重新审视学习障碍的差异理论:哪里错了,为什么我们应该回去

S. Callinan, E. Cunningham, S. Theiler
{"title":"重新审视学习障碍的差异理论:哪里错了,为什么我们应该回去","authors":"S. Callinan, E. Cunningham, S. Theiler","doi":"10.1017/jgc.2012.22","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The rise in popularity of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a method of identifying Learning Disabilities (LD) is partially due to the psychometric and theoretical issues inherent to the use of IQ tests in the once popular discrepancy method of identification. However, both RTI and discrepancy theories have their shortcomings, and criticisms directed at either method are usually applicable to both. This conceptual article puts forward a justification for using tests of the cognitive processes that are implicated in LD as a better method of LD identification. Although the unsuitability of the discrepancy method to accurately identify LD students is well established, it does represent the construct of LD well. Therefore, the discrepancy method can be used as an effective baseline measure against which improved identification procedures based on cognitive processes can be measured. Once these cognitive processes are more clearly defined, tests of these processes offer promise for LD identification.","PeriodicalId":102318,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Revisiting Discrepancy Theory in Learning Disabilities: What Went Wrong and Why We Should Go Back\",\"authors\":\"S. Callinan, E. Cunningham, S. Theiler\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/jgc.2012.22\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The rise in popularity of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a method of identifying Learning Disabilities (LD) is partially due to the psychometric and theoretical issues inherent to the use of IQ tests in the once popular discrepancy method of identification. However, both RTI and discrepancy theories have their shortcomings, and criticisms directed at either method are usually applicable to both. This conceptual article puts forward a justification for using tests of the cognitive processes that are implicated in LD as a better method of LD identification. Although the unsuitability of the discrepancy method to accurately identify LD students is well established, it does represent the construct of LD well. Therefore, the discrepancy method can be used as an effective baseline measure against which improved identification procedures based on cognitive processes can be measured. Once these cognitive processes are more clearly defined, tests of these processes offer promise for LD identification.\",\"PeriodicalId\":102318,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-11-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.22\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/jgc.2012.22","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

作为一种识别学习障碍(LD)的方法,干预反应(RTI)的普及部分是由于在曾经流行的差异识别方法中使用智商测试所固有的心理测量学和理论问题。然而,RTI理论和差异理论都有其缺点,针对任何一种方法的批评通常都适用于两者。这篇概念性的文章提出了一个理由,即使用与LD有关的认知过程测试作为LD识别的更好方法。虽然差异法在准确识别LD学生方面的不适用性是公认的,但它确实很好地代表了LD的结构。因此,差异方法可以作为一个有效的基准措施,根据改进的识别程序,基于认知过程可以衡量。一旦这些认知过程被更清楚地定义,这些过程的测试为LD识别提供了希望。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Revisiting Discrepancy Theory in Learning Disabilities: What Went Wrong and Why We Should Go Back
The rise in popularity of Response to Intervention (RTI) as a method of identifying Learning Disabilities (LD) is partially due to the psychometric and theoretical issues inherent to the use of IQ tests in the once popular discrepancy method of identification. However, both RTI and discrepancy theories have their shortcomings, and criticisms directed at either method are usually applicable to both. This conceptual article puts forward a justification for using tests of the cognitive processes that are implicated in LD as a better method of LD identification. Although the unsuitability of the discrepancy method to accurately identify LD students is well established, it does represent the construct of LD well. Therefore, the discrepancy method can be used as an effective baseline measure against which improved identification procedures based on cognitive processes can be measured. Once these cognitive processes are more clearly defined, tests of these processes offer promise for LD identification.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Who Struggles Most in Making a Career Choice and Why? Findings from a Cross-Sectional Survey of Australian High-School Students. Ethical Practice in Applied Psychology Christopher Boyle and Nicholas Gamble (2014). South Melbourne: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195523102 ADHD and Adaptability: The Roles of Cognitive, Behavioural, and Emotional Regulation JGC volume 24 issue 2 Cover and Back matter JGC volume 24 issue 2 Cover and Front matter
×
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