Mark R. Shinn

Similarities and Differences Between Low Achievers and Students Classified Learning Disabled

Considerable evidence suggests that the learning-disabilities (LD) category is primarily one of underachievement. The research reported here compared school-identified LD children with a group of low-achieving students (non-LD) not identified as LD. Both groups were administered a battery of psychoeducational tests and their performances were compared on all measures. While discriminant function analysis indicated 78.4% correct classification of the students, further analysis showed it would be impossible to discern classification on an individual basis. An analysis of the results indicated considerable similarities between the groups; in fact, an average of 96% of the scores were within a common range, and the performances of LD and low-achieving children on many subtests were identical. The findings could be interpreted to support either of two major conflicting viewpoints: (a) that schools are failing to identify many students who are in fact LD or (b) that too many non-LD students are labeled LD. This investigation demonstrates that as many as 40% of students may be misclassified. The implications of these results with regard to identification and placement practices are discussed.

Special Education Referrals as an Index of Teacher Tolerance: Are Teachers Imperfect Tests?:

The academic performances and naturally occurring characteristics of students referred by regular education classroom teachers for possible placement in special education programs were examined. Curriculum Based Assessment procedures were used with 570 grade 2 through 6 students referred because of reading difficulties. Teacher bias was examined by comparing the reading performances of referred students as a function of their sex and ethnicity and by comparing the percentages of students to the base rate population of low reading performers. Teacher accuracy was investigated using “narrow band” or “broad band” definitions. Findings indicated that teachers are both accurate and biased in the referral process. The implications of the findings are discussed in relationship to current identification practices and to the suggestion that teachers be treated as tests in lieu of current practice.

A Longitudinal Assessment of the Development of Antisocial Behavior in Boys: Rationale, Methodology, and First-Year Results

The long-term consequences of antisocial behavior in children are well documented. Yet little is known about the pattern of development and sequence of antisocial behaviors in home and school settings. This article describes the rationale, methodology, and measures of a 5-year longitudinal research study of the development of antisocial behaviors in a high-risk population of boys in school settings. Subjects for this longitudinal study are 80 fifth-grade boys divided into two separate cohorts. These subjects were a subset of a sample of 200 boys included in an extensive study of the role of family variables in the development of antisocial behavior. Results from the first year of the study regarding 35 boys of Cohort I are presented in this paper. Multiple assessment methods were used including direct observations of social interactions in free-play activities and academic engaged time in classroom activities, teacher ratings of social skills, and examination of student records. Results indicated that subjects in the group more at risk for engaging in antisocial behavior were significantly different from subjects in the control group in their amounts of academic engaged time, frequencies of negative interactions with peers in playground situations, frequency of discipline contacts, and in teacher ratings of their social skills. Implications for identifying patterns and sequences of antisocial behavior are discussed

Antisocial Behavior in School Settings: Initial Differences in an at Risk and Normal Population

This study examines the behavior of two groups of students in fifth grade—a group of students identified as at risk for development of antisocial behavior and a normal control group. Students in the at risk group were identified primarily on the basis of familial variables. Subjects were selected for two separate cohorts that were studied 1 year apart to facilitate the investigation of generality of findings. Subjects academic engaged time and social interactive behavior in recess settings were observed and teachers completed ratings of different aspects of the students social skills. Records were inspected for evidence of principal contacts regarding discipline, attendance, and special education services received. Clear differences were indicated in school behavior between the two groups that were replicated across cohorts.

Systematic Screening of Pupils in the Elementary Age Range At Risk for Behavior Disorders: Development and Trial Testing of a Multiple Gating Model

This paper describes a multiple gating screening procedure for the identification of elementary-aged pupils who are at risk for serious behavior disorders. This procedure, entitled Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD), consists of three interrelated assessment stages with teacher judgment as the primary information source in screening Stages 1 and 2 and direct behavioral observations as the primary source in Stage 3. The SSBD is designed to improve the quality of referrals to multidisciplinary teams and to provide each pupil in regular classroom settings with an equal chance to be identified for both externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. The paper reviews some of the myriad problems associated with the definition, classification, assessment, and referral of pupils with behavior disorders. A rationale for the SSBD is presented; its operation is described and initial research conducted in its development and trial testing is presented and discussed. A year-long, formal test of the SSBD within an elementary school is also described. Results of this study indicated that the SSBD correctly classified 89.47% of pupils who had been identified as externalizers, internalizers, or normals by their respective teachers in screening Stage 1. The psychometric characteristics of the instruments in SSBD Stages 1, 2, and 3 are judged acceptable by the authors for their intended assessment purposes. Practical implications and uses of the SSBD are discussed, as is future planned research.

Differentiating Mildly Handicapped, Low-Achieving, and Regular Education Students A Curriculum-Based Approach

Issues of accuracy of classification practices for mildly handicapped students remain paramount in the public schools. This study investigates academic performance differences between students receiving special education services for the mildly handicapped, low-achieving students receiving Chapter 1 services, and regular education students. All students were in grades 4, 5, and 6. These groups are compared on curriculum-based measures of reading, spelling, written expression, and math. Consistent differences are obtained with the results discussed in terms of alternative identification practices for mildly handicapped students.

A Comparison of Differences Between Students Labeled Learning Disabled and Low Achieving on Measures of Classroom Performance

Editors Comments: Much has been written about the identification of the learning disabled. The two following articles found that identified learning disabled populations are indeed different from other types of school populations on specific variables. However, the authors differ on some critical points. Readers comments are welcome.—JLW Classroom performance measures of reading, spelling, and written expression developed at the University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities were administered weekly over a 5-week period to 71 fifth-grade students. Although 34 of these students had been identified as LD by their schools and 37 were low achievers who had not been identified as LD, no meaningful differences had been found between their performances on several commonly used norm-referenced devices. Examination of the students weekly performance on the classroom performance measures revealed both significant and practical differences in performance on the measures of reading, spelling, and spelling accuracy on a written expression task; no differences were found in their rates of improvement over the 5-week period. Students did not differ significantly in other methods of evaluating their writing. In general, the findings support the hypothesis that teachers referral decisions are based on what they observe students doing in the classroom and that the subsequent administration of norm-referenced tests may reflect an inefficient confirmatory process. The implications of the findings for classification of students as LD and current practice are discussed.

A comparison of the WISC‐R and the Woodcock‐Johnson tests of cognitive ability

This study compares the performance of learning disabled students on the WISC-R and the Tests of Cognitive Abilities from the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery. This study finds that learning disabled subjects performed more poorly on the Tests of Cognitive Abilities than on the WISC-R. Data relative to a number of possible explanations for these results are reported.

Parent Attitudes about Special Education and Reintegration: What is the Role of Student Outcomes?

Parents (N=21) of children receiving special education resource room services in reading were interviewed to learn about their views concerning these services and reintegration decisions. Quantitative and qualitative research strategies were used to scale attitudes and cluster responses. Most parents had strong positive attitudes toward resource room services. The basis for these attitudes was explored, and it was found that parents satisfaction was derived primarily from subjective perceptions (such as teachers caring), rather than academic performance data. Most parents were reluctant to have their children reintegrated into general education classes for reading instruction. Findings are discussed in the context of special education reform efforts.

Identifying children with learning disabilities: When is a discrepancy severe?

Abstract Identification of children with learning disabilities is based on the notion of a significant discrepancy between ability and achievement. Current federal guidelines do not specify the extent of such discrepancies but indicate they should be “severe”. Local education agencies have adopted criteria suggested by professionals or formulated their own operational criteria for identification of learning disabled children. In this research, we examined the extent to which identification as learning disabled is a function of the criteria used to define “severe discrepancy”, and the extent to which different classifications would result from use of different criteria. A school district made identification decisions for 51 students referred because they were experiencing academic difficulties; they found 24 students LD. The school identification decisions, based on application of a severe discrepancy on the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery, did not correlate with decisions based on application of the federal definition. Implications for decision-making practices are discussed.