» Articles » PMID: 31130771

Simulation of LD Identification Accuracy Using a Pattern of Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Method With Multiple Measures

Overview
Date 2019 May 28
PMID 31130771
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

We investigated the classification accuracy of learning disability (LD) identification methods premised on the identification of an intraindividual pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) method using multiple indicators for all latent constructs. Known LD status was derived from latent scores; values at the observed level identified LD status for individual cases according to the concordance/discordance method. Agreement with latent status was evaluated using (a) a single indicator, (b) two indicators as part of a test-retest "confirmation" model, and (c) a mean score. Specificity and negative predictive value (NPV) were generally high for single indicators (median specificity = 98.8%, range = 93.4%-99.7%; median NPV = 94.2%, range = 85.6%-98.7%), but low for sensitivity (median sensitivity = 49.1%, range = 20.3%-77.1%) and positive predictive value (PPV; median PPV = 48.8%, range = 23.5%-69.6%). A test-retest procedure produced inconsistent and small improvements in classification accuracy, primarily in "not LD" decisions. Use of a mean score produced small improvements in classifications (mean improvement = 2.0%, range = 0.3%-2.8%). The modest gains in agreement do not justify the additional testing burdens associated with incorporating multiple tests of all constructs.

Citing Articles

Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities and Intellectual Disabilities.

Fletcher J, Miciak J Assessment. 2023; 31(1):53-74.

PMID: 37671726 PMC: 10795803. DOI: 10.1177/10731911231194992.


The Use of Cognitive Tests in the Assessment of Dyslexia.

Mather N, Schneider D J Intell. 2023; 11(5).

PMID: 37233328 PMC: 10219499. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence11050079.


A Misuse of IQ Scores: Using the Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities.

Beaujean A, Benson N, McGill R, Dombrowski S J Intell. 2019; 6(3).

PMID: 31162463 PMC: 6480769. DOI: 10.3390/jintelligence6030036.


Adoption Costs Associated With Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Methods for Learning Disabilities Identification.

Williams J, Miciak J Sch Psychol Forum Res Pract. 2019; 12(1):17-29.

PMID: 31149322 PMC: 6537899.

References
1.
Kavale K, Forness S . What definitions of learning disability say and don't say: a critical analysis. J Learn Disabil. 2004; 33(3):239-56. DOI: 10.1177/002221940003300303. View

2.
Barth A, Stuebing K, Anthony J, Denton C, Mathes P, Fletcher J . Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learn Individ Differ. 2008; 18(3):296-307. PMC: 2600471. DOI: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.004. View

3.
Brown Waesche J, Schatschneider C, Maner J, Ahmed Y, Wagner R . Examining agreement and longitudinal stability among traditional and RTI-based definitions of reading disability using the affected-status agreement statistic. J Learn Disabil. 2011; 44(3):296-307. PMC: 3248271. DOI: 10.1177/0022219410392048. View

4.
Stuebing K, Fletcher J, Branum-Martin L, Francis D . Evaluation of the Technical Adequacy of Three Methods for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities Based on Cognitive Discrepancies. School Psych Rev. 2012; 41(1):3-22. PMC: 3466817. View

5.
Miciak J, Fletcher J, Stuebing K, Vaughn S, Tolar T . Patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification. Sch Psychol Q. 2013; 29(1):21-37. PMC: 4111129. DOI: 10.1037/spq0000037. View