Learning disabilities affect nearly 5% of the school aged population and make up approximately 50% of all special education students. While there are many models used to make a specific learning disability diagnosis, none are without their detractors. For years, the Simple Discrepancy Model was the most widely used method for the assessment of learning disabilities yet recent research has relegated this model suspect. Due to these findings the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 has stipulated that while a school district may still use the Simple Discrepancy Model they cannot require its use. Consequently, there are several prominent models currently utilized. Along with the Simple Discrepancy Model they are the Regression Model, the Low Achievement Model, the Aptitude-Achievement Consistency Model, and the Concordance-Discordance Model. Previous research has indicated that within a college population different models used to diagnose learning disabilities are not interchangeable. Yet of concern, school districts often appear to choose a specific model without the forethought that would warrant such an important decision. The present study examined the five aforementioned models within a grade 1-10 population to examine the frequency, level of agreement, and level of association between the models. 150 subjects were examined from the same Northwest section of Florida. The results indicate that the Low Achievement and Concordance-Discordance models identify significantly more subjects as compared to the Simple Discrepancy, Regression, and Aptitude-Achievement Consistency models. Furthermore, the Simple Discrepancy and Regression Models revealed the highest level of agreement (86%) whereas the Simple Discrepancy and the Concordance-Discordance Models revealed the lowest (41%). When the five models were compared in sets of two for a total of ten comparisons the results indicated that the Simple Discrepancy and Regression models showed the strongest association. On the other hand, when strict criteria were implemented it was noted that eight of the ten comparisons did not demonstrate a clinical level of association. These results indicate that when the five models were compared they often diagnosed different students and thus should not, in most cases, be used interchangeably. / A Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements of the Degree of Doctor of
Philosophy. / Summer Semester, 2010. / June 17, 2010. / Learning Disability Models, Learning Disability Assessment, Learning Disability / Includes bibliographical references. / Briley Proctor, Professor Directing Dissertation; Jeannie Wanzek, University Representative; Steven Pfeiffer, Committee Member; James Sampson, Committee Member.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_176240 |
| Contributors | Shifrin, Joshua G. (Joshua Gregory) (authoraut), Proctor, Briley (professor directing dissertation), Wanzek, Jeannie (university representative), Pfeiffer, Steven (committee member), Sampson, James (committee member), Department of Educational Psychology and Learning Systems (degree granting department), Florida State University (degree granting institution) |
| Publisher | Florida State University, Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, text |
| Format | 1 online resource, computer, application/pdf |
| Rights | This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). The copyright in theses and dissertations completed at Florida State University is held by the students who author them. |
Page generated in 0.0024 seconds