Article2004

LD Identification: It's Not Simply a Matter of Building a Better Mousetrap

Daryl F. Mellard · Donald D. Deshler · Amy E. Barth

59 citations0/0 files storedLearning Disability Quarterly

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology Behavioral and Psychological Studies Educational and Psychological Assessments

Abstract

Historically, researchers, policy makers, and practitioners have sought improved solutions to the issues associated with LD identification decisions. Since the passage of P.L. 94–142, numerous identification methods has been proposed, implemented, and studied. While each new method has been successful, at least partially, in addressing some of the limitations of earlier methods, each new identification model is saddled with its own set of shortcomings. This article argues that factors beyond specific LD identification technology significantly influence the decision-making process and ultimately decisions about who is and who is not LD. Results from focus group discussions with six stakeholder groups (LD parents, LD teachers, general education teachers, directors of special education, school principals, and school psychologists/diagnosticians) are reported, indicating that a broad array of factors beyond a student's performance on formal and informal assessments influence ultimate decisions made about a student's eligibility for learning disability services. Thus, the search for new identification technologies should also include efforts to better understand the values and biases of critical stakeholders and how to include these factors in the overall decision-making process.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 59 citations exist upstream.

References

1981Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services 1981Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services 2003Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems 1994Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions.1989IQ Is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities 1975THE CONCEPT OF SPECIFIC READING RETARDATION 1940How to increase reading ability 1940How to Increase Reading Ability.

Cited by

2012The dyslexia debate 2018The Comprehension Problems of Children With Poor Reading Comprehension Despite Adequate Decoding: A Meta-Analysis 2008Is Response to Intervention Good Policy for Specific Learning Disability?2008Response-to-Intervention: Separating the Rhetoric of Self-Congratulation from the Reality of Specific Learning Disability Identification 2007From IDEA to Implementation: A Discussion of Foundational and Future Responsiveness‐to‐Intervention Research

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.