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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Review of educational research 1997-01, Vol.67 (4), p.461-502 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=2450334$$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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & 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 |