The Misconception of the Regression-Based Discrepancy Operationalization in the Definition and Research of Learning Disabilities
- 1 May 2002
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Journal of Learning Disabilities
- Vol. 35 (3) , 194-204
- https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940203500301
Abstract
In this article, I argue that the regression-based discrepancy method used in the diagnosis of learning disabilities is invalid because it is inconsistent with the underlying underachievement concept of which it is intended to be the operationalization. I mathematically demonstrate that the regression-based discrepancy method largely reflects achievement-specific determinants, thereby defeating its own object of describing aptitude-achievement discrepancies. The implications for research examining the role of intelligence in learning disabilities are outlined.Keywords
This publication has 33 references indexed in Scilit:
- The Sociopsychometrics of Learning DisabilitiesJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1999
- The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy FormulaReview of Educational Research, 1997
- Learning Disabilities Definitions and Criteria Used by State Education DepartmentsLearning Disability Quarterly, 1996
- Discrepancy Compared to Low Achievement Definitions of Reading DisabilityJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1992
- Two Key Concepts in the Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities and the Habilitation of LearningLearning Disability Quarterly, 1992
- A Review of States' Criteria and Procedures for Identifying Children with Learning DisabilitiesJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1991
- States' Criteria and Procedures for Identifying Learning Disabled Children: A Comparison of 1981/82 and 1985/86 GuidelinesJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1987
- An Evaluation of the Regression Discrepancy Method for Identifying Children With Learning DisabilitiesThe Journal of Special Education, 1980
- Educational UnderachievementJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1979
- CONGENITAL WORD-BLINDNESS.The Lancet, 1917