Author:
Hale J.,Alfonso V.,Berninger V.,Bracken B.,Christo C.,Clark E.,Cohen M.,Davis A.,Decker S.,Denckla M.,Dumont R.,Elliott C.,Feifer S.,Fiorello C.,Flanagan D.,Fletcher-Janzen E.,Geary D.,Gerber M.,Gerner M.,Goldstein S.,Gregg N.,Hagin R.,Jaffe L.,Kaufman A.,Kaufman N.,Keith T.,Kline F.,Kochhar-Bryant C.,Lerner J.,Marshall G.,Mascolo J.,Mather N.,Mazzocco M.,McCloskey G.,McGrew K.,Miller D.,Miller J.,Mostert M.,Naglieri J.,Ortiz S.,Phelps L.,Podhajski B.,Reddy L.,Reynolds C.,Riccio C.,Schrank F.,Schultz E.,Semrud-Clikeman M.,Shaywitz S.,Simon J.,Silver L.,Swanson L.,Urso A.,Wasserman T.,Willis J.,Wodrich D.,Wright P.,Yalof J.
Abstract
Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a “third method” approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.
Subject
Behavioral Neuroscience,General Health Professions,Education