The Homogeneity of Identifaction Decisions by Different Groups on LD Adolescents

This research was published by the KU Center for Research on Learning, formerly known as the University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.Three related studies were designed to address some key issues confronting the learning disability field concerning the identification of learning disabled adolescents. The first study (Research Report No. 9) addressed the question of which group(s) of professionals or parents make the most homogeneous identification decisions on learning disabilities' criteria. In the second study, (Research Report No. 10) the temporal and interscorer reliability as well as the construct and content validity of the Modified Component Disability Instrument was investigated. The reliability and validity of the Modified Component Disability Checklist and Secondary Test battery were investigated in the third study (Research Report No. 11)

Identification Decisions: Who is the Most Consistent?

This research was published by the KU Center for Research on Learning, formerly known as the University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.This study was designed to: (a) examine the type of judgments on LD characteristics rendered by multidisciplinary team members and (b) explore which of the groups typically represented on a staffing team was most homogeneous in making decisions on LD students. The consistency of judgment among groups were comparable when making judgments on LD and non-LD characteristics. Thus, the findings were supportive of the multidisciplinary approach to identification and evaluation of LD children and youth

Reliability and Validity of the Bayesian Identification Procedure for Learning Disabled Adolescents

This research was published by the KU Center for Research on Learning, formerly known as the University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.Three related studies were designed to address some key issues confronting the learning disability field concerning the identification of learning disabled adolescents. The first study (Research Report No. 9) addressed the question of which group(s) of professionals or parents make the most homogeneous identification decisions on learning disabilities criteria. In the second study, (Research Report No. 10) the temporal and interscorer reliability as well as the construct and content validity of the Modified Component Disability Instrument was investigated. The reliability and validity of the Modified Component Disability Checklist and Secondary Test battery were investigated in the third study (Research Report No. 11)

A Multi-Trait Multi-Method Analysis of the Bayesian Screening Instrument and Test Battery for LD Adolescents

This research was published by the KU Center for Research on Learning, formerly known as the University of Kansas Institute for Research in Learning Disabilities.Three related studies were designed to address some key issues confronting the learning disability field concerning the identification of learning disabled adolescents . The first study (Research Report No. 9) addressed the question of which group(s) of professionals or parents make the most homogeneous identification decisions on learning disabilities' criteria. ·In the second study, (Research Report No. 10) the temporal and interscorer reliability as well as the construct and content validity of the Modified Component Disability Instrument was investigated. The reliability and validity of the Modified Component Disability Checklist and Secondary Test battery were investigated in the third study (Research Report No. 11)

IT'S NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF BUILDING A BETTER MOUSETRAP ® at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on

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. DARYL F. MELLARD, Ph.D., is director, Division of Adult Studies, University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. DONALD D. DESHLER, Ph.D., is director, University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. AMY BARTH, is a doctoral student, University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. One commonly ascribed characteristic of students with learning disabilities (LD) is underachievement. That is, students with LD demonstrate learning commensurate with estimates of their abilities in many areas, but in a specific area they show an unexplained deficit. Their deficits in learning or performance on specific tasks (e.g., reading, math calculation and reasoning, oral and written expression, and listening comprehension) are due to a presumed underlying processing delay or dysfunction. Shortly after P.L. 94-142 was passed in the mid1970s, the federal government published regulations detailing procedures for how to identify students with LD. The regulations gave states and local districts direction for ways to operationalize the definition of the LD construct. Those regulations indicated that students' level of underachievement could be calculated with a discrepancy formula. Even though the initial severe discrepancy formula published in the regulations was met by strong negative reactions (Hallahan & Mercer