Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems

In this introduction to the special issue, a response-to-instruction approach to learning disabilities (LD) identification is discussed. Then, an overview of the promise and the potential pitfalls of such an approach is provided. The potential benefits include identification of students based on risk rather than deficit, early identification and instruction, reduction of identification bias, and linkage of identification assessment with instructional planning. Questions concern the integrity of the LD concept, the need for validated interventions and assessment methods, the adequacy of response to instruction as the endpoint in identification, the appropriate instruction intensity, the need for adequately trained personnel, and due process. Finally, an overview of the articles constituting the special issue is provided.

[1]  Jack M. Fletcher,et al.  Relation of phonological and orthographic processing to early reading: Comparing two approaches to regression-based, reading-level-match designs. , 1996 .

[2]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Curriculum-Based Measurement , 1990 .

[3]  F. Gresham,et al.  Teachers as "Tests": Differential validity of teacher judgments in identifying students at-risk for learning difficulties. , 1997 .

[4]  Kenneth A. Kavale,et al.  Auditory and Visual Perception Processes and Reading Ability: A Quantitative Reanalysis and Historical Reinterpretation , 2000 .

[5]  K. Stanovich,et al.  Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. , 1994 .

[6]  B. Shaywitz,et al.  Discrepancy Compared to Low Achievement Definitions of Reading Disability , 1992, Journal of learning disabilities.

[7]  R. Abbott,et al.  Redefining learning disabilities: Moving beyond aptitude–achievement discrepancies to failure to respond to validated treatment protocols. , 1994 .

[8]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  Response to Instruction as a Means of Identifying Students with Reading/Learning Disabilities , 2003 .

[9]  T. Kehle,et al.  Interventions for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of treatment outcomes , 2004 .

[10]  Rollanda E. O'Connor Increasing the Intensity of Intervention in Kindergarten and First Grade , 2000 .

[11]  Jay G. Chambers,et al.  What Are We Spending on Special Education Services in the United States, 1999-2000? Report. Special Education Expenditure Project (SEEP). , 2002 .

[12]  L. Fuchs,et al.  The Utility of Curriculum-Based Measurement and Performance Assessment as Alternatives to Traditional Intelligence and Achievement Tests. , 1997 .

[13]  J. Chall The Academic Achievement Challenge: What Really Works in the Classroom? , 2000 .

[14]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  The Underlying Message in LD Intervention Research: Findings from Research Syntheses , 2000 .

[15]  Matt McGue,et al.  “I Know One When I See One” — Differentiating LD and Non-LD Students , 1984 .

[16]  C. Jonas-Simpson,et al.  A pilot study of the lived experience for persons with dementia residing on a locked unit. , 2003, Perspectives (Gerontological Nursing Association (Canada)).

[17]  Frank R. Vellutino,et al.  Phonological Coding, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Ability: Evidence from a Longitudinal and Experimental Study. , 1987 .

[18]  S. Ceci Handbook of cognitive, social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning disabilities , 1988 .

[19]  Edward R. Sipay,et al.  Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and readily remediated poor readers : Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific Reading disability , 1996 .

[20]  M. Suzanne Donovan,et al.  Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education. , 2002 .

[21]  Frank M. Gresham,et al.  A Challenge to the Viability of Mild Mental Retardation as a Diagnostic Category , 1996 .

[22]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  Treatment Validity: A Unifying Concept for Reconceptualizing the Identification of Learning Disabilities. , 1998 .

[23]  D. Hammill,et al.  The Effectiveness of Psycholinguistic Training: A Reaffirmation of Position , 1978, Exceptional children.

[24]  K. A. Heller,et al.  Placing children in special education : a strategy for equity , 1982 .

[25]  Shirley V. Dickson,et al.  Implementing a Model for Preventing Reading Failure: A Report From the Field , 1999 .

[26]  C. Reynolds,et al.  Critical Measurement Issues in Learning Disabilities , 1984 .

[27]  S. Deno,et al.  Curriculum-Based Measurement: The Emerging Alternative , 1985, Exceptional children.

[28]  Sharon Vaughn,et al.  Contemporary Special Education Research : Syntheses of the Knowledge Base on Critical Instructional Issues , 2000 .

[29]  J. Ysseldyke,et al.  School Psychology Paradigm Shift , 1997 .

[30]  D. Francis,et al.  Intelligent testing and the discrepancy model for children with learning disabilities. , 1998 .

[31]  W. Ruijssenaars,et al.  Definition and Treatment of Dyslexia , 1997, Journal of learning disabilities.

[32]  K. Kavale,et al.  Auditory-Visual Integration and its Relationship to Reading Achievement: A Meta-Analysis , 1980, Perceptual and motor skills.

[33]  F. Gresham Responsiveness to intervention: an alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. , 2002 .

[34]  Educational validation studies of learning disability subtypes. , 1985 .

[35]  J. Fletcher,et al.  Prevalence of reading disability in boys and girls. Results of the Connecticut Longitudinal Study. , 1990, JAMA.

[36]  F. Gresham,et al.  Discrepancy Between Definitions of Learning Disabilities and School Practices , 1998, Journal of learning disabilities.

[37]  L. Silver,et al.  Learning Disabilities , 1987 .

[38]  Jack M. Fletcher,et al.  Validity of IQ-Discrepancy Classifications of Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis , 2002 .

[39]  K. Kavale,et al.  “One Jumped Off the Balance Beam” , 1983, Journal of learning disabilities.

[40]  D. Reschly,et al.  Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming , 1999 .

[41]  Lynn S. Fuchs,et al.  IS “ LEARNING DISABILITIES ” JUST A FANCY TERM FOR LOW ACHIEVEMENT ? A META-ANALYSIS OF READING DIFFERENCES BETWEEN LOW ACHIEVERS WITH AND WITHOUT THE LABEL , 2002 .

[42]  Anne E. Fowler,et al.  Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and low achievement definitions. , 1994 .

[43]  Stephen C. Larsen,et al.  The Effectiveness of Psycholinguistic Training , 1974 .

[44]  D. Hammill,et al.  On Defining Learning Disabilities: , 1990, Journal of learning disabilities.

[45]  Frank R. Vellutino,et al.  Differentiating Between Difficult-to-Remediate and Readily Remediated Poor Readers , 2000, Journal of learning disabilities.

[46]  T. Conway,et al.  Intensive Remedial Instruction for Children with Severe Reading Disabilities , 2001, Journal of learning disabilities.

[47]  D. Hammill,et al.  Effectiveness of Psycholinguistic Training: A Response to Kavale , 1982 .

[48]  T. Gutkin III. WISC-R scatter indices: Useful information for differential diagnosis? , 1979 .

[49]  G. Reid Lyon,et al.  Frames of reference for the assessment of learning disabilities : new views on measurement issues , 1994 .

[50]  L. Fuchs,et al.  Treatment Validity as a Unifying Construct for Identifying Learning Disabilities , 2002 .

[51]  G. S. Baroff General learning disorder: a new designation for mental retardation. , 1999, Mental retardation.