The .22Seven Deadly Sins.22 in SLD Evaluation Cross-battery assessment

1 7 deadly sins in sld evaluation

1.1 1. relentless searching ipsative or intra-individual discrepancies
1.2 2. failure distinguish between relative weakness , normative weakness
1.3 3. obsession severe discrepancy calculation
1.4 4. belief iq near perfect predictor of potential
1.5 5. failure apply current theory , research
1.6 6. over-reliance on findings single sub-test
1.7 7. belief aptitude , ability same

the 7 deadly sins in sld evaluation




(learn how , when remove template message)

specific learning disability (sld) largest disability identified among school-aged children. according flanagan, ortiz , alfonso, in order receive diagnosis of sld following criteria must met following these steps: deficit in academic functioning determined, academic difficulties not due secondary exclusionary factors (e.g., neurological issues, etc.), deficit in cognitive ability determined, exclusionary factors reviewed again determine academic , cognitive deficits not due secondary factors, underachievement established, academic deficits shown have negative effect on daily life. flanagan, ortiz , alfonso suggest 7 deadly sins metaphor understanding misconceptions surrounding sld evaluation continue undermine reliability , validity.

1. relentless searching ipsative or intra-individual discrepancies

one of common practices in sld evaluations when scores ipsatized. ipsatized scores scores have been averaged , subtracted overall average in order determine degree of deviation average. suggests when scores deviate mean clinically important indicators of either relative weaknesses (lower) or relative strengths (higher). thus, weaknesses thought of evidence of sld. approach focuses on identification of discrepancies exist within individual. vast majority of people not have flat cognitive profiles , instead show significant variability in profile of cognitive ability scores. assumption people have scores in 1 domain show similar ability in domains erroneous. instead of looking discrepancies wherever might found, theory should guide comparison between different sub-tests.

2. failure distinguish between relative weakness , normative weakness

a lower score not automatically gain clinical significance because discrepancy has been determined real (statistically significant). statistical significance means difference between 2 scores not due chance (i.e., different 1 another), is, not mean difference between 2 scores in comparison clinically meaningful or indicative of impairment.

3. obsession severe discrepancy calculation

the ability-achievement discrepancy has been regarded important definitions , diagnostic criteria of sld practitioners resort calculating every sub-test score obtained @ evaluation. given high number of discrepancies available calculate, surprising if @ least 1 significant discrepancy not found. significant ability-achievement discrepancy should not synonymous nor necessary condition sld diagnosis.

4. belief iq near perfect predictor of potential

this ability-achievement discrepancy fostered notion iq , other global ability composites near-perfect predictors of individual s academic achievement. instance, scores of general ability, fsiq, account 35 50% of total achievement variance, leaves 50 65% of variance unexplained. thus, practitioners must recognize there other important factors explain significant variance in achievement , global ability.

5. failure apply current theory , research

in evaluating sld, practitioners may not privy or able implement procedures based on modern theory , research. practitioners omit contemporary psychometric theory , current research on sld aid in determining identification , diagnosis of sld.

6. over-reliance on findings single sub-test

diagnostic decisions based on results either single sub-test score or scores used screen individuals. reliance on these single scores may not suitable purpose of diagnosis or high-stakes decision making. instance, 1 of fundamental properties of psychometrics single sub-test can t considered reliable indicator of construct intended measure. 1 sub-test not sufficient indicate presence of sld or other impairment.

7. belief aptitude , ability same

aptitude , ability 2 concepts mistakenly confused. important differentiate between 2 given shift in understanding sld based on difference between ability , aptitude. when evaluating sld, looking @ aptitude important because abilities associated long-term academic outcomes.