• Teachers
• School Psychologists
• School & District Administrators
• State Departments of Education
• Researchers
• Parents

• NRCLD Home
• SLD and RTI Tools
• SLD Determination
• What is RTI?
• "How to" topics
• Changing roles of educators
• About NRCLD
• NRCLD research
• NRCLD publications
• NRCLD presentations
• NRCLD Contacts
• SLD and RTI resources

NRCLD Information Digest #3

Researcher Consensus Statement

As a follow up to the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) in the U.S. Department of Education brought together a group of researchers for a meeting November 29-30, 2001.

The researchers--Lynne Cook, Don Deshler, Doug Fuchs, Jack M. Fletcher, Frank Gresham, Dan Hallahan, Joseph Jenkins, Kenneth Kavale, Barbara Keogh, Margo Mastopieri, Cecil Mercer, Dan Reschley, Rune Simeonsson, Joe Torgesen, Sharon Vaughn, and Barbara Wise--came to agreement on the following:

• Learning disability concept: Strong converging evidence supports the validity of the concept of specific learning disabilities (SLD). This evidence is particularly impressive because it converges across different indicators and methodologies. The central concept of specific learning disabilities involves disorders of learning and cognition that are intrinsic to the individual. Specific learning disabilities are specific in the sense that these disorders each significantly affect a relatively narrow range of academic and performance outcomes. Specific learning disabilities may occur in combination with other disabling conditions, but they are not due primarily to other conditions, such as mental retardation, behavioral disturbance, lack of opportunities to learn, or primary sensory deficits.
• Responsibility of special education to children with learning disabilities: Students with specific learning disabilities require special education. As defined in IDEA, the term "special education" means specially designed instruction, at no cost to the parents, to meet the unique needs of a child with a disability.
• Life-long condition: Specific learning disabilities are frequently experienced across the life span with manifestations varying as a function of developmental stage and environmental demands.
• Prevalence rates: It is difficult to know the true prevalence rate of specific learning disabilities. However, based on reading research, conducted largely in the elementary grades, we know that high quality classroom instruction is a way to meet many of the educational needs of individuals with learning difficulties. Also known is supplemental intensive small group instruction can reduce the prevalence of learning difficulties. Even with these interventions, approximately 6 percent of students may exhibit specific learning disabilities and will need special education interventions. Prevalence rates of students with specific learning disabilities involving math and written expression are difficult to estimate given the current lack of research evidence.
• IQ achievement discrepancy: The majority: IQ achievement discrepancy is neither necessary nor sufficient for identifying individuals with specific learning disabilities. IQ tests do not need to be given in most evaluations of children with specific learning disabilities. There should be some evidence that an individual with specific learning disabilities is performing outside the ranges associated with mental retardation, either by performance on achievement tests or performance on a screening measure of intellectual aptitude or adaptive behavior. The minority: Aptitude/achievement discrepancy is an appropriate marker of specific learning disabilities but is not sufficient to document the presence or absence of underachievement, which is a critical aspect of the concept of specific learning disabilities.
• Processing deficit: Although processing difficulties have been linked to some specific learning disabilities (e.g., phonological processing and reading), direct links with other processes have not been established. Currently available measures for measuring many processing difficulties are inadequate. Therefore, systematically measuring processing difficulties and their link to treatment is not yet feasible.
• Response to intervention: There should be alternate ways to identify individuals with specific learning disabilities in addition to achievement testing, history, and observations of the child. Response to quality intervention is the most promising method of alternate identification and can both promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and treatment. Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be based on problem-solving models that use progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in relation to the students' response to intervention. Problem-solving models have shown to be effective in public school settings and in research.
• Effective interventions for students with specific learning disability: There is strong evidence that there are interventions that are effective for many individuals with specific learning disabilities when implemented with consistency, appropriate insensitivity, and fidelity. Despite this knowledge, there are interventions for individuals with specific learning disabilities that are demonstrably ineffective but are still being used.