The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula

This article calls into question the validity and utility of classifying poor readers into learning disability (LD) and non--learning disability (non-LD) categories on the basis of the discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores (the Discrepancy Model). This form of classification o...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Review of educational research 1997-01, Vol.67 (4), p.461-502
1. Verfasser: Aaron, P. G.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 502
container_issue 4
container_start_page 461
container_title Review of educational research
container_volume 67
creator Aaron, P. G.
description This article calls into question the validity and utility of classifying poor readers into learning disability (LD) and non--learning disability (non-LD) categories on the basis of the discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores (the Discrepancy Model). This form of classification of poor readers is based on two premises. First, the etiologies of these two forms of reading disabilities are different; therefore, there are qualitative differences in the cognitive makeups of these two groups of poor readers. Second, and consequently, the two categories of poor readers require different kinds of remedial treatment. The present review of research indicates that neither of these two premises is valid. In contrast, many research studies indicate that instructional methods which have disregarded the LD--non-LD distinction and focused their remedial efforts on the cause of the reading problem are generally successful in improving reading achievement. It is suggested that the practice of utilizing the discrepancy formula to classify poor readers into the LD and non-LD categories be abandoned and that a pragmatic approach which identifies the source of the reading problem for all children and focuses remedial efforts on that source be adopted (the Reading Component Model). The impact of the adoption of such a model on the learning disability field is discussed.
doi_str_mv 10.2307/1170518
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_214117846</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ563440</ericid><jstor_id>1170518</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1170518</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1966-1e8deb406ef1b917128a65922ebbb7d7d52022de9f2c26a014e629a86f6161063</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEtLw0AUhQdRsFbxD7gIKriKnXvnkWQpfWil4KauwyS50ZTm4Uy76L_vlIZ25erCPR_ncA5j98BfUfBoBBBxBfEFG0AiVAhc6ks24FzIUCsprtmNcyvOAXWMAzZa_lIwrztqiqr5CSZUV46Ctgw2_j-pXG6pM02-C2atrbdrc8uuSrN2dNffIfueTZfjj3Dx9T4fvy3CHBKtQ6C4oExyTSVkCUSAsdEqQaQsy6IiKhRyxIKSEnPUhoMkjYmJdalBA9diyB6Pvp1t_7bkNumq3drGR6YI0neM5QF6-g8CLSQojRI99XKkcts6Z6lMO1vVxu5S4OlhsrSfzJPPvZ9xuVmX1jev3AlHqbgQ0mMPR4xslZ_U6afymZKf5ZXbtPYc1ofsAVbseGA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>214117846</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><source>Periodicals Index Online</source><creator>Aaron, P. G.</creator><creatorcontrib>Aaron, P. G.</creatorcontrib><description>This article calls into question the validity and utility of classifying poor readers into learning disability (LD) and non--learning disability (non-LD) categories on the basis of the discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores (the Discrepancy Model). This form of classification of poor readers is based on two premises. First, the etiologies of these two forms of reading disabilities are different; therefore, there are qualitative differences in the cognitive makeups of these two groups of poor readers. Second, and consequently, the two categories of poor readers require different kinds of remedial treatment. The present review of research indicates that neither of these two premises is valid. In contrast, many research studies indicate that instructional methods which have disregarded the LD--non-LD distinction and focused their remedial efforts on the cause of the reading problem are generally successful in improving reading achievement. It is suggested that the practice of utilizing the discrepancy formula to classify poor readers into the LD and non-LD categories be abandoned and that a pragmatic approach which identifies the source of the reading problem for all children and focuses remedial efforts on that source be adopted (the Reading Component Model). The impact of the adoption of such a model on the learning disability field is discussed.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0034-6543</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-1046</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1170518</identifier><identifier>CODEN: REDRAB</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association</publisher><subject>Achievement tests ; Children ; Classification ; Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods ; Discrepancy Formulas ; Dyslexia ; Education ; Educational sciences ; Intelligence Quotient ; Intelligence tests ; Learning Disabilities ; Maladjustment ; Organization of special education ; Phonemes ; Physically and mentally handicapped ; Reading ; Reading Ability ; Reading Achievement ; Reading comprehension ; Reading Difficulties ; Reading instruction ; Reading, writing ; Slow Learners ; Special education ; Students ; Teaching Methods ; Training ; Validity</subject><ispartof>Review of educational research, 1997-01, Vol.67 (4), p.461-502</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1997 American Educational Research Association</rights><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright American Educational Research Association Winter 1997</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c1966-1e8deb406ef1b917128a65922ebbb7d7d52022de9f2c26a014e629a86f6161063</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1170518$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1170518$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27846,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ563440$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2450334$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Aaron, P. G.</creatorcontrib><title>The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula</title><title>Review of educational research</title><description>This article calls into question the validity and utility of classifying poor readers into learning disability (LD) and non--learning disability (non-LD) categories on the basis of the discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores (the Discrepancy Model). This form of classification of poor readers is based on two premises. First, the etiologies of these two forms of reading disabilities are different; therefore, there are qualitative differences in the cognitive makeups of these two groups of poor readers. Second, and consequently, the two categories of poor readers require different kinds of remedial treatment. The present review of research indicates that neither of these two premises is valid. In contrast, many research studies indicate that instructional methods which have disregarded the LD--non-LD distinction and focused their remedial efforts on the cause of the reading problem are generally successful in improving reading achievement. It is suggested that the practice of utilizing the discrepancy formula to classify poor readers into the LD and non-LD categories be abandoned and that a pragmatic approach which identifies the source of the reading problem for all children and focuses remedial efforts on that source be adopted (the Reading Component Model). The impact of the adoption of such a model on the learning disability field is discussed.</description><subject>Achievement tests</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Classification</subject><subject>Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods</subject><subject>Discrepancy Formulas</subject><subject>Dyslexia</subject><subject>Education</subject><subject>Educational sciences</subject><subject>Intelligence Quotient</subject><subject>Intelligence tests</subject><subject>Learning Disabilities</subject><subject>Maladjustment</subject><subject>Organization of special education</subject><subject>Phonemes</subject><subject>Physically and mentally handicapped</subject><subject>Reading</subject><subject>Reading Ability</subject><subject>Reading Achievement</subject><subject>Reading comprehension</subject><subject>Reading Difficulties</subject><subject>Reading instruction</subject><subject>Reading, writing</subject><subject>Slow Learners</subject><subject>Special education</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Teaching Methods</subject><subject>Training</subject><subject>Validity</subject><issn>0034-6543</issn><issn>1935-1046</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1997</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>K30</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEtLw0AUhQdRsFbxD7gIKriKnXvnkWQpfWil4KauwyS50ZTm4Uy76L_vlIZ25erCPR_ncA5j98BfUfBoBBBxBfEFG0AiVAhc6ks24FzIUCsprtmNcyvOAXWMAzZa_lIwrztqiqr5CSZUV46Ctgw2_j-pXG6pM02-C2atrbdrc8uuSrN2dNffIfueTZfjj3Dx9T4fvy3CHBKtQ6C4oExyTSVkCUSAsdEqQaQsy6IiKhRyxIKSEnPUhoMkjYmJdalBA9diyB6Pvp1t_7bkNumq3drGR6YI0neM5QF6-g8CLSQojRI99XKkcts6Z6lMO1vVxu5S4OlhsrSfzJPPvZ9xuVmX1jev3AlHqbgQ0mMPR4xslZ_U6afymZKf5ZXbtPYc1ofsAVbseGA</recordid><startdate>19970101</startdate><enddate>19970101</enddate><creator>Aaron, P. G.</creator><general>American Educational Research Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FKUCP</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>8G5</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AIMQZ</scope><scope>ALSLI</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>CJNVE</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>GUQSH</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>PADUT</scope><scope>PQEDU</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>PSYQQ</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>S0X</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19970101</creationdate><title>The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula</title><author>Aaron, P. G.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c1966-1e8deb406ef1b917128a65922ebbb7d7d52022de9f2c26a014e629a86f6161063</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1997</creationdate><topic>Achievement tests</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Classification</topic><topic>Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods</topic><topic>Discrepancy Formulas</topic><topic>Dyslexia</topic><topic>Education</topic><topic>Educational sciences</topic><topic>Intelligence Quotient</topic><topic>Intelligence tests</topic><topic>Learning Disabilities</topic><topic>Maladjustment</topic><topic>Organization of special education</topic><topic>Phonemes</topic><topic>Physically and mentally handicapped</topic><topic>Reading</topic><topic>Reading Ability</topic><topic>Reading Achievement</topic><topic>Reading comprehension</topic><topic>Reading Difficulties</topic><topic>Reading instruction</topic><topic>Reading, writing</topic><topic>Slow Learners</topic><topic>Special education</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Teaching Methods</topic><topic>Training</topic><topic>Validity</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Aaron, P. G.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 04</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access &amp; Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Research Library (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Research Library Prep</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature - U.S. Customers Only</collection><collection>Education Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Psychology</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Research Library China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Education</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>ProQuest One Psychology</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>SIRS Editorial</collection><jtitle>Review of educational research</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Aaron, P. G.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ563440</ericid><atitle>The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula</atitle><jtitle>Review of educational research</jtitle><date>1997-01-01</date><risdate>1997</risdate><volume>67</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>461</spage><epage>502</epage><pages>461-502</pages><issn>0034-6543</issn><eissn>1935-1046</eissn><coden>REDRAB</coden><abstract>This article calls into question the validity and utility of classifying poor readers into learning disability (LD) and non--learning disability (non-LD) categories on the basis of the discrepancy between their IQs and reading achievement scores (the Discrepancy Model). This form of classification of poor readers is based on two premises. First, the etiologies of these two forms of reading disabilities are different; therefore, there are qualitative differences in the cognitive makeups of these two groups of poor readers. Second, and consequently, the two categories of poor readers require different kinds of remedial treatment. The present review of research indicates that neither of these two premises is valid. In contrast, many research studies indicate that instructional methods which have disregarded the LD--non-LD distinction and focused their remedial efforts on the cause of the reading problem are generally successful in improving reading achievement. It is suggested that the practice of utilizing the discrepancy formula to classify poor readers into the LD and non-LD categories be abandoned and that a pragmatic approach which identifies the source of the reading problem for all children and focuses remedial efforts on that source be adopted (the Reading Component Model). The impact of the adoption of such a model on the learning disability field is discussed.</abstract><cop>Washington, DC</cop><pub>American Educational Research Association</pub><doi>10.2307/1170518</doi><tpages>42</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0034-6543
ispartof Review of educational research, 1997-01, Vol.67 (4), p.461-502
issn 0034-6543
1935-1046
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_214117846
source Jstor Complete Legacy; SAGE Complete; Periodicals Index Online
subjects Achievement tests
Children
Classification
Curriculum subjects: programmes and methods
Discrepancy Formulas
Dyslexia
Education
Educational sciences
Intelligence Quotient
Intelligence tests
Learning Disabilities
Maladjustment
Organization of special education
Phonemes
Physically and mentally handicapped
Reading
Reading Ability
Reading Achievement
Reading comprehension
Reading Difficulties
Reading instruction
Reading, writing
Slow Learners
Special education
Students
Teaching Methods
Training
Validity
title The Impending Demise of the Discrepancy Formula
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-31T15%3A13%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Impending%20Demise%20of%20the%20Discrepancy%20Formula&rft.jtitle=Review%20of%20educational%20research&rft.au=Aaron,%20P.%20G.&rft.date=1997-01-01&rft.volume=67&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=461&rft.epage=502&rft.pages=461-502&rft.issn=0034-6543&rft.eissn=1935-1046&rft.coden=REDRAB&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1170518&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1170518%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=214117846&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ563440&rft_jstor_id=1170518&rfr_iscdi=true