Severe Discrepancy Models: Which Best Explains School Identification Practices for Learning Disabilities?

Abstract

This study examined which of three types of severe discrepancy approaches—intraindividual achievement discrepancy, absolute achievement discrepancy, or relative achievement discrepancy—best accounted for students' identification as learning disabled (LD). Participants were 48 fourth-grade, school-identified LD students from a high-achieving and a low-achieving school district in Minnesota. Students were tested with a short form of the WISC-III and two measures of reading, and the resulting discrepancies were matched to students' school LD classification. Results showed that the best explanation for school-based LD identification practices was a relative achievement discrepancy, with between 85–95% of LD students in both districts identified accurately. The state-mandated ability-achievement discrepancy accounted for only 60% of LD students. Implications of these findings for LD identification practice based on an ecological perspective are discussed.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Kristin M. H. Peterson

Kristin M. H. Peterson, Ph.D., graduated from the University of Oregon in 1999. Currently, she is a school psychologist in Robbinsdale Area Schools, New Hope, Minnesota. Her applied areas of interest include the implementation of research-based instructional practices, data-based decision making, and anti-bullying programs.

Mark R. Shinn

Mark R. Shinn received his Ph.D. in Educational Psychology (School Psychology) from the University of Minnesota in 1981. Currently, he is a professor in the College of Education at the University of Oregon. His primary interests are in educational assessment, including problem-solving assessment and curriculum-based measurement.