Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus

J. Hale, V. Alfonso, V. Berninger, B. Bracken, C. Christo, E. Clark, M. Cohen, A. Davis, S. Decker, Martha Bridge Denckla, R. Dumont, C. Elliott, S. Feifer, C. Fiorello, D. Flanagan, E. Fletcher-Janzen, D. Geary, M. Gerber, M. Gerner, S. GoldsteinN. Gregg, R. Hagin, L. Jaffe, A. Kaufman, N. Kaufman, T. Keith, F. Kline, C. Kochhar-Bryant, J. Lerner, G. Marshall, J. Mascolo, N. Mather, M. Mazzocco, G. McCloskey, K. McGrew, D. Miller, J. Miller, M. Mostert, J. Naglieri, S. Ortiz, L. Phelps, B. Podhajski, L. Reddy, C. Reynolds, C. Riccio, F. Schrank, E. Schultz, M. Semrud-Clikeman, S. Shaywitz, J. Simon, L. Silver, L. Swanson, A. Urso, T. Wasserman, J. Willis, D. Wodrich, P. Wright, J. Yalof

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a "third method" approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)223-236
Number of pages14
JournalLearning Disability Quarterly
Volume33
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 16 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Learning Disorders
learning disability
Consensus
expert
evaluation
Learning
Psychology
Aptitude
learning
deficit
psychology
Medicine
Identification (Psychology)
medicine
Education
Law
ability
evidence
education

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Behavioral Neuroscience
  • Health Professions(all)
  • Education

Cite this

Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention : An expert white paper consensus. / Hale, J.; Alfonso, V.; Berninger, V.; Bracken, B.; Christo, C.; Clark, E.; Cohen, M.; Davis, A.; Decker, S.; Denckla, Martha Bridge; Dumont, R.; Elliott, C.; Feifer, S.; Fiorello, C.; Flanagan, D.; Fletcher-Janzen, E.; Geary, D.; Gerber, M.; Gerner, M.; Goldstein, S.; Gregg, N.; Hagin, R.; Jaffe, L.; Kaufman, A.; Kaufman, N.; Keith, T.; Kline, F.; Kochhar-Bryant, C.; Lerner, J.; Marshall, G.; Mascolo, J.; Mather, N.; Mazzocco, M.; McCloskey, G.; McGrew, K.; Miller, D.; Miller, J.; Mostert, M.; Naglieri, J.; Ortiz, S.; Phelps, L.; Podhajski, B.; Reddy, L.; Reynolds, C.; Riccio, C.; Schrank, F.; Schultz, E.; Semrud-Clikeman, M.; Shaywitz, S.; Simon, J.; Silver, L.; Swanson, L.; Urso, A.; Wasserman, T.; Willis, J.; Wodrich, D.; Wright, P.; Yalof, J.

In: Learning Disability Quarterly, Vol. 33, No. 3, 16.08.2010, p. 223-236.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hale, J, Alfonso, V, Berninger, V, Bracken, B, Christo, C, Clark, E, Cohen, M, Davis, A, Decker, S, Denckla, MB, Dumont, R, Elliott, C, Feifer, S, Fiorello, C, Flanagan, D, Fletcher-Janzen, E, Geary, D, Gerber, M, Gerner, M, Goldstein, S, Gregg, N, Hagin, R, Jaffe, L, Kaufman, A, Kaufman, N, Keith, T, Kline, F, Kochhar-Bryant, C, Lerner, J, Marshall, G, Mascolo, J, Mather, N, Mazzocco, M, McCloskey, G, McGrew, K, Miller, D, Miller, J, Mostert, M, Naglieri, J, Ortiz, S, Phelps, L, Podhajski, B, Reddy, L, Reynolds, C, Riccio, C, Schrank, F, Schultz, E, Semrud-Clikeman, M, Shaywitz, S, Simon, J, Silver, L, Swanson, L, Urso, A, Wasserman, T, Willis, J, Wodrich, D, Wright, P & Yalof, J 2010, 'Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus', Learning Disability Quarterly, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 223-236. https://doi.org/10.1177/073194871003300310
Hale, J. ; Alfonso, V. ; Berninger, V. ; Bracken, B. ; Christo, C. ; Clark, E. ; Cohen, M. ; Davis, A. ; Decker, S. ; Denckla, Martha Bridge ; Dumont, R. ; Elliott, C. ; Feifer, S. ; Fiorello, C. ; Flanagan, D. ; Fletcher-Janzen, E. ; Geary, D. ; Gerber, M. ; Gerner, M. ; Goldstein, S. ; Gregg, N. ; Hagin, R. ; Jaffe, L. ; Kaufman, A. ; Kaufman, N. ; Keith, T. ; Kline, F. ; Kochhar-Bryant, C. ; Lerner, J. ; Marshall, G. ; Mascolo, J. ; Mather, N. ; Mazzocco, M. ; McCloskey, G. ; McGrew, K. ; Miller, D. ; Miller, J. ; Mostert, M. ; Naglieri, J. ; Ortiz, S. ; Phelps, L. ; Podhajski, B. ; Reddy, L. ; Reynolds, C. ; Riccio, C. ; Schrank, F. ; Schultz, E. ; Semrud-Clikeman, M. ; Shaywitz, S. ; Simon, J. ; Silver, L. ; Swanson, L. ; Urso, A. ; Wasserman, T. ; Willis, J. ; Wodrich, D. ; Wright, P. ; Yalof, J. / Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention : An expert white paper consensus. In: Learning Disability Quarterly. 2010 ; Vol. 33, No. 3. pp. 223-236.
@article{b35abdf5d52d48f6ae6d34951eb28192,
title = "Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus",
abstract = "Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a {"}third method{"} approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.",
author = "J. Hale and V. Alfonso and V. Berninger and B. Bracken and C. Christo and E. Clark and M. Cohen and A. Davis and S. Decker and Denckla, {Martha Bridge} and R. Dumont and C. Elliott and S. Feifer and C. Fiorello and D. Flanagan and E. Fletcher-Janzen and D. Geary and M. Gerber and M. Gerner and S. Goldstein and N. Gregg and R. Hagin and L. Jaffe and A. Kaufman and N. Kaufman and T. Keith and F. Kline and C. Kochhar-Bryant and J. Lerner and G. Marshall and J. Mascolo and N. Mather and M. Mazzocco and G. McCloskey and K. McGrew and D. Miller and J. Miller and M. Mostert and J. Naglieri and S. Ortiz and L. Phelps and B. Podhajski and L. Reddy and C. Reynolds and C. Riccio and F. Schrank and E. Schultz and M. Semrud-Clikeman and S. Shaywitz and J. Simon and L. Silver and L. Swanson and A. Urso and T. Wasserman and J. Willis and D. Wodrich and P. Wright and J. Yalof",
year = "2010",
month = "8",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1177/073194871003300310",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "223--236",
journal = "Learning Disability Quarterly",
issn = "0731-9487",
publisher = "Council for Learning Disabilities",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Critical issues in response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention

T2 - An expert white paper consensus

AU - Hale, J.

AU - Alfonso, V.

AU - Berninger, V.

AU - Bracken, B.

AU - Christo, C.

AU - Clark, E.

AU - Cohen, M.

AU - Davis, A.

AU - Decker, S.

AU - Denckla, Martha Bridge

AU - Dumont, R.

AU - Elliott, C.

AU - Feifer, S.

AU - Fiorello, C.

AU - Flanagan, D.

AU - Fletcher-Janzen, E.

AU - Geary, D.

AU - Gerber, M.

AU - Gerner, M.

AU - Goldstein, S.

AU - Gregg, N.

AU - Hagin, R.

AU - Jaffe, L.

AU - Kaufman, A.

AU - Kaufman, N.

AU - Keith, T.

AU - Kline, F.

AU - Kochhar-Bryant, C.

AU - Lerner, J.

AU - Marshall, G.

AU - Mascolo, J.

AU - Mather, N.

AU - Mazzocco, M.

AU - McCloskey, G.

AU - McGrew, K.

AU - Miller, D.

AU - Miller, J.

AU - Mostert, M.

AU - Naglieri, J.

AU - Ortiz, S.

AU - Phelps, L.

AU - Podhajski, B.

AU - Reddy, L.

AU - Reynolds, C.

AU - Riccio, C.

AU - Schrank, F.

AU - Schultz, E.

AU - Semrud-Clikeman, M.

AU - Shaywitz, S.

AU - Simon, J.

AU - Silver, L.

AU - Swanson, L.

AU - Urso, A.

AU - Wasserman, T.

AU - Willis, J.

AU - Wodrich, D.

AU - Wright, P.

AU - Yalof, J.

PY - 2010/8/16

Y1 - 2010/8/16

N2 - Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a "third method" approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

AB - Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a "third method" approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79952459457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79952459457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/073194871003300310

DO - 10.1177/073194871003300310

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79952459457

VL - 33

SP - 223

EP - 236

JO - Learning Disability Quarterly

JF - Learning Disability Quarterly

SN - 0731-9487

IS - 3

ER -