|
Article Excerpt
Abstract. Responsiveness to intervention (RTI) is being proposed as an alternative model for making decisions about the presence or absence of specific learning disability. We argue that many questions about RTI remain unanswered, and that radical changes in the proposed regulations are not warranted at this time. Since many fundamental issues related to RTI have not been resolved, a better strategy may be to more rigorously implement existing identification criteria (e.g., discrepancy and psychological processing deficits) in a structured psychometric framework. Suggestions for how to modify present procedures are provided.
**********
Due to errors in citation, this manuscript, which originally appeared in Volume 28, Issue 1, of the Learning Disability Quarterly (pp. 2-16) is published here in its corrected version. References to and citations of the earlier publication should be updated to the present version.
Identification of a "specific learning disability" (SLD) has been a long-standing issue for special education. The problem centers around the lack of consensus about the best way to operationalize the formal definition articulated in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). To provide assistance, the then U.S. Office of Education (1977) issued rules and regulations formalizing discrepancy as the primary criterion for SLD identification (Mercer, Jordan, Alsopp, & Mercer, 1996).
The use of discrepancy as the primary (and sole) criterion for SLD identification created a number of problems, however. One was the consequent over identification of SLD. Specifically, the SLD population has increased by about 150% to the point where it represents over 50% of the special education population and over 5% of all students in school. These increases are unparalleled and unwarranted, especially when viewed in relation to other high-incidence mild disabilities (i.e., mental retardation [MR] and emotional disturbance [ED]). For example, MacMillan, Siperstein, and Gresham (1996) suggested that the mild MR numbers have declined significantly primarily because of the misclassification of students as LD who might previously have been classified as MR. Additionally, Wong (1996) suggested that teachers may have overgeneralized the SLD concept in an effort to provide special education services for a greater number of students experiencing school difficulties.
Besides overidentification, another problem is found in the very different numbers of students with SLD identified across settings. The significant variability is seen, for example, across states where prevalence rates have been found to range from 2% to 7% (Coutinho, 1995). There is little reason for such different rates, and it appears that they may primarily reflect a lack of consistency in the identification procedures used (Lester & Kelman, 1997). Forness (1985) demonstrated how policy changes in California led to a 156% gain in SLD with concomitant losses in the MR and ED populations. In contrast, far greater consistency in prevalence rates have been found for categories like hearing impairment and physical/multiple disability (Singer, Palfrey, Butter, & Walker, 1989).
The overgeneralization of the SLD concept and inconsistency in applying the discrepancy criterion has led to a confounding of SLD vs. low achievement (LA). Over time, a conventional wisdom has emerged suggesting that there were few psychometric differences between students with SLD and students with LA. The idea of limited SLD-LA differences was based primarily on a study by Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn, and McGue (1982), who found a large number of identical scores between SLD and LA subjects as well as a high percentage of overlap between scores. In a meta-analysis of the original study data, however, Kavale, Fuchs, and Scruggs (1994) found that "the lower achievement scores of the LD group are of a magnitude that distinguishes them from their LA counterparts" (pp. 74-75). Algozzine, Ysseldyke, and McGue (1995) disagreed, suggesting that "because students with LD may be the lowest of a school's low achievers, they necessarily represent a group of people with qualitatively different needs ..." (pp. 143-144). What Algozzine et al. failed to consider were findings showing minimal group differences in cognitive ability, which mean that, when compared, the SLD and LA groups "represent two distinct populations ... defined by an ability-achievement distinction represented in a different achievement distribution but not in a different ability distribution" (Kavale, 1995, p. 146). Similarly, Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, Lipsey, and Roberts (2002) concluded that SLD-LA differences in reading were substantive and reliable. Thus, although there were large numbers of students with SLD, questions about their "real" identity continued to surface.
The problems associated with SLD identification led to questions about the usefulness of discrepancy as the primary identification criterion for SLD. As part of the OSEP-sponsored Learning Disabilities Summit (see Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002), a majority opinion emerged suggesting that, "IQ/achievement discrepancy is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying individuals with SLD" (p. 796). To replace the discrepancy model, a responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) model was endorsed by several of research and professional organizations. In the RTI model, SLD would be redefined as inadequate response to intervention (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). The process would proceed roughly as follows: (a) students are provided with empirically validated instruction, (b) progress is monitored, (c) students who do not respond receive either more intensive or different instruction, (d) progress continues to be monitored, and (e) failure to respond may qualify a student for special education (see Fuchs, Moch, Morgan, & Young, 2003). Gresham (2002) argued that "children who fail to respond to empirically validated treatments implemented with integrity might be identified as LD" (p. 499). Thus, the RTI seeks to replace traditional psychometric methods of identification with a method that helps "close the gap between identification and treatment" (Bradley et al., 2002, p. 798). The emphasis is on "treatment validity" (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998), which moves the identification process away from diagnosing deficits to examining student outcomes.
The RTI approach to SLD identification was one of the major outcomes of the LD Summit (Elksnin, Gartland, King-Sears, Bryant, Rosenberg, Scanlon, et al., 2001). In the proposed reauthorization of IDEA, discrepancy was no longer required and, in its place, a process that determines if a child responds to scientific research-based intervention was added. Additionally, the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities was created to assist in developing and implementing the RTI process. Thus, RTI may be seen as a radical departure from traditional means of determining special education eligibility. However, is implementation of RTI justified? Is RTI the answer to the perceived problems with the discrepancy model? Will RTI resolve the perceived problems in SLD identification?
Defining SLD
The most fundamental problem facing SLD remains definition, not identification. The formal SLD definition continues to be contentious because of its failure to provide closure on "two critical elements: understanding--a clear and unobscured sense of LD--and explanation--a rational exposition of the reasons why a particular student is LD" (Kavale & Forness, 2000, p. 240). Although a number of alternative SLD definitions have been proposed, none has been universally accepted, meaning there is no single statement describing the SLD condition. The present SLD definition has always been too broad to be wrong and too vague to be complete.
One purpose of the RTI model is allegedly to "redefine" SLD. But, in reality, SLD is only being re-operationalized. Since the pending reauthorization of IDEA does not include any change in the formal SLD definition, there is technically no "redefining." Instead, RTI is best viewed as a new operational definition that will supplant the "discrepancy" criterion.
The reluctance to change the SLD definition seems curious in light of 35 years of debate about its merits. In a scientific sense, formal definition changes must precede and be the foundation for operational clarifications. Consequently, a rationale for not changing the formal definition seems necessary. The fields of MR and ED provide precedence for changing formal definitions. Therefore, it seems indefensible not to change the SLD definition in the face of profound changes being proposed for practice. If the definition of SLD is not to change, closer adherence to what is actually stipulated in the definition seems warranted.
One concept clearly articulated in the SLD definition is the presence of "a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes." Although a critical feature of the SLD concept, process deficits have been generally ignored in the identification process (Torgesen, 1979). At best, the RTI model can only infer that a process deficit exists and, without direct assessment, there is no way to determine if a student may possess SLD as currently conceptualized (Torgesen, 2002). With modern theories about the importance of processing skills replacing the outdated processing views (e.g., perceptual-motor deficits) that were associated with the SLD concept when first proposed, it becomes critical to reemphasize process deficits in an operational definition of SLD (e.g., Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Swanson & Alexander, 1997).
SLD Parameters
A definition delineates the nature and limits of a phenomenon, but the present SLD definition does not adequately circumscribe the condition; therefore, its interpretation for practical purposes (i.e., operationalization) is suspect (Kavale, Forness, & Lorsbach, 1991). For example, "discrepancy" is not specifically articulated in the SLD definition but has been the primary criterion used for SLD identification. The disconnect between the formal definition and its operational consequences demonstrates the impossibility of the theoretical being accurately represented in the operational and vice versa. Discrepancy alone is too disconnected from what the formal definition stipulated to meet the criteria of significance and meaningfulness necessary for a valid operational definition (Bergmann, 1961). As a category of special education defined in the law, SLD should represent a particular disability class (Kavale & Forness, 1985a). For linguistic reasons, however, it has been easier to use the plural term "learning disabilities," which has eroded the notion of SLD as a discrete and independent condition different from other more generalized learning deficiencies.
Predictably, the meaning of SLD has also been diluted by a conventional wisdom suggesting that "there are many...
|
