Miciak Jeremy, Fletcher Jack M, Stuebing Karla K, Vaughn Sharon, Tolar Tammy D
Texas Institute of Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics and Department of Psychology, University of Houston.
The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk, Department of Special Education, University of Texas at Austin.
Sch Psychol Q. 2014 Mar;29(1):21-37. doi: 10.1037/spq0000037. Epub 2013 Nov 25.
Few empirical investigations have evaluated learning disabilities (LD) identification methods based on a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (PSW). This study investigated the reliability and validity of two proposed PSW methods: the concordance/discordance method (C/DM) and cross battery assessment (XBA) method. Cognitive assessment data for 139 adolescents demonstrating inadequate response to intervention was utilized to empirically classify participants as meeting or not meeting PSW LD identification criteria using the two approaches, permitting an analysis of: (a) LD identification rates, (b) agreement between methods, and (c) external validity. LD identification rates varied between the 2 methods depending upon the cut point for low achievement, with low agreement for LD identification decisions. Comparisons of groups that met and did not meet LD identification criteria on external academic variables were largely null, raising questions of external validity. This study found low agreement and little evidence of validity for LD identification decisions based on PSW methods. An alternative may be to use multiple measures of academic achievement to guide intervention.
很少有实证研究基于认知优势与劣势模式（PSW）对学习障碍（LD）的识别方法进行评估。本研究调查了两种提议的PSW方法的信度和效度：一致性/不一致性方法（C/DM）和跨电池评估（XBA）方法。利用139名对干预反应不足的青少年的认知评估数据，采用这两种方法对参与者是否符合PSW LD识别标准进行实证分类，从而能够分析：（a）LD识别率，（b）方法之间的一致性，以及（c）外部效度。两种方法的LD识别率因低学业成就的切点不同而有所差异，LD识别决策的一致性较低。在外部学业变量上，符合和不符合LD识别标准的组间比较大多无显著差异，这引发了对外部效度的质疑。本研究发现，基于PSW方法的LD识别决策一致性较低且几乎没有效度证据。一种替代方法可能是使用多种学业成就测量方法来指导干预。
