NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED195095
Record Type: RIE
Publication Date: 1980
Pages: 39
Abstractor: N/A
Reference Count: 0
Comparing Potential with Achievement: Rationale and Procedures for Objectively Analyzing Achievement-Aptitude Discrepancies in LD Classification.
Hanna, Gerald S.; And Others
A critical review of the literature dealing with quantification of achievement-aptitude differences for identifying learning disabled (LD) readers revealed that methods developed to date suffer from grave inadequacies. Among the methods considered were those of the following individuals: G. Bond and M. Tinker, M. Monroe, A. Harris and E. Sipay, H. Myklebust, C. Winkley, C. Woodbury, and M. Erickson. Based upon the evaluation of past methods, criteria for new and more adequate procedures were generated and discussed. Ten requirements for quantifying achievement-aptitude descrepancies were specified: (1) all derived scores should be based on national, rather than local, reference groups; (2) national normative data from well standardized aptitude and achievement tests may be accepted as roughly comparable; (3) the relevance of an aptitude test to the subject field for which it is used to compare aptitude and achievement should depend on the kind of educational intervention being considered; (4) comparable kinds of derived scores must be used to report performance on achievement and aptitude tests and these derived scores must be based on interval scales; (5) the kind of scores used should be available or conveniently derivable for the normative data available for commonly used standardized tests; (6) age based and grade based normative data should not be mixed; (7) all scores used must avoid the illusion of ratio scaled; (8) the standard error of the difference between grade based T-scores for achievement and aptitude should be found; (9) there should be no rigid cutoff applied concerning the amount of achievement-aptitude discrepancy necessary for LD classification; and (10) in classifying LD students, errors of commission may be less serious than errors of omission. Step by step procedures, with examples, for quantifying achievement-aptitude discrepancies are set forth. (Author/SBH)
Publication Type: Information Analyses; Guides - Non-Classroom
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: Kansas State Univ., Manhattan.
Identifiers: N/A
Note: Portions of this manuscript contain material abridged in an article in the "Learning Disabilities Quarterly (Fall, 1979)" as well as tables that render the previously described procedures operative.