See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/232476959

Specific Learning Disabilities: Clarifying, Not Eliminating, a Construct.

Article  in  Professional Psychology Research and Practice · February 2006

DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.99

CITATIONS READS
69 2,951

2 authors:

Nancy Mather Noel Gregg

The University of Arizona University of Georgia
87 PUBLICATIONS   4,042 CITATIONS    76 PUBLICATIONS   1,641 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LRS, SSES/ SLI und Fremdsprachenlernen View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nancy Mather on 02 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association
2006, Vol. 37, No. 1, 99 –106 0735-7028/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0735-7028.37.1.99

Specific Learning Disabilities: Clarifying, Not Eliminating, a Construct

Nancy Mather Noel Gregg

University of Arizona University of Georgia

Over the past decades, both researchers and practitioners in the field of specific learning disabilities (LD)
have grappled over an appropriate definition as well as the subsequent operational diagnostic criteria. In
a recent article in Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, S. C. Dombrowski, R. W. Kamphaus,
and C. R. Reynolds (2004) proposed a new set of suggested diagnostic criteria that challenges many of
the traditional beliefs about these disorders. This article provides a critique of their proposed criteria as
well as an alternative approach for LD identification that is more aligned with current understanding of
the etiology and characteristics of these disorders.

Keywords: learning disabilities, discrepancy, diagnostic criteria, assessment

Over the years, professionals from several disciplines involved
with the field of specific learning disabilities (LD) have debated
and struggled to agree on an appropriate conceptual definition and
subsequent operational diagnostic criteria for these conditions.
Several theories and frameworks have been proposed to help
professionals use assessment information to develop effective in-
struction. Theories such as perceptual–motor (Ayres, 1972;
Barsch, 1967; Kephart, 1960), psycholinguistic (Kirk, McCarthy,
& Kirk, 1968), psychoneurological (Johnson & Myklebust, 1967),
neuropsychological (Gaddes, 1980), and phonological and ortho-
graphic (Ehri, 1998; Frith, 1985), as well as the Cattell–Horn–
Carroll (CHC) theory (Carroll, 1993; Cattell, 1943; Horn, 1991;
Horn & Noll, 1997; McGrew & Flanagan, 1998), have contributed
to a better understanding of the cognitive and linguistic dimensions
that form the essence of LD. A central component of all of these
clinical and statistical theories is that specific cognitive and lin-
guistic processes are accessed and used by individuals to collect,
sort, process, store, and retrieve various types of information. As
new research has provided support for specific theories related to
LD, definitions and eligibility criteria have required adjustments in
both terminology and frameworks. (See Kavale & Forness, 2000,
for a critical analysis of LD definitions.)
The recent reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities
Education Improvement Act (2004) has fueled additional discus-
NANCY MATHER earned her PhD in learning disabilities from the University
of Arizona. She is currently a professor in the Department of Special
Education, Rehabilitation, and School Psychology at the University of
Arizona. She is a coauthor of the Woodcock–Johnson III (WJ III). Her
primary areas of research interest include factors that affect literacy devel-
opment as well as issues related to the use and interpretation of the WJ-III.
NOEL GREGG earned her PhD in learning disabilities from Northwestern
University. She is a Distinguished Research Professor at the University of
Georgia in the Department of Special Education and Psychology. She is
Director of the Regents Center for Learning Disorders. Her special interests
involve adults with learning disabilities, written language disorders, as-
sessment, and issues related to accommodations.
CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING THIS ARTICLE should be addressed to Nancy
Mather, University of Arizona, Department of Special Education, Reha-
bilitation, and School Psychology, Room 409, Tucson, AZ 85721. E-mail:
nmather@u.arizona.edu
sion of the efficacy of various components of the definition of LD,
as well as the eligibility criteria used to operationalize these
specific disorders. Thus, considerable debate has focused on the
roles of general intelligence measures, broad and specific cognitive
processing measures, and oral language measures in LD identifi-
cation (Fletcher & Reschly, 2005; Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, &
Kavale, 2004; Naglieri, Hale, Kaufman, & Kavale, in press).
In a recent article in Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, Dombrowski, Kamphaus, and Reynolds (2004) proposed
a set of suggested diagnostic criteria for LD that challenges many
of the critical components of the specific LD definition. The
Dombrowski et al. diagnostic framework does not take into ac-
count and incorporate findings from current research or historical
and clinical perspectives regarding identification of individuals
with LD. In essence, their proposed criteria view LD as a devel-
opmental delay that can be determined by a standard score cutoff
(i.e., 85 or below). In addition, the evaluation of cognitive and
linguistic processes is seen as unnecessary for accurate LD
identification.
In response to Dombrowski et al.’s (2004) proposed criteria, we
begin by addressing a few additional issues related to the points of
agreement with the authors. Next, we discuss specific concerns
with components of their proposed LD criteria. In the final section
we present an alternative approach for LD identification that is
more aligned with current understanding of the etiology and the
definition of these specific disabilities.
Points of Agreement
Several components of Dombrowski et al.’s (2004) proposed
criteria are consistent with what we know about LD.
Overreliance on Ability–Achievement Discrepancy
Individuals with LD typically present an uneven profile of
abilities, demonstrating difficulties with some types of learning but
ease with other areas of performance. Unfortunately, with the
passage of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (1997;
originally Pub. L. No. 94 –142), a discrepancy between full-scale
intelligence scores and achievement became the hallmark of LD

99
100 MATHER AND GREGG
identification. Much has been written about the limitations of using
an ability–achievement discrepancy for the identification of LD
(e.g., Berninger, 2001; Fletcher et al., 2001; Lyon, 1995; Mather &
Healey, 1990; Vellutino, 2001), as well as the recommendation to
abandon this type of discrepancy (Flowers, Meyer, Lovato, Wood,
& Felton, 2000; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Through-
out the past two decades, experts in the field have voiced concerns
regarding overreliance on an ability–achievement model. Leaders
have warned of the theoretical (Kavale, 1987; Scruggs, 1987),
statistical (V. L. Wilson, 1987), developmental (Parrill, 1987), and
educational (Hessler, 1987) problems inherent in the use of an
ability–achievement discrepancy. In fact, some have asserted that
identifying ability–achievement discrepancies using rigid, quanti-
tative formulas has absolutely no meaningful role in LD identifi-
cation (Bateman, 1992; Kavale, Kaufman, Naglieri, & Hale,
2005). Furthermore, the use of simple ability–achievement dis-
crepancies results in overidentification of students with LD (Hoy
et al., 1996; Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005).
Despite the aforementioned criticisms, the ease of using sim-
plistic discrepancy models has contributed to their overuse and
misuse by both public school systems and the psychological com-
munity (e.g., Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders [4th ed., text revision]; American Psychiatric Association,
2000). The difficulty in developing a qualitative definition of LD,
combined with the need to make funding decisions, prompted
school districts to rely on statistical methods to identify students
with LD (Silver & Hagin, 2002). What we can safely conclude
from past research and practice is that neither the presence nor the
absence of an ability–achievement discrepancy is a reliable or
valid indicator of LD. Use of a single global IQ score or a single
aptitude–achievement discrepancy as the sole identification crite-
rion is too simplistic and contributes to vagueness regarding the
LD concept (Kavale & Forness, 2003).
Under the new Individuals With Disabilities Education Im-
provement Act (2004) regulations, states will no longer be required
to depend on a severe discrepancy between ability and achieve-
ment for LD identification. Although states do not need to depend
on documentation of a severe discrepancy, the use of a discrepancy
formula is not prohibited (see § 614 关b兴 关6兴 关A兴); however, this is
subject to change with the final regulations. As an alternative to
ability–achievement discrepancies, the use of intracognitive, intra-
achievement, and intraindividual discrepancies has been proposed
(Woodcock, 1984). These types of discrepancies have particular
relevance to LD because they help capture a person’s stronger and
weaker abilities. By analyzing the pattern of strengths and weak-
nesses that exists within a person or the intraindividual discrepan-
cies, one can begin to determine how specific differences influence
functioning and academic performance. The person’s unique pat-
tern of abilities then serves as the cornerstone for linking the
results of cognitive ability testing to meaningful instructional plans
(Mather & Wendling, 2005). The new Individuals With Disabili-
ties Education Improvement Act regulations allow evaluation
teams to use intraindividual differences— explained as a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both,
relative to intellectual development—as part of the process for
making eligibility decisions for LD placement (see § 300.309 [a]
[2] [ii]). These within-person discrepancies, however, also have
some of the same problems as ability–achievement discrepancies if
they are used as the sole criterion for disability determination
without other clinical sources of information (Brackett & McPher-
son, 1996; Hoy et al., 1996).
Data From Multiple Sources
We also strongly support Dombrowski et al.’s (2004) call for the
use of multiple sources of information, or what others have de-
scribed as implementation of a more clinical model (Gregg &
Scott, 2000). The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabil-
ities (NJCLD) provided a well-thought-out critique of the use of
clinical judgment in the diagnosis of LD (NJCLD, 1997). The
committee concluded that “significant difficulty cannot be deter-
mined solely by a quantitative test score” (p. 6), encouraging
professionals to use both descriptive and quantitative information
during decision making. The key to accurate LD identification is
the use of trained professional judgment (Bateman, 1992). Evalu-
ators require expertise to compare, contrast, and interpret the
obtained assessment results. In addition to norm-referenced tests,
evaluators need to consider such information as informal mea-
sures; classroom portfolios; student, teacher, and parent reports;
and feedback from the multidisciplinary team. The decision to
identify an individual with LD involves the integration of various
information sources, including that person’s developmental and
instructional history, medical and psychological history, family
and environmental factors, and test scores (Fletcher & Reschly,
2005). Tests results can be an aid to judgment, but they should not
be a substitute.
Defining and operationalizing LD requires the integration of
several bodies of knowledge. Several years ago, Frith (1999)
provided a comprehensive three-level framework for integrating
the paradoxes these neurobiological disorders present. She dis-
cussed the importance of considering the environmental, biologi-
cal, cognitive, and behavioral signs influencing the ability to learn
specific tasks. Models of eligibility that incorporate multiple
sources of information will lead toward more accurate diagnoses
and the implementation of successful interventions. In this multi-
dimensional process, an evaluator must consider dynamics intrin-
sic to the individual, as well as the extrinsic factors that affect
performance (Schrank et al., 2005).
Concerns
In contrast to the aforementioned points, several components of
Dombrowski et al.’s (2004) proposed criteria are incongruent with
what we know about LD.
LD as Synonymous for Developmental Delay or
Underachievement
One major concern is the suggestion that the label developmen-
tal learning delay should replace the term LD. Research with
children and adults has documented that individuals with LD have
specific developmental deficits, not delays (Francis, Shaywitz,
Stuebing, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1996; Shaywitz, 2003). Although
we agree that LD often cause below average academic perfor-
mance, the term delay suggests that the condition is temporary,
outgrown, and can be overcome. LD are a lifelong condition.
Although these impairments cause academic difficulties, a person
with strong intellectual and linguistic abilities, motivation, and
 LEARNING DISABILITIES
perseverance can appear to compensate for many of the debilitat-
ing aspects. Effort and effective intervention can even result in
adequate performance in some situations (e.g., reading and writing
e-mail) but not in others (e.g., completing timed high-stakes tests
within the assigned time limits).
The adult population is critical to our understanding of issues
surrounding the construct of LD. If Dombrowski et al. (2004) are
correct in assuming that LD is a developmental delay, we should
see differences between adults with and without LD on measures
of achievement but not on measures of cognitive and linguistic
processing. For example, adults with LD typically obtain lower
scores than normally achieving peers on measures of phonological
awareness, rate, memory, and processing speed (Gregg, Bandalos,
Coleman, Davis, & Jimenez, in press; Ofiesh, Mather, & Russell,
2005; Shessel & Reiff, 1999). Adults with LD appear to use
different, often inefficient, cognitive and linguistic processes than
do their peers without disabilities (Gregg et al., in press). In
addition, the predictive relationships of cognitive and linguistic
measures to reading and written language differ significantly
across the groups. These adults may learn to compensate, but they
do not outgrow their problems. By aligning LD with low academic
performance or underachievement, one misstates the nature of the
disability and limits an individual’s chances for equal access.
Although LD are a form of underachievement, they are not the
same as low achievement (Kavale, 2005; Kavale & Forness, 1995,
2003; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002) and cannot be equated with
below average academic functioning. An individual can be under-
achieving academically for a myriad of reasons (e.g., lack of
instruction, poor school attendance, affective factors, or health)
that have little or nothing to do with LD.
Use of a Cutoff Score for Eligibility
Dombrowski et al. (2004) suggested that the
identification of LD shall be based on a dual deficit in academic
achievement as demonstrated by (a) a nationally norm-referenced
measure of academic achievement (standard score about 85 or less
reflecting performance one standard deviation below the mean) and
(b) evidence of educational impairment (based on classroom grades,
CBA [curriculum-based assessment], and teacher reports or ratings).
(p. 367)
Although we agree with the need for demonstration of educational
impact, we do not support the use of arbitrary cutoffs or the use of
only one achievement measure for disability determination. Again,
this assumes that LD is an academic performance deficit and does
not address the underlying cognitive or linguistic problems or the
person’s clinical history (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2001). In addition,
reliance on a single achievement measure is not supported by best
practice. Instead, focus should be placed on more accurate, mul-
tidimensional ways of describing academic performance, identify-
ing learning profiles, and determining appropriate individual in-
struction (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Naglieri & Bornstein, 2003). A
cutoff score with reliance only on achievement measures is cer-
tainly not the solution.
Professionals cannot arrive at valid LD identification through
the strict interpretation and application of test scores. Clinical
judgment is an essential component of all types of evaluations. For
example, test scores may suggest that a person has mental retar-
101
dation, whereas real-life observations of the individual totally
contradict and negate this conclusion. This is precisely why psy-
chologists do not diagnose mental retardation without completing
a measure of adaptive functioning.
In addition, procedures based simply on low achievement as the
criterion would overidentify lower ability students. When compar-
ing the ability–achievement, intracognitive, intra-achievement,
and cutoff models to identify LD, the latter significantly overiden-
tified the number of students with low cognitive ability (Brackett
& McPherson, 1996; Hoy et al., 1996). Therefore, the proposed
cutoff standard score of 85 on an achievement test has the potential
of significantly increasing the number of students identified as LD
but not increasing the validity of the diagnoses. Some response-
to-intervention (RTI) advocates want to reconstruct LD into a
generic learning problem category instead of attempting to im-
prove the sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic techniques
(Kavale & Forness, 2003; Kavale, Kaufman, et al., 2005). Even
within use of an RTI model, to maintain the integrity of the LD
category and reduce the number of false positives, cognitive as-
sessments are necessary for the students who do not respond to
treatments (Fuchs et al., 2003). In addition, a major criticism of the
ability–achievement discrepancy criterion has been the unreliabil-
ity of the diagnosis. RTI does not resolve the ambiguity. Alterna-
tive methods of assessing responsiveness to treatment also produce
different subsets of unresponsive children (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Comp-
ton, 2004).
Furthermore, individuals with LD can obtain standard scores
within the average to high average range. As noted above, LD is
not synonymous with underachievement. Through years of special
education, intensive tutoring, and persistence, individuals with LD
can improve enough academically to appear to have compensated
for their disability. This does not mean the disability is no longer
present, only that the person has managed to achieve a certain level
of academic success on some measures. The task demands and
subtest formats can also influence an individual’s performance.
For instance, an individual with dyslexia might perform above a
standard score of 85 on an untimed reading test of single words or
text. However, when time is relevant to the score, this same person
might achieve a score that is significantly below average. Individ-
uals with LD generally obtain lower scores than typically achiev-
ing individuals on a variety of speeded tasks (Ofiesh et al., 2005).
Or, an individual with working memory problems may struggle on
a math test involving mental calculations but have little difficulty
on a paper-and-pencil test (Geary, 2003). For this reason, score
interpretation must always be embedded in knowledge of the type
of task, as well as a thorough clinical history of the individual.
Omission of Cognitive and Linguistic Processes
Within most definitions, LD is characterized as a disorder within
the basic psychological processes (U.S. Department of Education,
2002). Thus, it is important to align the definition with the methods
used to identify these individuals (Kavale, Kaufman, et al., 2005).
The definition has not been changed, so closer adherence to what
is stipulated is warranted (Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005).
Because the definition describes the essence of the disorder, omis-
sion of documentation of cognitive and linguistic processing from
the eligibility criteria is of great concern. As Kavale, Kaufman, et
al. (2005) stated, “We believe children with ‘true’ SLD [specific
102 MATHER AND GREGG
learning disabilities] have cognitive deficits and integrities in the
basic psychological processes, which often lead to academic fail-
ure” (p. 17). Thus, to differentiate LD from low achievement, one
must use cognitive assessments and examine differences within
cognitive and linguistic functioning.
Dombrowski et al. (2004) and others have raised concern re-
garding the existence of research to support the need for intellec-
tual and cognitive assessments. For example, Fletcher and Reschly
(2005) recently stated that at best, “meager evidence” (p. 15) exists
to support the assessment of cognitive processes for LD identifi-
cation or intervention. Although additional research is needed,
findings continue to document, clarify, and increase our under-
standings of the relationships among various cognitive abilities
and achievement. Dombrowski et al. and Fletcher and Reschly do
not acknowledge the vast amount of current research in measure-
ment and cognitive psychology that is relevant to the diagnosis of
LD or the advances in multifactorial intellectual theory that pro-
vide a multidimensional view of intelligence (Kaufman & Kauf-
man, 2001; Kavale, Kaufman, et al., 2005; McGrew, Flanagan,
Keith, & Vanderwood, 1997).
Individuals with LD can be differentiated from low-achieving
peers on measures of cognitive processing (Kavale, Fuchs, &
Scruggs, 1994). Theories such as CHC and Luria’s (1973, 1980)
neuropsychological theory are the foundation for several theory-
based tests (e.g., Woodcock–Johnson III [Woodcock, McGrew, &
Mather, 2001]; Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children Second
Edition [Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004]) that also use advanced
measurement theory (e.g., item-level response analysis). Results
from current research provide evidence for the predictive validity
of cognitive processes to learning (e.g., Evans, Floyd, McGrew, &
Leforgee, 2002; Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004; Floyd, Evans, &
McGrew, 2003; Hale, Fiorello, Kavanagh, Hoeppner, & Gaitherer,
2001). In addition, many researchers have identified specific cog-
nitive and linguistic processes as correlates of academic failure.
Considerable research studies exist in the areas of cognition,
language, learning, and measurement regarding the specific char-
acteristics and needs of individuals with LD.
As examples, phonological and orthographic processes are
known to be critical for the development of reading and spelling
skills (Adams, 1990; Gregg et al., in press; Vellutino, Fletcher,
Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004); working memory exhibits strong
connections with many areas of academic performance (Baddeley,
1979, 1986, 2001; Baddeley, Vallar, & Wilson, 1987); both verbal
and visual–spatial working memory tasks appear to be important
predictors of math ability (K. M. Wilson & Swanson, 2001); slow
rapid automatized naming tasks predict poor reading skill (Bowers
& Ishaik, 2003; Wolf & Bowers, 1999); slow cognitive efficiency
and cognitive fluency are related to poor reading decoding and
spelling (Gregg et al., 2005; Shaywitz, 2003); and verbal abilities,
as well as acquired knowledge, have strong relationships with all
aspects of reading and many aspects of mathematics (Evans et al.,
2002; Floyd et al., 2003).
Clearly, we know more about certain types of LD than others.
For example, considerable research has been conducted regarding
the relationship between phonological awareness and dyslexia, the
most common type of LD. Shaywitz (2003) described dyslexia as
“unexpected difficulties in phonology and reading in relation to the
person’s other cognitive and academic abilities” (p. 335). Because
of these phonological weaknesses, readers with dyslexia have
trouble translating the written code into the linguistic code that is
a critical process in reading. We have extensive information re-
garding etiology, neurobiology, characteristics, and treatment.
Thus, a diagnosis of dyslexia is rather straightforward when the
major symptoms are present. In fact, Shaywitz (2003) stated that
“the diagnosis of dyslexia is as precise and scientifically informed
as almost any diagnosis in medicine” (p. 165). Standardized tests
of broad and specific cognitive processing abilities can help us
identify individuals with LD if we examine the specific cognitive
and linguistic abilities that have established relationships with
academic performance (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Mather & Wen-
dling, 2005). Frith (1999), however, reminded us that words and
labels “readily become loaded with ideology while the concepts
they refer to may be perfectly non-contentious” (p. 193). There-
fore, whatever definition and/or eligibility models are adopted, the
terms used to describe cognitive and linguistic processes must be
clearly defined.
A further consideration is that different cognitive and linguistic
deficits impact different types of learning (academic, social, vo-
cational) depending on the age of the person, as well as the type of
task (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). Cutoff models as proposed by
Dombrowski et al. (2004) do not account for developmental learn-
ing curves. For instance, the influence of the linguistic processes
(sublexical and lexical) that influence decoding and reading com-
prehension differ depending on the age and specific abilities of an
individual (Gregg et al., in press). What also has been missing
from many LD definitions and eligibility models is a framework
for organizing our thinking (Gregg, in press). Researchers at times
focus on isolated abilities (e.g., phonological awareness, working
memory, reading decoding, written expression) while ignoring the
total system surrounding learning.
Johnson and Myklebust (1967) provided one of the first dy-
namic frameworks to organize the cognitive and linguistic abilities
influencing learning, which they labeled the hierarchy of experi-
ence. This early cognitive framework was an information-
processing model based primarily on clinical experiences. Other
cognitive models, such as that provided by CHC theory, provide
empirical research based on statistical and logical analyses of
hundreds of data sets, as well as additional sources of validity
evidence, in the form of genetic, neurocognitive, developmental,
and outcome studies (Horn & Noll, 1997). Without a framework or
blueprint, we may miss relationships directly and indirectly im-
portant for different types of learning.
Historically, the field of LD has been based on the belief that
individualized educational planning makes a difference because
individuals differ in their abilities and therefore should be taught
and treated differently (Kavale & Forness, 1998). A child who has
a weakness in phonological processing but intact oral vocabulary
has different instructional needs from the child with a limited
vocabulary but adequate phonological awareness. Clearly, for stu-
dents with LD, differential instruction that addresses the source of
the problem and the underlying processing demands is much more
effective than global, generalized approaches that do not (Aaron,
1997; Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Kavale, Kaufman, et al., 2005).
Furthermore, Dombrowski et al. (2004) and others (e.g., Siegel,
1989) suggest that intelligence tests should no longer be required
for LD diagnosis except to rule out mental retardation. They
indicate that the elimination of ability testing would also eliminate
the practice of diagnosing an individual with “gifted/LD.” The
 LEARNING DISABILITIES
problem is that gifted individuals with LD really do exist. These
students may have high verbal aptitudes and reasoning abilities,
but their performance is often compromised by their ease and rate
of production. A learning disability can be found in people of any
age who are at any level of intellectual functioning (Cruickshank,
1983; Shaywitz, 2003). To fail to identify these “otherwise gifted”
individuals accurately can result in inappropriate treatments, lack
of understanding by parents and teachers, and denial of appropriate
accommodations and interventions. The end result is a restriction
of educational and vocational opportunities for the individual.
Clearly, use of a cutoff for low achievement obfuscates the iden-
tification of gifted individuals with LD (Kaufman & Kaufman,
2001). In addition, the implementation of other models, such as
RTI, ignores students with academic aptitude in the top 10% who
are able to remain on grade level in one area while excelling in
most other academic areas (Reynolds, 2005).
Norm-referenced cognitive assessments are needed to document
the presence, nature, and severity of the disability (Schrank et al.,
2005), as well as the cognitive assets that can be used to improve
educational performance. For example, if an individual has aver-
age or above average verbal reasoning abilities but poor written
expression, accommodations, such as oral testing, are likely to be
useful. This type of accommodation would not be needed, how-
ever, for an individual whose verbal reasoning abilities are in line
with his or her written language skills. In fact, it is virtually
impossible to make an accurate diagnosis of LD without test data
from a comprehensive evaluation that reveals a person’s strengths
and weaknesses (Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005).
Critical to any criteria operationalizing the construct of LD is
the degree to which empirical research and theory support the
validity of the sources. The Standards on Educational and Psycho-
logical Testing (American Educational Research Association et al.,
1999) identify substantive, internal, and external validity as im-
perative to determining construct validity. A strong psychological
theory enhances substantive (content) validity through the identi-
fication of a well-bounded construct domain (Benson, 1998;
Sireci, 2005). The Dombrowski et al. (2004) model suggested for
LD diagnosis provides no empirical research or theory to support
the criteria, suggesting weak substantive, internal, and external
validity. Current research investigating the cognitive, linguistic,
and achievement performance of individuals with LD across the
life span is providing the substantive, internal, and external valid-
ity necessary for a diagnostic model. The outcome of this research
is identification of assessment information that can be even more
predictive in determining specific interventions and accommoda-
tions effective with the different profiles subsumed under the
rubric of LD.
Proposed Diagnostic Criteria
As Dombrowski et al. (2004) have indicated, a need exists for
diagnostic criteria to help inform and guide diagnostic decision
making. Several researchers have developed operational defini-
tions of LD that include documentation of both academic and
cognitive difficulties and provide a comprehensive framework for
LD diagnosis (e.g., Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2002;
Kavale & Forness, 2000). The first part of an LD evaluation is then
to determine an initial domain-specific classification in reading,
writing, or math (Stanovich, 1999); the next part is to identify the
103
deficient cognitive and linguistic processes that underlie the dis-
order (Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005; Kavale, Kaufman, et
al., 2005; Robinson, Menchetti, & Torgesen, 2002). Furthermore,
valid diagnoses can be accomplished only by individuals who have
specialized training in LD, can analyze multiple data sources, and
can exercise clinical judgment.
Thus, the LD diagnostic process would include these
procedures:
1. Observe a limitation in one or more of the following areas of
achievement: reading (basic skills, fluency, or comprehension);
written language (basic skills, fluency, or expression); or mathe-
matics (basic skills, fluency, or application). Rule out alternative
explanations for the limitation (e.g., mental retardation, lack of
opportunity).
2. Document the limitation using multiple sources of data (e.g.,
standardized or curriculum-based measurements using multiple
test formats; response to intervention; teacher, student, and parent
reports; class work samples; and educational history).
3. Identify the specific cognitive and/or linguistic correlates that
appear to be related to the identified area of underachievement or
relative difficulty. Rule out alternative explanations for the cogni-
tive or linguistic difficulties.
Within the above criteria, a couple of points need further ex-
planation. We have not included oral language as an area of
achievement. We think that the role of oral language processes
requires reconsideration in current LD definitions and eligibility
criteria because oral language encompasses an array of linguistic
processes that both support and impact the development of aca-
demic performance. In both the Individuals With Disabilities Ed-
ucation Act (1997) and the Individuals With Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (2004), as well as the Dombrowski et al. (2004)
proposal, oral language is placed as an achievement area similar to
reading, writing, and mathematics.
Linguistic processes, as with cognitive processes, influence
functioning in achievement areas both directly and indirectly. In
fact, the boundaries between some cognitive and linguistic pro-
cesses are often ambiguous. Vygotsky (1962) referred to this
interdependence of thought and language by using the term “verbal
thought” (p. 65). From a measurement perspective, recent research
has identified a high correlation between many cognitive and
language measures, suggesting an artifact of shared variance of
underlying language processes present across achievement and
cognitive measures (Floyd, Gregg, & Keith, 2005). Therefore, we
suggest that oral language should be one of the constructs used to
explain an individual’s difficulties in achievement, and that
achievement in turn refers to specific problems in aspects of
reading, writing, or mathematics.
We have also separated academic areas into the subcomponents
of basic skills, fluency, and application. Some individuals with LD
have difficulty on timed tests, whereas others have more difficulty
with the acquisition of basic skills, such as decoding and spelling.
When these types of data are aggregated, the specific problems
may be masked. Within this framework, a limitation is not equated
with any set cutoff point of performance. One can determine a
limitation only by examining a person’s educational history and
opportunities, all pertinent assessment results, the intensity and
duration of services that he or she has received, genetic factors, the
unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses, and the types of
accommodations and interventions that have been used to maxi-
104 MATHER AND GREGG
mize performance. The essence of LD is documentation of the
cognitive and linguistic integrities in the presence of processing
deficits that result in unexpected learning failure (Kavale, Kauf-
man, et al., 2005). Clearly, the critical factor of accurate LD
diagnosis rests with trained, competent professionals who are able
to integrate quantitative and qualitative information to arrive at an
accurate diagnosis.
References
Aaron, P. G. (1997). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula.
Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502.
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological As-
sociation, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999).
Standards for educational and psychological testing (2nd ed.). Wash-
ington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Ayres, A. J. (1972). Southern California Sensory Integration Tests. Los
Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Baddeley, A. D. (1979). Working memory and reading. In P. Kolers, E.
Wrolstad, & H. Boruma (Eds.), Processing of visible language (Vol. 1,
pp. 32–56). New York: Plenum Press.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Baddeley, A. (2001). Is working memory still working? American Psy-
chologist, 56, 851– 864.
Baddeley, A. D., Vallar, G., & Wilson, B. (1987). Sentence comprehension
and phonological memory: Some neuropsychological evidence. In M.
Coltheart (Ed.), Attention and performance XII: The psychology of
reading (pp. 509 –529). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Barsch, R. H. (1967). Achieving perceptual motor efficiency. Seattle, WA:
Special Child Publications.
Bateman, B. (1992). Learning disabilities: The changing landscape. Jour-
nal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 29 –36.
Benson, J. (1998). Developing a strong program of construct validation: A
test anxiety example. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice,
34, 10 –16.
Berninger, V. W. (2001). Understanding the “lexia” in dyslexia: A multi-
disciplinary team approach to learning disabilities. Annals of Dyslexia,
51, 23– 48.
Bowers, P. G., & Ishaik, G. (2003). RAN’s contribution to understanding
reading disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.),
Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 140 –157). New York: Guilford
Press.
Brackett, J., & McPherson, A. (1996). Learning disabilities diagnosis in
post-secondary students: A comparison of discrepancy-based diagnostic
models. In N. Gregg, C. Hoy, & A. Gay (Eds.), Adults with learning
disabilities: Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 68 – 84). New
York: Guilford Press.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor analytic
studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence. Psychological
Bulletin, 40, 153–193.
Cruickshank, W. M. (1983). Learning disabilities: A neurophysiological
dysfunction. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 16, 27–29.
Dombrowski, S. C., Kamphaus, R. W., & Reynolds, C. R. (2004). After the
demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic
criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364 –372.
Ehri, L. C. (1998). Grapheme–phoneme knowledge is essential for learning
to read words in English. In J. L. Metsala & L. C. Ehri (Eds.), Word
recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 3– 40). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Evans, J. J., Floyd, R. G., McGrew, K. S., & Leforgee, M. H. (2002). The
relations between measures of Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) cognitive
abilities and reading achievement during childhood and adolescence.
School Psychology Review, 31, 246 –262.
Flanagan, D., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment.
New York: Wiley.
Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2002). The
achievement test desk reference (ATDR): Comprehensive assessment
and learning disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J.,
Olson, R. K., et al. (2001, August). Classification of learning disabili-
ties: An evidence-based evaluation. Paper presented at the U.S. Depart-
ment of Education LD Summit, Washington, DC.
Fletcher, J. M., & Reschly, D. J. (2005). Changing procedures for identi-
fying learning disabilities: The danger of perpetuating old ideas. School
Psychologist, 59, 10 –15.
Flowers, L., Meyer, M., Lovato, J., Wood, F., & Felton, R. (2000). Does
third grade discrepancy status predict the course of reading develop-
ment? Annals of Dyslexia, 50, 49 –71.
Floyd, R. G., Evans, J. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2003). Relations between
measures of Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) cognitive abilities and math-
ematics achievement across the school-age years. Psychology in the
Schools, 40, 155–171.
Floyd, R., Gregg, N., & Keith, T. (2005). Reading comprehension across
the lifespan. Unpublished manuscript.
Francis, J. J., Shaywitz, S. E., Stuebing, K. K., Shaywitz, B. A., & Fletcher,
J. M. (1996). Developmental lag versus deficit models of reading dis-
ability: A longitudinal individual growth curves analysis. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 88, 3–17.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K.
Patterson, J. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia, neuro-
psychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301–
330). London: Erlbaum.
Frith, U. (1999). Paradoxes in the definition of dyslexia. Dyslexia: An
International Journal of Research and Practice, 5, 192–214.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Compton, D. (2004). Identifying reading disabil-
ities by responsiveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 216 –227.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003).
Responsiveness-to intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications
for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research
and Practice, 18, 157–171.
Gaddes, W. (1980). Learning disabilities and brain function: Neuropsy-
chological approach. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Geary, D. C. (2003). Learning disabilities in arithmetic: Problem-solving
differences and cognitive deficits. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S.
Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities (pp. 199 –212). New
York: Guilford Press.
Gregg, N. (in press). Thinking beyond: Learning disabilities and psycho-
logical assessment. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.
Gregg, N., Bandalos, D., Coleman, C., Davis, M., & Jimenez, J. (in press).
The dimensionality of phonological and orthographic awareness tasks
for college students with and without dyslexia and AD/HD. Journal of
Developmental Neuropsychology.
Gregg, N., Hoy, C., Flaherty, D. A., Norris, P., Coleman, C., Davis, M., et
al. (2005). Decoding and spelling accommodations for postsecondary
students with dyslexia: It’s more than processing speed. Learning Dis-
abilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3(2), 1–17.
Gregg, N., & Scott, S. (2000). Definition and documentation: Theory,
measurement, and the court. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 5–13.
Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practi-
tioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford Press.
Hale, J. B., Fiorello, C. A., Kavanagh, J. A., Hoeppner, J. B., & Gaitherer,
R. A. (2001). WISC-III predictors of academic achievement for children
 LEARNING DISABILITIES
with learning disabilities: Are global and factor scores comparable?
School Psychology Quarterly, 16(1), 31–35.
Hale, J. B., Naglieri, J. A., Kaufman, A. S., & Kavale, K. A. (2004).
Specific learning disability classification in the new Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act: The danger of good ideas. School Psychol-
ogist, 58, 6 –13.
Hessler, G. L. (1987). Educational issues surrounding severe discrepancy.
Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 43– 49.
Horn, J. L. (1991). Measurement of intellectual capabilities: A review of
theory. In K. S. McGrew, J. K. Werder, & R. W. Woodcock, WJ–R
technical manual (pp. 197–232). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human cognitive abilities: Gf-Gc theory. In
D. P. Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary
intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53–91). New
York: Guilford Press.
Hoy, C., Gregg, N., Wisenbaker, J., Bonham, S., King, M., & Moreland, C.
(1996). Clinical model versus discrepancy model in determining eligi-
bility for learning disabilities services at a rehabilitation setting. In N.
Gregg, C. Hoy, & A. Gay (Eds.), Adults with learning disabilities:
Theoretical and practical perspectives (pp. 55– 67). New York: Guilford
Press.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L.
No. 105–117, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L.
No. 108 – 446, 20 U.S.C. § 1462 (h).
Johnson, D. J., & Myklebust, H. R. (1967). Learning disabilities: Educa-
tional principles and practices. New York: Grune & Stratton.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2001). Assessment of specific learning
disabilities in the new millennium: Issues, conflicts, and controversies.
In A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman (Eds.), Specific learning disabili-
ties: Psychological assessment and evaluation (pp. 433– 461). Cam-
bridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery
for Children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Kavale, K. A. (1987). Theoretical issues surrounding severe discrepancy.
Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 12–20.
Kavale, K. A. (2005). Identifying specific learning disability: Is respon-
siveness to intervention the answer? Journal of Learning Disabilities,
38, 553–562.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1995). The nature of learning disabilities.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1998). The politics of learning disabilities.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 245–273.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2000). What definitions of learning
disabilities say and don’t say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 33, 239 –256.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (2003). Learning disabilities as a disci-
pline. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook
of learning disabilities (pp. 76 –93). New York: Guilford Press.
Kavale, K. A., Fuchs, D., & Scruggs, T. E. (1994). Setting the record
straight on learning disability and low achievement: Implications for
policy-making. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 9, 70 –77.
Kavale, K. A., Holdnack, J. A., & Mostert, M. P. (2005). Responsiveness
to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A
critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28,
2–16.
Kavale, K. A., Kaufman, A. S., Naglieri, J. A., & Hale, J. (2005). Changing
procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of poorly
supported ideas. School Psychologist, 59, 16 –25.
Kephart, N. C. (1960). The slow learner in the classroom. Columbus, OH:
Charles E. Merrill.
Kirk, S. A., McCarthy, J. J., & Kirk, W. D. (1968). Illinois Test of
Psycholinguistic Abilities (Rev. ed.). Urbana: University of Illinois
Press.
105
Luria, A. R. (1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychol-
ogy. London: Penguin Books.
Luria, A. R. (1980). Higher cortical functions in man (2nd ed.). New York:
Basic Books.
Lyon, G. R. (1995). Toward a definition of dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia,
45, 3–27.
Mather, N., & Healey, W. C. (1990). Deposing aptitude–achievement
discrepancy as the imperial criterion for learning disabilities. Learning
Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(2), 40 – 48.
Mather, N., & Wendling, B. (2005). Linking cognitive assessment results
to academic interventions for students with learning disabilities. In D. P.
Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assess-
ment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 269 –294). New York:
Guilford Press.
McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The intelligence test desk
reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Vanderwood, M. (1997).
Beyond g: The impact of Gf-Gc specific cognitive abilities research on
the future use and interpretation of intelligence tests in the schools.
School Psychology Review, 26, 177–189.
McGrew, K., & Woodcock, R. W. (2001). WJ III technical manual. Itasca,
IL: Riverside.
Naglieri, J. A., & Bornstein, B. T. (2003). Intelligence and achievement:
Just how correlated are they? Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,
21, 244 –260.
Naglieri, J. A., Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., & Kavale, K. A. (in press).
Implementation of IDEA: Using RTI and cognitive assessment methods.
Psychology in the Schools.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1997). Operational-
izing the NJCLD definition of learning disabilities for ongoing assess-
ment. Retrieved January 4, 2004, from http://www.ldonline.org/njcld/
operatonalizing.html
Ofiesh, N., Mather, N., & Russell, A. (2005). Using speeded cognitive,
reading, and academic measures to determine the need for extended test
time among university students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 35–52.
Parrill, M. (1987). Developmental issues surrounding severe discrepancy.
Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 32– 41.
Reynolds, C. R. (2005, August). Considerations in RTI as a method of
diagnosis of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the 12th Annual
Institute for Psychology in the Schools of the American Psychological
Association, Washington, DC.
Robinson, C. S., Menchetti, B. M., & Torgesen, J. K. (2002). Toward a
two-factor theory of one type of mathematics disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 81–90.
Schrank, F. A., Teglasi, H., Wolf, I. L., Miller, J. A., Caterino, L. C., &
Reynolds, C. R. (2005). American Academy of School Psychology reply
to response-to-intervention perspective. School Psychologist, 59, 30 –33.
Scruggs, T. E. (1987). Theoretical issues surrounding severe discrepancy:
A discussion. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 23–25.
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies and bathwater:
Addressing the problems of identification of learning disabilities. Learn-
ing Disability Quarterly, 25, 155–168.
Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia: A new and complete science-
based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf.
Shessel, I., & Reiff, H. B. (1999). Experiences of adults with learning
disabilities: Positive and negative impacts and outcomes. Learning Dis-
ability Quarterly, 22, 305–316.
Siegel, L. S. (1989). IQ is irrelevant to the definition of learning disabil-
ities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 618 – 629.
Silver, A. A., & Hagin, R. A. (2002). Disorders of learning in childhood
(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
106 MATHER AND GREGG
Sireci, S. (2005). Unlabeling the disabled: A perspective on flagging scores
from accommodated test administrations. Educational Researcher,
34(1), 3–12.
Stanovich, K. E. (1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350 –361.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Specific learning disabilities: Find-
ing common ground. Washington, DC: Author.
Vellutino, F. R. (2001). Further analysis of the relationship between
reading achievement and intelligence: A response to Naglieri. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 34, 306 –310.
Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004).
Specific reading disability (dyslexia): What have we learned in the past
four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 2– 40.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Wilson, K. M., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). Are mathematics disabilities due
View publication stats
to a domain-general or a domain-specific working memory deficit?
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 237–248.
Wilson, V. L. (1987). Statistical and psychometric issues surrounding
severe discrepancy. Learning Disabilities Research, 3, 21–23.
Wolf, M., & Bowers, P. G. (1999). The double-deficit hypothesis for the
developmental dyslexias. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 415–
438.
Woodcock, R. W. (1984). A response to some questions raised about the
Woodcock–Johnson: Efficacy of the aptitude clusters. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 13, 355–362.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). The Woodcock–
Johnson III. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Received March 2, 2005
Revision received September 7, 2005
Accepted October 14, 2005 䡲