Models of Diagnosing

Learning Disabilities

ALICIA MARCHINI
EDPS 657

Introduction
countless models of diagnosis
problem exists because of

a lack of consensus regarding a definition for LD

differences in interpretation of particular constituents
of definition

(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003)

Grade-Level Discrepancy Models

identify a difference between the childs grade

level and his/her achievement level as

specified by grade-equivalent scores
when the ability-achievement discrepancy
surpasses the set criterion (e.g., two grade
levels), then the
discrepancy is
deemed severe

(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003)

Grade-Level Discrepancy Models

Sometimes, the students age is used instead

of the grade placement to determine

discrepancy and, oftentimes, grade-level
discrepancy models require the child to have
a minimum IQ in order to be diagnosed with
LD

(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003)

Grade-Level Discrepancy Models

easy to understand and apply
criticized for being a biased model that will

lead to an over-identification of learning

disabilities for children with IQs below 100
(false positives) and an under-identification
for children with IQs above 100 (false
negatives)
rejected because of their statistical
inadequacies

(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003; Willson & Reynolds, 1984)

Simple Discrepancy Models

identify differences

between ability and

achievement, where IQ
scores represent ability
IQ-achievement discrepancy score is believed
to confirm that identified children have
unpredicted achievement levels, given their
ability levels
usually, a childs achievement score must be
a standard amount below his/her IQ
(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003)

Simple Discrepancy Models

Criticisms:

IQ tests generate inaccurate intelligence scores, which

degrades the integrity of this model
Unreliable discrepancy between IQ and achievement
scores
do not appreciate the effects of regression toward the
mean

IQ and achievement measures are imperfectly correlated,

leading to over-identify learning disabilities in individuals
with IQs above the mean and under-identify learning
disabilities in those with IQs below the mean

(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003; Willson & Reynolds, 1984)

Regression-Based Discrepancy Models

some researchers do not believe that regression-

based discrepancy models are superior to simple

discrepancy models
controls for the
correlation between
the two tests

(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003)

Regression-Based Discrepancy Models

determine whether a severe discrepancy exists

between a childs achievement score and the mean

achievement score of all children with equivalent
IQs (predicted achievement score)
This is done by determining a predicted achievement
score and comparing it to the individuals measured
achievement score
then, determine whether a severe discrepancy exists
between the childs achievement score and the
predicted achievement score
to avoid over- or under-identification of learning
disabilities, the threshold for a severe discrepancy is a
greater number of standard score points for those who
have an IQ above 100 than for individuals who have an
(Proctor & Prevatt, 2003)
IQ below 100

Intraindividual Differences Model

involves individual differences on measures of

cognitive function
indicative of unexpected underachievement
the individuals cognitive or neuropsychological
strengths and weaknesses are identified by using
multiple tests at the same point
in time to look for recurring
discrepancies

(Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005)

Intraindividual Differences Model

examines profiles of cognitive performance and

classifies students as LD when the profiles are

uneven

assumed that this may lead to better intervention and

treatment for those with learning disabilities; however,
there is little evidence to support this

according to this model, a flat profile is assumed

to be indicative of expected underachievement

and unconnected to learning disabilities

criticized for this belief because it may exclude the

most severely impaired as a result
(Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005)

Common Criticisms of Discrepancy Models

IQ-achievement discrepant readers and poor

readers without an IQ-achievement discrepancy are

more similar than different

also evident for different discrepancy-based identifications of

LD in math and oral language

lack of reliability and validity of discrepancy models

inability to distinguish children who require

intervention from those who do not, often resulting

in delayed access to intervention

(Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005; Brueggemann, Kamphaus, & Dombrowski,

Low Achievement Models

students must score below a predetermined cutoff

(e.g., 25th percentile) on an individually

administered, norm-referenced academic
achievement test
IQ must be above 70
can be reliably implemented across school districts
does not discriminate against children whose ability
level is below the mean and are less likely to be
classified as LD by other models
more reliable and has better validity evidence than
some discrepancy models
(Brueggemann, Kamphaus, & Dombrowski, 2008)

Low Achievement Models

Criticisms:

lack of research support for cutoff scores for

identifying LD
a single indicator (achievement score) cannot
determine the existence of an LD because of
measurement error (possibility of false positives)
more information is required to validly identify a
LD because achievement is
impacted by factors
(e.g., cognitive, behavioural,
and social factors)

(Brueggemann, Kamphaus, & Dombrowski,

Impairment Model
requires below average academic achievement test

scores and impaired adaptive functioning

rather than using a random cutoff scores, a level of
academic achievement that is related to significant
functional impairment is used
only children with significantly impaired functioning
will be classified as having an LD
limits variability and over-identification

(Brueggemann, Kamphaus, & Dombrowski, 2008)

Impairment Model
Major limitations:

(1) Critics suggest that it will cause an increase in the

prevalence of LD
proposes a cutoff point for achievement deficit as falling
into a percentile rank of 16 on at least two measures
(10-12% of the U.S. population as LD)
(2) Functional impairment as a part of the criteria to
diagnose LD is believed to be a weakness
no clear definition
unknown whether impairments can predict the
occurrence of learning disabilities
lack of agreement on method for assessing functional
impairment
(Doll & Horn, 2008)

Response to Intervention Model

involve identification based

(partially) on repeated
curriculum-based
assessments of the same
core area (e.g., reading)
then, student is given
individualized quality
instruction that would
potentially improve
outcomes
by linking multiple assessments
to specific interventions, unexpected
underachievement can be identified (poor response to
specific instruction)
(Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005)

Response to Intervention Model

issues regarding the nature of the instruction and

cut-points that will distinguish responders & nonresponders

some evidence for validity and reliability for this
model
empirically validated interventions
the screening tool (i.e., curriculum-based
assessments) are not clearly defined = what
constitutes a significant difference?

may be increased number of false positives and false negatives

argued that RTI is not sufficient for diagnosing, but

necessary part of service delivery

(Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005; Semrud-Clikeman, 2005; Kavale, 2005;

Hale & Fiorello, 2004)

Response to Intervention Model

Hybrid model: When low achievement score models

are supplemented by RTI models, the children who

have received adequate instruction, but remain
below average academically are those who have
extreme learning difficulties

(Brueggemann, Kamphaus, & Dombrowski, 2008; Fletcher, Denton, & Francis,

Concordance-Discordance Model
Three criteria must be met to identify a learning

disability
(1) Concordance between a deficient achievement
area and the neuropsychological processes
associated with that area
(2) Discordance between the deficient achievement
area and neuropsychological processes that are
not associated with that area
(3) Discordance between processing strengths and
weaknesses

(Hale & Fiorello, 2004)

Concordance-Discordance Model

can lead to a more accurate diagnosis of a learning

disability and assist in the determination of a

suitable and effective intervention
(Hale & Fiorello, 2004)

Implications & Conclusions

no consensus regarding the most accurate method
it is up to policymakers and clinicians to research

and select a model

it must be taken into consideration that models may
identify different groups as having a learning
disability
determines whether a child
will receive special education
services
will impact prevalence rates
of learning disabilities
(Brueggemann, Kamphaus, & Dombrowski, 2008)

Implications & Conclusions

imperative that diagnosis is restricted to highly

qualified individuals, as it is important that other

factors (e.g., cultural background) are taken into
consideration during the assessment procedure
no assessment should be the only criterion for
determining eligibility for special education

(Moores-Abdool, Unzueta, Vazquez Donet, & Bijlsma, 2008; Fletcher, Denton, &
Francis, 2005)

Conclusion

learning is difficult for

children with
an LD, so
instruction is hard work
and requires training
next step in the field of
educational
psychology would be
to develop
scientifically supported
alternative methods of
instruction
(Semrud-Clikeman, 2005)

References
Brueggemann, A. E., Kamphaus, R. W., & Dombrowski, S. C. (2008). An Impairment Model of Learning
Disability
Diagnosis. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 424-430. doi:
10.1037/07357028.39.4.424

Doll, B., & Horn, C. (2008). Stop and Think: Is an Impairment Model of Learning Disabilities True Progress?
Comment
on Brueggemann, Kamphaus, and Dombrowski (2008). Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 39(4), 431-434. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.431

Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of Alternative Approaches for the Identification of
Learning Disabilities: Operationalizing Unexpected Underachievement. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 38(6), 545-552. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/
pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fa4fc0c7-c835-4198-85ac-a95d94f5509b
%40sessionmgr4002&vid=4&hid=4204

Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School Neuropsychology: A Practitioners Handbook. New York, New York:
Guildford Press.

Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying Specific Learning Disability: Is Responsiveness to Intervention the Answer?
Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 553-562. Retrieved from http://
web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fa4fc0c7c835-4198-85aca95d94f5509b%40sessionmgr4002&vid=6&hid=4204

Moores-Abdool, W., Unzueta, C. H., Vazquez Donet, D., & Bijlsma, E. (2008). Discrepancy dinosaurs and the
evolution of Specific Learning Disability assessment. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning,
18(2), 75-83. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet? accno=EJ854848

References
Proctor, B., & Prevatt, F. (2003). Agreement Among Four Models Used for Diagnosing Learning Disabilities. Journal
of
Learning
Disabilities, 36(5), 459-466. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?sid=fa4fc0c7-c835-4198-85ac-a95d94f5509b%40sessionmgr4002&vid=12&hid=4204
Re-Authorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446, 614, 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).

Semrud-Clikeman, M. (2005) Neuropsychological Aspects for Evaluating Learning Disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
38(6), 563-568. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer? sid=fa4fc0c7c835-4198-85ac-a95d94f5509b%40sessionmgr4002&vid=8&hid=4204

Willson, V. L., & Reynolds, C. R. (1984). Another Look at Evaluating Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancies in the Diagnosis of
Learning Disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 18(4), 477-487. Retrieved from http://
web.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.lib.ucalgary.ca/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=fa4fc0c7-c835-4198-85ac- a95d94f5509b
%40sessionmgr4002&vid=10&hid=4204