ASSESSMENT of Learning Dissabilties

CHAPTER FIVE
ASSESSMENT OF
LEARNING DISABILITIES
CHAPTER OUTLINE
INTRODUCTION Cultural Diversity and Eligibility Decisions
BROAD PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT ASSESSMENT FOR INSTRUCTION
ASSESSMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY DECISIONS Norm-Referenced Achievement Testing
Psychological Processes Observational Reports
Discrepancy Criteria Criterion-Referenced Testing
Exclusionary Clause Curriculum-Based Assessment
Response to Intervention In-Class Assessment Practices
Innovative Assessment Practices
SAMPLE ELIGIBILITY REPORTS
Other Issues in Assessment
Psychoeducational Team Assessment Report
Educational Consultant’s Evaluation SUMMARY
138
ch05.indd 138 4/16/2007 8:08:02 AM

CHAPTER FIVE ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING DISABILITIES 139
WHEN YOU COMPLETE THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:

1. Describe an assessment eligibility report that is based on ability-achievement discrepancies.
2. Describe an RTI assessment procedure.
3. Review a child-study team report to determine the type of perspective underlying the
evaluation.
4. Identify the types of assessment information useful for eligibility decisions and instructional
decisions.
5. Demonstrate a simple task analysis as an in-class assessment device.
6. List the types of daily work that should be used as informal assessments in child-study team
meetings.
7. Describe the calculation of an ability-achievement discrepancy coupled with RTI as a basis
for the eligibility decision.
KEYWORDS
intelligence testing standard-score discrepancy authentic assessment
eligibility regression-based discrepancy portfolio assessment
IEP response to intervention (RTI) dynamic assessment
curriculum-based assessment educational consultant strength-based assessment
criterion-referenced testing norm-referenced tests minimum competency tests
WISC-III prereferral report
subtest scatter task analysis
discrepancy error analysis
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this chapter is to present the various assessment options currently in use
with children who have learning disabilities, in the context of the information that has al-
ready been presented in the case-study reports, the history, and the perspectives on learning
disabilities. Frequent references will be made to the case-study reports and the various per-
spectives on learning disabilities discussed in Chapter 1, and the individualized educational
plans (IEPs) in the Appendix. Therefore, this chapter on assessment is intended to provide
a gestalt experience in which your understanding of the field of learning disabilities comes
together and you perceive the diverse perspectives and assessment procedures as a mean-
ingful whole. Also, it may be useful to reexamine the information in the earlier chapters
as you read.
ch05.indd 139 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

140 SECTION I INTRODUCTION TO LEARNING DISABILITIES
BROAD PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT
In special education, assessment is mandated for several reasons. First of all, assessment
was historically seen as one method of protecting the interests of the child (Commission
for Excellence in Special Education, 2001; NJCLD, 2005). For example, in earlier years
in school systems that had classes for students with mental retardation, if a particular child
became disruptive and did not complete the homework assignment, the teacher may have
wanted to remove that child from the class. One convenient way to accomplish this was
to ship the child out to a special education class, even though the child may not have been
retarded. Intelligence testing, conducted on an individual basis, was intended to prevent
this type of disservice to the child.
Second, there is a need in the schools to identify children who need help earlier
(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Many children occasionally fail a semester or grade, but not every
child who fails is disabled (Commission, 2001). Failure can occur for a number of other
reasons, ranging from disruptions at home to incomplete homework assignments. Clearly,
the schools need some mechanism by which to screen children in order to decide which
children demonstrate failure resulting from a learning disability. Therefore, a major reason
for individualized assessment is the need to document the eligibility of a particular child
for a particular type of special educational service provided by the school.
Another reason for assessment is the need to document the actual levels of perfor-
mance on various classroom tasks in order to provide an individualized educational plan
(IEP) (Commission, 2001). This need led to the recent emphasis on curriculum-based
assessment. Much of the recent research in assessment has been directed toward assess-
ment for instruction (Bryant, 1999; Jones, 2001), and almost all this research has demon-
strated the effectiveness of periodic assessments conducted by the teacher on a weekly,
biweekly, or daily basis (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Jones, 2001). Theorists have argued that
special education assessment, by virtue of being totally individualized, should compare a
child’s performance with a stated list of criteria or behavioral objectives that the child must
master, rather than an arbitrary score derived from a norm group of children on a particular
test (NJCLD, 2005). Consequently, concepts such as criterion-referenced testing, task
analysis, curriculum-based assessment, and responsiveness to instruction have received
increasing research emphasis. However, prior to discussion of these innovations, it is nec-
essary to understand the use of psychometric assessment in identification of students with
learning disabilities.
ASSESSMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY DECISIONS
As demonstrated in the discussion on definitions, and the recent passage of IDEA 2004,
determining whether or not a child has a learning disability is a task about which there is
little consensus at present (Commission, 2001; Gersten & Dimino, 2006; NJCLD, 2005).
Consequently it is difficult to report on the best method to identify children or adolescents
with learning disabilities. Since substantial change in how students’ learning disabilities are
documented can be expected in coming years, the most appropriate approach meanwhile
ch05.indd 140 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

should include understanding both the new eligibility procedures as well as the more re-
cently implemented eligibility procedures for documentation of a learning disability.
At present, new teachers in the field will probably be exposed to both more traditional
eligibility procedures for documenting a learning disability as well as the more recently
developed response-to-intervention procedures. In the sections below, the text will present
the more traditional eligibility assessment procedures first, as listed in Figure 5.1, and sub-
sequently a discussion of response-to-intervention procedures.
FIGURE 5.1 Assessment for Eligibility
COMPONENTS OF LD DEFINITION COMMON ASSESSMENTS
I. Psychological processing problem

IQ assessment WISC-III
(Subtest scatter/verbal) Stanford-Binet
Performance deficit/subtest regrouping Woodcock-Johnson
Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children
(K-ABC)
Visual-perception/visual-motor Bender Gestalt
Woodcock-Johnson
WISC-III
Auditory perception/language Test of Language Development
Woodcock-Johnson
WISC-III
II. Discrepancy
Intraindividual differences Woodcock-Johnson
WISC-III
Ability-achievement discrepancy WISC-III
Woodcock-Johnson
Peabody Individual Achievement Test–
Revised (PIATr)
Test of Written Language
K-ABC
III. Exclusionary clause
MR IQ tests
Behavioral disorders Class observations
Teacher ratings of behavior
Sociometric ratings
Mental disability Physician’s examination
Cultural/environmental/economic Examination of school records
History of speech improvements
ch05.indd 141 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

Psychological Processes
The psychological processes component of the definition is intended to focus on the types
of ability deficits that may prohibit learning. Consequently, many tests of auditory and
visual perception or motor control can be subsumed under this component. The use of intel-
ligence tests to demonstrate deficits or developmental imbalances in psychological process-
ing also represents an attempt to effectively quantify the psychological process component
of the definition.
Intelligence Assessment. Currently, the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third
Edition (WISC-III), is the most commonly used assessment for measuring intelligence in
children with learning disabilities. Other commonly used tests include the cognitive sec-
tion of the Woodcock-Johnson Psychoeducational Battery, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale, and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children.
The use of intelligence tests to document deficits in the basic psychological processes
has been repeatedly attempted, and the roots of these efforts spring from the concept of
“developmental imbalances.” Developmental imbalance may best be understood as an un-
even pattern of development, such that a student may function on grade level in math but
significantly below grade level in reading. Thus, an imbalance will be shown when his or
her academic scores in these areas are compared.
Most of the suggestions for documenting a developmental imbalance have used one
of the standard IQ measures mentioned previously. For example, the subtests on the WISC-
III (Wechsler, 1991) may be used to calculate a single score on general intelligence, but
they may also be used to calculate two different scores: verbal intelligence and performance
intelligence. Here the verbal IQ would represent language-based learning, and the perfor-
mance IQ would represent visual interpretation, synthesis, and the ability to copy designs. If
these two scores were widely discrepant, a developmental imbalance could, presumably, be
identified and would account for a learning disability. While this distinction between verbal
IQ and performance IQ will be discussed in the occasional assessment report, this concept
is now considered discredited (Commission, 2001; Siegel, 1999).
Another conceptualization of this developmental imbalance idea involves analysis
of subtest scatter, or how the scores on an IQ assessment are grouped (Watkins, 1996).
If the range of the individual subtest scores is unusually high, this would tend to indicate
an imbalance in normal cognitive development. However, numerous theorists have raised
questions about the appropriateness of these types of calculations (Watkins, 1996), and
like the development imbalances approach described previously, the subtest scatter concept
has been discredited. However, many practitioners in the field still attempt to utilize this
rationale in describing a learning disability, and you may find such a rationale in various
assessment reports even today. Thus, you should be aware of this logic and the unproven
theoretical rationale on which it is based.
Visual-Perceptal and Visual-Motor Tests. The most common visual-perceptual and

visual-motor tests used today are the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test and the Develop-
mental Tests of Visual Motor Integration. Although most intelligence tests include some
subtests that are basically visual in nature, IQ tests are not included in this general domain
ch05.indd 142 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

of tests because IQ tests also assess things other than visual perception and motor perfor-
mance. Basically, the tests listed above involve only visual perception and motor responses
to these perceptions. The test items generally involve copying various geometric designs in
order to demonstrate an ability to adequately perceive and reproduce information, though
there may also be figure-ground discrimination problems and reversals. Interest Box 5.1
presents two items from the Developmental Tests of Visual Motor Integration. These tests
generally have very low reliabilities, and some authorities have recommended that use of
this type of assessment be terminated (Council for Learning Disabilities, 1987). As a result,
these tests are being used less and less often in assessment of children with disabilities.
Auditory and Language Processes Assessments. Historically, the Illinois Test of

Psycholinguistic Ability, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, and the Wepman Auditory
Discrimination Test were the most widely used instruments for assessment of auditory and
language processes. However, early research demonstrated many of the same types of reli-
ability problems with these instruments as were demonstrated with the visual-perceptual
instruments (Council for Learning Disabilities, 1987). Also, the same debate that con-
cerns visual-perceptual testing is applicable here: Many professionals today question the
INTEREST BOX 5.1

SAMPLE ITEMS FROM PERCEPTUAL-MOTOR TESTS
Many visual-perceptual tests assess a student’s ability to visually perceive a geometric design
and to copy that design. Both the Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test and the Developmental
Tests of Visual Motor Integration use this assessment procedure. The early assumption behind
such tests was the belief that problems with letter and word reversals could be detected in this
fashion. Note the tasks below and the similarity to commonly reversed visual stimuli. These
items represent the types of tasks that are found on these visual-perceptual tests. Typically, the
student would copy a number of these designs, and the examiner would grade the student on
the quality of the copy (lines parallel, intersecting, angles correct, etc.).
ch05.indd 143 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

usefulness of these assessment instruments. However, many speech clinicians and learning
disabilities teachers use various sections of these tests to assess language usage and supple-
ment these assessments with classroom observations or recorded samples of children’s
language output.
A host of more recently developed instruments has been designed to assess language
functioning. For example, the Tests of Language Development, which come in either a pri-
mary or intermediate version, are the most widely used assessments of language today. Like-
wise, the recent assessments by Wiig (the Let’s Talk Inventory for Children or Adolescents)
are well-designed assessments of language. These assessments are much more acceptable,
from a technical assessment perspective, than the assessments that were utilized earlier.
Many intelligence tests have sections or subtests that provide information on verbal
abilities and receptive or expressive language. Consequently, most professionals who need
this type of information today utilize a verbal score from one of the frequently used tests
of intelligence.
Process Testing Revisited. Assessment of basic psychological processes or ability defi-

cits grew from the early medical assumptions in the field. Both the perceptual-motor theo-
rists and the language theorists produced assessments that were later shown to be less than
technically adequate for educational purposes (Ysseldyke, 1983). More recently, the use of
standardized IQ assessments as a basis to document these psychological processes (Com-
mission, 2001) has become commonplace. However, in some areas, newer assessments that
are more acceptable technically have been developed.
As professionals, each of you will have to take responsibility for decisions regarding
assessment of psychological processes or ability deficits. For example, as a student, you
should be aware of the debate concerning the use of these tests, and as a teacher (or future
teacher), you should realize that many different perspectives concerning these tests are
possible. Will you use these tests or sit as a member of a team that uses these tests to make
educational decisions? What additional evidence is necessary in order to supplement the
assessment findings in these areas? All these questions are unanswered at present. Perhaps
the best strategy is to discuss these concerns with the director of special education in your
district in order to find out the local and state perspectives regarding the use of these instru-
ments. However, at this point, it must be stated that accurate, technically sound assessment
of basic psychological processes is not possible psychometrically, given the low reliability
and validity of most of these instruments (CLD, 1987).
Discrepancy Criteria
The belief that children with learning disabilities have a problem in school subjects
prompted the discrepancy concept. In a very basic sense, would an educator wish to pro-
vide a specialized—and thus more expensive—program to a child who was capable of
reaching his or her potential in the general education class without any modifications? The
original discrepancy concept was merely an attempt to demonstrate that a child needed
some type of extra assistance.
However, with the failure of assessments of psychological processes, the discrepancy
component became the only defensible operationalized aspect of the definition. Conse-
ch05.indd 144 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

quently, many states now employ versions of this concept, and practitioners rely on this
aspect of the definition more than on measures of psychological processes during the eli-
gibility phase of assessment.
The ability-achievement discrepancy states that a child has a major deficit in some
area of school achievement compared to his or her potential. This concept has had at least
four major variations over the last 20 years, though only the most recent two aspects of
this concept are directly relevant today (Commission, 2001). Interest Box 5.2 presents the
historical development of the concept.
Standard-Score Discrepancies. Many states and local districts employ a standard-

score discrepancy procedure for identification of learning disabilities (Commission, 2001;
NJCLD, 2005). In this procedure, scores from an intelligence test and an achievement
test—usually a reading achievement test—that have the same mean and standard deviation
are obtained. The achievement score is then subtracted from the intelligence test score, and
if the discrepancy is great enough, a learning disability has been documented.
Because many tests will yield scores that have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation
of 15, this procedure is relatively easy for teachers and child-study team members to use.
INTEREST BOX 5.2

DISCREPANCY FORMULAS
There have been four major types of ability-achievement discrepancy calculations.
1. Some practitioners began to calculate a discrepancy between grade placement and

achievement level by merely subtracting the latter from the former. This procedure sug-
gested that a fifth-grader who was reading at a second-grade level must be disabled.
2. The “formula” calculations were the next to evolve. Because the procedure above did not
take into account the child’s level of intelligence, numerous theorists developed formulas
that did. These formulas usually involved calculation of an expected achievement based
on intelligence and grade placement, which was then compared to actual achievement to
indicate a discrepancy.
3. Standard-score calculations were developed next. The formulas described above were
generally based on mathematical manipulation of grade-equivalent scores (e.g., a 3.5 in
reading). Calculations such as these are inappropriate mathematically because the stan-
dard deviations of the different grade-equivalent scores are different. Consequently, the
concept of a standardized-score comparison was developed, where the practitioner would
obtain an IQ score and an achievement score based on tests that have the same mean and
standard deviation. These scores are mathematically comparable.
4. The regression-score table was developed from the standard-score procedure. As any
statistics student knows, repeated tests resulting in scores that are either very high or very
low tend to yield scores that regress toward (or fall back toward) the mean, and this can
create error. Thus, some states use regression tables, which are basically standard-score
comparisons that take this regression into account.
ch05.indd 145 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

For example, school districts in the state of North Carolina regularly employ this method.
Both the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition, and the cognitive battery
of the Woodcock-Johnson, Revised, will yield IQ scores of this nature. The reading sec-
tion of the Woodcock-Johnson, Revised, and the Peabody Individual Achievement Test,
Revised, provide reading and math achievement scores that employ this metric.
However, the federal government failed to provide guidelines on how large the
discrepancy between ability and achievement had to be before a student is considered dis-
abled. State and local education agencies have chosen to define this discrepancy at various
levels. For example, the state of North Carolina uses a 15-point (or a 1-standard-deviation)
discrepancy while the state of Georgia has indicated that a discrepancy of 20 points is
necessary in order to be eligible for placement in a class for the learning disabled. Certain
theorists have recommended a 2-standard-deviation discrepancy prior to labeling a child as
learning disabled. Clearly, a small discrepancy cannot be the sole indicator of a learning dis-
ability because, given the nature of standardized scores, as many as 17% of all public school
students demonstrate a difference of 1 standard deviation between IQ and achievement.
However, the smaller the discrepancy that is required, the more flexibility local decision
makers have in assigning a child to a class for the learning disabled, and this desire for flex-
ibility may be one reason the use of such procedures has continued. A sample discrepancy
calculation is presented in Interest Box 5.3.
Regression-Based Discrepancy Tables. A mathematical problem with the standard-

score discrepancy procedure was soon identified. When a student is administered a series of
tests and the scores are correlated, the scores of that student will tend to regress toward the
mean, particularly if the scores are notably higher or lower than the mean. Consequently,
the standard-score discrepancy procedure is likely to be much less accurate for a student
whose IQ is particularly high or particularly low. As a result of this mathematical phenome-
non, some states have produced tables of information that take this regression phenomenon
into account even though based on the standard-score discrepancy concept. This is known
as regression-based discrepancy. For example, Iowa uses regression tables of this nature.
In states that use a regression table, the assessment personnel administer the intelligence
and achievement tests and use the chart to identify the minimum discrepancy necessary to
document a learning disability given that particular level of intelligence.
Exclusionary Clause
Although the discrepancy formulations discussed previously have received research atten-
tion, very little information is available on methods by which the exclusionary clause may
be operationalized. For example, what types of data may be used to discriminate between
a child with learning disabilities and some secondary behavioral problems and a child with
behavior problems who also demonstrates achievement deficits? How are children who are
culturally disadvantaged separated from children who are learning disabled, and how does a
team of assessment professionals (which will include you, as a teacher) distinguish between
a child who needs services in a class for the learning disabled, based on language deficits,
and a child who needs a speech clinician’s assistance? These are questions for which there
are no easy answers.
ch05.indd 146 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.3

SAMPLE DISCREPANCY CALCULATION FOR ELIGIBILITY
DETERMINATION
Alonzo Shanker is a 10-year-old student in Atlanta, Georgia, who was referred for evaluation
with a possible learning disability. Georgia uses a 20-point discrepancy criterion for determina-
tion of eligibility for learning disability services, and such a discrepancy must be documented
on at least two assessments. The psychologist used an IQ assessment and several reading assess-
ments along with a clinical interview, teachers’ ratings of behavior, and other assessments and
documented the discrepancies as described below. Alonzo’s scores were as follows.
■ Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 4th ed.

Verbal Reasoning 92
Abstract/Visual Reasoning 94
Quantitative Reasoning 90
Short-Term Memory 108
Test Composite Score 95
■ Wechsler Individual Achievement Test
Basic Reading 76
Reading Comprehension 64
Total Reading 69
■ Woodcock-Johnson Reading Comprehension Score 67
Discrepancies between the total composite IQ score (95) and the total reading scores (69
and 67, respectively) each indicated a discrepancy of more than 20 points (26 and 28 points,
respectively). This is well over 1 standard deviation and surpasses the 20-point discrepancy
criterion used in Georgia for documentation of a learning disability. Thus, a discrepancy has
been documented for this student. Also, the evidence suggests that Alonzo demonstrated normal
intelligence and very low reading scores in every area.
Of course, documentation of a discrepancy between IQ and achievement is only one facet
of the identification process, and this procedure has been challenged (Council for Exceptional
Children, 2002; Commission, 2001). Also, a difference of 20 points or more between IQ and
other academic areas (e.g., writing, math, or spelling) can likewise be used to document a dis-
crepancy for eligibility purposes.
This issue is further complicated by the nature of the exclusionary clause. The federal
definition does not say that students with learning disabilities cannot also demonstrate other
disabilities. Rather, the definition merely stipulates that those other conditions are believed
to be secondary in nature and not the primary cause of the learning disability. Thus, a stu-
dent with learning disabilities may also have secondary emotional or behavioral problems
and/or come from an environmentally disadvantaged background.
Current practice and federal guidelines do give some indications concerning these
distinctions. Because the last part of the definition indicates the conditions that are ex-
cluded as the primary cause of the learning disability, part of the assessment process for
ch05.indd 147 4/16/2007 8:08:08 AM

determining potential learning disabilities in children is identification of the characteristics

that would indicate the presence and severity of these other conditions.
Distinction: Mental Retardation. Children who are mentally retarded cannot techni-
cally be learning disabled, though there is every reason to believe that some children with
retardation may demonstrate the characteristics of learning disabilities in terms of letter-
reversal problems, language problems, perceptual problems, and behavioral problems such
as hyperactivity. Still, if the IQ score and adaptive behavior of the child indicate that a
placement in a class for children who are retarded is warranted, the child should not be
considered learning disabled. The problem arises in situations where a child’s IQ score is
lower than normal (i.e., in the 74 to 85 range) but not low enough to warrant placement as
retarded. Many such children are labeled learning disabled, in spite of the fact that their IQ
is not in the normal range, which is usually assumed to be 85 or higher. Child-assessment
teams may decide that such a label will result in services for the child that would be unavail-
able otherwise. Although such practice cannot be condoned, it can be readily understood
by any professional who has ever been in the position of a team member who sees a child
failing in the traditional general education class. Many scholars have called for more flex-
ibility in placing this type of child in non–special education classes that have small numbers
of students, more individualized instruction, and an emphasis on remediation. However,
until additional services such as these are available, many students without any identifiable
disabilities will continue to be placed in classes for children with learning disabilities.
Distinction: Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Unfortunately, the distinction be-

tween emotional problems and learning disabilities is vague. This is because emotional
and behavioral disorders often have a negative effect on academic work, and depressed aca-
demic scores in an intelligent student may resemble a learning disability. Further, learning
disabilities often have a negative emotional or behavioral effect and may therefore resemble
an emotional or behavioral disorder. The guideline question or general rule of thumb in
making this distinction is: Does the emotional problem cause the academic deficit, or does
the academic deficit cause the emotional problem? In gathering evidence on this, several
types of information may be sought. First, input from the teacher who referred the child
concerning the child’s behavior, peer relationships, and motivation in class may indicate
that the child’s problems are basically academic in nature. If the student seems emotion-
ally healthy based on these indicators, the child is probably not emotionally disturbed or
behaviorally disordered. Teachers are generally good observers of classroom behavior, and
numerous ratings of behavior, which the general education teacher may be asked to com-
plete, can provide this information.
Next, the peers in the class can also provide information on the behavior and social
skills of the student. Various informal roster-rating techniques may be used to elicit infor-
mation on the social acceptance of the child. These devices require every child in the class
to indicate the level of social acceptance of every other child in the class. When the results
are tallied, the totals will indicate the level of acceptance of any child in the class. If both
teacher ratings and sociometric information indicate major behavioral abnormalities or
very low social acceptance, perhaps a placement as emotionally disturbed is more justified
than placement as learning disabled. Under those conditions, the child-study team would
ch05.indd 148 4/16/2007 8:08:08 AM

want to gather more complete information, possibly including a therapeutic interview be-
tween the child and a trained counselor in order to determine the extent of the emotional
disturbance.
It should be noted that teachers are not trained to conduct sociometric roster-rating
procedures in most teacher education programs. Consequently, if such information is
needed, child-study team members should be used to conduct this type of assessment. As
in most cases involving assessment data, information from a sociometric assessment in the
wrong hands can be detrimental.
Distinction: Medical Disability. The definition of learning disabilities clearly excludes

individuals who have visual, auditory, or motor deficiencies. Unlike the perceptual prob-
lems or basic psychological processes discussed previously, this phrase in the definition
indicates problems that can be identified by visual, motor, or auditory screening and follow-
up procedures. Although child-study assessment teams generally do not include a physi-
cian, assessments for medically based conditions can be obtained. In some cases, the school
nurse, a speech clinician, or an audiologist may be able to provide initial screening in these
areas. Medical causes for learning problems must not be overlooked in the initial proce-
dures dealing with new referrals, though few referrals require more than brief hearing and
visual-screening procedures.
Distinction: Cultural, Environmental, Economic Disadvantage. One difficult distinc-

tion to be made is the discrimination between students with disabilities and students who
have been raised in a depressed or language-poor environment. Although children who are
poor and economically or environmentally disadvantaged may have a learning disability,
the placement team must determine that the primary cause for the disability is not envi-
ronmental disadvantage. Some practitioners have argued that this distinction need not be
made at all because students who are culturally deprived need many of the same types of
educational modifications as children with learning disabilities. Still, the current federal
definition stipulates that this distinction be made, though no guidelines are currently avail-
able for making this distinction.
Distinction: Students Who Are Low Achieving. Often, it is quite difficult to distin-
guish between students who have learning disabilities and students who are low achieving
for other reasons (Commission, 2001; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). In fact, one reason for the
recent emphasis on response to intervention is the fact that procedures used currently do
not facilitate this distinction at all. While some individual research studies have suggested
differences between students with learning disabilities and low-achieving students, school
districts have not systematically attempted to make this distinction. Still, the intention of
various legislative definitions of learning disabilities historically has been to exclude stu-
dents who are low achieving from services unless they also manifested some documented
disorder in the basic psychological processes described above.
Distinction: ADHD. With the recent increase in students identified as demonstrating

attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders, there is a growing concern related to how to dis-
tinguish students with learning disabilities from those with ADHD. The Commission on
ch05.indd 149 4/16/2007 8:08:08 AM

Excellence in Special Education (2001) noted the similarities between ADHD and learning
disabilities. Both groups do demonstrate problems in attention, and both may also demon-
strate hyperactivity, impulsivity, and a lack of organizational skill. In fact, many students
with ADHD have been considered “learning disabled” over the years, and determining the
distinguishing characteristics of these groups has proven difficult. Further, Barkley (1990)
indicated that as many as 40% of students with learning disabilities may also manifest
attention-deficit disorders.
In a report on assessment and identification of students with attention-deficit disor-
ders, Montague, McKinney, and Hocutt (1994) suggested that a number of procedures may
be used for diagnosis, including teacher ratings, observational techniques, and interviews.
Of course, these same techniques may also be employed when a learning disability is sus-
pected, and use of the same techniques to identify these two groups merely confuses the
discrimination process.
Given this difficulty in distinguishing these two groups, teachers should realize that
the basis of the distinction is the documented discrepancy between ability and achievement.
Although the size of the discrepancy required for an identification of learning disability
changes from one state to another, if a large discrepancy is noted, the child will typically
be identified as a student with a learning disability. Alternatively, if the child has attention
problems, hyperactivity, and/or impulsivity, but does not demonstrate a large discrepancy
between ability and achievement, the child will typically be identified as ADHD. Once
identified as ADHD, the child may either receive special services in the regular education
program or be placed in special education under the “other health impaired” category.
Response to Intervention
As discussed in previous chapters, federal law now allows the use of a child’s response
to intervention (RTI) as a documentation of his or her learning disability (Batsche et al.,
2004; Marston, 2005; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). This
is the most recent change in eligibility procedures, and in many ways, it is perhaps the
most innovative (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005, 2006; Gersten & Dimino, 2006). This approach
resulted from the general dissatisfaction with previous approaches for documentation of
a learning disability, in particular a dissatisfaction with the discrepancy criteria described
in Chapter 1. In short, many policy makers believe that the discrepancy criteria results in
overidentification of students with learning disabilities and thus increases the overall costs
of special education (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Other reasons for dissatisfaction with current
eligibility procedures include inconsistency in definitions of learning disabilities from one
state to another and the tendency of discrepancy procedures to identify as learning disabled
students who have merely been exposed to poor teaching (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
The RTI procedure involves actual implementation of several intervention proce-
dures that under normal conditions would be expected to result in academic growth. In the
absence of such academic growth, a learning disability is assumed to exist (Batsche et al.,
2004; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Conceptually, this is perhaps the most effective method for
documenting the existence of a learning disability, and the RTI eligibility procedure now
has many proponents (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005, 2006; Gersten & Dimino, 2006; Marston,
2005; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005), though others have
raised concerns with this new procedure (NJCLD, 2005).
ch05.indd 150 4/16/2007 8:08:09 AM

In the discussions available in the professional literature, a “tiered system” involving

several interventions is typically recommended in order to “prove” a child has a learning
disability (Batsche et al., 2004). For example, the National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities described a three-tiered system of interventions (NJCLD, 2005). Perhaps an
RTI example will best demonstrate this procedure; the description below is a synthesis of
a variety of different research-based RTI models (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005, 2006; Marston,
2005; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003; Vellutino et al., 1996).
Imagine a general education first-grade classroom including some 22 children. Under
RTI procedures, the teacher would be expected to conduct some type of screening assessment
in reading—perhaps a measure of word identification fluency—in the second or third month
of the school year, in order to identify those children who may be struggling with reading.
Early in grade 1, students may be expected to know perhaps 10 to 15 words (a, the, he, she,
etc.), since some of these words may have been mastered in kindergarten and others would
have been learned in the early fall of the first-grade year. After administering that assessment
for every child, the teacher could then identify the lowest 25% of students in the class. These
students would then be targeted for some type of scientifically validated instructional proce-
dure in the general education classroom. Those students scoring above the lowest 25% would
not be considered eligible for LD services. The intervention used for the lowest-scoring group
of students would represent the first tier of the RTI process—that is, it would be the first at-
tempt by the schools to remediate potential reading problems for these students.
Most researchers recommend that this first tier of intervention be viewed as the re-
sponsibility of the general education teacher (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Gersten & Dimino,
2006). Federal legislation requires that the teacher use a reading curriculum supported by
scientific research. Surprising as it may seem, many commercially available reading cur-
ricula are not supported by independent scientific research.
During the tier 1 intervention, the general education teacher would be expected to
periodically monitor the child’s progress on various reading variables. Fuchs and Fuchs
(2005) suggest such progress monitoring be undertaken at least once per week over a period
of 8 to 10 weeks. Children whose weekly scores showed growth in reading skill would not
be considered for further services for the learning disabled. However, students who did not
demonstrate appropriate growth would move into the second tier of intervention.
To continue the example of the classroom described above, Figure 5.2 presents a
progress monitoring chart for the tier 1 intervention. The student, Hernandez, was moni-
tored on his word identification weekly during an 8-week intervention. As the scores show,
he did not master new words very well. The general education teacher selected a random
set of 50 words from the most common 200 sight words (i.e., words commonly mastered
in the early years) and had Hernandez read as many as he could in 1 minute. That teacher
counted the words read correctly in 1 minute and then charted that score at least once each
week. Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) suggest a learning rate of perhaps 5 words per week, for
pre-primer and first-grade words. Based on this criteria, the data show that Hermandez was
not learning quickly enough to demonstrate a positive response to his reading intervention.
The data indicate that he was only mastering at most one or two new words each week.
Thus, he would be considered for the second tier of intervention.
Early research on RTI suggests that around 33% of students referred for learning
disabilities do not succeed in learning during the first tier of instruction in the general edu-
cation classroom (Vellutino et al., 1996), suggesting that these students may demonstrate a
ch05.indd 151 4/16/2007 8:08:11 AM

60
learning disability. Based on these figures, perhaps two
of the 22 children in this classroom would be judged
unresponsive to the tier 1 instruction, and clearly Her-
50
nandez was one of those students.
Fuchs and Fuchs (2005) recommended that the
40 second tier of intervention involve a more intensive
Words Correct
reading instruction, involving small teacher-student ra-

30 tios; they recommended instruction by either a teacher
25
or paraprofessional and that there be no more than two
or three students for this tier of the intervention. Instruc-
20
tion considered appropriate would include research-
15 based direct instruction curricula in a variety of reading
10 areas, such as phonics-based decoding skills, fluency, or
5 reading comprehension. In the example, since Hernan-
0 dez was not demonstrating mastery of words, his inter-
Weekly Performance vention would presumably be an intervention in word
decoding and/or phonics. Most researchers recommend
STUDENT NAME: Hernandez a more frequent performance-monitoring procedure in
the tier 2 intervention phase than in tier 1 (Batsche et al.,
DATES: 9/24/06 – 11/14/06
2004; Marston, 2005). For example, Fuchs and Fuchs
(2005) recommended progress monitoring weekly,
FIGURE 5.2 Progress Monitoring/Tier 1
while Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, and Hickman (2003)
Intervention
suggested monitoring progress twice a month. How-
ever, another possibility would be monitoring progress
daily, and many computer-based educational curricula are currently set up to do this. The
teacher can thereby develop a more comprehensive understanding of the child’s progress,
or lack thereof, in a much shorter timeframe.
Many researchers suggest that both general education teachers and special education
teachers participate in the planning and intervention for students with reading difficulties
in tier 2. Of course, this raises many questions concerning time and responsibilities of the
teachers involved, and policy makers as well as researchers have yet to address such con-
cerns. Different states will likely develop differing guidelines on who is responsible for tier 2
interventions, but most researchers suggest some involvement of special education personnel
at this intervention level. A portion of federal funds for special education have been set aside
for some degree of special education involvement at this point prior to the actual referral of
the child for special education evaluation.
In progressing through these intervention tiers, students might be expected to suc-
cessfully demonstrate academic growth with each increasingly intensive intervention. How-
ever, as you recall, the overall purpose of implementing RTI is to document students with
specific learning disabilities. In this case, one might expect the opposite result—that is,
fewer students succeeding in the instruction offered at each progressive tier. In fact, the
extant research suggests that between 24 and 50% of students who were placed in tier 2
intensive instruction will not demonstrate appropriate academic progress, even though they
are receiving intensive instruction (Vaughn et al., 2003; O’Connor, 2003). For students who
do succeed in learning, progress monitoring reports will indicate their academic growth,
ch05.indd 152 4/16/2007 8:08:11 AM

and they will not be considered learning disabled. However, the 24 to 50% of students who
do not succeed in tier 2 intervention will move to tier 3.
To return to our example, the tier 2 intervention for Hernandez involved placing
him in an intensive phonemically based instructional program designed to teach him letter
recognition, word decoding, and an increased vocabulary. Again, his progress in learning
new words from the same word list was monitored, though in the tier 2 intervention, his
word recognition was monitored daily for a period of four weeks. These data are shown
in Figure 5.3. Even with the intensive intervention on phonics and word decoding skills,
Hernandez still did not make adequate progress; therefore, he did not respond to instruction.
Thus, he will move to tier 3 of the RTI process.
By the time Hernandez reaches the third tier of the RTI process, the eligibility team
will be called together, and the child will be deemed eligible for services as a child with a
learning disability. Clearly, for children who do not benefit from progressively intensive
reading interventions, there is documented evidence of some type of learning problem. In
this way, the RTI process promises to be a useful tool for documenting eligibility.
SAMPLE ELIGIBILITY REPORTS
The reports discussed next represent the most common type in the field today. These two
reports present information that may be used to determine the eligibility of students for ser-
vices in the class for students with learning disabilities. As you read through these reports,
note the types of eligibility arguments that are presented to demonstrate that the child in
question actually demonstrates a learning disability.
50
40
Words Correct
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
M W F M W F M W F M W F
Daily Performance
STUDENT NAME: Hernandez

DATES: 11/15/06 – 12/18/06
FIGURE 5.3 Progress Monitoring/Tier 2 Intervention
ch05.indd 153 4/16/2007 8:08:11 AM

Psychoeducational Team Assessment Report

In most cases involving diagnosis of a learning disability, a team of specialists is involved.
This team may include a school psychologist, special education and general education
teachers, school administrators, the child’s parents, medical practitioners, and the student.
The report in Interest Box 5.4 summarizes the types of information that the psychoeduca-
tional team might collect.
The psychoeducational team report includes a number of examples of the eligibility
arguments based on the developmental-imbalances perspective. For example, the neurol-
ogist’s report indicated that scores on a visual test were lower than would be expected for
a child of this age. This led that professional to the conclusion that this child might have
a learning disability. However, the psychologist used a different visual-motor assessment
and concluded that there was no evidence of a visual-perceptual problem. The educational
consultant’s report was in agreement with the interpretation of the neurologist, in that there
seemed to be evidence of a visual-perceptual problem and thus of a learning disability. Note
that the summary for the entire team specifically highlighted the contradictory evidence on
the presence or absence of a visual-perceptual problem. Finally, the educational consultants
discussed the discrepancy between IQ and achievement in two areas.
Educational Consultant’s Evaluation

Often, when a parent and a school district disagree concerning the diagnosis of learning
disabilities, a private educational consultant will assess the child—or, in some cases, re-
view assessment data—and render a decision concerning the child’s eligibility for services.
The report in Interest Box 5.5 represents the type of report an educational consultant might
present.
As you can see from this report, the educational consultant has chosen to emphasize
the developmental-imbalances perspective, by demonstrating a developmental imbalance
between Adam’s skill in hearing information compared to visual input. This is another
example of the developmental imbalances eligibility argument that was discussed earlier in
this chapter. Also, notice that the educational consultant documented a discrepancy between
IQ and achievement as a major factor in the diagnosis of learning disability. Finally, you
may wish to note the relative lack of educational suggestions presented in this report. Be-
yond the suggestions for placement and some work on writing skills, there is very little use-
ful information in this report that could assist in planning educational activities for Adam.
Cultural Diversity and Eligibility Decisions

In spite of the best efforts of test manufacturers and educational personnel, research has
shown that there is some degree of bias in many of the assessments used to document
eligibility for services as learning disabled (Commission, 2001; Olivarez, Palmer, & Guil-
lemard, 1992). This potential bias is particularly troubling when one considers that students
with learning disabilities come from all cultures (Lerner & Chen, 1992). One growing
concern with our eligibility assessment practices is the relatively limited cultural sensitivity
of the assessment process (Hyun & Fowler, 1995; Leung, 1996). Many of the assessments
ch05.indd 154 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.4

PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL TEAM REPORT
NAME: Heather Demetri DATE OF BIRTH: 4/24/98 AGE: 7-10

SCHOOL: Anderson Elementary GRADE: 2 DATE OF REPORT: 3/6/06
TEAM MEMBERS: Dr. William Johnson, School Psychologist; Dr. Angela Brown, Educa-
tional Consultant; Dr. Tyler Gregson, Neurologist; Ms. Ann Duddley, Resource Teacher; Mr.
John Franks, Second-Grade Teacher
REASONS FOR REFERRAL: Heather demonstrated difficulty in reading during her second-
grade year in Mr. Franks’s class. He contacted the parents and referred her to the child-study
team.
NEUROLOGIST’S REPORT
Tests Administered. Electroencephalogram, the Visual Motor Integration Test, and a clinical
observation.
Test and Observation Results. Heather was quite easy to work with. Rapport was established
merely by explaining that I was going to ask her to do several fun things that she should con-
sider as games. She was encouraged to do her best.
Heather’s gait was quite normal, and observation of her gross motor movements indicated
no problems in that area. Likewise, when she wrote her name and several other words on paper,
she did not have any noticeable difficulty in fine motor control. An informal check (asking her
to watch the end of a pencil) revealed no difficulty in following an object visually through space,
even when she was asked to hold her head in a fixed position and just follow it with her eyes.
Finally, Heather’s brain wave scan indicated no abnormal patterns of electrical activity.
When asked to copy several designs on the blackboard, she consistently referred to the
model that I had drawn, and, even under those conditions, she did not correct every mistake.
Errors included lines that joined in the model but were not joined in her copies, incorrect angles,
and an inability to draw concentric circles.
Similar to the informal observations reviewed above, Heather’s score on the Visual Mo-
tor Integration Test indicated that she was functioning below her expected age range. She had
difficulty copying the sets of figures on paper, thus indicating certain problems in perceptual-
motor integration, which could affect her reading ability.
NEUROLOGIST’S SUMMARY
Close examination of the various tasks and test results suggests that Heather may be suffering
from some type of minimal CNS dysfunction, and this may lead to the problems in school. The
Visual Motor Integration Test certainly suggests that Heather’s schoolwork may be impaired
for paper-and-pencil tasks, and placement in a class for children with learning disabilities may
be appropriate at this time.
PSYCHOLOGIST’S REPORT
Heather was friendly and verbal with the examiner, joining him at the test location. Rapport
was quickly established. Heather did not seem bothered by the testing. She was cooperative
and worked quickly on the items throughout the testing. These results probably represent her
best efforts.
(continued)
ch05.indd 155 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.4 CONTINUED
Tests Administered. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition; Bender Visual
Motor Gestalt Test; and clinical interview.
Test Results. On the WISC-III, Heather obtained a verbal IQ of 114, a performance IQ of 105,
and a full-scale IQ of 111. This gives Heather a percentile rank of 75 and indicates that she is
presently functioning within the high-average range of intelligence.
There is no significant difference between verbal and nonverbal scores, though there is
some moderate intersubtest variability. Heather’s scores in the verbal area range from superior
(on a subtest measuring practical judgment) to below normal (on a subtest measuring abstract-
concept formation). Her general information, arithmetic reasoning, and word knowledge are
all in the average range.
Heather’s scores on the performance area range from superior (on ability to recognize
cause and effect in social situations) to low average (on grapho-motor speed). Nonverbal ab-
stract thought and visual organization/manipulation are in the average range.
Heather’s functioning on the Bender suggests that she is currently functioning at an age-
appropriate level in the area of visual-motor coordination.
PSYCHOLOGIST’S SUMMARY
Heather is an intelligent young lady without any obvious learning disabilities. She is a friendly,
outgoing child and should receive remediation in the regular class for any reading difficulties. Mr.
Franks should be provided with support in terms of additional materials for use with Heather, and
the team should reconsider this child if a problem persists over the next year.
EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT’S REPORT
Test Results Grade Equivalent Standard Scores

Spache Diagnostic Reading Scales
Word recognition 1.1
Graded passages 1.2
Motor Free Visual Perception Test
Perceptual age 5–6
Woodcock-Johnson Achievement Tests
Reading cluster 71
Math cluster 87
Written language 80
Informal tasks involving written expression
Interpretation. Heather’s age-equivalent score of 5–6 on the Motor Free Visual Perception
Test indicated below-average functioning in that area. Such weaknesses can, and often do, cause
a delay in the acquisition of reading skills in the early grades.
Heather’s standard score of 71 in reading suggested a reading level that was below aver-
age for her grade. Her performance was strongest in the word-attack subtest, which involved
decoding nonsense words. Her weakest score was on the word-recognition subtest. Further
analysis of reading skills on the Spache presented a comparable profile. Heather’s performance
on the word recognition was weaker than the score on the graded reading passages. Her oral
reading was very slow and tended to be word-by-word reading without expression. However,
she did seem to use context clues in the passages.
ch05.indd 156 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

Heather earned a standard score of 80 on the written language cluster, which indicated
below-average functioning in this area. The tests involve proofing and dictation and assess
punctuation, spelling, and capitalization. She was lower than expected grade level in all of
these areas. When asked to write several sentences about her favorite TV show, she produced
four sentences, one of which had no verb. She did not capitalize the first word of one sentence,
though she did capitalize the word I in one sentence. In several instances, her writing went over
the line, even though she was using second-grade paper for this informal assessment. Her up-
percase and lowercase letters were basically the same size, and, in one instance, she wrote well
into the right margin. These types of problems may indicate a weakness in visual perception, as
indicated on the perceptual test discussed previously. Also, this informal assessment supports
the score on written language and indicates below-average achievement in this area.
Heather’s standard score of 87 on the math cluster indicated a low-average functioning.
There was little difference between her performance on paper-and-pencil calculations and ap-
plied problems. Heather was able to do beginning addition and subtraction problems without
regrouping, but she misread several signs on the math problems. Heather counted and calcu-
lated using her fingers much of the time.
EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT’S SUMMARY

Heather’s visual-motor performance indicates a problem in that area that could cause a read-
ing deficit. Her reading and writing standard scores are more than 2 standard deviations below
her IQ score of 111, indicating a significant IQ/achievement discrepancy in these two areas.
This documents a learning disability in reading and writing, and she will require a specialized
educational placement in order to remediate these problems and to help her catch up to her
grade-level peers. Ms. Duddley should work closely with Mr. Franks in an inclusion class set-
ting to assist Heather in her academic progress.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Clearly, the test results are inconsistent, as are the recommendations of the psychologist and
the educational consultant. At least one visual-perception test indicated a potential problem in
that area, but Heather is clearly not mentally retarded. Further, there is no evidence from the
teacher or in the clinical interview that these academic difficulties are a result of behavior or
motivational problems. Finally, Heather’s anticipated failure in the second grade this year pro-
vides evidence that some action should be taken. We, therefore, recommend that placement as
a student with learning disabilities be initiated immediately, with a review of this placement at
the end of the current school year. Further, the special education teacher and general education
teacher will devise an inclusion class IEP in reading and language arts for completion during
the next several months. Finally, the child-study team will assist in the decision concerning
advancement or grade-level retention.
DATE: ________ SCHOOL: __________________ SIGNATURES: _____________

PSYCHOLOGIST: ___________________ PARENT: __________________________
ED. CONSULTANT: _________________ TEACHER: ________________________
NEUROLOGIST: ____________________ PRINCIPAL: _______________________
SP. ED. TEACHER: __________________
ch05.indd 157 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.5

EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT’S REPORT
NAME: Adam Arter DATE OF BIRTH: 5/12/96 AGE: 10–3 GRADE LEVEL: 4
EXAMINER: John C. Longerton, Ph.D. DATE OF EXAMINATION: 8/5/06
History. Adam has had continued problems in school, failing social science and science in
the first half of the fourth grade this year. He was recommended for evaluation by his fourth-
grade teacher, Ms. Juniper, who reports that Adam has difficulty completing class assignments
and homework assignments in reading-dependent subjects. No problem was noted in math.
Ms. Juniper placed Adam in the slowest reading group, but, even in that group, he is still having
difficulty. Adam’s mother reported that Adam spends from 1 to 2 hours studying each night,
and she helps him frequently with his work. According to Adam’s mother, Adam’s most recent
medical examination indicated no visual or auditory problem.
Tests Administered. Tests administered included the Woodcock-Johnson cognitive ability

cluster and the reading achievement cluster. Scores were also calculated for the perceptual
speed cluster and the auditory memory cluster. Other tests administered included sections from
the Brigance and the Piers-Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. Also, a writing sample was
obtained and analyzed.
Standard Grade
Scores Equiv. Percentile
Woodcock-Johnson
Cognitive Ability Total 124 8.8 95
Perceptual Speed 93 3.7 32
Memory 108 6.4 71
Reading 91 3.9 28
Piers-Harris Self-Concept 48 41
In the Brigance Reading Comprehension Test, two brief reading sections were read at each
grade level except for the second grade, where one section was read. There were five compre-
hension questions for each section.
Comprehension was 30% (or 3 of 10 questions correct), 70%, and 100%, for grades 4,
3, and 2, respectively.
These scores provide a relatively complete comparative picture of Adam’s cognitive and
emotional functioning. The standard-score column indicates scores that have a mean of 100 and
a standard deviation of 15, except for the Piers-Harris standard score. This score has a mean
of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. The percentile scores indicate the percentage of students
who scored at or below Adam’s score on each test. On all tests, the higher scores indicate more
positive performance.
Cognitive Ability. The present scores on cognitive ability indicate that Adam is functioning
in the above-average range for his age. His scaled score of 124 is a good indication that Adam
has above-average intelligence. However, closer examination of the perceptual speed score,
ch05.indd 158 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

which basically measures skill on a set of timed visual tasks, indicates a weakness in the abil-
ity to visually obtain information. When compared to Adam’s skill in obtaining information
through hearing, the scaled scores (93 and 108, respectively) indicate a 15-point difference, or
a difference of 1 entire standard deviation between visual perception and auditory perception.
Such discrepancies can be indicative of a learning disability, though many practitioners prefer
to demonstrate a difference of 2 standard deviations before labeling a child as disabled.
Another indication of such impairment is the discrepancy between Adam’s standardized
intelligence score and his reading score. Such comparison addresses the issue of Adam’s po-
tential compared to his achievement. Comparisons between the cognitive-ability score and his
reading score (124 and 91, respectively) clearly indicate that Adam is not realizing his potential.
The difference between these scores is more than 2 standard deviations, and this difference is
strong evidence of a learning disability.
Analysis of Academic Skill. Adam’s reading comprehension scores range from second grade
to fourth grade. Overall, his instructional reading range appears to be around third-grade level.
The Brigance and the Woodcock-Johnson reading scores both suggest that grade range. His
ability to comprehend reading material is lower than his ability to recognize words and decode
unfamiliar words on the subtests of the Woodcock-Johnson. Finally, Adam did have to move
backward to the second-grade level before he did well on comprehension.
Adam’s writing sample demonstrated a number of language arts problems, including con-
sistent mistakes in spelling (“in till” for until on two occasions; “aspost” for supposed) and poor
punctuation. His sentences were correct, but his paragraph structure was disorganized, and the
paragraph was not indented. His writing was barely legible, and in many instances he wrote
above the line. These skills are clearly not fourth-grade level.
Emotional and Behavioral Development. The overall self-concept score was almost per-
fectly average. The teacher indicated that although Adam had trouble paying attention in class
and was easily distracted, he had several friends with whom he usually played at recess. Also,
Adam was not a severe behavior problem in class. Based on this information, there seemed to
be no problems in the emotional or behavioral area.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Adam should be placed in the program for students with learning disabilities for 55 minutes
each day in an attempt to identify and remediate his specific reading problems. His writing
skills should also receive attention because he is weak in this area and these skills may be one
reason for his failure on homework in the subject areas. The special education teacher should
coordinate instruction in the language arts areas with Ms. Juniper’s work schedule in the general
education class and provide some tutoring on written work.
John C. Longerton, Ph.D.

John C. Longerton, Ph.D.
Educational Consultant
ch05.indd 159 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

used to determine eligibility have norm samples that do not include appropriate representa-
tion of children in various minority groups (Leung, 1996). Also, in our increasingly diverse
society, many minority groups that have been underrepresented in the population are now
growing in size.
Several reports on the implementation of special education law indicated that there
may be some bias in the frequently used eligibility assessment practices (Alexander, 1992;
Commission, 2001). Specifically, these reports indicated that a higher percentage of minor-
ity children were referred to special education than one would anticipate, and concerns such
as this have documented the need to increase our efforts to be sensitive to cultural differ-
ences that may account for differential test performance.
Although most authorities indicate the general validity of current IQ assessment pro-
cedures, there is still a need to validate a minority child’s performance with other data
(Leung, 1996). Rather than relying exclusively on test results, practitioners should col-
lect other data, including interviews with parents about the child’s functioning or direct
observations of the child in school and perhaps at home. These data then can be used to
cross-validate the assessment results and assure that a child is protected from subtle bias in
eligibility decisions. Leung (1996) also encouraged teachers to consider their own assump-
tions relative to particular minority groups by asking themselves questions such as, “What
assumptions do I make about the cultural group from which this child comes?” or “Will my
attitude affect this child’s performance?” Such self-examination should lead everyone in the
field to more fair and equitable assessment and decision-making practices.
Most Western democracies value cultural diversity in their populations, and aware-
ness of the strengths of cultural diversity is increasing. There have been recommendations
for modifications of assessment practices for certain minority groups, but such modifica-
tions are far from normative in today’s environment. Of course, when evidence of bias
is found, educators have a moral obligation to make every effort to eliminate that bias in
assessments. Some evidence has suggested that there may be a bias against male students
in the identification process (Clarizio & Phillips, 1986; Leinhardt, Seewald, & Zigmond,
1982). Further, Olivarez and colleagues (1992) indicated that the commonly used assess-
ment batteries for determination of eligibility tend to overestimate the achievement of Af-
rican American and Hispanic students.
With this evidence of bias in hand, researchers and practitioners alike must make
every effort to mitigate the effects of bias in the eligibility decision making. There are, as
yet, only various sets of general guidelines for mitigating the negative consequences of bias.
Chin and McCormick (1986) provided a set of guidelines, which are presented in Interest
Box 5.6.
ASSESSMENT FOR INSTRUCTION
While child-study team members grapple with eligibility issues together, the teacher often
faces the need for assessment information for instructional planning alone. Psychologists,
social workers, school nurses, and educational-assessment consultants often perform some
basic achievement testing, resulting in a score that compares a child with a group of chil-
dren, but such information is not necessary or useful in planning individualized instruction
ch05.indd 160 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.6

TEACHING TIPS FOR TEACHING ETHNICALLY DIVERSE STUDENTS
1. Become informed about the different ethnic groups in your class, namely, their charac-
teristics and learning styles.
2. Encourage students to share their cultures. Start by sharing your own cultural traditions.
3. Avoid textbooks and materials that present cultural stereotypes or that present cultural
diversity negatively.
4. Learn about minority students’ home and community interests, talents, skills, and poten-
tials. Develop the instructional program to highlight these positive cultural aspects.
5. Find out how students in your class from racial or ethnic minority groups would like you
to refer to their groups, and use those terms.
6. Integrate ethnic studies in the curriculum. Help students from minority groups gain a
more positive self-image through those studies.
7. Make minority parents your partners in educating their children.
8. Treat all students equally; do not practice reverse discrimination with any group.
9. Be sure the assessment techniques you use are appropriate in terms of addressing cultural
differences.
10. Avoid imitating the dialects or other speech patterns of minority students.
Source: Based on “Cultural Diversity and Exceptionality” by P. C. Chin and L. McCormick, 1986, in N. G.
Haring and L. McCormick (Eds.), Exceptional Children and Youth, 4th ed., Columbus, OH: Merrill.
(Bryant, 1999). Based on current practice in most states, it is clear that you, as the teacher,
will often know the child better than any other member of the assessment team—except,
of course, the parents. Consequently, educational assessment for instruction is often the
responsibility of the teacher. You need a great deal of preparation in such assessment, and
most teacher education programs include at least one entire course devoted to individual-
ized assessment of children with disabilities.
The information presented in Interest Box 5.7 is intended to briefly introduce the
various approaches to individualized assessment for instruction. Note that a number of
assessment examples are given as well as the dates when the assessments developed. The
dates are rough estimates; once an assessment concept has been developed, commercially
available instruments continue to be published over time. Still, the dates indicate the rough
order in which these various assessment approaches have been developed and indicate that
assessment practices are not static. No doubt the field will witness continuing change in
assessment practices for students with learning disabilities.
Norm-Referenced Achievement Testing

Assessment for instructional purposes has been reformulated several times in recent history.
Initially, norm-referenced academic achievement tests, administered on an individual basis,
were used. Norm-referenced tests compare a student’s performance to the performance of
other students and often result in an age- or grade-equivalent score or a standardized score.
ch05.indd 161 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.7

ASSESSMENT FOR INSTRUCTION
TYPE OF CONCEPT
ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS DEVELOPED
1. Norm-referenced testing Kaufman Assessment Battery Early

Test of Written Language 1900s–1930
Test of Language Development
Peabody Individual Achievement
Test–Revised (PIATr)
Woodcock-Johnson
2. Informal observational reports 1960s
3. Criterion-referenced testing Brigance 1970s
Key Math—Revised
Informal CRTs
4. In-class assessment Task analysis 1970s
Error analysis
Analysis of daily classwork
5. Curriculum-based assessment Precision teaching 1980s
Informal CBAs
6. Alternative assessment Authentic assessment 1990s
Portfolio assessment
Dynamic assessment
Historically, such tests were intended to separate individuals into instructional groups.
However, these tests provided little information of instructional value because they had a
limited number of questions at each discrete grade level. Consequently, although many of
these tests may be used today in order to document eligibility in ability-achievement dis-
crepancy procedures, few practitioners believe that these tests provide any realistic basis for
instruction. Still, as a professional in the field, you will encounter tests of this nature as part
of the assessment package for students who demonstrate learning problems.
Observational Reports
A number of informal observational reports are used to assess children and youth with learn-
ing disabilities. For example, when a student is first suspected of demonstrating a learning
disability, the teacher may be asked to complete an informal observational assessment that
is intended to document the specific types of problems the student has demonstrated in the
general education class. This type of report is referred to as a prereferral report because
the information is collected prior to the official referral for special education services.
ch05.indd 162 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

However, informal observational checklists and observational reports may be used at

any time, either before the referral or afterward. In many cases, a standardized, commer-
cially produced behavioral checklist may be required, whereas in other cases, an informal
observational record may be obtained.
Criterion-Referenced Testing
Because of the need for more complete information on a child’s performance, tests were
developed that compared a child’s performance to a list of behavioral objectives in highly
discrete skill areas rather than other children’s performance. For example, a criterion-ref-
erenced test may assess only whole-number addition, with five items for each type of ad-
dition problem. Each of the objectives on such a test is keyed to a particular question or set
of questions, and if the student missed a particular set of items, that discrete skill would be
included in his or her IEP. Documentation of levels of performance in each relevant area
on criterion-referenced tests results in complete information for instruction. The theoretical
basis for such testing procedures is the behavioral perspective, presented in Chapter 1.
Curriculum-Based Assessment
One recent thrust in assessment is very similar to criterion-referenced assessment, but it is
conducted much more frequently. Because the levels of student performance vary consider-
ably over time, various theorists have recommended assessment based on the work a stu-
dent does in class, which takes place on a daily or biweekly basis (Jones, 2001; King-Sears,
Burgess, & Lawson, 1999; Phillips, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 1994). These frequent assessments
help the teacher monitor student performance.
For example, one such procedure—precision teaching—requires that data on a child’s
completion rate for a particular type of problem be kept on a daily basis (Bender, 2002).
Information such as this can be used to chart the student’s achievement on a particular skill
over time. By looking at the recent daily work, the teacher can quickly tell when a student
has mastered a task. Also, the teacher can tell when the type of instructional activity is not
increasing the child’s comprehension and rate of successful problem completion. In short,
teachers get a daily picture of student performance on which to base educational program-
ming decisions (King-Sears et al., 1999).
Although curriculum-based assessment practices have demonstrated effectiveness,
many teachers consider these procedures much too time-consuming for use in special edu-
cation classes. Fortunately, however, these daily data collections can be utilized in a manner
that does not take an undue amount of time (Jones, 2001). For example, a teacher may use
only the last several minutes of each period to assess the timed performance of the students,
and several students may be timed simultaneously. Also, students may be trained to chart
their own behaviors over a period of several weeks in order to see their own progress.
Several scholars have recommended that eligibility decisions for children with
learning disabilities be made on the basis of curriculum-based assessment (Bender, 2002;
Commission, 2001; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005), and the new RTI emphasis proposes exactly
this utilization of curriculum-based measures. The curriculum-based assessment report
presented in Interest Box 5.8 demonstrates how several daily curriculum-based measures
ch05.indd 163 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.8

CURRICULUM-BASED ASSESSMENT REPORT
RELEVANT INFORMATION
NAME: Thomas Whitehead

STUDENT AGE: 13 years, 8 months
GRADE PLACEMENT: Grade 5
RESULTS FROM STATE TESTING PROGRAM: California Achievement Test administered
4/16–4/18/06
READING GRADE LEVEL: 3.7 MATH GRADE LEVEL: 4.9
LANGUAGE ARTS GRADE LEVEL: 3.2
School History. Thomas attended Woodbury Elementary from kindergarten through the fifth
grade. He was retained in the second grade, and barely passed his work for the next two years.
During the fifth grade, the mainstream teacher referred Thomas for services.
Curriculum-Based Assessment Information. For the last several months, Thomas’s resource
and remedial reading classes have included curriculum-based assessment and learning-strate-
gies procedures that result in daily assessments of curriculum objectives. He has received all of
his reading and language arts instruction in the resource and remedial class placements. Charts
of progress in each language arts area for the last grading period of the school year are presented
in Figures 5.4 through 5.6. This information should be used to plan instruction for the resource
and reading programs next year.
Teacher Interviews. In interviews with the psychologist, both the remedial and resource
teacher indicate that Thomas is still considerably behind his grade-level placement in reading
and language arts. This is supported by the group test results above. The teachers recommend
continued placement in each program for the year. Mr. Frederick, the resource teacher, has
indicated that he works closely with Ms. Bornez, the general education teacher, on selection
of particular learning strategies that may benefit Thomas. At this point, a test-taking strategy, a
paragraph-comprehension strategy, and a chapter-in-text comprehension strategy have been mas-
tered by Thomas in the resource class for use in the general education class. Also, Thomas has
worked on identification of complete subjects and predicates in sentences. These instructional
strategies should be continued, based on the strategy selection of Thomas and these teachers.
Ms. Kokora, the remedial reading teacher, indicated that she works with Thomas on read-
ing comprehension of third-grade basal reading stories and language arts skills. These skills
include identification of parts of speech, identification of direct object and indirect object, and
homonym selection. She has employed a curriculum-based assessment strategy in order to show
Thomas his progress, and she reports that he is motivated by his attempts to reach the stated
goals. She intends to continue these strategies.
Ms. Bornez indicates that Thomas passed each subject last year in the general education
class, but that his most difficult subjects were the reading-dependent subjects of history and sci-
ence. A readability study of these texts showed that the texts were written at roughly the sixth-
and eighth-grade levels, respectively. This is, unfortunately, not uncommon in many subject-area
texts. However, when Ms. Bornez provided subject material in supplementary library books for
Thomas on the third/fourth-grade level, he worked much harder and successfully completed the
ch05.indd 164 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

Last grading period
7
9
/3
2
/2
/2
/15
/13
/6
/2
/10
/2
-6
-5
-4
-5
-5
-4
-4
-5
-6
23
30
25
16
2
11
18
6
5/
4/
5/
5/
5/
4/
5/
4/
6/
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
500 M W F M W F M W F M W F M W F M W F M W F M W F M W F M T W Th F
400
1
300
200
Begin 3rd Grade
150 Series at 3.5 Grade Level 2
100
90
80
70
3
60
50
40 4
30
20 A 5
10 10 9 12 12 11
98 6 0 1 2 3 2
7
6 11 11 12 13 12
5 7 2 1 0 1 0
4
3 X 12 13 15 15 14
8 1
2 R X X X
15 15 17 17
9 1
1 X X X X X
NAME Thomas Whitehead GRADE 5

BEHAVIOR Reading Comp Cloze Procedure GOAL 20 corrects/
3rd Grade Level 2 minutes
FIGURE 5.4 Performance on Cloze Procedure
Last grading period

7
9
/3
2
/2
/2
/15
/13
/6
/2
/10
/2
-6
-5
-4
-5
-5
-4
-4
-5
-6
23
30
25
16
2
11
18
6
5/
4/
5/
5/
5/
4/
5/
4/
6/
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
400
T 1
300
200
150 Underline Underline 2
100
90
adjective adjectives
80
70 and adverbs 3
60
50
40 4
30
A
20 24 30 29 30
20 5 2 3 2 2 0
10 33 30 32 34 32
98 6 0 1 0 0 0
7
6 32 36 35 36
5 7 0 0 0 0
4
3 X X 18 20 20 22 24
8 2 3 2 2 1
2 R X XX X XX X
25 24 26 26
9 2 1 0 0
1 X X X

BEHAVIOR Identify Parts of Speech/Underline GOAL 35 corrects/
2 minutes
FIGURE 5.5 Performance on Identifying Parts of Speech
(continued)
ch05.indd 165 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.8 CONTINUED

Last grading period
7
9
/3
2
/2
/2
/15
/13
/6
/2
/10
/2
-6
-5
-4
-5
-5
-4
-4
-5
-6
23
30
25
16
2
11
18
6
5/
4/
5/
5/
5/
4/
5/
4/
6/
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
400
1
300
200
150 Underline Project 2
100
90
direct complete
80
70
60
object 3
50
40 4
30
8 9 5 8 9
20 5 3 4 1 3 3
A 9 9 10 10 11
10 6 3 2 2 2 1
98
7
6 14 14 15 15 15
5 7 2
4
X
3 X XX X 8
2 XXX X
9
1 R X X

BEHAVIOR Underline Direct Object GOAL 5 corrects/
1 minute
FIGURE 5.6 Performance on Identifying Direct Objects
work. Ms. Bornez indicated that she would continue to provide appropriate reading materials for
these two subject areas. She further indicated that neither classroom behavior nor other subjects
were problems.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon review of the charts and the teacher comments, the child-study team sees no indication
that further assessment at this time would be beneficial. The team jointly accepts the recom-
mendations of the teachers and recommends assignment of Thomas to one period per day in
both the resource room and remedial reading program for the first half of the school year. The
teachers will prepare a list of objectives and a curriculum-based assessment plan to be submit-
ted for approval prior to the next meeting with the parent.
However, because strategy instruction may be completed by December, the team will
review Thomas’s progress in November and consider a reduction or elimination of the special
educational placement in the resource room. This would place Thomas in the general education
class for part of his reading/language arts instruction, and the team feels that he may be ready
for such placement by December. Review scheduled for November 30, 2006.
SIGNATURES: _____________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________
ch05.indd 166 4/16/2007 8:08:13 AM

could be utilized for both instructional and eligibility determinations. Note the similarity
between these precision teaching charts and the data described above for RTI procedures.
Clearly, the RTI initiative is firmly rooted in the curriculum-based assessment research that
has been conducted over the last two decades (Bender, 2002; Marston, 2005).
Interpretation of Curriculum-Based Assessment Charts. Curriculum-based assess-

ment charts portray the daily progress of Thomas’s achievement over a period of weeks.
This pattern of achievement is the most accurate method for measuring academic achieve-
ment. In the charts, you can see that Thomas made academic gains during the final weeks
of school on each of the behavioral objectives from his IEP. For example, Figure 5.4 shows
correct responses (dots) and errors (Xs) on a reading-comprehension cloze procedure (i.e., a
“fill in the blank” procedure where the child must comprehend the content in order to fill in
the blank) at the third-grade level. As the chart demonstrates, Thomas was moving toward
his individual aim of 20 correct responses with no errors when school ended on June 10.
Figure 5.5 demonstrates that, at the end of May, Thomas had met his aim of identification of
adjectives and had begun a discrimination task concerning the identification of both adjec-
tives and adverbs. Figure 5.6 demonstrates that Thomas was also moving toward his aim of
identification of direct objects; that project was terminated when he met his aim in May.
These charts indicate the language arts areas that should be emphasized for Thomas
next fall. Clearly, curriculum-based assessment exercises in reading comprehension at the
3.5 grade level should be initiated. Also, projects in identification of complete subjects and
predicates, discrimination of adjectives and adverbs, and one or two other skills such as the
identification of homonyms should be initiated.
In-Class Assessment Practices

In addition to monitoring types of assessment performed by teachers, several types of as-
sessment practices are frequently used by teachers in order to plan instruction on a lesson-
by-lesson basis. These include task analysis and error analysis. In-class assessments such as
these, performed by the teacher who is with the child during his or her work each day, can
be the most valuable type of assessment information for instructional planning.
Task analysis was developed by the behaviorists during the 1970s to allow a teacher
to adequately describe a task to be completed by a child. This technique identifies particular
steps or aspects of the skill to be mastered in order to diagnose precisely the child’s level
of understanding. A complete task analysis for a double-digit math problem is included in
Interest Box 5.9.
Specification of the steps of the task at this discrete level will allow a teacher to intro-
duce and explain the task to the child more completely during initial instruction. Also, task
analysis such as this facilitates the second technique—error analysis—which is described
below.
After the student has completed several problems, the teacher may find errors in the
student’s work. Analysis of these errors will allow the teacher to generate the rules or guide-
lines that the student used to complete the work. The teacher can then tell specifically what
types of errors the child is likely to make, and specific instruction in these precise areas can
be given. A complete error analysis is presented in Interest Box 5.10.
ch05.indd 167 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.9
TEACHING TIP: A SAMPLE TASK ANALYSIS
Task analysis is the delineation of specific aspects of a task in order to document the specific
understandings and misunderstandings of the student with learning disabilities. The technique
was originated in the behavioral school of thought. Below is a sample problem that identifies
the specific tasks that must be performed by the student in order to complete a double-digit
addition problem with regrouping.
Problem Requirements
1 1. Add the digits in the 1’s column (8 + 5).
2 8 2. Write down the first digit in the sum under the 1’s column.
+ 3 5 3. Write the second digit above the next column.
4. Add the three digits in the 10’s column.
6 3 5. Write the answer under the 10’s column.
Often, analysis of the specific aspects of a problem or educational task will assist the
teacher in understanding the steps to explain to the child. For example, students who are en-
countering the problem above have probably already mastered two-digit addition without re-
grouping, and specification of the steps through task analysis clearly indicates the point at
which this problem is different. The teacher then would begin instruction in step 3 above.
INTEREST BOX 5.10

SAMPLE ERROR ANALYSIS
The same problem that was task analyzed in Interest Box 5.9 is presented below, after the stu-
dent attempted to complete it.
As is apparent in the student’s attempt to complete the problem, the student

2 8
with a disability correctly completed the first step, thus indicating a correct un-
+ 3 5 derstanding of the starting point for the problem. However, the student’s under-
standing breaks down here; he or she did not know where to write the two-digit
5 13 answer. Therefore, this is the correct point at which to begin instruction.
Error analysis such as this can be performed in any subject area, on daily work, work
samples from any other classes, and homework assignments, as well as test items. Obviously,
the more of the child’s work that can be analyzed, the more accurate the analysis of errors. Also,
when an analysis of errors is completed, patterns of similar errors begin to emerge that indicate
an incorrect understanding on the part of the child. This type of information is the most useful
type of information to have when planning the day-to-day instruction of the child with learning
disabilities. Effective teachers will prepare for assessment meetings with the child-study team
by completing an error analysis in each relevant subject area, listing examples of the errors, and
collecting daily work that displays these errors.
168
ch05.indd 168 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

Innovative Assessment Practices

Over the last decade, there has been an effort within education to move toward assessments
that have more bearing on how children actually perform various educational tasks (Bry-
ant, 1999; Commission, 2001; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Jones, 2001; King-Sears et al., 1999).
These alternatives include authentic assessment (sometimes referred to as performance as-
sessment), portfolio assessment, dynamic assessment, and strength-based assessment.
The term authentic assessment has been used to suggest that particular types of as-
sessment practices are authentically related to a task that may be required of someone in the
real world. In this concept of assessment, the individual must perform the task required in a
real-world setting. Thus, the term performance assessment is sometimes used. The teaching
example in Interest Box 5.11 illustrates authentic assessment practices.
If children can conduct the types of authentic tasks described—tasks that are required
of adults in a real-world arena such as ecological studies—then the students may be said
to understand the concepts. In short, they have been “assessed” in a much more authentic
fashion than if given paper-and-pencil tests on the same topic in the school classroom. This
type of assessment has many proponents among educators because this practice stresses the
applicability of education to real-world problems.
For example, students of English or literature may create a school newspaper, doing
various writing and editing jobs, as one example of authentic assessment. Alternatively,
the students may jointly write an article each week for the local newspaper. As another
example, high school students who take media production classes often can be involved in
INTEREST BOX 5.11

AN EXAMPLE OF AUTHENTIC ASSESSMENT
In a traditionally taught sixth-grade earth science class, the children may study concepts such
as ecology, preservation of wetlands, the interdependence of life within a particular ecosystem,
and so on. The class would then take a written test—with questions in multiple-choice or per-
haps essay format—to demonstrate their knowledge. In contrast, using an authentic assessment
model, the children would be assessed by actually applying their knowledge to real-world
problems. For example, children may take a local field trip to a wetlands environment and
perform a number of tasks demonstrating their understanding of the concepts that approximate
tasks done in the real world by ecologists studying that ecosystem. Some of these assessments
may include:
■ Conduct tests on turbidity (i.e., clarity) of the water in streams feeding that environment
■ Identify wildlife footprints for animals using the wetlands as a watering source
■ Extract a water sample and, under a field microscope, count and identify the microbes
in the water sample
■ Compare the types and number of microbes to a record of microbes from the same wet-
lands conducted previously (if such a record exists)
■ Conduct other experiments to determine the quality of the wetlands environment
ch05.indd 169 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

running the school’s television studio and producing the “Morning News”—the morning
announcements for the school. These are just a few examples of authentic assessment; the
only limit on what may comprise an authentic assessment or performance assessment is the
teacher’s imagination. Students generally find these assessments much more interesting and
motivating than traditional instructional and assessment practices.
Portfolio assessment is one form of authentic assessment that, in addition to perfor-
mance of real-world tasks, involves the student in the production of a file or portfolio that
includes a number of projects designed and developed to demonstrate the student’s skill in a
particular area over time (Swicegood, 1994). This type of assessment originated in elemen-
tary education and has recently been applied in special education settings. Using portfolio
assessment, teachers create a portfolio of student worksheets or homework, including nu-
merous samples of the child’s work—perhaps paragraphs written on topics selected by the
student or math worksheets throughout a unit on multiplication. The teachers note the dates
of completion for each assignment, and on the basis of the collected work samples, teachers
identify strengths and weaknesses of the child.
In a sense, the portfolio or collection of student work becomes the basis for in-depth
error analysis across the period during which the class papers, homework, or other work
samples were collected. Using this portfolio, teachers and parents can gain a very accurate
picture of where a particular child is and how that child is progressing toward the curricu-
lum goals for the year (Swicegood, 1994). Also, many teachers find this form of ongoing as-
sessment more manageable than the curriculum-based assessment charting plans described
earlier in this chapter.
Portfolios vary considerably, and may include either a student’s finished work on
several projects in various areas or samples of the student’s work in one particular area over
time. For example, many teachers of writing include writing selections for a student from
the beginning, the middle, and the end of the academic year. Thus, these written samples
may be used to show a student’s continuing progress in writing.
Dynamic assessment is, perhaps, the most interesting of these developing assess-
ment concepts for the field of learning disabilities. In dynamic assessment, consideration
is given not only to the student’s performance on a particular task but also to the thought
processes the student uses in performing the task (Bryant, 1999). For example, while com-
pleting a series of math problems that involve regrouping in the 10’s place, the teacher may
observe the student making an error and actually stop the student’s work during one of the
problems to inquire about why he or she wrote down a particular digit in the answer. Us-
ing this strategy, the teacher can begin to understand the dynamics of what the student was
thinking while completing a problem (Bryant, 1999).
This assessment development is particularly intriguing when one considers the decid-
edly unorthodox thought processes that may be associated with a learning disability. If the
teacher can, in a particular assessment, stop a child during a problem and discuss his or her
solution immediately, the teacher may find out much more information on why a particular
child often fails to complete that type of problem correctly.
Strength-based assessment is an assessment concept that emphasizes documenta-
tion of the strengths of students rather than merely cataloging their weaknesses (Epstein,
1999; Epstein, Rudolph, & Epstein, 2000). Michael Epstein developed this concept in an
effort to specify an assessment alternative for students with disabilities. He indicated that,
ch05.indd 170 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

all too often, when students are identified as learning disabled, the teachers and profes-
sionals typically begin to describe them in terms of “deficits in” this or that subject area or
“problems in” various academic or behavioral areas (Epstein & Sharma, 1998). Rather than
focus on such negatives about a child, Epstein (1999) urged the field to develop ways to
assess the strengths of the child in an effort to find educationally relevant ways to structure
teaching activities on which the child can build.
Strength-based assessment may be defined as the assessment of competencies and
characteristics that create a sense of personal accomplishment or contribute to satisfying
personal relationships and promote one’s personal and academic development (Epstein,
1999; Epstein et al., 2000). This concept of assessment based on strengths has appeal be-
cause it can help focus a child, and the eligibility committee itself, on the various factors
that can assist the student in achieving his or her goals. Although this assessment focus has
not been widely implemented as yet, one may well anticipate that the field will see increas-
ing emphasis on strength-based assessment practices for all children with disabilities.
Other Issues in Assessment

Several other assessment issues often cause teachers some degree of confusion. First, if
a teacher participates in an IEP meeting, he or she may wonder what types of assessment
data to bring to the meeting. Clearly, the more complete and accurate the data that a teacher
brings to the educational-planning conference, the more useful the information is. Infor-
mation on both academic performance and any behavioral problems or social problems
is very useful for such program planning. Interest Box 5.12 presents the general types of
information that teachers should bring to such conferences. In addition to this general
information, as RTI procedures are implemented in local school districts around the na-
tion, teachers will be expected to bring data indicating their tier 1 and tier 2 intervention
results. Charted data on a child’s performance, such as those data presented in Figures 5.2
and 5.3 (pp. 152 and 153), would provide the best evidence of how well any particular
child responded to instructional interventions (Bender, 2002; Gersten & Dimino, 2006).
Thus, teachers should collect these data in advance of the meetings and have such data
charts prepared for discussion at the meeting in order to determine the child’s response to
intervention.
The requirement in some instances to provide grades for report cards can be a chal-
lenge for teachers. For example, if a child’s special education teacher has total responsibil-
ity for reading and language arts instruction, that teacher may be asked to grade the child in
those subjects. Imagine a rather typical situation in which a fifth-grade child is completing
third-grade-level reading and language arts assignments in a special education class with an
“A” average. Should the child receive an “A” on these subjects on the report card? Will this
confuse the parents and lead them to believe that their child is completing his or her work
successfully? Is such a grading practice fair to other children?
Bender (1984) recommended that the child receive the best grade applicable in order
to reinforce the effort and work that went into earning the “A.” Also, a written statement
should accompany the report card that reminds the parents that this grade indicates perfor-
mance on work that is below grade level for that child. If you are faced with such a situation,
you will also wish to ask your special education supervisor about local grading policies.
ch05.indd 171 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.12

TEACHING TIPS: CHECKLIST OF ASSESSMENTS
FOR THE TEAM MEETING
Effective preparation for a team meeting can earn you, the teacher, the respect of your profes-
sional colleagues on the team. Some teachers miss this opportunity to exchange knowledge of
the child’s functioning with other team members, but you should take advantage of the situa-
tion. Below is a list of assessments that you can complete before the meeting. Not all of these
are appropriate or necessary in each instance, but you may wish to use this as a checksheet.
________ A teacher rating of the child’s behavior

________ Criterion-referenced assessment in basic skill areas
________ Error analysis in each relevant reading/language arts area
________ Error analysis in each relevant math area
________ A sight word and/or survival-skills word list
________ Samples of work indicating patterns of various errors
________ A log of critical behavioral problems over the last 2 weeks
________ Copies of any notes to parents
________ Sociometric information on social acceptance
________ Copies of notes from the child’s other teachers
________ Precision-teaching charts in particular skill areas
________ Instructional materials that the child is completing
________ A student self-rating of self-concept
________ Tier 1 and tier 2 response-to-intervention report/chart
Finally, one issue in assessment that has become an additional concern in the field of
learning disabilities is the implementation of statewide assessment programs (Commission,
2001; CEC, 2002; Gronna, Jenkins, & Chin-Chance, 1998; Manset & Washburn, 2000;
Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Reid, 1997). In general education, there has been a movement to
improve or reform education over recent decades, and this has resulted in increased use of
group-administered, norm-referenced assessments that are mandated by the various states
for particular grade levels.
Coupled with this move, an effort to set high standards for graduation from high
school has resulted in the implementation of minimum competency tests in a number of
states. In general, these are tests that document minimum competencies in literacy, math,
and, in some cases, writing that are administered to all secondary students at a particular
grade level. In many states using such minimum competency assessments, all students
must pass prior to graduation from high school. Of course, this presents some concern for
students with learning disabilities who, although passing all of their courses, may have
particular difficulty on such standardized assessments.
ch05.indd 172 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

As a result of the moves toward minimum competency testing, researchers have be-
gun to investigate the impact of these statewide assessment initiatives on students with
learning disabilities (Commission, 2001; Gronna et al., 1998; Manset & Washburn, 2000;
Thurlow et al., 1997). As early as 1997, Thurlow and co-workers reported that 17 states
had requirements for a minimum competency test or some other type of exit exam. More
recently, that number has increased, and concerns have likewise increased. The Commis-
sion on Excellence in Special Education (2001) noted several problems in use of these as-
sessments, which in many cases will not allow for modifications for students with learning
disabilities. The commission notes:
Despite the fact that IDEA requires participation of students with disabilities in statewide as-
sessments, children with disabilities are often excluded from these assessments to establish
the accountability and progress of schools. This is a major problem, as such assessments
generally are designed without consideration of modifications or accommodations students
with disabilities may need to complete the assessment. (Commission, 2001)
The commission responded to this problem by calling on test manufacturers to use

universal design principles that would allow teachers to modify these assessments for stu-
dents with learning disabilities without sacrificing accuracy or test integrity. Further, many
researchers have expressed concern that these statewide testing programs, and the general
move toward accountability for higher standards, may be driving the school curriculum
to an inappropriate degree. This debate is ongoing, but many general education teachers
feel that they must teach to the standards within the curriculum, as represented by these
statewide assessments, even if those standards are clearly inappropriate for students with
learning disabilities in the general education classes. As a professional in the field, you
should remain cognizant of this ongoing debate within the field. You will probably find
yourself administering one or more of these assessments as you begin/continue your teach-
ing career.
SUMMARY
This chapter has presented information on assessment procedures for students with learn-
ing disabilities. Eligibility decisions were examined in terms of the various aspects of the
federal definition of such disabilities. Although tests designed to measure basic psycho-
logical processes or ability deficits have not proven to be technically adequate, certain
sections of intelligence tests provide some information on developmental imbalances that
may indicate impaired psychological processes. The discrepancy criterion was shown to
be the single most influential indicator of learning disability, though presence of an ability-
achievement discrepancy is merely a necessary and not a sufficient indicator of such a dis-
ability. Also, the use of discrepancies may cease in the next few years as RTI procedures
are phased in.
Assessment for instruction was shown to be the more recent emphasis in assessment
for students with learning disabilities. Criterion-referenced assessment, curriculum-based as-
sessment, various in-class assessments, and several examples of alternative assessments were
ch05.indd 173 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

presented. Assessment for instruction planning was shown to be the responsibility of you, as
the teacher, though various child-study teams will, in many cases, assist with these tasks.
The following points should assist you in studying this chapter:
■ Generally, psychological processes may be assessed using tests that are specific to
that purpose or tests used to measure intelligence. The intelligence tests are more
defensible in terms of technical standards than process tests.
■ The discrepancy criterion is generally addressed by demonstrating a discrepancy be-
tween intelligence and achievement. Typically, this is done by using a standard-score
discrepancy or a regression-based discrepancy table.
■ The newly proposed RTI procedures will impact how professionals document a learn-
ing disability, and both special and general education teachers will play a role in RTI.
■ The exclusionary clause in the definition of learning disabilities has not been ad-
equately explained by scholars in the field, though this chapter presented some rough
guidelines concerning how to differentiate between learning disabilities and other
disabilities.
■ Assessment for instruction may include norm-based assessments, observation re-
ports, criterion-based assessments, curriculum-based assessments, in-class assess-
ments, and alternative assessments. All of these are useful, but the last several are
clearly the most appropriate assessments for instructional purposes.
QUESTIONS AND ACTIVITIES

1. What members of local child-study teams as- 4. Discuss the different purposes of assessment.
sist with assessment for instruction? Bring in a How does assessment for documentation of
local team and several special education teach- eligibility relate to assessment for instruction?
ers for a round-table discussion of curriculum- 5. Read the report of the Commission on Excel-
based assessment. lence in Special Education and discuss the rec-
2. What theoretical perspective provides the ba- ommendations on assessment with the class.
sis for curriculum-based assessment? For error 6. Present a debate between theorists who sup-
analysis? For intelligence testing? For norm- port curriculum-based assessment and those
based achievement testing? who support assessment of psychological
3. Explain the RTI procedure using the charts processes.
in Figure 5.2 and 5.3. Are these similar to the
charts later in the chapter? How?
REFERENCES
Alexander, L. (1992). To assure the free appropriate Barkley, R. A. (1990). Attention deficit hyperactivity dis-
public education of all children with disabilities. order: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment.
Fourteenth annual report to Congress on the im- New York: Guilford.
plementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kova-
Act. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Special Edu- leski, J. F., Prasse, D., Reschly, D. J., Schrag, J.,
cation and Rehabilitative Services. & Tilly, W. D. (2004). Response to intervention:
ch05.indd 174 4/16/2007 8:08:14 AM

Policy considerations and implementation. Alex- Hyun, J. K., & Fowler, S. A. (1995). Respect, cultural
andria, VA: National Association of State Directors sensitivity, and communication: Promoting par-
of Special Education. ticipation by Asian families in the individualized
Bender, W. N. (2002). Differentiating instruction for stu- family service plan. Teaching Exceptional Chil-
dents with learning disabilities. Thousand Oaks, dren, 28(1), 25–28.
CA: Corwin. Jones, C. J. (2001). CBAs that work: Assessment of stu-
Bender, W. N. (1984). Daily grading in mainstream dents’ math content-reading levels. Teaching Ex-
classes. The Directive Teacher, 6(2), 4–5. ceptional Children, 34(1), 24–29.
Bryant, B. R. (1999). The dynamics of assessment. In King-Sears, M. E., Burgess, M., & Lawson, T. L. (1999).
W. N. Bender (Ed.), Professional issues in learn- Applying curriculum-based assessment in in-
ing disabilities (pp. 385–414). Austin, TX: ProEd. clusive settings. Teaching Exceptional Children,
Chin, P. C., & McCormick, L. (1986). Cultural diversity 32(1), 30–39.
and exceptionality. In N. G. Haring and L. McCor- Leinhardt, G., Seewald, A. M., & Zigmond, N. (1982).
mick (Eds.), Exceptional children and youth (4th Sex and race differences in learning disabilities
ed.) (p. 117). Columbus, OH: Merrill. classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Clarizio, H. F., & Phillips, S. E. (1986). Sex bias in the 74, 835–843.
diagnosis of learning disabled students. Psychol- Lerner, J., & Chen, A. (1992). Critical issues in learning
ogy in the Schools, 23, 44–52. disabilities: The cross-cultural nature of learning
Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2001). disabilities: A profile in perseverance. Learning
Revitalizing special education for children and Disabilities Research and Practice, 7, 147–149.
their families. Available from www.ed.gov/inits/ Leung, B. P. (1996). Quality assessment practices in a
commissionsboards/whspecialeducation. diverse society. Teaching Exceptional Children,
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) (2002). Com- 28(3), 42–45.
mission report calls for special education reform. Manset, G., & Washburn, S. J. (2000). Equity through
Today, 9(3), 1–6. accountability? Mandating minimum competency
Council for Learning Disabilities (CLD) (1987). The CLD exit examinations for secondary students with
position statement. Journal of Learning Disabili- learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Re-
ties, 20, 349–350. search and Practice, 15, 160–167.
Epstein, M. H. (1999). Development and validation of Marston, D. (2005). Tiers of intervention in responsive-
a scale to assess the emotional and behavioral ness to intervention: Prevention outcomes and
strengths of children and adolescents. Remedial learning disabilities identification patterns. Journal
and Special Education, 20, 258–262. of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 539–544.
Epstein, M. H., Rudolph, S., & Epstein, A. A. (2000). Using Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. W. (2005). Feasibility
strength-based assessment in transition planning. and consequences of response to intervention: Ex-
Teaching Exceptional Children, 32(6), 50–55. amination of the issues and scientific evidence as
Epstein, M. H., & Sharma, J. M. (1998). Behavioral and a model for the identification of individuals with
emotional rating scale: A strength-based approach learning disabilities, Journal of Learning Disabili-
to assessment. Austin, TX: ProEd. ties, 38(6), 525–531.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response Montague, M., McKinney, J. D., & Hocutt, A. (1994). As-
to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? sessing students for attention deficit disorder. In-
Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93–98. tervention in School and Clinic, 29(4), 212–218.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005). Responsiveness-to- National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
intervention: A blueprint for practitioners, poli- (NJCLD) (2005). Responsiveness to intervention
cymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional and learning disabilities: A report prepared by the
Children, 38(1), 57–61. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (response to in- Learning Disability Quarterly 28(4), 249–260.
tervention): Rethinking special education for stu- O’Connor, R. (2003, December). Tiers of intervention in
dents with reading difficulties (yet again). Reading kindergarten through third grade. Paper presented
Research Quarterly, 41(1), 99–108. at the national research center on learning disabili-
Gronna, S. S., Jenkins, A. A., & Chin-Chance, S. A. ties responsiveness-to-intervention symposium,
(1998). The performance of students with disabili- Kansas City, MO. (See the discussion of this paper
ties in a norm-referenced, statewide standardized in Marston, 2005.)
testing program. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Olivarez, A., Palmer, D. J., & Guillemard, L. (1992). Pre-
31, 482–493. dictive bias with referred and nonreferred black,
ch05.indd 175 4/16/2007 8:08:15 AM

Hispanic, and white pupils. Learning Disability Watkins, M. W. (1996). Diagnostic utility of the WISC-
Quarterly, 15, 175–186. III developmental index as a predictor of learning
Phillips, N. B., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1994). Effects disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29,
of classwide curriculum-based measurement and 305–312.
peer tutoring: A collaborative researcher-practi- Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil-
tioner interview study. Journal of Learning Dis- dren (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological
abilities, 27(7), 420–434. Corporation.
Scruggs, T. W., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2002). On babies Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003).
and bathwater: Addressing the problems of identi- Response to treatment as a means of identifying
fication of learning disabilities. Learning Disabil- students with reading/learning disabilities. Excep-
ity Quarterly, 25(2), 155–168. tional Children, 69(4), 391–409.
Siegel, L. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Sipay, E. R., Small, S.,
of learning disabilities: A perspective on Gucken- Chen, R., Pratt, A., & Denckla, M. B. (1996). Cog-
berger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning nitive profiles of difficult to remediate and readily
Disabilities, 32, 304–319. remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a
Swicegood, P. (1994). Portfolio-based assessment prac- vehicle for distinguishing between cognition and
tices. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30(1), experiential deficits as basic cause of specific read-
7–16. ing disability. Journal of Educational Psychology,
Thurlow, M. L, Ysseldyke, J. E., & Reid, C. L. (1997). 88, 601–638.
High school graduation requirements for students
with disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
30, 608–616.
ch05.indd 176 4/16/2007 8:08:15 AM

ASSESSMENT of Learning Dissabilties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT of Learning Dissabilties

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ASSESSMENT of Learning Dissabilties

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER FIVE

ch05.indd 138 4/16/2007 8:08:02 AM

WHEN YOU COMPLETE THIS CHAPTER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:

ch05.indd 139 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

BROAD PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT

ASSESSMENT FOR ELIGIBILITY DECISIONS

ch05.indd 140 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

FIGURE 5.1 Assessment for Eligibility

COMPONENTS OF LD DEFINITION COMMON ASSESSMENTS

I. Psychological processing problem

ch05.indd 141 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

Visual-Perceptal and Visual-Motor Tests. The most common visual-perceptual and

ch05.indd 142 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

Auditory and Language Processes Assessments. Historically, the Illinois Test of

INTEREST BOX 5.1

ch05.indd 143 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

Process Testing Revisited. Assessment of basic psychological processes or ability defi-

ch05.indd 144 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

Standard-Score Discrepancies. Many states and local districts employ a standard-

INTEREST BOX 5.2

There have been four major types of ability-achievement discrepancy calculations.

1. Some practitioners began to calculate a discrepancy between grade placement and

ch05.indd 145 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

Regression-Based Discrepancy Tables. A mathematical problem with the standard-

ch05.indd 146 4/16/2007 8:08:07 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.3

■ Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, 4th ed.

ch05.indd 147 4/16/2007 8:08:08 AM

determining potential learning disabilities in children is identification of the characteristics

Distinction: Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Unfortunately, the distinction be-

ch05.indd 148 4/16/2007 8:08:08 AM

Distinction: Medical Disability. The definition of learning disabilities clearly excludes

Distinction: Cultural, Environmental, Economic Disadvantage. One difficult distinc-

Distinction: ADHD. With the recent increase in students identified as demonstrating

ch05.indd 149 4/16/2007 8:08:08 AM

ch05.indd 150 4/16/2007 8:08:09 AM

In the discussions available in the professional literature, a “tiered system” involving

ch05.indd 151 4/16/2007 8:08:11 AM

reading instruction, involving small teacher-student ra-

ch05.indd 152 4/16/2007 8:08:11 AM

SAMPLE ELIGIBILITY REPORTS

STUDENT NAME: Hernandez

FIGURE 5.3 Progress Monitoring/Tier 2 Intervention

ch05.indd 153 4/16/2007 8:08:11 AM

Psychoeducational Team Assessment Report

Educational Consultant’s Evaluation

Cultural Diversity and Eligibility Decisions

ch05.indd 154 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.4

NAME: Heather Demetri DATE OF BIRTH: 4/24/98 AGE: 7-10

ch05.indd 155 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.4 CONTINUED

EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT’S REPORT

Test Results Grade Equivalent Standard Scores

ch05.indd 156 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT’S SUMMARY

DATE: ________ SCHOOL: __________________ SIGNATURES: _____________

ch05.indd 157 4/16/2007 8:08:12 AM

INTEREST BOX 5.5

EXAMINER: John C. Longerton, Ph.D. DATE OF EXAMINATION: 8/5/06

DATE: SCHOOL: SIGNATURES: ___