NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1110336
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2016-Aug
Pages: 12
Abstractor: As Provided
ISBN: N/A
ISSN: ISSN-0022-0663
EISSN: N/A
Do Processing Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Predict Differential Treatment Response?
Miciak, Jeremy; Williams, Jacob L.; Taylor, W. Pat; Cirino, Paul T.; Fletcher, Jack M.; Vaughn, Sharon
Journal of Educational Psychology, v108 n6 p898-909 Aug 2016
No previous empirical study has investigated whether the learning disabilities (LD) identification decisions of proposed methods to operationalize processing strengths and weaknesses approaches for LD identification are associated with differential treatment response. We investigated whether the identification decisions of the concordance/discordance model (C/DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004) and cross-battery assessment approach (XBA method; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) were consistent and whether they predicted intervention response beyond that accounted for by pretest performance on measures of reading. Psychoeducational assessments were administered at pretest to 203 4th graders with low reading comprehension and individual results were utilized to identify students who met LD criteria according to the C/DM and XBA methods and students who did not. Resulting group status permitted an investigation of agreement for identification methods and whether group status at pretest (LD or not LD) was associated with differential treatment response to an intensive reading intervention. The LD identification decisions of the XBA and C/DM demonstrated poor agreement with one another (? = -0.10). Comparisons of posttest performance for students who met LD criteria and those who did not meet were largely null, with small effect sizes across all measures. LD status, as identified through the C/DM and XBA approaches, was not associated with differential treatment response and did not contribute educationally meaningful information about how students would respond to intensive reading intervention. These results do not support the value of cognitive assessment utilized in this way as part of the LD identification process.
American Psychological Association. Journals Department, 750 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20002. Tel: 800-374-2721; Tel: 202-336-5510; Fax: 202-336-5502; e-mail: order@apa.org; Web site: http://www.apa.org
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: Grade 4; Intermediate Grades; Elementary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (NIH)
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Assessments and Surveys: Gates MacGinitie Reading Tests; Woodcock Johnson Tests of Achievement; Woodcock Johnson Tests of Cognitive Ability
Grant or Contract Numbers: P50HD052117