Increasing numbers of students are being diagnosed as simultaneously gifted and having a learning disability, although the identification procedures and characteristics of these students are matters of continuing debate. In the present study, postsecondary students with learning disability diagnoses (N = 357) were grouped according to their IQ scores, and the groups’ cognitive and achievement characteristics were explored, with special attention to the proportions of each group that would meet various objective criteria for learning disability diagnosis. Many students in each group failed to meet any of the criteria, although higher IQ students were more likely to meet most of the criteria. In addition, the higher IQ group exhibited higher achievement scores than did the lower IQ group, although the achievement gaps were much smaller than the IQ differences. Implications for the validity of the gifted/LD category as well as future research directions are discussed.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
Brody, L.E., & Mills, C.J. ( 1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282-296.
4.
Dombrowski, S.C., Kamphaus, R.W., & Reynolds, C.R. (2004). After the demise of the discrepancy: Proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 35, 364-372.
5.
Dorans, N. ( 1999). Correspondence between ACT and SAT I scores (College Board Rep. No. 99-1). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
6.
Ferri, B.A., Gregg, N., & Heggoy, S.J. ( 1997). Profiles of college students demonstrating learning disabilities with and without giftedness. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 30, 552-559.
7.
Gresham, F.M. ( 2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: From research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Holliday, G.A., Koller, J.R., & Thomas, C.D. ( 1999). Post-high school outcomes of high IQ adults with learning disabilities. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22, 266-281.
9.
Kavale, K.A., & Forness, S.R. ( 1995). The nature of learning disabilities: Critical elements of diagnosis and classification. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
Lovett, B.J., & Lewandowski, L.J. (2006). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Who are they? Journal of Learning Disabilities , 39, 515-527.
11.
Mather, N., & Gregg, N. ( 2006). Specific learning disabilities: Clarifying, not eliminating, a construct. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice , 37, 99-106.
12.
McCoach, D.B., Kehle, T., Bray, M.A., & Siegle, D. ( 2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 403-411.
13.
McIntosh, D.E., & Dixon, F.A. ( 2005). Use of intelligence tests in the identification of giftedness . In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 504-520). New York: Guilford.
14.
Minton, B.A., & Pratt, S. ( 2006). Gifted and highly gifted students: How do they score on the SB5? Roeper Review, 28, 232-236.
15.
Nielsen, M.E. ( 2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93-111.
16.
Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. ( 2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40, 159-170.
17.
Reschly, D.J., & Hosp, J.L. ( 2004). State SLD identification policies and practices. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27, 197-213.
18.
Richert, E.S. ( 2003). Excellence with justice in identification and programming . In N. A. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 146-158). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
19.
Rimm, S., Gilman, B.J., & Silverman, L.K. (2007). Nontraditional applications of traditional testing. In J. L. Van Tassel-Baska (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented learners (pp. 175-202). Waco, TX: Prufrock .
20.
Ruf, D.L. ( 2003). Use of the SB5 in the assessment of high abilities (Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, 5th ed., Assessment Service Bulletin No. 3). Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Sparks, R., & Javorsky, J. ( 1999). Students classified as learning disabled and the college foreign language requirement: Replication and comparison studies. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 329-349.
23.
Sparks, R., Philips, L., Ganschow, L., & Javorsky, J. ( 1999). Comparison of students classified as learning disabled who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 553-565.
24.
Sparks, R., Philips, L., & Javorsky J. ( 2003). Students classified as LD who petitioned for or fulfilled the college foreign language requirement: Are they different? A replication study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 348-362.
25.
Speece, D.L., & Hines, S.J. ( 2007). Learning disabilities. In E. J. Mash & R. A. Bakley (Eds.), Assessment of childhood disorders (4th ed., pp. 598-635). New York: Guilford.
26.
Stanovich, K.E. ( 1999). The sociopsychometrics of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 350-361.
27.
Sternberg, R.J., & Grigorenko, E.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.
28.
Woodcock, R.W., McGrew, K.S., & Mather, N. ( 2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
