Do State Methods of Quantifying a Severe Discrepancy Result in Fewer Students with Learning Disabilities?
- 1 May 1992
- journal article
- research article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Learning Disability Quarterly
- Vol. 15 (2) , 129-134
- https://doi.org/10.2307/1511014
Abstract
Minimizing misclassification of students with LD is a major concern for policymakers, particularly if financial incentives are available for placing children in such programs. In the current study, individual states' methods of defining a severe discrepancy for determining LD eligibility are examined, as well as the way use of such methods influences misclassification. The percentage of the total population identified as LD by individual states (as reported to the federal government) was compared. Results showed variations from 2.19% to 8.66% in the percentage of students aged 7 to 16 identified as LD across states. Seven of the states in the lowest percentage decile used a method for determining a severe discrepancy; in comparison, only two of the states in the decile identifying the most students used a method of determining a severe discrepancy. It was concluded that use of any method to determine a severe discrepancy may help reduce the number of inappropriate placements resulting from labeling students as LD.Keywords
This publication has 11 references indexed in Scilit:
- Defining severe discrepancy in the diagnosis of learning disabilities: A comparison of methodsJournal of School Psychology, 1990
- States' Criteria and Procedures for Identifying Learning Disabled Children: A Comparison of 1981/82 and 1985/86 GuidelinesJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1987
- A Comparison of Prevalence Rate Variability from State to State for Each of the Categories of Special EducationRemedial and Special Education, 1986
- The Social Policy Construction of Special Education: The Impact of State Characteristics on Identification and Integration of Handicapped ChildrenRemedial and Special Education, 1985
- Assessment practices in special education: Adequacy and appropriatenessEducational Psychologist, 1984
- An Evaluation of the Identification of Learning Disabled Students in ColoradoLearning Disability Quarterly, 1983
- Learning DisabilitiesJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1983
- Classification, Compliance, and ConfusionJournal of Learning Disabilities, 1983
- Similarities and Differences Between Low Achievers and Students Classified Learning DisabledThe Journal of Special Education, 1982
- The influence of test scores and naturally-occurring pupil characteristics on psychoeducational decision making with childrenJournal of School Psychology, 1981