Interventions for Learning Disabilities

Abstract

We investigated whether there was a noticeable shift in focus from general to specific learning disabilities, and in the types of articles (narrative or empirically based) in the Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD) between 1995 to 2000. A pilot study had revealed an increase in empirically based articles and a shift toward specifically delineated learning disabilities across three journals focusing on learning disabilities between 1995 and 2000. To attempt to delineate a specific year for the change, we examined all JLD articles from 1995 to 2000. We found a dramatic increase in articles focusing on specific learning disabilities (designating area of academic weakness) and on the percentage of empirically based articles beginning in 1999. We speculate on the relationship between this increase and evolving practices emphasizing research-based interventions, particularly those that predated No Child Left Behind and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

Keywords

learning disabilities legal mandates special education research trends evidence-based research

During the 2003 to 2004 school year, approximately 6 million children between the ages of 6 and 21 received special education services in the United States, constituting nearly 9% of students at any given school (Turnbull, Turnbull, & Wehmeyer, 2007). The number and percentage of children in special education have steadily increased over the years. For example, Turnbull and colleagues (2007) indicated that from 1990 to 1999, the number of students with disabilities increased 30%, although the total population of students increased only 12%. In fact, the prevalence of learning disabilities (LD) has increased 300% since 1977, when the severe discrepancy identification model was in its infancy (Dean, Burns, Grialou, & Varro, 2006). During the past decade, school practices have shifted significantly from emphasis on identification and special education services to early identification of curriculum-based weaknesses, with intervention taking place within the general education classroom.

In the current study, we investigated if and when a shift occurred from predominantly narrative types of articles to predominantly empirical articles, potentially signaling a refocusing of remediation efforts on early, evidence-based interventions. We also investigated the research focus on types of LD, expecting a concurrent shift from students with generic labels of LD to specific delineation of the areas of specific learning disabilities (SLD). We sought a chronological delineation of changes to make a comparison with concurrent revision efforts for the legal mandate, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), alternatively known as the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act (2004). We speculated that the sequence might inform us in terms of potential influences or the reactions of researchers in the area of interventions for children with LD.

Models for Identification and Intervention

When conceptualized in 1977, the severe discrepancy model (SDM) for identifying students with LD was defined fairly simply as “a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement” (Dean et al., 2006, p. 158). The SDM generally shared conceptual quarters with the aptitude by treatment interaction model (ATI), advocated by Cronbach and Snow (1977). The ATI model involved the identification of aptitude and achievement strengths and weaknesses, theoretically leading to a selection of instructional methods that matched individuals’ learning styles, cognitive abilities, and achievement levels. A contemporary practice that evolved from the discrepancy model is cross-battery assessment, based on the research of Cattell, Horn, Carroll and colleagues (e.g., Carroll, 1993; Cattell, 1971; Horn, 1968; Horn & Stankov, 1982; Woodcock, 1994) and now integrated under the name of Cattell–Horn–Carroll (CHC) theory (Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz, 2000). Using cross-battery assessment techniques, psychological examiners select and administer subtests representing narrow abilities, from one or more normative-based cognitive and achievement instruments, to establish significant strengths and weaknesses in broad abilities, such as fluid abilities or crystallized abilities.

Cross-battery assessment, based on CHC theory, has been described as a psychometrically defensible method of determining strengths and weaknesses in examinees (Alfonso, Flanagan, & Radwan, 2005). However, some researchers and practitioners have criticized such procedures, primarily for problems in technical adequacy for diagnosis (see discussion in L. S. Fuchs & Vaughn, 2005) and for its failure to provide adequate information in decision making concerning classroom interventions (e.g., L. S. Fuchs & Vaughn, 2005; Ysseldyke & Marston, 1990). Alternatively, some authors have defended the SDM, maintaining that it is adequate for identification and is compatible with the response to intervention (RTI) model currently gaining momentum (Kavale, Kauffman, Bachmeier, & LeFever, 2008; Mather & Kaufman, 2006).

The RTI model was developed following extensive research in the 1980s to find an alternative model to normative-based assessment. Initially, behaviorally oriented researchers advocated the use of curriculum-based measurement (CBM), which allows evaluation of intervention effectiveness through single-subject and time-series research designs (see L. S. Fuchs, 2004). Typically, CBM represents an individual’s performance via weekly testing in specific areas. RTI programs, which typically incorporate CBM and a three-tiered level of evaluations and interventions, have since been introduced in many school districts across the United States to target early reading problems (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006) and subsequently to target early math skills (L. S. Fuchs et al., 2008). Reading disabilities remain a primary focus for intervention because reading is deemed a necessary skill to succeed in school and life. Approximately 5% of children are identified as having reading disabilities (Schrank & Flanagan, 2003). Furthermore, 80% of children with LD have a reading disability (D. Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). Critics of the RTI model point out that effect sizes of RTI interventions are often in the moderate range and unlikely to move a poor reader to the average range (Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert, 2005). In addition, there is a noted lack of standards for operationalizing response adequacy (Mather & Kaufman, 2006).

The evolution of support for the RTI model includes legislative changes to encourage evidence-based interventions. Protracted discussions among researchers, practitioners, and legislators were held prior to and following the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, mandating a research-based approach to intervention and identification of children with LD, and placing less emphasis on the previously dominant assessments techniques emphasizing the SDM (see Zirkel, 2007, as an example of postmandate discussion). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2007), an increasing amount of research supports methods such as RTI that are more accurate at differentiating children who have an SLD from children whose difficulties could be remediated with scientifically based interventions within general education. One of the outcomes of this pro-RTI movement is an increased need for practitioners to assess the existing literature on LD to identify evidence-based interventions. Thus, practitioners’ interest in identifying and administering evidence-based interventions, as opposed to referring students for normative-based assessments and subsequent placement, is increasing. Consequently, the prevalence of empirically based articles should, hypothetically, increase in the professional literature on LD. As empirically based articles, presumably focusing on interventions, increase, so should the focus on SLD, that is, LD identified by specific academic area, rather than a focus on addressing the needs of generic groupings of children with LD (no specific area identified).

Following this line of thinking, we asked whether there has been an identifiable shift in the literature that reflects influences associated with legal mandates being developed regarding evidence-based practices and implementation of RTI-type interventions in the general education classroom. Specifically, based on results of a pilot study, we expected to find two concurrent shifts. One shift would be from articles focusing on students generally identified with LD to those with SLD in specified academic areas. The second would be away from narrative-type studies to empirically based studies. As we had already located a general trend in this direction, to fall between the years 1995 to 2000 (Fuller, Pelchar, McCleary, & Bain, 2008), we focused on these years in our study. In addition, we based our results on articles during this period from the Journal of Learning Disabilities (JLD) because of its focus primarily on LD and the high number of articles and issues per year compared to other journals with a similar focus. We deemed an investigation of the interplay between theoretically based and research-based research efforts to serve the needs of students with disabilities and the development of legal mandates, with subsequent changes in educational practices, to be an important endeavor, an exercise in reflection that is typically valued in education-related domains (Hatton & Smith, 1999). Our methodology follows a synthesis of previous research in this area and a brief explanation of our pilot study results.

Previous Syntheses and Reviews of Article Focus and Trends

A preliminary search of the literature yielded few previous synthesis or review articles focusing on the trends in the LD literature. In 1974, Black examined articles referenced in Psychological Abstracts from 1962 to 1972 related to “learning disorders” and “reading deficiency.” He reported frequency counts of articles falling in the categories of learning disorders and reading deficiency per year and presented frequencies for article types such as predictive-descriptive, etiological, and remedial. The results indicated that although the number of total articles increased during this period, the percentage of each specific article type remained constant. The majority of articles were associated with the diagnosis and prediction of learning disorders, the description of samples of children with learning disorders, and the comparison of these children with other groups on an extensive assortment of variables.

In 1981, Harber analyzed 229 research reports published from 1978 to 1981 in two unidentified major LD journals. Harber examined the types of research studies, selection of participants, comparability of groups, classification of subjects, intelligence criteria, achievement criteria, exclusionary categories, and learning process impairment. The majority of studies (74.2%) were quasi-experimental. Approximately 10% of the studies were surveys or interviews, 7% were applied behavioral analyses, and 7.9% were classified as “other.”

In a recent pilot study, we examined articles published in three peer-reviewed journals—JLD, Journal of Special Education, and Learning Disability Quarterly (LDQ)—in 1995, 2000, and 2005 (Fuller, et al., 2008). We selected these particular journals because they focused primarily on LD. Our goal was to determine the types of LD (general or specific) emphasized in the refereed literature, the most prevalent types of articles (narrative or empirically based), and whether there were any indications of trends during the 11-year period. Types of LD were broadly categorized as reading, math, language, written expression, or other. Narrative articles were classified as policy or anecdotal, and empirical articles were described as descriptive, correlational, meta-analysis, or causal. Causal articles were subcategorized as causal-comparative or treatment/experiment. Results were similar for all the journals. Overall, there was a greater frequency of articles focusing on LD in general (156) than on SLD (140). The majority of articles that did focus on an SLD centered on reading (64%). In addition, there was a notable increase (12%) in the prevalence of articles that centered on an SLD from 1995 to 2000 and a concurrent increase in empirically based articles during this period, indicating a shift in literature trends occurred within a 6-year span.

These results prompted us to develop the present study with the goal of delineating the progression of a similar trend within a single journal, with a yearly instead of 5-year breakdown, from 1995 to 2000. Because the pilot study revealed similar outcomes across journals, we narrowed our investigation to one journal. We excluded Journal of Special Education because it did not focus exclusively on LD. We selected JLD instead of LDQ because it publishes more articles per year. For instance, JLD published 176 narrative or empirical articles in 1995, 2000, and 2005. In contrast, LDQ published only 86 narrative or empirical articles during these 3 years. We expected a representative trend based on the large database of articles in JLD. Thus, we examined all articles published in JLD from 1995 to 2000. Our primary research questions were as follows: (a) Does the specific type of LD emphasized in the professional literature change between 1995 to 2000? (b) Do the types of articles in the LD literature change between 1995 and 2000? and (c) What is the nature of the shift in trends (if any)?

Method

We reviewed each article, excluding editorials, published in JLD from 1995 to 2000. Articles were categorized based on the type of article and the type of SLD on which the authors focused. Our classification system for article types was loosely based on one developed by Bliss, Skinner, Hautau, and Carroll (2008) to analyze the prevalence of evidence-based research in school psychology journals. We modified this classification system to fit the characteristics of our study (e.g., added a category for type of LD emphasized and adapted operational definitions for categories of article types).

To conduct our review, we divided articles equally among three researchers to examine and categorize. Originally, 20% of the articles were examined by a second researcher for interrater reliability. Because we could not establish a satisfactory level of interrater reliability, we had two raters examine every article and then compared ratings. When both researchers did not agree on the classification for article type, the article was presented to the research group, which determined the most appropriate categories for the article. By consensus, some articles were classified under more than one category, resolving the interrater reliability problems that had arisen earlier. The data were then coded, combined, and analyzed by formulating the percentage of articles in each category.

Scoring

Type of LD

One category of interest was the type of LD emphasized in each article. Therefore, each article was classified according to the type of LD under the broad categories of general, language disabled, mathematics, reading, written expression, or other. These categories were created by the researchers based on the common types found in LD research. An article was classified as general if it applied to LD but did not focus on a specific kind of LD (e.g., reading, math).

When applicable, we recorded subcategories of language disability as oral comprehension or oral expression. Mathematics disability was more specifically defined as calculation or reasoning, and reading disability was broken down into the categories of comprehension, recognition, or dyslexia. An article that fit language disabled, math, or reading categories but did not meet a specific subcategory was classified as general (e.g., general reading). Articles classified as other focused on a type of LD that did not clearly fit into a category or focused on a non-LD topic. These articles were recorded according to the type of disability emphasized or the main topic when there was no LD (e.g., attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder; ADHD).

Type of article

The articles were generally categorized as narrative or empirical. Narrative subsumed the categories of policy reports, anecdotal reports, and literature reviews. Empirical included the categories of descriptive, correlational, meta-analytic, and causal. Causal was defined as causal-comparative or treatment/experimental (single subject or group design).

An article was considered narrative if numerical statistics were not reported. Articles that merely cited statistics from other studies were also classified as narrative. Narrative policy articles included articles based on procedures and ethical positions. Anecdotal articles focused on the experiences of the authors, and literature review articles provided summaries of previous literature without generating new data analyses. In our classification system, narrative articles also included qualitative research. Depending on the research, articles could be categorized as “narrative” (no specification thereafter) or as narrative anecdotal.

Empirical articles employed statistics or research designs. We classified articles as descriptive if statistics were cited concerning a particular group under study but the study did not involve an experiment or group comparison. An article was considered correlational if it examined a noncausal relationship among variables. Meta-analytic articles combined or reanalyzed statistics from previous studies. Causal articles included independent and dependent variables and were further divided into causal-comparative and treatment/experimental. Articles classified as causal-comparative involved no manipulation of the independent variable, whereas causal-experimental articles included studies involving manipulation of the independent variable.

Some articles were classified in more than one category based on LD type, and in more than one article type. Because these articles were counted twice in totals, occasionally we recorded a larger total sum of articles for a year or category than the numerical total. Thus, percentages are based on the number of articles that met the criterion of interest divided by the total number of actual articles reviewed (N = 367).

Results

Type of LD

We reviewed 367 articles published in JLD from 1995 to 2000. Table 1 provides a summary of the articles according to disability categories by year. Across the 6 years, approximately 61% (n = 224) focused on general LD. Of the remaining articles, 20% (n = 74) focused on reading disabilities, 5% (n = 17) on math disabilities, 4% (n = 14) on language disabilities, 2% (n = 7) on disabilities of written expression, and 11% (n = 41) on a disability other than those listed above or on a non-LD topic. The most common topic included in the other category was ADHD (n = 24), followed by traumatic brain injury (TBI; n = 10). At times, JLD published special issues. For instance, one special issue focused on ADHD, and the topic of TBI appeared across a series of articles within issues.

Table 1

Percentages of types of learning disabilities by categories and year from the Journal of Learning Disabilities

	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	Across 6 years
General	70	71	69	67	39	36	61
Language disabled	8	5	2	2	2	4	4
Mathematics	3	0	15	0	4	7	5
Reading	19	8	9	13	41	44	20
Written expression	1	0	5	0	4	2	2
Other	3	17	3	21	14	13	11

Figure 1 illustrates the percentage of articles focused on general LD and SLD by year. Visual inspection indicates a dramatic decrease in the percentage of articles concerning general LD from 1998 to 1999 and a proportionate increase in the percentage of SLD articles across those years. This trend continued in the same direction in 2000.

Figure 1.

Trend lines for percentages of articles focusing on general versus specific learning disabilities from 1995 to 2000.

Article Type

Table 2 summarizes the data by percentages of article types across years. Figure 2 demonstrates the trend of the percentage of narrative and empirical articles published by year. From 1995 to 1998, the percentages of narrative and empirical articles were similar, but in 1999 and 2000, there was a progressive increase in empirical articles and a simultaneous decrease in narrative articles. In 1998, 52% of the articles (n = 33) were empirical and 48% (n = 30) were narrative. In 1999, 71% (n = 35) of the articles were empirical and only 29% (n = 14) were narrative. This trend continued into 2000, with 76% (n = 34) empirical and 24% (n = 11) narrative.

Table 2

Percentages of article types by year

Article type	1995	1996	1997	1998	1999	2000	Across 6 years
Narrative total	46	54	57	48	29	24	45
Narrative policy	26	25	25	27	24	9	23
Anecdotal	16	3	5	8	2	2	7
Literature review	4	26	28	13	2	13	14
Empirical total	54	46	45	52	71	76	56
Descriptive	5	5	5	5	8	9	6
Correlational	4	0	3	3	4	7	3
Causal-experimental	26	23	31	33	37	36	30
Causal-comparative	19	18	6	11	20	22	16
Meta-analysis	0	0	0	0	2	2	1

Figure 2.

Trend lines for percentages of articles categorized as narrative versus empirical from 1995 to 2000.

In examining the percentage of articles by types, we noted several peaks and valleys worth mentioning (see Table 2). Among empirical articles, causal-experimental articles were the most frequent across years and peaked in 1999, constituting 37% of the articles. Causal-experimental studies composed 36% of the articles in 2000. Causal-comparative studies were the second most frequent among the empirical studies and peaked in 2000, representing 22% of the articles. Correlational articles, descriptive articles, and meta-analytic articles varied throughout the 6 years, and their frequency rates were low, varying from zero to four articles per year. Therefore, the majority of the empirical articles were causal-experimental and causal-comparative types of articles. Figure 3 demonstrates the trend in percentage of articles categorized as causal-experimental and causal-comparative by year.

Figure 3.

Trend lines for percentages of articles categorized as causal-experimental versus causal-comparative from 1995 to 2000.

Among articles classified as narrative policy, anecdotal, and literature reviews, narrative policy articles remained close to 25% across all years, with one exception. In 2000, narrative policy articles constituted 9% of total articles. In 1995, anecdotal articles accounted for 16% of all articles but ranged from just 2% to 8% across the remaining years. Literature reviews varied from 2% to 26% of the total articles, with no discernible trend.

Discussion

We examined articles published in JLD from 1995 to 2000, primarily seeking confirmation that a shift in article types, from narrative to empirical, occurred alongside a shift in focus from predominantly general to specific types of LD. In an earlier pilot study, we found a shift in emphasis to more empirically based articles and to more frequent emphases on SLD across three journals during a 5-year period from 1995 to 2000. In our present study, we sought a year-by-year delineation of the differences. Our results indicated that the shift toward predominantly empirically based articles and emphases on SLD began in 1999 for this journal.

We note that the general shift was across several subcategories under our general classification of empirical articles: correlational, descriptive, causal-experimental, and causal-comparative. However, discussion of the relationship between evidence-based research and the development of legal mandates for practice reform necessitates careful note of the modest increase in one category: causal-experimental articles, which are the primary reflections of research related to RTI (see Figure 3).

Because of the descriptive nature of our data, we cannot claim to have verified a cause-and-effect relationship between research products and concurrent legal mandates (e.g., IDEA, 2004). We are left to speculate about this, based on the chronological relationship between the variables of type of LD focus (general or specific) and article type (narrative or empirical) compared to the development and implementation of legal mandates that focus on evidence-based interventions as an alternative to traditional assessment techniques. For example, does the observed increase in empirical types of articles in JLD reflect the efforts of behaviorally oriented researchers to influence changes in the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA? Or does the observed increase simply reflect a response to some informal knowledge of current legislative initiatives that were in the formative stages at the time of our identified shift in article types? Both options seem feasible explanations, and we lack the information needed to confirm one or the other. We optimistically believe that the refocusing efforts toward specific academic problems (SLD) and the increase in empirical articles (more specifically, causal-experimental articles) were the result of a concentrated effort among researchers to provide evidence for educators in an era of educational reform as well as to influence legislation focusing on children with LD, as well as children at risk for academic failure.

The timing of the earlier reauthorization of IDEA in 1997 (U.S. Congress, 1997) slightly predates our identified shift in article types. Because each reauthorization of IDEA follows several years of legislative review, we cannot rule out the influences of the 1997 reauthorization, as this version of the law brought school-based educational teams together to form intervention and transition plans for individual students. The question remains as to the amount of influence wielded by previous theoretical and practical trends versus influence directly wielded by impending reauthorization plans for IDEA. In this case, because several years of discussion and preparation lead to each reauthorization of IDEA, the changes in law most likely reflect empirical research interests to some extent (see Stoiber & Kratochwill, 2000).

Simultaneously, the educational and political climate that led to the passing of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 very likely played a role in the emphasis on evidence-based interventions reflected in our results. Even though the actual implementation of NCLB postdates our noted 1999 shift to a higher rate of evidence-based articles, the discussions and preparations that led up to this law cannot be ruled out as an influence on the increase in evidence-based research. Although primarily addressing children who were at risk for academic failure in general, and not exclusively children with LD, recognition of the importance of evidence-based instructional practices was a primary component of NCLB, and the authors of the reauthorization of IDEA sought to align their recommendations with NCLB (Turnbull et al., 2007).

In addition, there is ample evidence that professional organizations also interacted with government agencies to influence practice during the years of interest in our study. An American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force (1995) was formed in response to demands for intervention outcomes from agencies within the government, managed health care, and professional organizations (Stoiber & Kratochwill, 2000). Both APA’s Division 16 and the Society for the Study of School Psychology encouraged the movement of the task force toward evidence-based interventions (Stoiber & Kratochwill, 2000).

Leinhardt, McCarthy Young, and Merriman (1995) suggested a theory-to- practice model to describe transition and reform in educational practices. Reflecting on such a model, what is salient in our view is an interaction effect based on four contributing groups: theoretically based researchers, educational practitioners, professional organizations, and legislative consultants. The shape of the interaction between the four contributing groups seems to take the form of an upward-spiraling spring-like coil, or a quadruple helix (with due appreciation of the double-helix DNA model for inspiration). Individuals from all four contributing groups interact to refine educational practices into a system that encourages evidence-based practices and that, ideally, produces documented gains in children’s academic skills. An example of such an interaction is the transition from the SDM to the RTI model discussed earlier. Local, state, and federal educators have worked side by side with researchers to advise legislators of their needs and to present them with best practices based on evidence-based research. Legislators have apparently listened.

The strength of our current findings is that we were able to track the growth in evidence-based research that occurred side by side with ongoing legislative revisions for IDEA, which eventually encouraged the use of these research findings. A practical manifestation of the effects of our hypothesized quadruple-helix model is the creation of the What Works Clearinghouse, occurring in 2002 just after NCLB was implemented (Institute of Educational Sciences, n.d.).

We believe that a dominant precursive factor contributing to the changes in focus from general LD to SLD and to a focus on evidence-based interventions was the bulk of research from proponents of curriculum-based assessment and CBM over the preceding decades (see, e.g., Deno, 1985; Gickling, 1985), followed by consistent efforts by those involved in developing NCLB and planning the reauthorization of IDEA to focus on research-to-practice connections in assessment and interventions for students with learning difficulties (see, e.g., Galagan, 1985; Shinn, 1989; Ysseldyke & Marston, 1990). With the current version of IDEA (2004), the SDM, generally associated with aptitude by treatment research and cross-battery assessment, now sits side by side with or is sometimes supplanted by the RTI model in many school districts (e.g., Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). Changing research emphases are reflected not only in the refereed literature but also in publications included in The Guilford School Practitioner Series (e.g., Shapiro, 1989; Shinn, 1989). We speculate that after the initial groundwork was laid primarily in the 1980s and 1990s, reports of evidence-based intervention procedures across grades, school districts, and regions were highly valued in the refereed literature as the shift to the CBM/RTI model became “in vogue.”

Such a shift to evidence-based procedures is somewhat reflected by editorial changes in JLD during the 1995–2000 period. In 1996, G. W. Hynd assumed editorship of JLD, replacing J. L. Wiederholt (Wiederholt, 1995). In 2000, Hynd was replaced by W. P. Hresko. Other publication changes also occurred during the period of our review, such as a decrease in the number of issues produced per year. However, the total number of articles published annually remained approximately the same; therefore, we assume these changes did not affect the overall results. Although special issues covering multidisciplinary topics were forecast from 1996 to 1998, Hynd (1996) requested submissions of research articles to be published alongside the special issue articles, noting that in the future the journal would focus less on special issues. Furthermore, he encouraged submission of the following types of articles: experimental, intervention, policy, and international changes in the field, with an emphasis placed on articles focusing on the treatment of LD (Hynd, 1996). Any or all of these changes may have influenced our results. However, data from three different journals in our pilot study placed an increase in empirical articles during the 1995–2000 interval, indicating that more factors were likely involved in creating the shift in trends than just an editorship change.

In gathering data, we did not record the demographic characteristics and environmental contexts of the students involved in empirical studies, particularly for the intervention studies we reviewed. A summary of demographic information across published studies could contribute to our understanding of the contributing factors for students’ success (see Donovan & Cross, 2002). We recommend that future research reviews include information on gender, ages, grade levels, racial or ethnic identification, and information about environmental and socioeconomic contexts of the schools that are studied. We also recommend that reviewers track articles from additional journals focusing on LD to confirm the generalization and maintenance of results that we report. Inclusion of an international journal, such as the British Journal of Learning Disabilities, is recommended to determine generalization of research trends across countries, with or without similar mandates.

Future researchers might also consider examining the proportions of articles in refereed current and past journals based on the various theoretical models, ATI, SDM, CBM, and RTI, formulating a chronological graph of noticeable differences and trends. In addition, there has been much recent discussion and debate surrounding the SDM and RTI models (e.g., Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003), and a review of recent position articles would provide a guide to both the novice and experienced educator regarding paradigmatic practices and preferences. Our hypothesis regarding the quadruple-helix model may be confirmed or disputed in future studies, particularly those of a qualitative nature, offering interviews with prominent researchers of the area of LD, questioning them about their motivation, and confirming their knowledge of impending changes in mandates for special education, as well as general education.

Overall, our findings reflect a shift in emphasis to more empirically based research studies during the 1999–2000 publication years. The historical trend of evidence-based research, along with the increased rate of this type of research co-occurring with the reauthorization and formulation of two prominent legislative initiatives (IDEA and NCLB) provide a window into the interactions between research activities and reform activities in education. Educational practitioners would do well to keep their fingers on the pulse of current research trends if they want to predict future reform. Aspiring researchers should keep an astute eye on legislative trends and on reauthorization activities while framing their future research activities. As practitioners and researchers, we hope that in the future we can continue to find consistent predictions of legislative change by examining trends in research activities.

Footnotes

Authors

DANIEL F. MCCLEARY, PhD, earned his doctorate in school psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He currently practices within a public school system and a private practice. He has coauthored more than a dozen peer-reviewed articles pertaining to school psychology and sociopolitical values.

EMILY FULLER ROWLETTE, PhD, received her doctorate in school psychology from the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is currently employed as a school psychologist with Jefferson County Schools, Tennessee. Emily's research interests include learning disabilities, ADHD, and autism.

TAYLOR K. PELCHAR, PhD, is a recent graduate of the school psychology doctoral program at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. She is currently employed as a school psychologist with Catawba County Schools, North Carolina. Her research interests include bullying behaviors and emotional intelligence among gifted children.

SHERRY K. BAIN, PhD, is an associate professor and serves on the school psychology graduate faculty at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Her current research interests include examining rates of bullying and cyberbullying in public schools, across cultural settings, and across diverse demographic groups.

References

Alfonso

V. C.

Flanagan

D. P.

Radwan

(2005). The impact of the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory on test development and interpretation of cognitive and academic abilities. In Flanagan

D. P.

Harrison

P. L.

(Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment—Theories, tests, and issues (2nd ed., pp. 185–201). New York, NY: Guilford.

American Psychological Association Task Force. (1995). Template for developing guidelines: Interventions for mental disorders and psychosocial aspects of physical disorders. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Berkeley

Bender

W. N.

Peaster

L. G.

Saunders

(2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 85–95. doi:10.1177/0022219408326214

Black

F. W.

(1974). The world explosion in learning disabilities: A notation of literature trends 1962–1972. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 323–324. doi:10.1177/002221947400700511

Bliss

S. L.

Skinner

C. H.

Hautau

Carroll

E. E.

(2008). Articles published in four school psychology journals from 2000 to 2005: An analysis of experimental/intervention research. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 483–498. doi:10.1002/pits.20318

Carroll

J. B.

(1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cattell

R. B.

(1971). Abilities: Their structure, growth, and action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Cronbach

L. J.

Snow

R. J.

(1977). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. New York, NY: Irvington.

Dean

V. J.

Burns

M. K.

Grialou

Varro

(2006). Comparison of ecological validity of learning disabilities diagnostic models. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 157–168. doi:10.1002/pits.20143

10.

Deno

S. L.

(1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.

11.

Donovan

M. S.

Cross

C. T.

(2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

12.

Flanagan

D. P.

McGrew

K. S.

Ortiz

S. O.

(2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

13.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93–99. doi:10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4

14.

Fuchs

L. S.

(2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188–192.

15.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Craddock

Hollenbeck

K. N.

Hamlett

C. L.

Schatschneider

(2008). Effects of small-group tutoring with and without validated classroom instruction on at-risk students’ math problem solving: Are two tiers of prevention better than one? Educational Psychology, 100, 491–509. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.491

16.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

S. R.

(2005). Response-to-intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities. Trainer’s Forum: Periodical of the Trainers of School Psychologists, 25, 12–19.

17.

Fuller

E. J.

Pelchar

T. K.

McCleary

Bain

S. K.

(2008, February). Trends in learning disabilities . Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA.

18.

Galagan

J. E.

(1985). Psychoeducational testing: Turn out the lights, the party’s over. Exceptional Children, 52, 288–299.

19.

Gickling

E. E.

(1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52, 205–218.

20.

Harber

J. R.

(1981). Learning disability research: How far have we progressed? Learning Disability Quarterly, 4, 372–381.

21.

Hatton

Smith

(1999). Reflection in teaching education: Towards definition and implementation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 11, 33–49. doi:10.1016/0742-051X(94)00012-U

22.

Horn

J. L.

(1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review, 75, 242–259.

23.

Horn

J. L.

Stankov

(1982). Auditory and visual factors of intelligence. Intelligence, 6, 165–185.

24.

Hynd

G. W.

(1996). Editorial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 338–339.

25.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. 34 C.F.R. 300 et seq. Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html

26.

Institute of Educational Sciences. (n.d.). What Works Clearinghouse—About us. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/aboutus.aspx

27.

Kavale

K. A.

Holdnack

J. A.

Mostert

M. P.

(2005). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 2–16. doi:10.2307/4126970

28.

Kavale

K. A.

Kauffman

J. M.

Bachmeier

R. J.

LeFever

G. B.

(2008). Response-to-intervention: Separating the rhetoric of self-congratulation from the reality of specific learning disability identification. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 135–150.

29.

Leinhardt

McCarthy Young

Merriman

(1995). Integrating professional knowledge: The theory of practice and the practice of theory. Learning and Instruction, 5, 401–408. doi:10.1016/0959-4752(95)00025-9

30.

Mather

Kaufman

(2006). Introduction to the special issue, part one: It’s about the what, the how well, and the why. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 747–752. doi:10.1002/pits.20185

31.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

32.

Reynolds

C. R.

Shaywitz

S. E.

(2009). Response to intervention: Ready or not? Or from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 130–145. doi:10.1037/a0016158

33.

Schrank

F. A.

Flanagan

D. P.

(2003). WJ III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

34.

Shapiro

E. S.

(1989). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention. New York, NY: Guilford.

35.

Shinn

M. R.

(1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford.

36.

Stoiber

K. C.

Kratochwill

T. R.

(2000). Empirically supported interventions and school psychology: Rationale and methodological issues—Part 1. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 75–105. doi:10.1037/h0088780

37.

Turnbull

Wehmeyer

M. L.

(2007). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

38.

U.S. Congress. (1997). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments, Public Law No. 105-117. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

39.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Q & A: Questions and answers on response to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Retrieved from http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C

40.

Vaughn

Fuchs

L. S.

(2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00070

41.

Wiederholt

J. L

(Ed.). (1995). Editorial policy [Special section]. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 2–3.

42.

Woodcock

R. W.

(1994). Measures of fluid and crystallized intelligence. In Sternberg

R. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of human intelligence (pp. 452–456). New York, NY: Macmillan.

43.

Ysseldyke

J. E.

Marston

D. B.

(1990). The use of assessment information to plan instructional interventions: A review of the research. In Gutkin

T. B.

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (2nd ed., pp. 661–682). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.

44.

Zirkel

P. A.

(2007). What does the law say? Teaching Exceptional Children, 39, 64–67.