Measures for Psychological Assessment: A Guide to 3,000 Original Sources and Their Applications. Ki-Taek Chun, Sidney Cable, and John R. P. French, Jr. / Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities. E. LaMonte Ohlson / Measurement and Evaluation in the Schools (2nd ed). Louis J. Karmel and Marylin O. Karmel / Psychological and Educational Assessment of Minority Children. Thomas Oakland, Editor / Measurement and Evaluation in Education and Psychology, Second Edition. William A. Mehrens and Irvin J. Lehmann / Measurement for Education Evaluation. Clinton I. Chase / Classroom Measurement and Evaluation. Charles D. Hopkins and Richard L. Antes / Test Scores and What They Mean (3rd ed.). Howard B. Lyman / Criterion-Referenced Measurement. W. James Popham / Applying Norm-Referenced and Criterion-Referenced Measurement in Education. Victor R. Martuza

1979 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-59
Author(s):  
William D. Dannenmaier ◽  
William D. Dannenmaier ◽  
Joseph C. Ciechalski ◽  
Joseph C. Ciechalski ◽  
Nancy B. Flowers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Psychological Assessment ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Educational Assessment ◽  
Specific Learning Disabilities ◽  
Education Evaluation ◽  
Minority Children ◽  
Criterion Referenced ◽  
Measurement And Evaluation ◽  
Specific Learning

Specific Learning Disabilities Identification: Do the Identification Methods and Data Matter?

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (2) ◽  
pp. 63-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathrin E. Maki ◽  
Sarah R. Adams
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
School Psychologists ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Student Evaluation ◽  
Specific Learning Disabilities ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Observation Data ◽  
Evaluation Data ◽  
Identification Methods ◽  
Specific Learning

Specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification has consistently been shown to be problematic; however, research has largely focused on SLD identification using test scores only. The present study, therefore, examined SLD identification decisions across identification methods and student evaluation data levels, including test scores, background information, and observations. Participants included 461 school psychologists who were randomly assigned to one of 12 conditions to make identification decisions. Results indicated that response to intervention (RtI) methods resulted in greater identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy while pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) resulted in lower identification consistency than ability-achievement discrepancy. However, background information and observation data did not impact SLD identification consistency. Implications for practice and research are also discussed.

scholarly journals Psycho-Educational Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities: Views and Practices of Australian Psychologists and Guidance Counsellors

2015 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12 ◽  
Author(s):  
John D. Meteyard ◽  
Linda Gilmore
Keyword(s):  
Academic Achievement ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Cognitive Deficits ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Educational Assessment ◽  
Specific Learning Disabilities ◽  
Theoretical Perspectives ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Specific Learning

This article reports an investigation of the views and practices of 203 Australian psychologists and guidance counsellors with respect to psycho-educational assessment of students with specific learning disabilities (SLDs). Results from an online survey indicated that practitioners draw upon a wide range of theoretical perspectives when conceptualising and identifying SLDs, including both response to intervention and IQ-achievement discrepancy models. Intelligence tests (particularly the Wechsler scales) are commonly employed, with the main stated reasons for their use being ‘traditional’ perspectives (including IQ-achievement discrepancy based definitions of SLDs), to exclude a diagnosis of intellectual disability, and to guide further assessment and intervention. In contrast, participants reported using measures of academic achievement and tests of specific cognitive deficits known to predict SLDs (e.g., phonological awareness) relatively infrequently.

scholarly journals Teachers’ intuition and knowledge in detecting specific learning disabilities

2012 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 316-331
Author(s):  
Svetlana Obradovic ◽  
Nadezda Krstic
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
School Achievement ◽  
Specific Learning Disabilities ◽  
Ministry Of Education ◽  
Significant Discrepancy ◽  
Primary School Teachers ◽  
Criterion Referenced ◽  
The Republic ◽  
And Mathematics ◽  
Specific Learning

The aim of the study was to investigate primary school teachers? proficiency in detecting the ability-achievement discrepancy as a landmark of possible specific developmental learning disabilities (SLD). Twenty-two teachers in five schools attempted to select, in accordance with their perception and out of a larger preliminary sample, those students whose school results revealed: (a) discrepancy between school achievement and general abilities (the group of purportedly disharmonic children, GPD) or (b) concordance between general abilities and achievement (the group of purportedly harmonic children, GPH). The children were tested by REVISK, while teachers re-assessed students? reading, writing and arithmetic performance against a simple structured questionnaire based on demands of the approved elementary school program delineated by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Serbia. Research results indicate that more than 60% of children originally qualified to GPH have actually shown significant discrepancy between targeted scholastic skills and (normal) general intelligence. The data suggested some association between students? disparity in attainment and teachers? attribution accuracy, while the only homogenous quantitative marker of misplaced children were decreased values on some of the REVISK Verbal subscale tests. This study has shown that teachers can use their professional knowledge to enhance their capability to detect children with specific learning disabilities. In absence of criterion-referenced tests of reading, writing and mathematics, a structured approach to the projected course of skill progress might support teachers? confidence regarding likely SLD.

Inter-Correlations Between Tests Of Intelligence In Students With Learning Disabilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Venkatesan ◽  
L. Lokesh
Keyword(s):  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Convergent Validity ◽  
Survey Design ◽  
Specific Learning Disabilities ◽  
Demographic Variables ◽  
Single Shot ◽  
Students With Learning Disabilities ◽  
Mental Age ◽  
Specific Learning

Background: Tests of intelligence are a prelude to the diagnosis of specific learning disabilities. This study selected three commonly preferred performance measures, such as the Porteus Maze Test (PMT), Seguin Form Board (SFB), and Gesell Drawing Test (GDT), to examine their inter-correlations. A single-shot correlation survey design was combined with convenience sampling to determine the nature, direction, degree, and extent of co-variance of test scores between the chosen tests for an overall sample of 161 students with specific learning disabilities. The overall trends and concerning personal-demographic variables like age, gender, level of schooling, and type of curriculum, were investigated. For the overall sample (N: 161), the obtained mean SFB mental age of 109.79 (SD: 20.38), GDT mental age of 98.80 (SD: 20.07), and PMT mental age of 103.75 (SD: 29.07) months. The GDT appears to be estimating mental ages less by five points against the PMT, and by twelve points against the SFB in the targeted children. Analysis of inter-correlations between the test scores on pairs for the three tests of intelligence shows moderate to highly significant correlation (p: 0.05) ranging from 0.48 and 0.53, irrespective of which among them is used as anchor test. This means that they all possess good convergent validity for their regular use during clinical practice in the diagnosis of children with learning disabilities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document