Identification of Learning Disabilities: Research To Practice (The Lea Series on Special Education and Disability)

TABLE OF CONTENTS......Page 6
FOREWORD......Page 20
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 24
INTRODUCTION......Page 26
Research on Brain-Behavior Relationships......Page 34
Research on Reading Disabilities......Page 36
Language and Reading Disabilities......Page 39
Perceptual, Perceptual-Motor, and Attention Disabilities......Page 48
Introduction of the Term Learning Disabilities......Page 55
Federal Involvement......Page 57
Educational Programming: Dominance of Psychological Processing and Visual Perceptual Training......Page 60
SOLIDIFICATION PERIOD (c.1975 TO 1985)......Page 64
Solidification of the Definition......Page 65
Federal Regulations for Identification of Learning Disabilities......Page 66
Empirically Validated Educational Procedures......Page 67
Learning Disabilities Professional Organization Turmoil......Page 70
Learning Disabilities Definitions......Page 71
Continuation of Research Strands of the Learning Disabilities Research Institutes......Page 73
Research on Phonological Processing......Page 76
Biological Causes of Learning Disabilities......Page 77
Concern over Identification Procedures......Page 79
Debate Over the Continuum of Placements......Page 81
Postmodernism and Learning Disabilities......Page 83
REFERENCES......Page 86
ENDNOTES......Page 98
RESPONSE TO "LEARNING DISABILITIES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES"......Page 102
REFERENCES......Page 106
RESPONSE TO "LEARNING DISABILITIES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES"......Page 108
REFERENCES......Page 112
RESPONSE TO "LEARNING DISABILITIES: HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES"......Page 114
THE FEDERAL ROLE......Page 115
INCLUSION FOR BETTER OR WORSE?......Page 117
REFERENCES......Page 119
THE SEARCH FOR A CONDITION (OR CATEGORY)......Page 122
THE SEARCH FOR CURES (OR REMEDIES)......Page 125
ON OVER-REPRESENTATION......Page 126
CONCLUDING REMARKS......Page 128
REFERENCES......Page 130
CHAPTER II: EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND INTERVENTION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH READING/LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 132
Reading Comprehension and Word Reading......Page 133
Ways to Read Words......Page 136
The Basis for Orthographic (Word) Reading Skill......Page 137
Skilled Reading and Reading Disabilities......Page 140
EARLY IDENTIFICATION OF STUDENTS AT RISK FOR READING/LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 143
Degree of Prediction Error......Page 145
Recent Efforts to Predict RD in Kindergarten......Page 147
Using Screening Measures to Establish Intervention Criteria......Page 149
Teaching Phonological Awareness......Page 151
Teaching Alphabetic Reading Skill (Decoding)......Page 157
Promoting Orthographic Reading Skill (Fluency)......Page 164
FINAL THOUGHTS......Page 167
Alternative Approaches to Understanding and Treating Reading/Learning Disability......Page 169
REFERENCES......Page 171
CLASSROOM PREVENTION THROUGH DIFFERENTIATED INSTRUCTION: RESPONSE TO JENKINS AND O'CONNOR......Page 184
SKILLFUL READING ENTAILS MASTERING ONE'S WRITING SYSTEM......Page 185
PREDICTING RISK VERSUS DISABILITY......Page 186
IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTION......Page 189
REFERENCES......Page 191
FROM AN "EXPLODED VIEW" OF BEGINNING READING TOWARD A SCHOOLWIDE BEGINNING READING MODEL: GETTING TO SCALE IN COMPLEX HOST ENVIRONMENTS......Page 196
GETTING SCHOOLS AS COMPLEX HOST ENVIRONMENTS TO SCALE......Page 198
CONCLUSION......Page 203
REFERENCES......Page 204
EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND INTERVENTION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH READING/LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 206
EARLY IDENTIFICATION......Page 207
EARLY INTERVENTION......Page 209
CONCLUSION......Page 210
REFERENCES......Page 211
RESPONSE TO "EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND INTERVENTION FOR YOUNG CHILDREN WITH READING/LEARNING DISABILITIES"......Page 212
ACCURACY OF CLASSIFICATION......Page 213
DANGERS IN DRAWING CONCLUSIONS......Page 215
MORE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS......Page 216
REFERENCES......Page 217
INTRODUCTION......Page 218
WHAT IS CLASSIFICATION?......Page 219
DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING DISABILITIES: IMPLICIT CLASSIFICATIONS MADE EXPLICIT......Page 220
Is There A Bimodal Distribution?......Page 223
Can IQ-Discrepant and Low Achieving Poor Readers Be Differentiated?......Page 224
Other Forms of LD and the IQ-Discrepancy Hypothesis......Page 231
Psychometric Issues......Page 234
Conclusions: Discrepancy Hypothesis......Page 238
Reading Disabilities......Page 239
Math Disabilities......Page 248
Conclusions: Heterogeneity......Page 254
EXCLUSION HYPOTHESIS......Page 256
Social, Economic, and Cultural Disadvantage......Page 257
Instruction......Page 259
Constitutional Factors......Page 260
Conclusions: Exclusionary Criteria......Page 264
FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR CLASSIFICATIONS OF LD......Page 265
Psychometric Approaches Are Limited......Page 266
IQ Tests Are Not Needed......Page 267
"Slow Learner" Is Not a Useful Concept......Page 268
Response to Intervention Is Important......Page 269
Consensus Process......Page 270
Learning Disabilities Are Real Phenomena......Page 271
REFERENCES......Page 272
THE REALITY......Page 284
THE CONCEPT OF LD VS. ITS OPERATIONAL DEFINITION......Page 285
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE......Page 286
CLASSIFICATION OF LD AND RESPONSE TO TREATMENT......Page 287
IMPLICATIONS FOR RESEARCH......Page 288
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......Page 289
REFERENCES......Page 291
ENTITLEMENT......Page 296
HETEROGENEITY TO SPECIFICITY......Page 297
TERMINOLOGY PITFALLS......Page 299
FIELD REALITIES......Page 300
POLITICS......Page 301
UNDERACHIEVEMENT......Page 302
REFERENCES......Page 303
THE SOCIOPOLITICAL PROCESS OF CLASSIFICATION RESEARCH: MAKING THE IMPLICIT EXPLICIT IN LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 306
REFERENCES......Page 310
CONVERGENCE......Page 312
EXPANSION......Page 313
CAUTION......Page 315
REFERENCES......Page 317
CHAPTER IV: LEARNING DISABILITIES AS OPERATIONALLY DEFINED BY SCHOOLS......Page 320
AUTHORITATIVE DEFINITIONS OF LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 321
THE PROCESS PRESCRIBED IN IDEA GUIDING SCHOOL IDENTIFICATION......Page 322
STAGE 1: THE IMPORTANCE OF TEACHER REFERRAL......Page 324
STAGE 2: ASSESSMENT......Page 327
STAGE 3: PLACEMENT COMMITTEE DELIBERATIONS......Page 330
DEVELOPMENTS FURTHER EXPANDING THE CONCEPT OF LD IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS......Page 332
DELETION OF "BORDERLINE MENTAL RETARDATION"......Page 333
HOW THIS EXPANDED THE LD CATEGORY......Page 334
VARIATIONS IN LD CHARACTERISTICS ACROSS SITES......Page 335
CHANGES IN THE IMPORTANCE OF DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS......Page 339
VARIABILITY WITHIN THE SI LD POPULATION......Page 343
ISSUES RAISED ABOUT THE CURRENT PROCESS......Page 344
ELIGIBILITY USING A ONE-TIME-ONLY ASSESSMENT......Page 345
ASSUMED INTRINSIC/NEUROBIOLOGICAL ETIOLOGY OF LD......Page 348
CURRICULAR CONSEQUENCES OF THE HETEROGENEITY OF SI LD POPULATIONS......Page 350
WHERE ARE WE Now AND WHERE MIGHT WE Go?......Page 352
TITRATION OF INTENSITY OF TREATMENTS IN DECISION MAKING......Page 353
ISSUE OF INTELLIGENCE TESTING......Page 354
EFFORTS TO "FIX" LD: THE NEED FOR A BROADER PERSPECTIVE......Page 356
LD AND SOCIAL CLASS......Page 357
CONCLUDING REMARKS......Page 358
REFERENCES......Page 360
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 366
DECIDING WHICH CHILDREN TO SERVE......Page 368
A PROPOSED MODEL......Page 371
THE MAIN POINTS......Page 374
META-RESEARCH COMMENTARY......Page 375
RESEARCH STRATEGIES......Page 376
NEED FOR TOLERANCE......Page 377
LESSONS WE SHOULD HAVE LEARNED......Page 379
WHERE WE (CONTINUE TO) GO WRONG......Page 380
THE REAL PROBLEM......Page 381
REFERENCES......Page 382
ENDNOTE......Page 383
LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD: COMMENTARY ON "LEARNING DISABILITIES AS OPERATIONALLY DEFINED BY SCHOOLS"......Page 384
TOWARD THE FUTURE: INSTRUCTIONAL STRATEGIES FOR THE DISENFRANCHISED......Page 385
EDUCATING THE DISENFRANCHISED......Page 386
ABILITY TO BENEFIT FROM TREATMENT: VALID ALTERNATIVE, OR YET ANOTHER PIPE DREAM?......Page 387
SOME CONSIDERATIONS AS WE BEGIN TO LEVEL THE PLAYING FIELD......Page 388
REFERENCES......Page 390
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 392
STATE VARIATIONS......Page 394
REASONS FOR MMR DECLINE......Page 395
SUMMARY......Page 396
UNIVERSAL SCREENING AND EARLY INTERVENTION......Page 398
OUTCOMES CRITERIA......Page 399
REFERENCES......Page 400
DISCREPANCY AND INTRA-!NDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES......Page 402
COGNITIVE DISCREPANCIES......Page 403
ORIGINS OF ABILITY-ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY......Page 404
FORMULA-BASED DISCREPANCY......Page 406
GRADE-LEVEL DEVIATION......Page 407
PROBLEMS AND ISSUES......Page 408
DISCREPANCY SCORE COMPONENTS......Page 410
STANDARD SCORE METHODS......Page 411
REGRESSION METHODS......Page 412
EVALUATION OF REGRESSION METHODS......Page 414
EVALUATION OF DISCREPANCY METHODS......Page 416
INSTABILITY OF DISCREPANCY SCORES......Page 417
DISCREPANCY AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITY......Page 418
Statistical Classification vs. Clinical Judgment......Page 419
VAGARIES OF IDENTIFICATION AND PREVALENCE......Page 420
CONFOUNDING AMONG HIGH-INCIDENCE MILD DISABILITIES......Page 421
CONFOUNDING BETWEEN LEARNING DISABILITY AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT......Page 422
LEARNING DISABILITY VS. LOW ACHIEVEMENT DEBATE......Page 424
REANALYSIS OF THE MINNESOTA STUDIES......Page 425
EXAMINING LEARNING DISABILITY AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT SAMPLES......Page 427
LEARNING DISABILITY AND INTELLIGENCE......Page 428
THE ROLE OF INTELLIGENCE IN DEFINITIONS......Page 429
DEFINING LEARNING DISABILITY WITHOUT INTELLIGENCE......Page 430
LEARNING DISABILITY AND LOW ACHIEVEMENT: QUANTITATIVE OR QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCES?......Page 433
QUALITATIVE DISTINCTIONS IN LEARNING DISABILITY......Page 434
THE STATUS OF DISCREPANCY IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITY......Page 436
REFERENCES......Page 440
FOUNDATIONAL CONCEPTS ABOUT LEARNING DISABILITY......Page 460
IDENTIFICATION ISSUES: GENERAL......Page 462
Balance......Page 463
WHO'S WHO?......Page 465
SUMMARY......Page 466
REFERENCES......Page 467
ENDNOTE......Page 468
A FUNCTIONAL AND INTERVENTION-BASED ASSESSMENT APPROACH TO ESTABLISHING DISCREPANCY FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 470
THE PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL......Page 471
EVALUATION RESULTS......Page 474
DOES THE PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL INCREASE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PREREFERRAL STRATEGIES?......Page 475
DOES THE PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL AFFECT THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS OF COLOR REFERRED AND IDENTIFIED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION?......Page 476
ARE PARENTS SATISFIED WITH THE PROBLEM SOLVING MODEL?......Page 477
CONCLUSION......Page 478
REFERENCES......Page 479
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 480
DISCREPANCY MODELS IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITY: A RESPONSE TO KAVALE......Page 482
REFERENCES......Page 486
DO DISCREPANCY MODELS SATISFY EITHER THE LETTER OR THE SPIRIT OF IDEA?......Page 490
PREDICTIVE VALIDITY......Page 491
THE LOW ACHIEVEMENT DEFINITION......Page 492
SPIRIT VS. LETTER OF THE LAW......Page 494
IDENTIFICATION AS A MEANS TO AN END......Page 496
REFERENCES......Page 497
CHAPTER VI: RESPONSIVENESS TO INTERVENTION: AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 500
Referral......Page 502
Team Recommendation......Page 503
Implications of Competing Paradigms in LD Identification......Page 504
Brief Recent History of LD......Page 506
Issues in Defining LD: The LD/LA Disputes......Page 507
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy and LD Definition......Page 509
Historical Background: Aptitude H Treatment Interaction......Page 510
Brief Overview of ATI Research......Page 512
Responsiveness to Intervention Defined......Page 513
Treatment Validity......Page 514
Support for a Treatment Validity Approach......Page 515
Ability to Model Academic Growth......Page 516
Validated Treatment Protocols......Page 518
Distinguishing Between Acquisition and Performance Deficits......Page 521
Predictor-Criterion Models......Page 522
Dual-Discrepancy Model......Page 523
Functional Assessment Models......Page 527
Reliable Changes in Behavior......Page 529
Social Validation......Page 531
CONCLUSION......Page 532
Unresolved Issues in the Alternative Responsiveness-to-intervention Approach......Page 533
REFERENCES......Page 540
NOTES......Page 552
THREE CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF "TREATMENT" IN A RESPONSIVENESS-TO-TREATMENT FRAMEWORK FOR LD IDENTIFICATION......Page 554
Intensive Remediation......Page 555
Intensive Prevention......Page 558
General Education Prevention......Page 559
CONCLUSIONS......Page 560
REFERENCES......Page 561
RESPONSIVENESS TO INTERVENTIONS: THE NEXT STEP IN SPECIAL EDUCATION IDENTIFICATION, SERVICE, AND EXITING DECISION MAKING......Page 564
ISSUES WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM......Page 565
Abandoning ATI-Based Processes......Page 566
Early Intervention and Prevention......Page 567
Diagnosing Solutions......Page 568
Application of Responsiveness to Intervention Approaches......Page 570
Successful Exit of Special Education......Page 571
Alignment of Responsiveness-to-intervention Practices With IDEA Philosophy......Page 573
OSEP Support for Improvements in Professional Practices......Page 574
REFERENCES......Page 575
IS LD REAL?......Page 582
HOW ACCURATELY CAN WE IDENTIFY STUDENTS WITH LD?......Page 583
CAN RESPONSE TO TREATMENT BE USED AS A MEANS TO IDENTIFY STUDENTS WITH LD?......Page 584
WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL CONCERNS REGARDING THE EFFECTIVE USE OF RESPONSE TO TREATMENT AS A MEANS OF IDENTIFYING STUDENTS WITH LD?......Page 585
SHOULD A RESPONSE-TO-TREATMENT MODEL BE USED FOR IDENTIFYING STUDENTS AS LEARNING DISABLED?......Page 586
REFERENCES......Page 587
THE IQ-ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY REVISITED......Page 588
MODELS OF RESPONSIVENESS TO REMEDIATION......Page 590
CONCERNS ABOUT THE DIAGNOSTIC TEAM......Page 591
LENGTH AND INTENSITY OF REMEDIATION......Page 592
SOURCES OF OPPOSITION TO GRESHAM'S PROPOSAL......Page 593
REFERENCES......Page 595
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 597
CHAPTER VII: EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL SUPPORT FOR DIRECT DIAGNOSIS OF LEARNING DISABILITIES BY ASSESSMENT OF INTRINSIC PROCESSING WEAKNESSES......Page 598
THE USE OF PROCESSING LANGUAGE IN DIFFERENT LEVELS OF EXPLANATION......Page 600
DISTINCTIONS AMONG TYPES OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES......Page 604
WAYS IN WHICH PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES CAN CAUSE INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN PERFORMANCE......Page 607
SUMMARY......Page 608
EVIDENCE FOR INTRINSIC PROCESSING WEAKNESSES AS THE CAUSE OF SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 609
THE THEORY OF PHONOLOGICALLY BASED READING DISABILITIES......Page 610
THE NONVERBAL LEARNING DISABILITIES SYNDROME......Page 613
ADVANTAGES OF A PROCESSING APPROACH TO DIAGNOSIS OVER CURRENT DISCREPANCY-BASED APPROACHES......Page 615
DIFFICULTIES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF DIAGNOSIS BASED ON DIRECT ASSESSMENT OF INTRINSIC PROCESSING WEAKNESSES......Page 618
THE KNOWLEDGE BASE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT PROCESS ASSESSMENT AS A DIAGNOSTIC APPROACH......Page 619
DIFFICULTIES IN THE ASSESSMENT OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES THEMSELVES......Page 621
SUMMARY......Page 623
ALTERNATIVES TO CLASSIFICATION BASED ON ASSESSMENT OF INTRINSIC PROCESSES......Page 624
THE USE OF PROCESS-MARKER VARIABLES FOR EARLY IDENTIFICATION AND OF OUTCOME/ RESPONSE TO TREATMENT VARIABLES FOR LATER DIAGNOSIS......Page 625
POINTS OF VULNERABILITY IN THE PROPOSED CLASSIFICATION MODEL......Page 628
SUMMARY......Page 631
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FIELD AS A SOCIAL-POLITICAL-EDUCATIONAL MOVEMENT......Page 632
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE FIELD AS AN AREA OF SCIENTIFIC INQUIRY......Page 634
SUMMARY......Page 635
REFERENCES......Page 636
ISSUE AT STAKE......Page 648
TORGESEN'S POSITION......Page 650
OTHER POINTS......Page 651
REFERENCES......Page 654
A COMMENTARY ON "EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL SUPPORT FOR DIRECT DIAGNOSIS OF LEARNING DISABILITIES BY ASSESSMENT OF INTRINSIC PROCESSING WEAKNESSES"......Page 656
DISCUSSION......Page 657
ARE WEAKNESSES IN INTRINSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES THE TRUE DISABILITIES?......Page 658
CAN INTRINSIC PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES BE MEASURED ADEQUATELY?......Page 661
CAN TORGESEN'S APPROACH IMPROVE DIAGNOSIS AND REMEDIAL INSTRUCTION FOR STUDENTS WITH LEARNING DISABILITIES?......Page 663
ENDNOTES......Page 665
BLURRING THE BOUNDARY: A COMMENTARY ON TORGESEN'S ARGUMENT FOR THE USE OF PROCESS MARKERS IN THE IDENTIFICATION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 668
INTERACTIVE ORIGINS OF PROCESSING DEFICITS......Page 669
MORE THAN PHONOLOGICAL AWARENESS......Page 671
REFERENCES......Page 673
LEARNING DISABILITIES IS A SPECIFIC PROCESSING DEFICIT, BUT IT IS MUCH MORE THAN PHONOLOGICAL PROCESSING......Page 676
I. WHAT IS MEANT BY DOMAIN-SPECIFIC VS. DOMAIN-GENERAL "INTRINSIC" PROCESSES?......Page 677
II. TEACHING DEFICIENCY OR PROCESSING DEFICIENCY?......Page 680
REFERENCES......Page 683
I. INTRODUCTION......Page 686
II. ISSUES IN IDENTIFICATION......Page 687
Identification......Page 688
What Instruction for Children With SRD Should Include......Page 690
IV. THE IDENTIFICATION OF CHILDREN WITH SPECIFIC COMPREHENSION PROBLEMS......Page 693
Problems Constructing Inferences......Page 694
Problems of Specifically Poor Comprehenders Are Not Related to Short-Term Memory......Page 695
Lexical and Semantic Language Processing Deficits......Page 696
Is This Just a Matthew Effect?......Page 697
V. RESEARCH ON INSTRUCTION FOR CHILDREN WITH POOR COMPREHENSION......Page 698
VI. CLINICALLY RECOGNIZING CHILDREN WITH LANGUAGE-BASED READING DISABILITIES......Page 700
Recognizing Language-Based Learning Disabilities from Classroom Behaviors......Page 701
Recognizing the Varied Profiles of Children With Phonological Deficits......Page 704
Screening for Reading Disabilities......Page 706
Diagnostic Assessment of Reading Disabilities......Page 709
Improving Teachers' Expertise......Page 710
Individualizing Instruction With Ongoing Assessment......Page 711
VIII. SUMMARY AND FUTURE CHALLENGES......Page 714
REFERENCES......Page 716
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 725
WHAT IS THE PHENOMENON UNDER STUDY? FROM READING TO THE PRACTICE OF LITERACY......Page 726
WHO IS INCLUDED IN READING DIFFICULTIES RESEARCH? OR HOW TO ACCOUNT FOR CULTURE IN LEARNING......Page 728
HOW DO TEACHERS MAKE INFORMED CLINICAL JUDGMENTS? TOWARD A HYBRID METAPHOR......Page 731
CONCLUSION......Page 732
REFERENCES......Page 733
ENDNOTES......Page 734
INDENTIFICATION......Page 736
DISCREPANCY......Page 739
CAUSALITY......Page 740
TEACHING......Page 741
INSTRUCTION......Page 742
CONCLUSION......Page 743
REFERENCES......Page 744
CLINICAL JUDGMENT IN THE ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING DISABILITIES......Page 746
DISCUSSION OF CURRENT PRACTICES......Page 747
Listening......Page 748
Writing......Page 749
A Concern about Re-evaluation and Transition......Page 751
REFERENCES......Page 752
SUMMARY......Page 758
Identification......Page 759
The Importance of Fluency in Reading Intervention......Page 761
Other Comprehension Principles......Page 764
REFERENCES......Page 765
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......Page 769
HISTORY, POLITICS, AND THE LD CONSTRUCT......Page 770
Special Education's Soaring Enrollments and Cost......Page 773
The Regular Education Initiative......Page 774
LD Research......Page 775
1990s: THE NICHD GROUP......Page 777
The Argument Against IQ Discrepancy As a Valid LD Marker......Page 778
The Argument for Phonological Deficits As a Valid LD Marker......Page 779
Similarities Between the NICHD and REI Groups......Page 780
Need for a Meta-Analysis......Page 781
Inclusion Criteria and Search Strategies......Page 782
Coding the Studies......Page 783
Computation of Individual ESs......Page 784
Preliminary Analyses......Page 785
How Might We Consolidate the Large Number of Study Features?......Page 786
WHAT DOES THIS META-ANALYSIS TELL Us?......Page 788
REFERENCES......Page 789
INTRODUCTION......Page 796
THE SOUNDNESS OF THE METHODOLOGY......Page 797
THE NOTION THAT STUDENTS WITH LD ARE DIFFERENT FROM LOW ACHIEVERS IN KIND......Page 798
THE MERITS/LIMITATIONS OF FOCUSING ON THE READING DOMAIN ALONE......Page 799
THE ROLE OF A DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE IN UNDERSTANDING THE LD CONSTRUCT......Page 800
CONCLUSION......Page 801
REFERENCES......Page 802
RESPONSE TO "IS 'LEARNING DISABILITIES' JUST A FANCY TERM FOR LOW ACHIEVEMENT? A META-ANALYSIS OF READING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LOW ACHIEVERS WITH AND WITHOUT THE LABEL"......Page 806
REFERENCES......Page 809
RESPONSE TO "IS 'LEARNING DISABILITIES' JUST A FANCY TERM FOR LOW ACHIEVEMENT? A META-ANALYSIS OF READING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN Low ACHIEVERS WITH AND WITHOUT THE LABEL"......Page 810
INCENTIVES FOR EARLY INTERVENTION......Page 813
REFERENCES......Page 814
RESPONSE TO "IS 'LEARNING DISABILITIES' JUST A FANCY TERM FOR LOW ACHIEVEMENT? A META-ANALYSIS OF READING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LOW ACHIEVERS WITH AND WITHOUT THE LABEL"......Page 816
COMPARABILITY OF SAMPLES......Page 817
PERFORMANCE OF LD STUDENTS IS LOWER AND BECOMES MORE DISCREPANT OVER TIME......Page 818
OBJECTIVE MEASURES MORE ACCURATE THAN TEACHER JUDGMENT......Page 819
NEED FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION......Page 820
REFERENCES......Page 821
CONCLUSION......Page 824
APPENDIX......Page 838
A......Page 842
B......Page 843
C......Page 844
D......Page 846
F......Page 847
G......Page 848
H......Page 849
K......Page 851
L......Page 852
M......Page 853
N......Page 855
P......Page 856
R......Page 857
S......Page 858
T......Page 860
V......Page 861
W......Page 862
Z......Page 863
A......Page 864
B......Page 865
C......Page 866
D......Page 867
E......Page 869
F......Page 870
H......Page 871
I......Page 872
L......Page 875
M......Page 876
N......Page 878
P......Page 879
R......Page 882
S......Page 884
T......Page 886
U......Page 887
W......Page 888
Y......Page 889