The detection of cognitive patterns in children with learning disabilities (LD) has been a priority in the identification process. Subtest profile analysis from traditional cognitive assessment has drawn sharp criticism for inaccurate identification and weak connections to educational planning. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to use a new generation of cognitive tests with megacluster analysis to augment diagnosis and the instructional process.The Cognitive Assessment System uses a contemporary theoretical model in which composite scores, instead of subtest scores, are used for profile analysis. Ten core profiles from a regular education sample (N = 1,692) and 12 profiles from a sample of students with LD (N = 367) were found. The majority of the LD profiles were unique compared with profiles obtained from the general education sample. The implications of this study substantiate the usefulness of profile analysis on composite scores as a critical element in LD determination.
Brams, A.G. ( 1999). Utility of Das-Naglieri: Cognitive Assessment System in the discrimination of elementary school children with learning disabilities and speech impairments. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 1878.
2.
Bray, M.A., Kehle, T.J., & Hintze, J.M. ( 1998). Profile analysis with the Wechsler scales: Why does it persist? School Psychology International, 19, 209-220.
3.
Cattell, R.B. ( 1949). rp and other coefficients of pattern similarity. Psychometrika, 14, 279-298.
4.
D’Amato, R.C., Dean, R.S., & Rhodes, R.L. ( 1998). Subtyping children’s learning disabilities with neuropsychological, intellectual, and achievement measures. International Journal of Neuroscience, 96(1-2), 107-125.
5.
Drossman, E.R., Maller, S.J., & McDermott, P.A. (2001). Core profiles of school-aged examinees from the national standardization sample of the Comprehensive Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. School Psychology Review, 30, 586-598.
6.
Duda, R.O., & Hart, P.E. ( 1973). Pattern classification and scene analysis. New York: John Wiley.
Flanagan, D.P., & Ortiz, S.O. ( 2002). Best practices in intellectual assessment: Future directions . In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices for school psychology IV (pp. 1351-1372). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
9.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. ( 2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.
10.
Hale, J.B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J.A., & Kavale, K.A. ( 2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integration response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools , 43, 753-770.
11.
Johnson, J.A. ( 2001). The Planning-Attention-Simultaneous-Success model of cognitive processing in youth with and without written expression disabilities (Doctoral dissertation, University of Northern Colorado, 2001). Dissertation Abstracts International, 62(12-B), June 2002. pp. 5988.
12.
Kamphaus, R.W., Winsor, A.P., Rowe, E.W., & Kim, S. ( 2005). A history of intelligence test interpretation. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 23-38). New York: Guilford Press.
13.
Kaufman, A.S., & Lichtenberger, E.O. (2000). Essentials of WISC-III and WPPSI-R assessment. New York: John Wiley.
14.
Konold, T.R., Glutting, J.J., McDermott, P.A., Kush, J.C., & Watkins, M.M. ( 1999). Structure and diagnostic benefits of a normative subtest taxonomy developed from the WISC-III standardization sample. Journal of School Psychology, 37, 29-48.
15.
Luria, A.R. ( 1973). The working brain: An introduction to neuropsychology . New York: Basic Books.
16.
McDermott, P.A. ( 1998). MEG: Megacluster analytic strategy for multistage hierarchical grouping with relocations and replications. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 677-686.
17.
McDermott, P.A., Glutting, J.J., Jones, J.N., & Noonan, J.V. ( 1989). Typology and prevailing composition of core profiles in the WAIS-R standardization sample. Psychological Assessment , 1, 118-125.
18.
Mojena, R. ( 1977). Hierarchical grouping methods and stopping rules: An evaluation. Computer Journal, 20, 359-363.
19.
Naglieri, J.A. ( 2000). Can profile analysis of ability test scores work? An illustration using the PASS theory and CAS with an unselected cohort. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 419-433.
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). ( 2007). NASP position statement on identification of students with specific learning disabilities. Retrieved September 23, 2007, from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/SLDPosition_2007.pdf
22.
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Retrieved on September 23, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports/pcesefinalreport.doc
23.
Reschly, D.J., & Ysseldyke, J.D. (2002). School psychology paradigm shift. In A. Thomas & J. Grimses (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 17-31). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
24.
Salvia, J., Ysseldyke, J.E., & Bolt, S. ( 2007). Assessment in special and inclusive education (10th ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
Sattler, J.M. ( 2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Jerome M. Sattler.
26.
Stanton, H.C., & Reynolds, C.R. (2000). Configural frequency analysis as a method of determining Wechsler profile types. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 434-448.
27.
Tatsuoka, M.M. ( 1988). Multivariate analysis: Techniques for educational and psychological research (2nd ed.). New York: Macmillan.
28.
Tilly, W.D., III. ( 2003). How many tiers are needed for successful prevention and early intervention? Heart-land Area Education Agency’s evolution from four to three tiers. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium , Kansas City, MO.
29.
Tryon, R.C., & Bailey, B.E. ( 1970). Cluster analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
30.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). Twenty-sixth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Retrieved September 23, 2007 from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/osep/2004/index.html
31.
Ward, J.H., Jr. ( 1963). Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective function . American Statistical Association Journal, 58, 236-244.
32.
Watkins, M.W., Glutting, J.J., & Youngstrom, E.A. (2005). Issues in subtest profile analysis. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 251-268). New York: Guilford Press.
33.
Wilhoit, B.E., & McCallum, R.S. (2002). Profile analysis of the Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test Standardization Sample. School Psychology Review, 31, 263-281.
