Search

This paper addresses the nature of dyslexia and best practices for identification and treatment within the context of multi-tier systems of support (MTSS). We initially review proposed definitions of dyslexia to identify key commonalities and differences in proposed attributes. We then review empirical evidence for proposed definitional attributes, focusing on key sources of controversy, including the role of IQ, instructional response, as well as issues of etiology and immutability. We argue that current empirical evidence supports a dyslexia classification marked by specific deficits in reading and spelling words combined with inadequate response to evidence-based instruction. We then propose a "hybrid" dyslexia identification process built to gather data relevant to these markers of dyslexia. We argue that this assessment process is best implemented within school-wide MTSS because it leverages data routinely collected in well-implemented MTSS, including documentation of student progress and fidelity of implementation. In contrast with other proposed methods for LD identification, the proposed "hybrid" method demonstrates strong evidence for valid decision-making and directly informs intervention. [This is the advance online version of an article published in "Journal of Learning Disabilities."]

In this report, we summarize research on the identification of SLD and make recommendations for practice. The report begins with a summary of the legal requirements for SLD identification and what constitutes a comprehensive evaluation. It then discusses the attributes of SLD according to different conceptual frameworks and reviews research on the reliability and validity of different methods for SLD identification that emanate from these frameworks. The report concludes with recommendations for best practice, regardless of the specific identification methods employed. [This report was produced by the Texas Center for Learning Disabilities (TCLD) with the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, the University of Houston, the Texas Education Agency, and the University of Texas System.]

This paper reviews research on the classification of students with learning disability (LD). It first examines the evolution of LD definitions and the evidence for three components of LD classification: discrepancy, heterogeneity, and exclusion. It suggests that classification hypotheses involving discrepancy and exclusion have weak validity and often represent inaccurate and outdated assumptions about LD. The paper next reviews some alternative classification hypotheses and argues that inclusionary definitions that specify attributes of different forms of LD are more desirable than exclusionary definitions and that inclusionary definitions permit identification procedures that are treatment oriented and focus on prevention. Finally, the paper discusses some difficult issues in relating policy and practice with research, essential for improved identification and treatment of LD. The paper urges the development of a consensus process to devise a new classification of LD with inclusionary definitions, the possibility of prevention, the use of response to intervention as a major factor in evaluating the disability, and an emphasis on results and outcomes. (DB)

The focus of this report is on peer review as it is applied to the evaluation of proposals for federal funding of education research projects. The primary source of evidence used to set forth the report's conclusions and recommendations about this topic is a workshop convened in February 25-26, 2003 at the National Academies' Keck Center in Washington, DC on peer review in federal agencies that support education research. It summarizes common issues and ideas that emerged from the presentations and discussion during the workshop and includes the committee's conclusions and recommendations on how to strengthen peer review in federal agencies that support education research. Appended are: (1) the workshop agenda; and (2) biographical sketches of the committee members and speakers.

This article analyzes factors related to bringing research-validated practices to scale to enable implementation of responsiveness-to- intervention models in special education. Key components of effective literacy programs are discussed, along with findings from reading intervention research. The need for professional collaboration among researchers, practitioners, teacher educators, and policymakers is emphasized. (Contains references.) (CR)

Reviews the historical basis and rationale for identifying children as learning disabled due to a discrepancy between scores on measures of intelligence and achievement. Discusses the validity of such classifications and the role of IQ testing in the designation of children as learning disabled for research and public policy. Alternative approaches to classification are considered. (DB)

To examine the validity of distinguishing children with reading disabilities according to discrepancy and low-achievement definitions, 4 assessments of expected achievement and 2 of actual achievement were obtained for 199 elementary school students. Results do not support the validity of the discrepancy versus the low-achievement definition. (Author/SLD)