Search

We used data simulations to test whether composites consisting of cohesive subtest scores are more accurate than composites consisting of divergent subtest scores. We demonstrate that when multivariate normality holds, divergent and cohesive scores are equally accurate. Furthermore, excluding divergent scores results in biased estimates of construct scores. We show that obtaining divergent scores should prompt additional testing under some conditions. Although there are many valid reasons to exclude scores from consideration (e.g., malingering, fatigue, and misunderstood directions), no score should be removed from a composite simply because it is different from other scores in the composite.

OBJECTIVE No previous empirical study has investigated whether the LD identification decisions of proposed methods to operationalize processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approaches for LD identification are associated with differential treatment response. We investigated whether the identification decisions of the concordance/discordance model (C/DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004) and Cross Battery Assessment approach (XBA method; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) were consistent and whether they predicted intervention response beyond that accounted for by pretest performance on measures of reading. METHOD Psychoeducational assessments were administered at pretest to 203 4th graders with low reading comprehension and individual results were utilized to identify students who met LD criteria according to the C/DM and XBA methods and students who did not. Resulting group status permitted an investigation of agreement for identification methods and whether group status at pretest (LD or not LD) was associated with differential treatment response to an intensive reading intervention. RESULTS The LD identification decisions of the XBA and C/DM demonstrated poor agreement with one another (κ = -.10). Comparisons of posttest performance for students who met LD criteria and those who did not meet were largely null, with small effect sizes across all measures. CONCLUSIONS LD status, as identified through the C/DM and XBA approaches, was not associated with differential treatment response and did not contribute educationally meaningful information about how students would respond to intensive reading intervention. These results do not support the value of cognitive assessment utilized in this way as part of the LD identification process.

When education works, it works to the benefit of all. It creates productive, innovative citizens eager to contribute to a well-functioning democracy. In contrast, educational failure has lifelong c...

In Conjectures and Refutations, the philosopher of science Karl Popper (1962) stated that “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability”...

The Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA) approach to identifying a specific learning disorder (SLD) is based on the postulate that deficits in cognitive abilities in the presence of otherwise average general intelligence are causally related to academic achievement weaknesses. To examine this postulate, we conducted a classification agreement analysis using the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Achievement. We examined the broad cognitive abilities of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory held to be meaningfully related to basic reading, reading comprehension, mathematics calculation, and mathematics reasoning across age groups. Results of analyses of 300 participants in three age groups (6–8, 9–13, and 14–19 years) indicated that the XBA method is very reliable and accurate in detecting true negatives. Mean specificity and negative predictive value were 92% and 89% across all broad cognitive abilities and academic domains. Mean sensitivity and positive predictive values, however, were generally q...

The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) cross-battery approach to assessing cognitive abilities has been introduced to the field recently as an alternative to traditional assessment instruments and techniques (Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz, 2000; McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). This theory-based method of assessment was developed to provide a more valid and defensible way of deriving meaning from test scores than that provided by the traditional (and largely atheoretical) Wechsler Scale approach. The present study is the first to investigate the validity of the cross-battery approach using a sample of elementary school children (N= 166) who were administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised (WISC-R; Wechsler, 1974) and Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery-Revised (WJ-R; Woodcock & Johnson, 1989). Structural Equation Modeling was used to examine whether (a) Wechsler-based CHC cross-battery assessment explained more variance in reading achievement than a traditional Wechsler model, and (b) whether the Wechsler-based CHC cross-battery model provided a more accurate description of the general and specific abilities on general and specific reading achievement than the traditional Wechsler model, as predicted in the extant ^/specific abilities literature. Findings showed that the g factor underlying the Wechsler-based CHC cross-battery model accounted for substantially more variance in reading achievement (25%) than the g factor underlying the atheoretical Verbal Comprehension-Perceptual Organization-Freedom From Distractibility (VC-PO-FFD) Wechsler model. In addition, findings demonstrated that when assessments are organized around the strong CHC theoretical model, specific cognitive abilities, including auditory processing (Ga), crystallized intelligence (Gc), and processing speed (Gs) explained a significant portion of variance in reading achievement beyond that accounted for by g. These

Few empirical investigations have evaluated learning disabilities (LD) identification methods based on a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (PSW). This study investigated the reliability and validity of two proposed PSW methods: the concordance/discordance method (C/DM) and cross battery assessment (XBA) method. Cognitive assessment data for 139 adolescents demonstrating inadequate response to intervention was utilized to empirically classify participants as meeting or not meeting PSW LD identification criteria using the two approaches, permitting an analysis of: (a) LD identification rates, (b) agreement between methods, and (c) external validity. LD identification rates varied between the 2 methods depending upon the cut point for low achievement, with low agreement for LD identification decisions. Comparisons of groups that met and did not meet LD identification criteria on external academic variables were largely null, raising questions of external validity. This study found low agreement and little evidence of validity for LD identification decisions based on PSW methods. An alternative may be to use multiple measures of academic achievement to guide intervention.