Comparing Three Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Models for the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities

Daniel C. Miller, D. Maricle, Alicia M. Jones
{"title":"Comparing Three Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Models for the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities","authors":"Daniel C. Miller, D. Maricle, Alicia M. Jones","doi":"10.18666/LDMJ-2016-V21-I2-7349","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Processing Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) models have been proposed as a method for identifying specific learning disabilities. Three PSW models were examined for their ability to predict expert identified specific learning disabilities cases. The Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model (DD/C; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013) as operationalized by the Cross Battery Assessment Software (X-BASS; Ortiz, Flanagan & Alfonso, 2015), the Concordance-Discordance Model (C-DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004), and the Psychological Processing Analyzer software (PPA v3.1; Dehn, 2015b) were evaluated. The DD/C approach as represented with the X-BASS system had a 100% agreement with the expert panel in the identification of specific learning disabilities and non-specific learning disabilities cases. The C-DM model was more conservative, identifying only 45% of the specific learning disabilities cases. The PPA software was too limited to be used in the study and is not recommended for use in identifying specific learning disabilities via a PSW approach. Although more research is needed, the results of this study would suggest that the DD/C and X-BASS provide the greatest utility for a PSW approach to identifying specific learning disabilities.","PeriodicalId":42442,"journal":{"name":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"31-45"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2016-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning Disabilities-A Multidisciplinary Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18666/LDMJ-2016-V21-I2-7349","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Processing Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) models have been proposed as a method for identifying specific learning disabilities. Three PSW models were examined for their ability to predict expert identified specific learning disabilities cases. The Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model (DD/C; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013) as operationalized by the Cross Battery Assessment Software (X-BASS; Ortiz, Flanagan & Alfonso, 2015), the Concordance-Discordance Model (C-DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004), and the Psychological Processing Analyzer software (PPA v3.1; Dehn, 2015b) were evaluated. The DD/C approach as represented with the X-BASS system had a 100% agreement with the expert panel in the identification of specific learning disabilities and non-specific learning disabilities cases. The C-DM model was more conservative, identifying only 45% of the specific learning disabilities cases. The PPA software was too limited to be used in the study and is not recommended for use in identifying specific learning disabilities via a PSW approach. Although more research is needed, the results of this study would suggest that the DD/C and X-BASS provide the greatest utility for a PSW approach to identifying specific learning disabilities.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三种识别特殊学习障碍的优势与劣势模型模式之比较
加工优势和劣势(PSW)模型被提出作为一种识别特定学习障碍的方法。三个PSW模型对专家确定的特定学习障碍案例的预测能力进行了检验。双差异/一致性模型(DD/C)Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013)通过跨电池评估软件(X-BASS;Ortiz, Flanagan & Alfonso, 2015),一致性-不一致性模型(C-DM;Hale & Fiorello, 2004),以及心理处理分析软件(PPA v3.1;Dehn, 2015b)进行评估。以X-BASS系统为代表的DD/C方法在识别特定学习障碍和非特定学习障碍案例方面与专家组达成了100%的一致。C-DM模型更为保守,仅识别出45%的特殊学习障碍病例。PPA软件在研究中使用的局限性太大,不建议通过PSW方法用于识别特定的学习障碍。虽然还需要更多的研究,但本研究的结果表明,DD/C和X-BASS为PSW方法识别特定学习障碍提供了最大的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
6.20%
发文量
4
期刊最新文献
Response to Intervention as a Structuring Benchmark for Organizing Services for Students at Risk and With Learning Difficulties in Reading: A Multiple Case Study in Three Elementary Schools Supportive Environments Providing Social and Emotional Learning Explain Success in People with Learning Disabilities An Evidence Review of Key Transition Components for Students with Learning Disabilities Modified Student Success Skills for Students with Learning Disabilities: A Pilot Study Culturally Sustaining Mathematics for Dual Language Learners in a Multitiered System of Supports
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1