Abstract
Learning disabilities affect nearly 5% of the school aged population and make up approximately 50% of all special education students. While there are many models used to make a specific learning disability diagnosis, none are without their detractors. For years, the Simple Discrepancy Model was the most widely used method for the assessment of learning disabilities yet recent research has relegated this model suspect. Due to these findings the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 has stipulated that while a school district may still use the Simple Discrepancy Model they cannot require its use. Consequently, there are several prominent models currently utilized. Along with the Simple Discrepancy Model they are the Regression Model, the Low Achievement Model, the Aptitude-Achievement Consistency Model, and the Concordance-Discordance Model. Previous research has indicated that within a college population different models used to diagnose learning disabilities are not interchangeable. Yet of concern, school districts often appear to choose a specific model without the forethought that would warrant such an important decision.
The present study examined the five aforementioned models within a grade 1-10 population to examine the frequency, level of agreement, and level of association between the models. 150 subjects were examined from the same Northwest section of Florida. The results indicate that the Low Achievement and Concordance-Discordance models identify significantly more subjects as compared to the Simple Discrepancy, Regression, and Aptitude-Achievement Consistency models. Furthermore, the Simple Discrepancy and Regression Models revealed the highest level of agreement (86%) whereas the Simple Discrepancy and the Concordance-Discordance Models revealed the lowest (41%). When the five models were compared in sets of two for a total of ten comparisons the results indicated that the Simple Discrepancy and Regression models showed the strongest association. On the other hand, when strict criteria were implemented it was noted that eight of the ten comparisons did not demonstrate a clinical level of association. These results indicate that when the five models were compared they often diagnosed different students and thus should not, in most cases, be used interchangeably.
|
