Priority Issues Addressed in Response: Discrepancy
ASHA and DCDD Response to Issue:
1. Discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability should not be
used as the sole criteria for identifying individuals with learning disabilities.
2. Low achievement is not synonymous with learning disabilities
3. There must be some assessment(s) used to determine that low-achievement is not due to cognitive impairment/mental retardation.
4. Use of a discrepancy formula to identify individuals with learning disabilities results in a "waiting to fail" philosophy and may cause delays in providing appropriate assessments, determining eligibility, and provision of necessary programs and services. Sometimes a discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability may not show up until the child is in the second or third grade.
5. Discrepancy formulas must not be used as the only criterion for the diagnosis of learning disabilities
6. Use of a discrepancy formula as the only criterion for the diagnosis of learning disabilities has contributed to misclassification of individuals and questionable incidence rates of learning disabilities. Such practices and procedures result in erroneously including individuals whose learning and behavioral problems are not attributable to learning disabilities and excluding individuals whose deficits are manifestations of specific learning disabilities.
The following issues are important to understanding
the problem of dependence on using a discrepancy formula as the only criteria
for the diagnosis of learning disability:
· the false belief that underachievement is synonymous with specific
learning disability;
· the incorrect assumption that quantitative formulas alone can be
used to diagnose learning disabilities;
· failure of multidisciplinary teams to consider and integrate findings
related to the presenting problem(s);
· lack of comprehensive assessment practices, procedures, and instruments
necessary to differentiate learning disabilities from other types of learning
problems.
* Comments based on the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
document titled, "Issues in Learning Disabilities: Assessment and Diagnosis"
(September, 1987)
Implications of Response:
· Policy: Eliminate requirements in
Federal and State regulations to use a discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual functioning as the criteria for identifying learning disabilities.
· Practice: Establish teams of qualified professionals who can provide
assessment and interpretation of results in the seven manifestation areas
of learning disabilities, (i.e. listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning,
or mathematical skills). Because of the large number of individuals who have
language based learning disabilities, every student suspected of having a
learning disability should receive a comprehensive language assessment from
a qualified speech-language pathologist.
· Research: Studies that will identify the battery of assessments that
can be used to identify individuals with learning disabilities in the seven
manifestation areas.