Miciak Jeremy, Williams Jacob L, Taylor W Pat, Cirino Paul T, Fletcher Jack M, Vaughn Sharon
University of Houston.
Education Northwest.
J Educ Psychol. 2016 Aug;108(6):898-909. doi: 10.1037/edu0000096. Epub 2015 Dec 14.
No previous empirical study has investigated whether the LD identification decisions of proposed methods to operationalize processing strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approaches for LD identification are associated with differential treatment response. We investigated whether the identification decisions of the concordance/discordance model (C/DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004) and Cross Battery Assessment approach (XBA method; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007) were consistent and whether they predicted intervention response beyond that accounted for by pretest performance on measures of reading.
Psychoeducational assessments were administered at pretest to 203 4 graders with low reading comprehension and individual results were utilized to identify students who met LD criteria according to the C/DM and XBA methods and students who did not. Resulting group status permitted an investigation of agreement for identification methods and whether group status at pretest (LD or not LD) was associated with differential treatment response to an intensive reading intervention.
The LD identification decisions of the XBA and C/DM demonstrated poor agreement with one another (κ = -.10). Comparisons of posttest performance for students who met LD criteria and those who did not meet were largely null, with small effect sizes across all measures.
LD status, as identified through the C/DM and XBA approaches, was not associated with differential treatment response and did not contribute educationally meaningful information about how students would respond to intensive reading intervention. These results do not support the value of cognitive assessment utilized in this way as part of the LD identification process.
以往尚无实证研究调查过，为学习障碍（LD）鉴定而采用的、用于操作化加工优势与劣势（PSW）方法的拟议方法所做出的LD鉴定决策，是否与不同的治疗反应相关。我们调查了一致性/不一致性模型（C/DM；黑尔和菲奥雷洛，2004年）和跨电池评估方法（XBA方法；弗拉纳根、奥尔蒂斯和阿方索，2007年）的鉴定决策是否一致，以及它们是否能预测超出阅读测量预测试表现所解释的干预反应。
对203名阅读理解能力低的四年级学生进行了预测试心理教育评估，并利用个体结果来确定根据C/DM和XBA方法符合LD标准的学生以及不符合标准的学生。由此得出的组群状态允许对鉴定方法的一致性进行调查，以及预测试时的组群状态（是否为LD）是否与强化阅读干预的不同治疗反应相关。
XBA和C/DM的LD鉴定决策彼此之间的一致性较差（κ = -0.10）。符合LD标准的学生与不符合标准的学生在测试后表现的比较大多无显著差异，所有测量指标的效应量都很小。
通过C/DM和XBA方法确定的LD状态与不同的治疗反应无关，也没有提供关于学生对强化阅读干预反应的具有教育意义的信息。这些结果不支持以这种方式将认知评估作为LD鉴定过程一部分的价值。
