The Ability-Achievement Model Versus the Response to Intervention Model: Which Model is More Accurate in the Assessment of Diagnosing Students with Learning Disabilities?

Authors

  • Debra Camp-McCoy (Author)
https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.174
The Ability-Achievement Model is reviewed for efficacy in comparison to the Response to Intervention Model when diagnosing students with possible learning disabilities. The research will address the success of Ability-Achievement Model versus the Response to Intervention Model when successfully diagnosing students with learning disabilities was used to draw such conclusions as are listed throughout this paper. Studies on both models have shown inconsistencies in reference to correctly diagnosing students as having a learning disability. In the field of education, the inconsistencies in the data is troubling due to the sensitive nature that surrounds the incorrect diagnosis of a student as having an actual learning disability or not having said disability. Due to these findings, both models of identification are suitable only if used together over a specific period of time in the accurate diagnosis of establishing if a learning disability is present.

Feifer, S. (2008). Integrating response to intervention (RTI) with neuropsychology: A scientific approach to reading. Psychology in the Schools, 45(9), 812-825. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=6&hid=13&sid=ef25b138-6b95-496a-a82f-d7a84a18ff5b%40sessionmgr12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20328

Flanagan, D., Fiorello, C., & Ortiz, S. (2010). Enhancing practice through application of Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 739-760. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=13&sid=f121f88f-721b-45cd-b4e2-589dc56a3d2%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=16699984 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20501

Francis, D., Fletcher, J., Stuebing, K., Lyon, G., Shaywitz, B., & Shaywitz, S. (2005). Psychometric approaches to the identification of LD: IQ and achievement scores are not sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(2), 98-108. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/ehost/detail?vid=5&hid=13&sid=f121f88f-721b-45cd-b4e2-3589dc56a3d2%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=16266105 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194050380020101

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129-136. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x

Holdnack, J., & Weiss, L. (2006). IDEA 2004: Anticipated implications for clinical practice—integrating assessment and intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 871-882. doi:10.1002/pits.20194. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20194

Johnston, P. (2010). An instructional frame for RTI. Reading Teacher, 63(7), 602-604. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/ehost/detail?vid=9&hid=13&sid=f121f88f-721b-45cd-b4e2-3589dc56a3d2%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=49036013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.7.8

Kavale, K., & Spaulding, L. (2008). Is response to intervention good policy for specific learning disability? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(4), 169-179. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00274.x. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00274.x

McKenzie, R. (2009). Obscuring vital distinctions: The oversimplification of learning disabilities within RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 203-215. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/ehost/detail?vid=11&hid=13&sid=f121f88f-721b-45cd-b4e2-3589dc56a3d2%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=45830526 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/27740373

Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883-888. doi:10.1002/pits.20195 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20195

Pascopella, A. (2010). RTI goes mainstream. District Administration, 46(4), 45-49. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/ehost/detail?vid=35&hid=13&sid=f121f88f-721b-45cd-b4e2-589dc56a3d2%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=49184971

Werts, M., Lambert, M., & Carpenter, E. (2009). What special education directors say about RTI. Learning Disability Quarterly, 32(4), 245-254. Retrieved from http://0-web.ebscohost.com.umiss.lib.olemiss.edu/ehost/detail?vid=37&hid=13&sid=f121f88f-721b-45cd-b4e2-3589dc56a3d2%40sessionmgr14&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=aph&AN=45830529 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/27740376

Wodrich, D., Spencer, M., & Daley, K. (2006). Combining RTI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must assume to do otherwise. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 797-806. doi:10.1002/pits.20189. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20189

There are 12 references in total.
Camp-McCoy, D. (2012). The Ability-Achievement Model Versus the Response to Intervention Model: Which Model is More Accurate in the Assessment of Diagnosing Students with Learning Disabilities?. Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals, 7(2), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.64546/jaasep.174

Downloads

Article Information

  • Article Type Articles
  • Submitted May 15, 2012
  • Published June 15, 2012
  • Issue Spring/Summer 2012
  • Section Articles
  • File Downloads 0
  • Abstract Views 0
  • Altmetrics
  • Share
Download data is not yet available.