This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Aaron, P. G. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula

Indiana State University

This article calls into question the validity and utility of classifying poor readers into learning disability (LD) and non-learning disability (non-LD) categories on the basis of the discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores (the Discrepancy Model). This form of classification of poor readers is based on two premises. First, the etiologies of these two forms of reading disabilities are different; therefore, there are qualitative differences in the cognitive makeups of these two groups of poor readers. Second, and consequently, the two categories of poor readers require different kinds of remedial treatment. The present review of research indicates that neither of these two premises is valid. In contrast, many research studies indicate that instructional methods which have disregarded the LD-non-LD distinction and focused their remedial efforts on the cause of the reading problem are generally successful in improving reading achievement. It is suggested that the practice of utilizing the discrepancy formula to classify poor readers into the LD and non-LD categories be abandoned and that a pragmatic approach which identifies the source of the reading problem for all children and focuses remedial efforts on that source be adopted (the Reading Component Model). The impact of the adoption of such a model on the learning disability field is discussed.

Review of Educational Research, Vol. 67, No. 4, 461-502 (1997)
DOI: 10.3102/00346543067004461


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. L. Sparks and B. J. Lovett College Students With Learning Disability Diagnoses: Who Are They and How Do They Perform? J Learn Disabil, November 1, 2009; 42(6): 494 - 510. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P.G. Aaron, R. M. Joshi, R. Gooden, and K. E. Bentum Diagnosis and Treatment of Reading Disabilities Based on the Component Model of Reading: An Alternative to the Discrepancy Model of LD J Learn Disabil, February 1, 2008; 41(1): 67 - 84. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Dickerson Mayes and S. L. Calhoun Challenging the Assumptions About the Frequency and Coexistence of Learning Disability Types School Psychology International, October 1, 2007; 28(4): 437 - 448. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. Braze, W. Tabor, D. P. Shankweiler, and W. E. Mencl Speaking Up for Vocabulary: Reading Skill Differences in Young Adults J Learn Disabil, June 1, 2007; 40(3): 226 - 243. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks Is There a "Disability" for Learning a Foreign Language? J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2006; 39(6): 544 - 557. [Abstract] [PDF]

				J. J. Glutting, M. W. Watkins, T. R. Konold, and P. A. McDermott Distinctions Without a Difference: The Utility of Observed Versus Latent Factors From the WISC-IV in Estimating Reading and Math Achievement on the WIAT-II Journal of Special Education, August 1, 2006; 40(2): 103 - 114. [Abstract] [PDF]

				G. M. Batsche, K. A. Kavale, and J. F. Kovaleski Competing Views: A Dialogue on Response to Intervention Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2006; 32(1): 6 - 19. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. K. Burns, J. J. Appleton, and J. D. Stehouwer Meta-Analytic Review of Responsiveness-To- Intervention Research: Examining Field-Based and Research-Implemented Models Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, December 1, 2005; 23(4): 381 - 394. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. A. Mastropieri and T. E. Scruggs Feasibility and Consequences of Response to Intervention: Examination of the Issues and Scientific Evidence as a Model for the Identification of Individuals with Learning Disabilities J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2005; 38(6): 525 - 531. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. A. Kavale Identifying Specific Learning Disability: Is Responsiveness to Intervention the Answer? J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2005; 38(6): 553 - 562. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. M. Klassen, P. Neufeld, and F. Munro When IQ is Irrelevant to the Definition of Learning Disabilities: Australian School Psychologists' Beliefs and Practice School Psychology International, August 1, 2005; 26(3): 297 - 316. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. J. Francis, J. M. Fletcher, K. K. Stuebing, G. R. Lyon, B. A. Shaywitz, and S. E. Shaywitz Psychometric Approaches to the Identification of LD: IQ and Achievement Scores Are Not Sufficient J Learn Disabil, April 1, 2005; 38(2): 98 - 108. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. K. Reid and J. Weatherly Valle The Discursive Practice of Learning Disability: Implications for Instruction and Parent School Relations J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2004; 37(6): 466 - 481. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H.-J. Oh, J. J. Glutting, M. W. Watkins, E. A. Youngstrom, and P. A. McDermott Correct Interpretation of Latent Versus Observed Abilities: Implications From Structural Equation Modeling Applied to the WISC-III and WIAT Linking Sample Journal of Special Education, November 1, 2004; 38(3): 159 - 173. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. K. Burns, V. J. Dean, and S. Klar Using Curriculum-Based Assessment in the Responsiveness to Intervention Diagnostic Model for Learning Disabilities Assessment for Effective Intervention, January 1, 2004; 29(3): 47 - 56. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Proctor and F. Prevatt Agreement Among Four Models Used for Diagnosing Learning Disabilities J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2003; 36(5): 459 - 466. [Abstract] [PDF]

				H. W. Catts, T. P. Hogan, and M. E. Fey Subgrouping Poor Readers on the Basis of Individual Differences in Reading-Related Abilities J Learn Disabil, March 1, 2003; 36(2): 151 - 164. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks, L. G. Philips, and J. Javorsky Students Classified as LD Who Received Course Substitutions for the College Foreign Language Requirement: A Replication Study J Learn Disabil, December 1, 2002; 35(6): 482 - 500. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P.G. Aaron, R.M. Joshi, H. Palmer, N. Smith, and E. Kirby Separating Genuine Cases of Reading Disability From Reading Deficits Caused by Predominantly Inattentive ADHD Behavior J Learn Disabil, October 1, 2002; 35(5): 425 - 436. [Abstract] [PDF]

				W. Van den Broeck The Misconception of the Regression-Based Discrepancy Operationalization in the Definition and Research of Learning Disabilities J Learn Disabil, May 1, 2002; 35(3): 194 - 204. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. J. Fawcett, R. I. Nicolson, and F. Maclagan Cerebellar Tests Differentiate Between Groups of Poor Readers With and Without IQ Discrepancy J Learn Disabil, March 1, 2001; 34(2): 119 - 135. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. A. Kavale and S. R. Forness What Definitions of Learning Disability Say and Don't Say: A Critical Analysis J Learn Disabil, May 1, 2000; 33(3): 239 - 256. [Abstract] [PDF]

				K. S. Lassiter, J. P. Leverett, and T. A. Safa The Validity of the General Ability Measure for Adults TM: Comparison with WAIS-R IQ Scores in A Sample of College Students with Academic Difficulties Assessment, March 1, 2000; 7(1): 63 - 72. [Abstract] [PDF]

				R. L. Sparks and J. Javorsky Students Classified as LD and the College Foreign Language Requirement: Replication and Comparison Studies J Learn Disabil, July 1, 1999; 32(4): 329 - 349. [Abstract] [PDF]

				P.G. Aaron, M. Joshi, and K. A. Williams Not All Reading Disabilities Are Alike J Learn Disabil, March 1, 1999; 32(2): 120 - 137. [Abstract] [PDF]