The current study utilized data from screening and full evaluations for learning disabilities conducted at a university-based learning center. Results from the screening assessments were analyzed to determine the extent to which they predicted the diagnosis of learning disorders in postsecondary students. Mean scores from the screening assessments for high aptitude students were compared with their postsecondary peers'. Additional analyses considered the extent to which screening measure scores correlated with scores from the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition (WAIS) and the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement (WJ III ACH). Results of logistic regression analyses run on the entire sample, as well as twice-exceptional students (defined by diagnosis of a learning disorder and having FSIQ/GAI of 120 or above) revealed the seven screening tests in this battery were not predictive of a diagnosis of learning disorders. However, a small sample size and missing data suggest this finding should be interpreted with caution. Independent sample t-tests revealed that twice-exceptional students with learning disorders and high-aptitude did not display significant differences from their peers on their mean scores on these seven screening tests. Aptitude scores for this sample of twice-exceptional postsecondary students, as measured on the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (KBIT), were in the average range and did not differ from students with learning disorders and average aptitude supporting the masking hypothesis. Achievement scores for this sample of twice-exceptional postsecondary students, as measured on the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT), were in the average to above average range and did not differ from other students with learning disorders supporting the belief that twice-exceptional students achieve at levels commensurate with their disability rather than their cognitive strengths. A lack of correlations between the seven screening assessments making up this battery suggests that each instrument measures distinctly different areas. A lack of correlations between four of these measures and WAIS and WJTA scores suggests that these measures may not provide useful information in the screening of learning disorders. Further research should be conducted to gain a better understanding of the abilities these tools measure and their importance in diagnosing learning problems. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://www.proquest.com/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]