Differences in specific learning disability identification with the Woodcock-Johnson IV.

Abstract

The Ability Achievement Discrepancy model remains the primary identification method used by school personnel. This study examined identification of a specific learning disability using the Ability Achievement Discrepancy model with the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ-IV). Two different test scores can be used to represent the ability construct: one that maintains the overlap between intelligence quotient (IQ) and basic psychological processes (i.e., general intellectual ability) and one that mostly removes the overlap between IQ and basic psychological processes (i.e., fluid-crystallized intelligence). The study included 3,736 individuals from the WJ-IV standardization sample to ascertain whether different proportions of individuals were identified by the 2 methods as well as identify which tests contributed to the differences. χ2 tests of independence and absolute ratios were used to examine the proportion of individuals identified; a multivariate analysis of variance and follow-up Tukey honestly significant differences were conducted to determine whether the groups of individuals identified in each model differed on their academic achievement scores, and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to identify the tests that contributed to differences in identification rates. The results indicated that different proportions of individuals were identified as a function of the IQ score used, even though achievement scores were generally similar across identification methods. Black students were overrepresented and White students were underrepresented compared with their proportion in the total sample. Discrepancy profiles largely varied as a function of the internal psychometrics of the WJ-IV rather than characteristics of the individual. Implications for practice and methodological limitations are reviewed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Cite this work

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

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 5 citations exist upstream.

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