This study examined whether a large group of postsecondary students participating in a support program for students classified as having learning disabilities (LD) met criteria for five objective diagnostic models for LD: IQ-achievement discrepancy (1.0 SD, 1.5 SD, and >2.0 SD) models, a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) model, and an academic impairment model. The participants were 336 postsecondary students enrolled in a private liberal arts college who had been previously classified as having LD prior to entering the program. Results showed that the largest proportion of students met the 1.0 SD (48.8%) and the absolute academic impairment (40.2%) criteria. However, 40.5% of the participants were not classified as having LD by any of the five models. Participants exhibited remarkable variability in their aptitude and achievement scores, with mean composite achievement scores ranging from the very low to the average ranges in reading, mathematics, and writing, depending on the achievement test used. The findings of this study and others suggest that little information about a student’s academic skills is likely to be conveyed by a diagnosis of LD, leading to great heterogeneity in skill levels within LD support programs.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
4.
Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §12101 et seq. (1990).
5.
BirchS.ChaseC. (2004). Visual and language processing deficits in compensated and noncompensated college students with dyslexia. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 389–410.
6.
BrinckerhoffL. C.BanerjeeM. (2007). Misconceptions regarding accommodations on high-stakes tests: Recommendations for preparing disability documentation for test takers with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 246–255.
BrownV.HammillD.WiederholtL. (1978). Test of reading comprehension. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
9.
BryantB.PattonJ.DunnC. (1991). Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
10.
Carrow-WoolfolkE. (1995). Oral and Written Language Scales. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
11.
College Board. (2012). SAT test. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
12.
CoryR. C. (2011). Disability services offices for students with disabilities: A campus resource. New Directions for Higher Education, 154, 27–36.
13.
DombrowskiS. C.KamphausR. W.ReynoldsC. R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364–372.
14.
DunnL.MarkwardtF. (1970). Peabody Individual Achievement Test. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
15.
FletcherJ.LyonK. R.FuchsL.BarnesM. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.
16.
GetzelE. E.McManusS. (2005). Expanding support services on campus. In GetzelE. E.WehmanP. (Eds.), Going to college: Expanding opportunities for people with disabilities (pp. 139–161). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
17.
GreggN. (2009). Adolescents and adults with learning disabilities and ADHD: Assessment and accommodation. New York, NY: Guilford.
18.
HammillD.LarsenS. (1988). Test of Written Language-2. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
19.
HarrisonA. G.NicholsE.LarochetteA. (2008). Investigating the quality of learning disability documentation provided by students in higher education. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 23, 161–174.
20.
HolzerM. L.MadausJ. W.BrayM. A.KehleT. J. (2009). The test-taking strategy intervention for college students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 24, 44–56.
21.
HuangL. V.BardosA. N.D’AmatoR. C. (2010). Identifying students with learning disabilities: Composite profile analysis using the Cognitive Assessment System. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 19–30.
22.
HughesC. A.SmithJ. O. (1990). Cognitive and academic performance of college students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 13, 66–79.
23.
JastakS.WilkinsonG. (1984). Wide Range Achievement Test–Revised. Wilmington, DE: Jastak.
24.
KaufmanA.KaufmanN. (1985). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
KavaleK. A.SpauldingL. S.BeamA. P. (2009). A time to define: Making the specific learning disability definition prescribe specific learning disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32, 39–48.
27.
LovettB. J.GordonM.LewandowskiL. J. (2009). Measuring impairment in disability evaluations: Legal and ethical issues. In GoldsteinS.NaglieriJ. (Eds.), Assessment of impairment: From theory to practice (pp. 93–103). New York, NY: Springer.
28.
MadausJ. W.BanerjeeM.HambletE. C. (2010). Learning disability documentation decision making at the postsecondary level. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 33, 68–79.
29.
MarkwardtF. (1989). Peabody Individual Achievement Test–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance.
30.
McLaughlinS.KnoopA.HollidayG. (2005). Differentiating students with mathematics difficulties in college: Mathematics disabilities vs. no diagnosis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 223–232.
31.
MullC.SitlingtonP. L.AlperS. (2001). Postsecondary education for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the literature. Exceptional Children, 68, 97–118.
32.
National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (1988). Letter to NJCLD member organizations. Washington, DC: Author.
ProctorB.PrevattF. (2003). Agreement among four models used for diagnosing learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 459–466.
35.
RathK. A.RoyerJ. M. (2002). The nature and effectiveness of learning disability services for college students. Educational Psychology Review, 14, 353–381.
36.
ReschlyD. J.BergstromM. K. (2009). Response to intervention. In GutkinT. B.ReynoldsC. R. (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 434–460). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
37.
ReschlyD. J.HospJ. L. (2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197–213.
38.
ReynoldsC. R.ShaywitzS. E. (2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145.
39.
SiegelL. S. (1999). Issues in the definition and diagnosis of learning disabilities: A perspective on Guckenberger v. Boston University. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 304–319.
40.
SilverC. H.BlackburnL. B.ArffaS.BarthJ. T.BushS. S.KofflerS. P.ElliottR. W. (2006). The importance of neuropsychological assessment for the evaluation of childhood learning disorders: NAN Policy and Planning Committee. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 21, 741–744.
41.
SparksR. L.LovettB. J. (2009a). College students with learning disability diagnoses: Who are they and how do they perform?Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 494–510.
42.
SparksR. L.LovettB. J. (2009b). Objective criteria for classification of postsecondary students as learning disabled: Effects on prevalence rates and group characteristics. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 230–239.
43.
StanovichK. E. (2005). The future of a mistake: Will discrepancy measurement continue to make the learning disabilities field a pseudoscience?Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 103–106.
44.
SternbergR. J.GrigorenkoE. L. (2002). Difference scores in the identification of children with learning disabilities: It’s time to use a different method. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 65–83.
45.
U.S. Office of Education. (1968). First annual report of the National Advisory Committee on Handicapped Children. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
46.
WechslerD. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Revised. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
WechslerD. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
53.
WeisR.SykesL.UnadkatD. (in press). Qualitative differences in learning disabilities across postsecondary institutions. Journal of Learning Disabilities,
