Diagnosing Written Language Disabilities Using the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement—Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test

2000 ◽  
Vol 87 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-204 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Brown ◽  
Marc J. Giandenoto ◽  
Larry M. Bolen

The writing portions of the Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Educational Achievement–Revised and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test are often administered when establishing eligibility for special education services due to learning disabilities. The scores on these measures are typically regarded as equivalent although little is known about how scores on the two measures differ for the same students. Differences of only a few points, however, may affect eligibility for special education services. These tests were administered to 25 sixth grade students previously diagnosed with learning disabilities in written expression only. Students' Wechsler scores were consistently higher on the overall writing composite, while there was no difference in the mean scores on the language mechanics subtests. The WIAT Written Expression subtest mean, however, was significantly higher than the Woodcock-Johnson Writing Samples subtest mean. Use of the Wechsler test would be less likely to identify children for special education services in written expression when point discrepancy criteria are utilized for eligibility. Clinicians should be cognizant of the effect of the specific test chosen on eligibility outcome.

1994 ◽  
Vol 60 (6) ◽  
pp. 508-517 ◽  
Author(s):  
James McLeskey ◽  
Debra Pacchiano

This study investigated placement practices for students with learning disabilities over the past 11 years, as reported in the Annual Reports to Congress on the Implementation of P.L. 94–142. From 1979 to 1989, the placement rate for students with learning disabilities being educated in restrictive, separate-class settings almost doubled. Moreover, the proportion of all students with learning disabilities served in separate-class settings increased 4.4%. Little progress is being made toward mainstreaming students with learning disabilities. The article discusses implications of these findings for reform in the provision of special education services.


1999 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 249-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arthur J. Reynolds ◽  
Barbara Wolfe

Is placement in special education during the elementary grades associated with higher school performance? To shed light on this question, we investigated the relationship between participation in special education programs during Grades 1–6 and school achievement among 1,234 low-income children participating in the Chicago Longitudinal Study. About 15% of the study sample received special education services (half in learning disabilities and half in other disabilities), 22% were retained in grade, and 50% changed schools more than once over the elementary grades. Controlling for school achievement prior to placement in special education, as well as for family background school experiences, and school attributes, children receiving special education services had lower reading and math achievement scores than other children, especially during Grades 4–6. Children with learning disabilities benefited less from special education services than did children with other disabilities. Grade retention and school mobility during the primary grades were associated with significantly lower reading and math achievement above and beyond prior achievement and other factors. Continued scrutiny of special education services and retention practices, at least as they currently exist in large cities, may benefit children with learning difficulties.


2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (2) ◽  
pp. 98-112 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gina L. Harrison ◽  
Lauren D. Goegan ◽  
Sarah J. Macoun

This study examined the scoring errors across three widely used achievement tests (Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement–Second Edition [KTEA-2], Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement–Third Edition [WJ-III], and the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Third Edition [WIAT-III]) by novice examiners. A total of 114 protocols were evaluated for differences between the measures on the frequency and type of scoring errors. Within-measure analyses were also conducted to identify particular composites or subtests that might be more prone to error. Among the three measures, the WIAT-III was found to have the most scoring elements and was, therefore, the measure most susceptible to errors in scoring. Irrespective of the measure, more errors occurred on composites requiring greater examiner inference and interpretation, similar to previous studies on the propensity of scoring errors on cognitive measures. Results are discussed in relation to assessment fidelity and to assessment training practices.


2007 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. 713-720 ◽  
Author(s):  
David L. Branch ◽  
Larry D. Hilgert ◽  
Blaine L. Browne ◽  
David M. Monetti

40 students ( M age = 13.5 yr., SD=1) from a rural south Georgia school system participated. 20 participants (11 boys, 9 girls) were receiving special education services for diagnosed learning disabilities, and 20 were general education students (10 boys, 10 girls). Students attempted to memorize a list of 15 words in 1 min., tried to recall the words, and then repeated the process for each of 10-word lists. As predicted, students with diagnosed learning disabilities recalled fewer words overall and fewer critical lures than did the general education students.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enoch Leung

This book chapter examines the intersection between learning disabilities (LD) and other marginalized identities to understand the diverse experiences of students with LDs and the disproportionalities that exist in LD identification and support in schools. Largely driven by the history and evolution of inclusion of disabilities in schools, Response to Intervention (RtI) arose as a model designed to increase academic performance among students with and without disabilities. Though RtI is a model shown to minimize inappropriate identification of LDs, intersectionality must be taken into consideration to understand the disproportionate representation of culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) students in special education. Data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress suggest social factors (e.g. socioeconomic disadvantages, racial and ethnic intersection) as a potential cause for disproportionate representation and points to a need to further understand the disproportionality of different groups of students being over- or under-identified to receive special education services.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document