Handbook of psychology volume 7 educational psychology
Download 9.82 Mb. Pdf ko'rish
|
- Bu sahifa navigatsiya:
- References 453
- Learning Disabilities
- Subtyping Models 462 A Simple Model of Subtypes 471
- IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
|
452 School Psychology Reschly, D. J. (1997). Utility of individual ability measures and pub- lic policy choices for the 21st century. School Psychology
Reschly, D. J. (2000). The present and future status of school psy- chology in the United States. School Psychology Review, 29, 507–522.
Reschly, D. J., & Bersoff, D. N. (1999). Law and school psychology. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B. Gutkin (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 1077–1112). New York: Wiley. Reschly, D. J., Genshaft, J., & Binder, M. S. (1987). The 1986 NASP survey: Comparison of practitioners, NASP leadership, and uni- versity faculty on key issues. Washington, DC: National Associ- ation of School Psychologists. Reschly, D. J., & Grimes, J. P. (1991). State department and university cooperation: Evaluation of continuing education in consultation and curriculum based assessment. School Psychology Review, 20, 519–526.
Reschly, D. J., & McMaster-Beyer, M. (1991). Influences of degree level, institutional orientation, college affiliation, and accredita- tion status on school psychology graduate education. Profes-
Reschly, D. J., & Tilly, W. D., III. (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In D. J. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 19– 48). Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., III, & Grimes, J. P. (Eds.). (1999). Spe-
Reschly, D. J., & Wilson, M. S. (1995). School psychology faculty and practitioners: 1986 to 1991 trends in demographic character- istics, roles, satisfaction, and system reform. School Psychology Review, 24, 62–80. Reschly, D. J., & Wilson, M. S. (1997). Characteristics of school psychology graduate education: Implications for the entry level discussion and doctoral level specialty definition. School Psy- chology Review, 26, 74–92. Reynolds, C. R., & Gutkin, T. B. (1999). The handbook of school psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley. Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Jerome M. Sattler Publisher, Inc. Shapiro, E. S. (Ed.). (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct as- sessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Sheridan, S. M., & Gutkin, T. B. (2000). The ecology of school psy- chology: Changing our paradigm for the 21st century. School
Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum- based measurement. New York: Guilford Press. Shinn, M. R., Walker, H. M., & Stoner, G. (2002). Interventions for academic and behaviors problems: Vol. 2. Preventative and re- medial approaches. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Smith, D. K., & Fagan, T. K. (1995). Resources on the training of school psychologists. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (3rd ed., pp. 1257–1271). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Smith, P. C., Kendall, C. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., Liaupsin, C., Sailor, W., Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., III, Wickham, D., Reuf, M., & Wilcox, B. (2000). Applying positive behavioral support and functional be- havioral assessment in the schools. Journal of Positive Behav- ioral Interventions, 2, 131–143. Thomas, A. (1998). Directory of school psychology graduate programs. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. Thomas, A., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (2002). Best practices in school
School Psychologists. Tilly, W. D., III. (2002). Overview of problem solving. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 21–36). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Tilly, W. D., III, Knoster, T. P., & Ikeda, M. J. (2000). Functional be- havioral assessment: Strategies for behavioral support. In C. F. Telzrow & M. Tankersley (Eds.), IDEA amendments of 1997:
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. Tilly, W. D., III, Reschly, D. J., & Grimes, J. P. (1999). Disability determination in problem solving systems: Conceptual founda- tions and critical components. In D. J. Reschly, W. D. Tilly III, & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming (pp. 285–321). Longmont, CO: Sopris West. Trachtman, G. M. (1981). On such a full sea. In J. Ysseldyke & R. Weinberg (Eds.), The future of psychology in the schools: Pro- ceedings of the Spring Hill Symposium. School Psychology
Upah, K. R. F., & Tilly, W. D., III. (2002). Designing, implementing and evaluating quality interventions. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists. U.S. Department of Education (1978–2001). Annual report to Con- gress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (2001, January).
DC: Author. Vensel, D. S. (1981). Assuming responsibility for the future of school psychology. School Psychology Review, 10, 182–193. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches to References 453 preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age chil- dren and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
White, M. A. (1963–1964). Graduate training in school psychology. Journal of School Psychology, 2, 34 – 42. White, M. A., & Harris, M. W. (1961). The school psychologist. New York: Harper. Ysseldyke, J., Dawson, P., Lehr, C., Reschly, D., Reynolds, M., & Telzrow, C. (1997). School psychology: A blueprint for training
Psychologists. Yu, L. M., Rinaldi, D. I., Templer, D. I., Colbert, L. A., Siscoe, K., & Van Patten, K. (1997). Score on the examination for profes- sional practice as a function of attributes or clinical psychology programs. Psychological Science, 8, 347–350. CHAPTER 18 Learning Disabilities LINDA S. SIEGEL DEFINITIONAL ISSUES 455
Exclusionary Criteria 456 IQ-Achievement Discrepancy 457 Specificity 460 A Resolution of Definitional Issues 461 SUBTYPES
462 Subtyping Models 462 A Simple Model of Subtypes 471 TYPES OF LEARNING DISABILITIES 472
ASSESSMENT OF LEARNING DISABILITIES 475
REMEDIATION AND ACCOMMODATION 479 CONCLUSION 480 REFERENCES 480 This chapter reviews the area of learning disabilities. The following issues are considered: definition of subtypes, read- ing disability, arithmetic disability, assessment, and remedia- tion and accommodation.
Historically, W. M. Cruickshank (1981) has suggested that the term learning disabilities is “one of the most interesting accidents of our professional times” (p. 81). It was never used before 1963 and developed from “prepared but informal re- marks” (W. M. Cruickshank, 1981, p. 81) made by Samuel A. Kirk at a dinner for concerned parents of children with learn- ing problems in Chicago. Shortly after the dinner, the parents organized themselves on a national level under the banner
fore, the term learning disabilities (LD) was adopted as a “functional term without precedents to guide those who at- tempted to define it and without research or common usage which would assist in its appropriate formulation as a func- tional term” (W. M. Cruickshank, 1981, p. 81). This problem is complicated by the confusion in terms used to describe some or all of the LD population. W. W. Cruickshank (1972) observed that more than 40 English terms have been used in the literature to refer to some or all of the children subsumed under the LD label. Hammill, Leigh, McNutt, and Larsen (1981) also noted that a variety of terms—such as minimal brain dysfunction or injury, psy-
populations. In response to the confusion surrounding the definitional issues, in 1981 the National Joint Committee for Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) adopted the following definitions: Learning disabilities is a generic term that refers to a heteroge- neous group of disorders manifested by significant difficulties in the acquisition and use of listening, speaking, reading, writing, reasoning, or mathematical abilities. These disorders are intrin- sic to the individual and are presumed to be due to central ner- vous system dysfunction. Even though a learning disability may occur concomitantly with other handicapping conditions (e.g., sensory impairment, mental retardation, social or emotional disturbanced) or environmental influences (e.g., cultural differ- ences, insufficient/inappropriate instruction, psychogenic fac- tors), it is not the direct result of these conditions or influences. (Hammill et al., 1981, p. 336) However, as a number of investigators have suggested (e.g. Fletcher & Morris, 1986; Siegel & Heaven, 1986; The preparation of this manuscript was partially supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and was written while the author was a Scholar in Resi- dence at The Peter Wall Institute for Advanced Studies. The author wishes to thank Sarah Kontopoulos and Stephanie Vyas for secretar- ial assistance.
456 Learning Disabilities Wong, 1996), this definition also is difficult to operationalize because it is vague and unspecific. Wong (1996) and Keogh (1986, 1987) note that in spite of this definition and The Rules and Regulations for Implementing Public Law 94-142 (Federal Register, 1977), special-education categories still differ from country to country, state to state, and even within states from district to district. To complicate matters further, Epps, Ysseldyke, and Algozzine (1985) found that states using different category names to classify learning disabled children may actually be using the same criteria to identify these children and some states using the same category names may be using different identification criteria. Mann, Davis, Boyer, Metz, and Wolford (1983), in a survey of child service demonstration centers (CSDC), found that al- though most of the CSDCs used the federal criterion of acad- emic underachievement, only two thirds of the centers used even two or three other criteria, and only 3 of the 61 centers used all of the diagnostic criteria. Furthermore, 36 CSDCs did not distinctly state discernible diagnostic criteria. In 1985, the U.S. Congress passed an act (PL 99-158) forming the Interagency Committee on Learning Disabilities (ICLD) “to review and assess Federal research priorities, ac- tivities, and findings regarding learning disabilities” (Silver, 1988, p. 73). According to Silver (1988) three specific man- dates were identified by Congress: (a) the determination of the number of people with learning disabilities and a demo- graphic description of them; (b) a review of the current re- search findings on the cause, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of learning disabilities; and (c) suggestions for legislation and administration actions that would increase the effectiveness of research on learning disabilities and improve the dissemination of the findings of such research, and prior- itize research on the cause, diagnosis, treatment, and preven- tion of learning disabilities. In 1987, the committee presented its report to Congress. In this report, the ICLD recommended a legislated definition of LD based on a revision of the 1981 NJCLD’s definition. The new definition was to include (changes are in italics) “signif- icant difficulties in . . . social skills.” Also, the final sentence was changed to read as follows: “with socioenvironmental influences (e.g., cultural differences, insufficient, or inappro- priate instruction, psychogenic factors), and especially with
conditions or influences” (Silver, 1988, p. 79). In addition, the committee argued that prevalence studies on learning disabilities should not and could not accurately be undertaken until there was national consensus on a defini- tion of learning disabilities. However, since the publication of the report only one member of the NJCLD has supported that revised definitions, whereas the others have voted for nonsupport. At issue appears to be the phrase significant
research, Silver (1988) concludes that a lack of a uniform de- finition and set of diagnostic criteria is one of the most crucial factors inhibiting current and future research efforts. This problem must be addressed before further epidemiological, clinical, basic, and educational research can result in mean- ingful, generalizable findings. Several aspects of these definitions are controversial and difficult to operationalize: • Exclusionary criteria. One aspect of these definitions is that the learning difficulty is not a result of some other condition. • IQ-achievement discrepancy. There must be a discrepancy between so-called potential and achievement such that achievement is significantly lower than would be pre- dicted from achievement. • Specificity. The learning problem is specific, generally confined to one or two cognitive areas. Exclusionary Criteria The presence of certain factors means that an individual will not qualify as learning disabled; these are called exclusionary factors. The definition of learning disabilities assumes that: (a) a learning disability is not the result of an inadequate ed- ucation; (b) the individual does not have any sensory deficits, such as hearing or visual impairment; (c) the individual does not have any serious neurological disorders that may inter- fere with learning; and (d) the individual does not have major social or emotional difficulties that might interfere with learning. All of these exclusions seem reasonable, but they are rarely evaluated systematically; furthermore, it is not clear that there is any reason to do so. Consider, for example, a student with a seizure disorder. If the student is shown to be achieving poorly on some achievement test—similar to an individual pure learning disability without a neurological disorder—should the student be denied the remediations that are available to students with a learning disability? In the view of this author, the answer is no. In regard to the issue of adequate education for students in a postsecondary institution, it is difficult to believe that a stu- dent would complete secondary school without an education in the basic skills of reading, spelling, writing, and arith- metic. The problems may not have been remediated, but there has been significant exposure to the teaching of these skills. Similarly, individuals with learning disabilities often re- port depression, social anxiety, low self-esteem, and other
emotional difficulties. It is quite likely that these symptoms are a consequence—not a cause—of their problems. We do not know which came first, the emotional difficulty or the learning disability, and in most cases we will never know. However, these emotional difficulties appear to become more serious as the person gets older, indicating that the presence of the learning disability may be creating the emotional prob- lem rather than the other way around; we can never be cer- tain. There does not appear to be any longitudinal research that provides evidence on the causal direction of the relation- ship between learning disabilities and emotional problems. However, it seems unethical not to identify and treat the learning disability just because there are concurrent emo- tional difficulties. IQ-Achievement Discrepancy IQ tests are typically used in the identification of a learning disability. A great deal of weight is still given to the IQ score in the definition. In virtually all school systems and many col- leges and universities, the intelligence test is one of the pri- mary tests used in the identification of learning disabilities. In many cases, an individual cannot be identified as learning disabled unless an IQ test has been administered. One of the criteria for the existence of a learning disability is the pres- ence of a discrepancy between IQ test score and achieve- ment. I maintain that the presence of this discrepancy is not a necessary part of the definition of a learning disability; fur- thermore, it is not even necessary to administer an IQ test to determine whether someone has a learning disability. Many investigators (e.g., Fletcher & Morris, 1986; Reynolds, 1984–1985, 1985; Siegel, 1985a, 1985b, 1988a, 1988b, 1989a, 1989b) argue that not only is this assumption contro- versial, but it also may be invalid. The intelligence test—and scores based on it—are not use- ful in the identification of learning disorders. There are both logical reasons for and empirical data to support this statement. It is often argued that we need IQ tests to measure the so-called potential of an individual. This type of argument implies that there is some real entity that will tell us how much an individ- ual can learn and what we can expect of that person—that is, the IQ sets a limit on what the person can learn. Lezak (1988) argues that IQ is a construct and does not measure any real function or structure. However, that argu- ment has not prevented psychometricians from measuring this entity. But what is being measured? Presumably, intelli- gence means such skills of logical reasoning, problem solv- ing, critical thinking, and adaptation to the environment. This definition appears to be a reasonable until one examines the content of the IQ test. IQ tests consist of measures of factual knowledge, definitions of words, memory, fine-motor coordi- nation, and fluency of expressive language; they do not mea- sure reasoning or problem-solving skills. They measure—for the most part—what a person has learned, not what he or she is capable of doing in the future. Typical questions on the IQ test consist of questions about definitions of certain words, about geography and history, tasks involving fine-motor co- ordination such as doing puzzles, memory tasks in which the person is asked to remember a series of numbers, and mental arithmetic problems in which individuals must calculate an- swers in their heads without the benefit of paper and pencil. It is obvious that these types of questions measure what an individual has learned—not problem solving or critical think- ing skills. In some of the subtests of the intelligence tests, extra points are given for responding quickly; therefore, the intelligence test puts a premium on speed. A person with a slow, deliberate style would not achieve as high a score as an individual who responded more quickly. Therefore, IQ scores do not represent a single entity; rather, are a composite of many skills. (For an extended discussion of the content of IQ tests, see Siegel, 1989a, 1989b, 1995.) There is an additional problem in the use of IQ tests with individuals with learning disabilities. It is a logical paradox to use IQ scores with learning disabled individuals because most of these people have deficiencies in one or more of the component skills that are part of these IQ tests; therefore, their scores on IQ tests will be an underestimate of their competence. It seems illogical to recognize that someone has deficient memory, language, fine-motor skills, or any combi- nation of these and then say that this individual is less intelli- gent because he or she has these problems. One assumption behind the use of an IQ test is that IQ scores predict and set limits on academic performance, so that if a person has a low IQ score, educators should not ex- pect much from that person’s academic skills. In other words, by using the IQ test in the psychoeducational assessment of possible learning disabilities, we are assuming that the score on the IQ test indicates how much reading, arithmetic, and so on that we would expect from a person. However, some evidence does contradict this assumption. There are people who have low scores on IQ tests—that is, scores less than 90 or even 80; yet, they have average or even above av- erage scores on reading tests. Even text comprehension may be more influenced by background knowledge (Schneider, Körkel, & Weinert, 1989) or phonological skills (Siegel, 1993b) than IQ scores (Siegel, 1988b); logically, this should not occur if level of reading were determined by IQ scores. The most widely used IQ tests, the Wechsler Intelli- gence Scales for Children–III (WISC-III) and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scales–Revised (WAIS-R) are actually Download 9.82 Mb. Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: 
|