Nancy MatherEssentials of Executive Functions Assessmentby George McCloskey and Lisa A. PerkinsEssentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment, Second Editionby Marc J. AckermanEssentials of Gifted Assessmentby Steven I. PfeifferEssentials of IDEA for Assessment Professionalsby Guy McBride, Ron Dumont, and John O. WillisEssentials of Individual Achievement Assessmentby Douglas K. SmithEssentials of Intellectual Disabilities Assessment and IdentificationAlan W. Brue and Linda WilmshurstEssentials of KABC-II Assessmentby Alan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger,Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, and Nadeen L. KaufmanEssentials of MillonTM Inventories Assessment, Third Editionby Stephen StrackEssentials of MMPI-A TM Assessmentby Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy

Essentials of MMPI-2 ® Assessment, Second Editionby David S. NicholsEssentialsofMyers-BriggsTypeIndicator® Assessment,SecondEditionby Naomi QuenkEssentials of NEPSY ®-II Assessmentby Sally L. Kemp and Marit KorkmanEssentials of Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Editionby Nancy Hebben and William MilbergEssentials of Nonverbal Assessmentby Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, and John WassermanEssentials of PAI ® Assessmentby Leslie C. MoreyEssentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions forUnique Learnersby Jennifer T. Mascolo, Vincent C. Alfonso,and Dawn P. FlanaganEssentials of Processing Assessment, Second Editionby Milton J. DehnEssentials of Psychological Testing, Second Editionby Susana UrbinaEssentials of Response to Interventionby Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Matthew K. BurnsEssentials of Rorschach Assessment: Comprehensive Systemand R-PASby Jessica R. GurleyEssentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment, Second Editionby Daniel C. MillerEssentials of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5) Assessmentby Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew BarramEssentials ofTATandOtherStorytellingAssessments,SecondEditionby Hedwig TeglasiEssentials of Temperament Assessmentby Diana JoyceEssentials of Trauma-Informed Assessment and Interventions in theSchoolsby Bettina Franzese and Kirby L. WycoffEssentials of WAIS ®-IV Assessment, Second Editionby Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. KaufmanEssentials of WIAT ®-III and KTEA-II Assessmentby Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Kristina C. BreauxEssentials of WISC ®-V Assessmentby Dawn P. Flanagan and Vincent C. AlfonsoEssentials of WJ-IV ® Cognitive Abilities Assessmentby Fredrick A. Schrank, Scott L. Decker, and John M. GarrutoEssentials of WJ-IV ® Tests of Achievement Assessmentby Nancy Mather and Barbara J. WendlingEssentials of WMS ®-IV Assessmentby Lisa Whipple Drozdick, James A. Holdnack,and Robin C. HilsabeckEssentials of WNV TM Assessmentby Kimberly A. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri,and Steven T. Hardy-BrazEssentials of Working Memory Assessment and Interventionby Milton J. DehnEssentials of WPPSI TM -IV Assessmentby Susan Engi Raiford and Diane CoalsonEssentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL-2 Assessmentby Wayne Adams and Cecil R. ReynoldsEssentials of MCMI ®-IV Assessmentby Seth D. Grossman and Blaise AmendolaceEssentials of WISC ®-V Integrated Assessmentby Susan Engi Raiford

Essentialsof Specific Learning

Disability Identification

Second Edition

Edited by

Vincent C. Alfonso

Dawn P. Flanagan

This edition first published 2018 2018 John Wiley and Sons, Inc.

Edition HistoryJohn Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1e, 2010)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, ortransmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise,except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is availableat http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Vincent C. Alfonso and Dawn P. Flanagan to be identified as the authors of the editorialmaterial in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.

Registered OfficeJohn Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

Editorial Office111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley productsvisit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some contentthat appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make norepresentations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work andspecifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantabilityor fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, writtensales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or productis referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean thatthe publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product mayprovide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher isnot engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not besuitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers shouldbe aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work waswritten and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any othercommercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Alfonso, Vincent C., editor. | Flanagan, Dawn P., editor.Title: Essentials of specific learning disability identification / edited by

Vincent C. Alfonso, Dawn P. Flanagan.Description: Second edition. | Hoboken, NJ : John Wiley & Sons, 2018. |

Includes index. |Identifiers: LCCN 2017053859 (print) | LCCN 2017061536 (ebook) | ISBN

9781119313854 (pdf) | ISBN 9781119313861 (epub) | ISBN 9781119313847 (pbk.)Subjects: LCSH: Learning disabilities. | Learning disabled children.Classification: LCC LC4704 (ebook) | LCC LC4704 .E77 2018 (print) | DDC

371.9/043–dc23LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017053859

Cover image: © Greg Kuchik/Getty Images

Cover design by Wiley

Set in 10.5/13 pt AGaramondPro-Regular by Thomson Digital, Noida, India

Printed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

CONTENTS

Part One

One

Two

Three

Four

v

Foreword ix

Series Preface xiii

Acknowledgments xv

Definitions and Manifestationsof Specific Learning Disabilities 1

Overview of Specific Learning Disabilities

Marlene Sotelo-Dynega, Dawn P. Flanagan,and Vincent C. Alfonso

3

The Neuropsychology of Reading Disorders:How SLD Manifests in Reading

Steven G. Feifer

29

How SLD Manifests in Mathematics

Michèle M. M. Mazzocco and Rose Vukovic

59

How SLD Manifests in Writing

Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling

103

vi CONTENTS

Five How SLD Manifests in Oral Expressionand Listening Comprehension

Nickola Wolf Nelson and Elisabeth H. Wiig

145

Six Nonverbal Learning Disabilities

Margaret Semrud-Clikeman

195

Part Two Methods and Models of SpecificLearning Disability Identification 219

Seven A Response to Intervention (RTI) Approachto SLD Identification 221

Jack M. Fletcher and Jeremy Miciak

Eight Using Student Response to Intervention toIdentify SLD: Requirements,Recommendations, and Future Research 257

Matthew K. Burns, Kathrin E. Maki,Kristy Warmbold-Brann, andJune L. Preast

Nine Cognitive Neuroscientific Contributions toTheoretical Understanding of SLD

Scott L. Decker, Rachel M. Bridges,and Tayllor Vetter

285

Ten Integrating Instructionally RelevantSLD Diagnoses, Patterns of Strengthsand Weaknesses, and Positive Home-SchoolPartnerships: Free and AppropriatePublic Education for All 307

Nicole Lynn Alston-Abel andVirginia Berninger

CONTENTS vii

Eleven Dual Discrepancy/Consistency OperationalDefinition of SLD: Integrating MultipleData Sources and Multiple Data-Gathering Methods

Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso,Megan C. Sy, Jennifer T. Mascolo,Erin M. McDonough, and Samuel O. Ortiz

329

Twelve Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses MadeEasy: The Discrepancy/Consistency Method

Jack A. Naglieri and Steven G. Feifer

431

Thirteen Core Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP)and Dual Discrepancy/Consistency (DD/C)Models for SLD Identification:A Case Study Approach

Gail M. Cheramie, G. Thomas Schanding Jr.,and Kristin Streich

475

Part Three Special Considerations in SpecificLearning Disability Identification 503

Fourteen Difference or Disorder: Assessment ofSLD with an English Learner

Samuel O. Ortiz, Kristan E. Melo,and Meghan A. Terzulli

505

Fifteen Differential Diagnosis of SLD VersusOther Difficulties 549

Benjamin J. Lovett and David A. Kilpatrick

About the Editors 573

About the Contributors 575

Author Index 577

Subject Index 597

FOREWORD

A ccording to the calculations of the National Center for EducationalStatistics at the US Department of Education (USDOE), and as it hasbeen for decades, the most frequently occurring disability among school-

age individuals in the United States is a specific learning disability (SLD). In fact, itaccounts for nearly half of all disabilities in the school-age population. It may wellthen come as a surprise to those who do not work in the field that in spite of thepresence of a common definition of SLD, one that has essentially remainedunchanged since written into federal law in 1975, there remains very littleagreement about the best model or method of identifying students with SLD.Beginning with the first version of the federal law requiring the public schools ofthe United States to provide a free and appropriate public education to studentswith disabilities (P.L. 94-142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act),the disagreements over the best approach to identification of an SLD have grown.Prior to 2004, the federal regulations for implementation of the various versions ofIndividuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required, as a necessary butinsufficient condition (except in special circumstances), the presence of a severediscrepancy between aptitude and achievement for a diagnosis of SLD. The 2004Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act’s (IDEIA) accompany­ing regulations (all 307 small-print Federal Register pages of them), which retainedthe definition of SLD essentially as written in the 1975 law, dropped thisrequirement, and instead allows schools to use one or a combination of threebasic approaches to SLD identification: the severe discrepancy criteria of priorregulations, a process based on the response of a student to evidence-based (akascience) interventions for learning problems (known popularly as the RTIapproach), or any other approach the state or local education agency determinesto be a scientifically or research-based approach to determination of an SLD.

ix

x FOREWORD

The vagaries and ambiguities of the federal regulations and the pressure onschools to do what is new, and to do so quickly, led to chaos in the field and fedconsiderably to a polemic debate about how to determine best an SLD. As if thiswere not enough controversy, note that the regulations concerning the determi­nation of SLD in school-age individuals (basically K–12) apply only to publicschools and private schools that receive federal monies. Colleges and universities,the Social Security Administration, state departments of rehabilitation, themedical community, the courts, and other agencies that are involved in SLDidentification and the provision of services and funding for these individuals can,and most do, apply different methods and have different rules for identification ofan SLD.What is adopted then as the best method of diagnosis in the K–12 schoolsystems often will be found unacceptable to other agencies, frustrating individualswho carry out such a diagnosis, the students’ parents, and the agencies themselves.This has led to considerable litigation over who is eligible for which services andwhere as well as who is best to provide them. The vagaries of the federal regulationsand the potential for extensive litigation in the absence of clear guidance from theUSDOE are the primary reasons I so often refer to IDEIA as the “educationlawyers’ welfare act of 2004.”

The issues of accurate and appropriate models from which to identifyindividuals with SLD sorely need attention from the academic community ofscholars in a format that enables academics and practitioners to understand themany and diverse models being promoted as best practice. The first edition ofEssentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification made a practical foray intothis arena, and it did so succinctly, without sacrifice of a clear understanding ofeach model, and represented educational, medical, psychometric, and neuro­psychological models in its various chapters. The second edition continues in thisvein, following the successful blueprint of the first edition and bringing backleaders in research and in practice to update their works and add informationabout special considerations in this field.

The opening chapters focus on descriptive efforts of the manifestations of SLDin the academically critical areas of reading, writing, math, oral expression, andlistening, though some of the authors emphasize identification and some inter­vention in these chapters as well. Some argue differences in neuropsychologicalorganization of the brain, others argue specific deficits, and still others continue tocall on developmental delay as the essence of an SLD. There is less recognition incertain chapters than one might suppose that SLD is a very heterogeneous groupof disorders and that the underlying mechanism is not at all likely to be the samefor everyone, although clearly most authors recognize this reality. Nonverballearning disabilities, a concept rejected in the official diagnostic nomenclature of

FOREWORD xi

psychiatry and little recognized in federal legislation but heavily researched, is alsocovered and covered well by a leading scholar in school and child neuropsychology.

The second part of the work emphasizes models and methods of SLDidentification, and herein we also find divergent views. After reading the volume,it is nothing less than striking the number of seemingly sound but incompatiblemodels that are presented, especially knowing how many other models are inexistence across the various state education agencies—not to mention the manyother governmental agencies and programs using wholly different approaches.Every model presented in the latter half of this work has strengths in theapproaches recommended for SLD identification, and each set of authors presentsits case well. Nevertheless, the approaches, several of which are highly similar, willidentify different children. Some are also just fundamentally incompatible; forexample, although most emphasize the absolute necessity for a disorder in one ormore of the basic processes underlying learning, at least one dismisses this aspect ofthe SLD definition as unnecessary even to assess or consider.

As in the first edition, Fletcher and Miciak lead off the chapters focused ondiagnostic methods and models with a clear presentation of the RTI model as heand his colleagues perceive of it as best implemented. His well-reasoned approachhas much to recommend it, but unfortunately many states have adopted a far moreradical RTI-only approach, which, as Fletcher laudably notes, is not just poorpractice but inconsistent with the federal regulations. Burns and colleagues followup on RTI approaches in another coherent presentation of a controversial area.Subsequently, other extensively researched models described in the first editionare presented again here but are updated to reflect a decade of research and arepresented generally in clearer terms. For example, Naglieri and Feifer give us a verydifferent model from RTI, one that is more theory-driven than any of the othermodels but that provides good empirical support for the approach and practicaladvice on its implementation. Alston-Abel and her colleague treat us to a veryaccomplished work that takes on the complex issues of diagnosis and treatment ofseveral types of SLD in the face of comorbidities, an issue dealt with poorly bymost existing models, particularly RTI-only models. Their case for evidence-basedmodels and ones that emphasize early identification and intervention is well made,along with their case for educating all children better. Flanagan and her colleaguesattempt, and accomplish well, an integration of methods that also requires anintegration of conflicting theories as well as practice models that may seemincompatible on the surface. Cheramie and colleagues provide a case studyillustration of their preferred method, which appears in several prior chapters.

The final part of the second edition deals with special issues encountered by allwho engage in the evaluation of students suspected as having an SLD. For

xii FOREWORD

example, differentiating cultural and linguistic differences from disabilities in thecontext of SLD determination is directly addressed with examples. Although this isoften talked about, few give us this kind of concrete guidance to avoiding suchdiagnostic mistakes based on culture and language. We could all benefit still fromreading the works of E. Paul Torrance from the 1970s on “differences not deficits”in such a context. Differential diagnosis, as in differentiating SLD from otherdisorders that may look like SLD in the absence of a comprehensive assessment, isaddressed in a highly welcomed addition to the work.

This work presents a strong reflection of the state of the field, updated and withsome entirely new views compared to the first edition, and it does a great service byputting theories of the development and etiology of SLD, commentary oninterventions, and the dominant models of SLD identification between commoncovers. The editors have once again done a superb job in selecting authors torepresent the viewpoints given and to elaborate with sufficient specificity theidentification models, in most cases to the point at which they can be put intoplace after reading this book carefully. The greatest problem readers will face willbe one of deciding which model(s) to follow, because all are appealing. There areauthors of chapters in this work with whom I have had scholarly exchanges, andwith whom I vehemently disagree on some issues but with whom I find myself inagreement on others. So I must count myself among those who will experiencegreat dissonance in adopting and recommending a specific model of diagnosis forall children suspected of SLD to others based on the models proffered herein. Wehave much to learn from the disagreements in this work, and it is indeed suchdisagreements and lack of compatibility of models and methods on which sciencethrives. I suspect that as our science moves forward, we will continue to find, as wehave since the mid-2000s, that all of these models have merit and utility foraccurate and appropriate identification of individuals with SLD but not for thesame individuals. Individuals with SLD make up a heterogeneous group, and wetruly need different models for their accurate identification (aka different strokesfor different folks) that are objective and evidence-based, such as provided in thiswork. Now, if we can just make them all part of a common, coherent system andstop the search for the one answer to the diagnosis of SLD for all students and theone teaching model that educates them all effectively—that will be our greatestprogress!

Cecil R. ReynoldsAustin, Texas

SERIES PREFACE

In the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, we have attempted toprovide the reader with books that will deliver key practical information in themost efficient and accessible style. The series features instruments in a variety

of domains, such as cognition, personality, education, and neuropsychology, aswell as special topics, such as identification of SLD. Wherever feasible, visualshortcuts to highlight key points are used, alongside systematic, step-by-stepguidelines. Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of eachbook, but always to enhance clinical inference, never to sidetrack or overwhelm.This latest volume to the Essentials series covers a wide range of topics related toSLD identification in a manner that is readily accessible to practitioners.

IDEA 2004 and its attendant regulations provided our field with an opportu­nity to focus on the academic progress of all students, including those with SLD.The last decade was marked by a departure from a wait-to-fail ability-achievementdiscrepancy model to a response to intervention (RTI) model for SLD identifica­tion. In adopting the latter method, the field was encouraged by RTI proponentsto give up cognitive and neuropsychological tests and, thus, ignore more than 30years of empirical research that has culminated in substantial evidence for thebiological bases of learning disorders in reading, math, written language, and orallanguage. When RTI is applied in isolation, it fails to identify individualdifferences in cognitive abilities and neuropsychological processes and ignoresthe fact that students with SLD have different needs and learning profiles thanstudents with undifferentiated low achievement. In recognition of this fact, analternative research approach to SLD identification, known as the pattern ofstrengths and weakness (PSW) approach, is being used with greater frequency.The PSW approach considers the relations among cognitive abilities, neuro­psychological processes, and academic performance in SLD identification. Most(but not all) of the distinguished contributors to this edited book believe that

xiii

xiv SERIES PREFACE

without cognitive and neuropsychological testing, little can be known about thecognitive capabilities, processing strengths and weaknesses, nature of responses,and neurobiological correlates of students who fail to respond to evidence-basedinstruction and intervention.

This second edition, edited by the esteemed Vincent C. Alfonso and Dawn P.Flanagan, once again offers practitioners state-of-the-art information on SLDs.Part I of this book includes definitions and manifestations of SLD in reading,math, writing, and oral language. A new chapter was added in Part I that covers thelatest research on nonverbal learning disabilities. Part II provides practitioners witha variety of research-based methods and models for identifying SLD in the schoolsand in the private sector. This edition was expanded to include more informationon RTI and PSW methods as well as neuropsychological approaches to SLDidentification. The overarching theme of this edition of Essentials of SpecificLearning Disabilities Identification is that PSW and neuropsychological approachesmay be used within the context of an RTI service delivery model, with the goal ofexpanding (rather than limiting) the methods and data sources that are available topractitioners. Part III of this book focuses on special considerations in SLDidentification. New content in this section includes a chapter on differentialdiagnosis of SLD versus other difficulties as well as a chapter that enhances ourknowledge of word reading skills based on the latest reading research. It is ourbelief, and the belief of the editors of this book, that when practitioners use theapproaches described here in an informed and systematic way, they will yieldinformation about a student’s learning difficulties and educational needs that willbe of value to all, but most especially, to the student with SLD.

Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, and Nadeen L. Kaufman, EdD,Series EditorsYale University School of Medicine

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

W e thank Tisha Rossi, executive editor, Purvi Patel, project editor,Susan Geraghty, copyeditor, and Audrey Koh, production editorfrom John Wiley & Sons, for their encouragement and support of

this book and for their assistance throughout the many phases of production. Weacknowledge Katherine Palmer and Virginia Cooper for assisting us through everyphase of this book and for often dropping everything to respond to our requests ina timely and complete manner. We also extend a heartfelt thank-you to thecontributing authors for their professionalism, scholarship, and pleasant andcooperative working style. It was a great pleasure to work with such an esteemedgroup of researchers and scholars! Finally, we wish to thank Alan and NadeenKaufman for their support, guidance, and friendship. They are not only the editorsof the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, but also true leaders in thefield.

xv

Part One

DEFINITIONS AND MANIFESTATIONSOF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES

One

OVERVIEW OF SPECIFICLEARNING DISABILITIES

Marlene Sotelo-DynegaDawn P. FlanaganVincent C. Alfonso

The purpose of this chapter is to provide a brief overviewof thedefinitions andclassification systems of and methods for identification of specific learningdisabilities (SLDs). Historically, children who did not perform as expected

academically were evaluated and often identified as having a learning disability (LD)(Kavale&Forness, 2006). The number of children in theUnited States identified ashaving LD has “increased by more than 300 percent” since the enactment of theEducation for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142; Cortiella &Horowitz, 2014). This landmark legislation included criteria for the identificationof exceptional learners, including childrenwith LD, andmandated that they receivea free and appropriate public education (FAPE). Each reauthorization of P.L. 94­142 maintained its original intent, including the most recent reauthorization, theIndividuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-446;hereafter referred to as IDEA2004). RapidReference 1.1 highlights themost salientchanges to this legislation through the present day.

The US Department of Education (USDOE) has collected data on studentswho have qualified for special education services since 1975. The most currentdata show that over 2.3 million school-age children are classified as SLD. Thisfigure represents nearly 5% of the approximate 50 million students currently

Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, Second Edition.Edited by Vincent C. Alfonso and Dawn P. Flanagan© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Published 2018 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

3

1975 Education for AllHandicappedChildren Act (EHA)P.L. 94-142

Guaranteed school-age (5–21 years) children withdisabilities the right to a FAPE.

1986 EHAP.L. 99-457

Extended the purpose of EHA to include childrenfrom birth to 5 years:• FAPE was mandated for children ages 3–21 years.

• States were encouraged to develop early-intervention programs for children with disabilitiesfrom birth to 2 years.

1990 EHA renamed theIndividuals withDisabilities EducationAct (IDEA)P.L. 101-476

The term handicapped child was replaced with childwith a disability.Autism and traumatic brain injury classificationswere added.Transition services for children with disabilities weremandated by age 16 years.It defined assistive technology devices and services.It required that the child with a disability beincluded in the general education environment tothe maximum extent possible.

1997 IDEAP.L. 105-17

Extended the least-restrictive environment (LRE) toensure that all students would have access to thegeneral curriculum.Schools are required to consider the inclusion ofassistive technology devices and services in theindividualized education plans of all students.Orientation and mobility services were added to thelist of related services for children who needinstruction in navigating within and to and from theirschool environment.

2004 IDEA renamed theIndividuals withDisabilities EducationImprovement Act(IDEIA)1

P.L. 108-446

Statute is aligned with the No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) of 2001.Focus of statute is on doing what works andincreasing achievement expectations for childrenwith disabilities.Changes are made to the evaluation proceduresused to identify specific LDs.

4 ESSENTIALS OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY IDENTIFICATION

Rapid Reference 1.1...........................................................................................................................

Salient Changes in Special Education Law from 1975 to 2004

1 IDEA (rather than IDEIA) is used most often to refer to the 2004 reauthorization and,therefore, will be used throughout this book.

OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 5

Rapid Reference 1.2...........................................................................................................................

Students Ages 6–21 Years Served Under IDEA 2004

IDEA Disability CategoryPercentage of All

Disabilities1Percentage of TotalSchool Enrollment2

Specific Learning Disability 38.82 3.50

Speech or Language Impairment 17.26 1.56

Other Health Impairments 14.99 1.35

Autism 9.10 .82

Intellectual Disability 6.92 0.62

Emotional Disturbance 5.73 0.52

Developmental Delay

(Ages 3–9 years only)2.47 0.22

Multiple Disabilities 2.07 0.19

Hearing Impairments 1.11 0.10

Orthopedic Impairments .68 0.06

Traumatic Brain Injury 0.42 0.04

Visual Impairments 0.41 0.04

Deaf-Blindness 0.02 0.00

1 US Department of Education (2016a).2 US Department of Education (2016b).

enrolled in the nation’s schools (Kena et al., 2015). Furthermore, of all school-agestudents who have been classified with an educationally disabling condition, 39%are classified as SLD (USDOE, 2016a). Rapid Reference 1.2 shows that none ofthe other 12 IDEA 2004 disability categories approximates the prevalence rate ofSLD in the population, a trend that has been consistent since 1980 (USDOE,2016b).

A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE DEFINITION OF LEARNING DISABILITY

Definitions of LD date back to the mid- to late 1800s within the fields of neurology,psychology, and education (Mather & Goldstein, 2008). The earliest recordeddefinitions of LD were developed by clinicians based on their observations ofindividuals who experienced considerable difficulties with the acquisition of basic

6 ESSENTIALS OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY IDENTIFICATION

academic skills, despite their average or above-average general intelligence, or thosewholost their ability to perform specific tasks after a brain injury that resulted from either ahead traumaor stroke (Kaufman, 2008).Given that clinicians at that time did not havethe necessary technology or psychometrically defensible instrumentation to test theirhypotheses about brain-based LD, the medically focused study of LD stagnated,leading to the development of socially constructed, educationally focused definitionsthat presumed an underlying neurological etiology (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Kaufman,2008; Lyon et al., 2001).

In 1963, Samuel Kirk addressed a group of educators and parents at theExploration Into the Problems of the Perceptually Handicapped Child conferencein Chicago, Illinois. The purposes of the conference were to (1) gather informationfrom leading professionals from diverse fields about the problems of children who hadperceptually based learning difficulties and (2) develop a national organization thatwould lobby to secure services for these children. At this conference, Kirk presented apaper entitled “Learning Disabilities” that was based on his recently published book,Educating Exceptional Children (Kirk, 1962). In this paper, Kirk defined LD as

a retardation, disorder, or delayed development in one or more of theprocesses of speech, language, reading, writing, arithmetic, or other schoolsubjects resulting from a psychological handicap caused by a possiblecerebral dysfunction and/or emotional or behavioral disturbances. It isnot the result of mental retardation, sensory deprivation, or cultural andinstructional factors. (p. 263)

Not only did the conference participants accept Kirk’s term LD and corre­sponding definition but also they formed an organization that is now known as theLearning Disabilities Association of America (LDA). The LDA continues toinfluence the “frameworks for legislation, theories, diagnostic procedures, educa­tional practices, research and training models” as they pertain to identifying andeducating individuals with LD (LDA, n.d.a, ¶ 2).

Kirk’s conceptualization of LD influenced other organizations’ definitions ofLD, including the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), as well as federallegislation (e.g., P.L. 94-142). In addition, 11 different definitions of LD in usebetween 1982 and 1989 contained aspects of Kirk’s 1962 definition. Therefore, itis not surprising that a comprehensive review of these definitions revealed moreagreement than disagreement about the construct of LD (Hammill, 1990).Interestingly, none of the definitions strongly influenced developments in LDidentification, mainly because they tended to focus on conceptual rather thanoperational elements and focused more on exclusionary rather than inclusionarycriteria. Rapid Reference 1.3 illustrates the salient features of the most common

OVERVIEW OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES 7

definitions of LD that were proposed by national and international organizationsand LD researchers, beginning with Kirk’s 1962 definition. The majority ofdefinitions depict LD as a neurologically based disorder or a disorder inpsychological processing that causes learning problems and manifests as academicskill weaknesses. In addition, most definitions indicate that LDmay co-occur withother disabilities.

Although the definitions of LD included in Rapid Reference 1.3 vary in termsof their inclusion of certain features (e.g., average or better intelligence, evidentacross the life span), the most widely used definition is the one included in IDEA2004 (Cortiella, 2009). Unlike other definitions, the IDEA 2004 definition refersto a specific LD, implying that the disability or disorder affects specific academicskills or domains. According to IDEA 2004, SLD is defined as follows:

Theterm“specific learningdisability”meansadisorder inoneormoreofthebasicpsychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spokenor written, which may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think,speak, read, spell, or do mathematical calculations. Such a term includes suchconditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction,dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Such a term does not include a learningproblem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; ofmental retardation; of emotional disturbance; or of environmental, cultural, oreconomic disadvantage. (IDEA 2004, §602.30, Definitions)

Because definitions of LD do not explicitly guide how a condition is identifiedor diagnosed, classification systems of LD were developed. Three of the mostfrequently used classification systems for LD are described next.

CLASSIFICATION SYSTEMS FOR LD

“Classification criteria are the rules that are applied to determine if individuals areeligible for a particular diagnosis” (Reschly, Hosp, & Schmied, 2003, p. 2). Althoughthe evaluation of LD in school-age children is guided by the mandate of IDEA 2004and its attendant regulations, diagnosticcriteria for LD are also included in the C A U T I O N

......................................................Diagnostic and Statistical Manual ofBecause the three major classificationMental Disorders (5th ed.) (DSM-5;systems use somewhat vague and

American Psychiatric Association, ambiguous terms, it is difficult to identify2013), and the International Classifica- SLD reliably and validly. Thus, multiple

data sources and data-gatheringtion of Diseases (ICD-10; World Healthmethods must be used to ensure thatOrganization, 2016). Rapid Refer- children are diagnosed accurately.

ence 1.4 includes the type of LDs

Rapid Reference 1.3......................................................................................................................................................... .......................................

Salient Features of Learning Disability Definitions

Source

Ability-

Achievement

Discrepancy

Average or

Above-

Average

Intelligence

Neurological

Basis

Disorder in a

Psychological

Process

Evident

Across the

Life Span

Listening

and

Speaking

Academic

Problems

Conceptual

Problems

Nonacademic,

Language, or

Conceptual

Disorders as

LD

Potential

for

Multiple

Disabilities

Samuel Kirk (1962) —p p p p p p

—p p

Barbara Bateman (1965)p

—p p

— —p

— —p

National Advisory Committee on

Handicapped Children (1968)

— —p p

—p p p

—p

Northwestern University (Kass &

Myklebust, 1969)

p— —

p—

p p—

p p

Council for Exceptional Children,

Division for Children with Learning

Disabilities (1967)

—p p p

—p

— — — —

Joseph Wepman and colleagues

(1975)

— — —p

— —p

— — —

Education for All Handicapped

Children Act (1975)

p— —

p—

p p— —

p

US Office of Education (1977) — —p p p p p

— —p

National Joint Committee on — —p

—p p p p

—p

Learning Disabilities (1981, 1982,

1991, 1998)

Learning Disabilities Association ofp p p

—p p p p p

—

America (n.d.b)

Interagency Committee on — —p

—p p p p p p

Learning Disabilities (1987)

Individuals with Disabilities — —p p p p p

— —p

Education Act (1986, 1990, 1997,

2004)

Kavale, Spaulding, and Beamp p p p

—p p p

—p

(2009)

Flanagan and colleagues (2002,p p p p p p p

— —p

2006, 2007, 2011, 2013)

Note: This table was adapted from Hammill (1990). A recent review of these definitions has shown that none of the definitions that were originally presented have been updated. Currently, although the NCLD

continues to use the definition that was published in 1990, they recently published a 52-page document titled “The State of Learning Disabilities” (Cortiella & Horowitz, 2014) summarizing the current research

available regarding the nature of LD across the life span. Furthermore, some additional definitions that were published after the Hammill article was published were added to this table.

C. The learning difficulties begin during school-age years butmay not become fully manifest until the demands for thoseaffected academic skills exceed the individual’s limited capacities.

D. The learning difficulties are not better accounted forby intellectual disabilities, uncorrected visual or auditoryacuity, other mental or neurological disorders, psychosocialadversity, lack of proficiency in the language of academicinstruction, or inadequate educational instruction.

Specific reading disorder:

• Specific reading disorder is a specific and significant impairment inthe development of reading skills that is not solely accounted for bymental age, visual acuity problems, or inadequate schooling.

• Reading comprehension skill, reading word recognition, oralreading skill, and performance of tasks requiring reading may all beaffected.

• Spelling difficulties are frequently associated with specific readingdisorder and commonly remain into adolescence even after someprogress in reading has been made.

• Specific developmental disorders of reading are commonlypreceded by a history of disorders in speech or languagedevelopment.

• Associated emotional and behavioral disturbances are commonduring the school-age period.

• This diagnosis includes backward reading, developmental dyslexia,and specific reading retardation.

• This diagnosis excludes alexia, dyslexia NOS, and reading difficultiessecondary to emotional distress.

(continued)

International Classification ofDiseases (ICD-10, 2016)

Specific reading disorder:

• Specific spelling disorder

• Specific disorder ofarithmetical skills

• Mixed disorder of scholasticskills

• Other developmentaldisorders of scholastic skills

• Developmental disorder ofscholastic skills, unspecified

Types of LearningClassification System Disorder Examples of Classification Criteria1

Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Improvement Act(IDEA 2004)

Specific learning disability in:

• Oral expression

• Listening comprehension

• Written expression

• Basic reading skill

• Reading fluency

• Reading comprehension

• Mathematics calculation

• Mathematics problem-solving

Specific learning disability:

1. A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes.

2. Includes conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury,minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.

3. Learning difficulties must not be primarily the result of

• A visual, hearing, or motor disability

• Mental retardation

• Emotional disturbance

• Cultural factors

• Environmental or economic disadvantage

• Limited English proficiency

1 For the ICD-10 diagnostic classification system, there are specific criteria for each disorder that are listed in the second column of this RapidReference. Criteria for only one of these disorders are included in the third column to serve as an example.