Use of Grade-Based Norms Versus Age-Based Norms in Psychoeducational Assessment for a College Population
Considerable discussion has occurred about the most appropriate methods for diagnosing learning disabilities (LD) in postsecondary students. Two of the many areas of controversy that have emerged include the appropriate diagnostic criteria to use and the appropriate referent group. A review of previ...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of learning disabilities 2005-01, Vol.38 (1), p.79-85 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 85 |
---|---|
container_issue | 1 |
container_start_page | 79 |
container_title | Journal of learning disabilities |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Giovingo, Lauren K. Proctor, Briley E. Prevatt, Frances |
description | Considerable discussion has occurred about the most appropriate methods for diagnosing learning disabilities (LD) in postsecondary students. Two of the many areas of controversy that have emerged include the appropriate diagnostic criteria to use and the appropriate referent group. A review of previous court cases demonstrates that the issue of whether to compare an individual to the general population or to a smaller referent population has not been adequately clarified. Furthermore, few empirical studies have examined the impact of choosing different referent groups on the likelihood that one will be diagnosed with LD. Therefore, this correlational study described the levels of agreement between three diagnostic models of LD, using both age- and grade-based norms to represent two referent groups for each of the three models. The sample included 155 postsecondary students referred for testing due to academic difficulties. The findings indicated that in two of the three models tested, comparing individuals to their grade-matched peers (i.e., using grade-based norms) resulted in more LD diagnoses than comparing individuals to their age-matched peers (i.e., age-based norms). |
doi_str_mv | 10.1177/00222194050380010601 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67450486</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ695585</ericid><sage_id>10.1177_00222194050380010601</sage_id><sourcerecordid>57124368</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c929c717f31de7c228fb9d570d6268184468625e2d1ad1f981eae492ca9340c03</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0U1v1DAQBmALgei28A8qZCHRW2Ds-CvHZVUKqIIeKNfItSfbVEm8eDaH_nu87IoCQnCy5HlmNPbL2KmA10JY-wZASikaBRpqByDAgHjEFkLXrlLWwWO22JFqZ47YMdEdAChpzVN2JLSVtq5hwW6vCXnq-EX2Eau3njDyTymPxL9ippn4cv37dT_xK7oPtwnjHPy2T5Mf-JIIiUactrxLmXu-SsOAa-RXaTMPP9Qz9qTzA-Hzw3nCrt-df1m9ry4_X3xYLS-roLTZVqGRTbDCdrWIaIOUrrtporYQjTROOKWMM1KjjMJH0TVOoEfVyOCbWkGA-oSd7educvo2I23bsaeAw-AnTDO1xioNypn_Qm2FVLVxBb78A96lOZdnU1u-toQgtShI7VHIiShj125yP_p83wpod3m1f8urtL04zJ5vRowPTYeACnh1AJ6CH7rsp9DTgzNqN9QWd7p3mPvws3z-0TRaO13KYl8mv8Zf9v_Xbt8BJiCxtQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>194222251</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Use of Grade-Based Norms Versus Age-Based Norms in Psychoeducational Assessment for a College Population</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Journals</source><creator>Giovingo, Lauren K. ; Proctor, Briley E. ; Prevatt, Frances</creator><creatorcontrib>Giovingo, Lauren K. ; Proctor, Briley E. ; Prevatt, Frances</creatorcontrib><description>Considerable discussion has occurred about the most appropriate methods for diagnosing learning disabilities (LD) in postsecondary students. Two of the many areas of controversy that have emerged include the appropriate diagnostic criteria to use and the appropriate referent group. A review of previous court cases demonstrates that the issue of whether to compare an individual to the general population or to a smaller referent population has not been adequately clarified. Furthermore, few empirical studies have examined the impact of choosing different referent groups on the likelihood that one will be diagnosed with LD. Therefore, this correlational study described the levels of agreement between three diagnostic models of LD, using both age- and grade-based norms to represent two referent groups for each of the three models. The sample included 155 postsecondary students referred for testing due to academic difficulties. The findings indicated that in two of the three models tested, comparing individuals to their grade-matched peers (i.e., using grade-based norms) resulted in more LD diagnoses than comparing individuals to their age-matched peers (i.e., age-based norms).</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-2194</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-4780</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/00222194050380010601</identifier><identifier>PMID: 15727330</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JLDIAD</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Age ; Age Factors ; Appropriateness ; Biological and medical sciences ; College students ; Colleges ; Comparative analysis ; Correlational studies ; Courts ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Educational Status ; Elementary school students ; Female ; Humans ; Learning Disabilities ; Learning disabled students ; Learning Disorders - diagnosis ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Minimal Brain Dysfunction ; Models, Psychological ; Normative data ; Norms ; Nosology. Terminology. Diagnostic criteria ; Peer Group ; Psychoeducational assessment ; Psychoeducational Methods ; Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry ; Psychopathology. Psychiatry ; Reference Values ; Referrals ; Special education ; Students ; Techniques and methods ; Universities ; USA</subject><ispartof>Journal of learning disabilities, 2005-01, Vol.38 (1), p.79-85</ispartof><rights>2005 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright PRO-ED Journals Jan/Feb 2005</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c929c717f31de7c228fb9d570d6268184468625e2d1ad1f981eae492ca9340c03</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c929c717f31de7c228fb9d570d6268184468625e2d1ad1f981eae492ca9340c03</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00222194050380010601$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00222194050380010601$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,4022,12845,21818,27922,27923,27924,30998,30999,43620,43621</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ695585$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=16422197$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15727330$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Giovingo, Lauren K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proctor, Briley E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prevatt, Frances</creatorcontrib><title>Use of Grade-Based Norms Versus Age-Based Norms in Psychoeducational Assessment for a College Population</title><title>Journal of learning disabilities</title><addtitle>J Learn Disabil</addtitle><description>Considerable discussion has occurred about the most appropriate methods for diagnosing learning disabilities (LD) in postsecondary students. Two of the many areas of controversy that have emerged include the appropriate diagnostic criteria to use and the appropriate referent group. A review of previous court cases demonstrates that the issue of whether to compare an individual to the general population or to a smaller referent population has not been adequately clarified. Furthermore, few empirical studies have examined the impact of choosing different referent groups on the likelihood that one will be diagnosed with LD. Therefore, this correlational study described the levels of agreement between three diagnostic models of LD, using both age- and grade-based norms to represent two referent groups for each of the three models. The sample included 155 postsecondary students referred for testing due to academic difficulties. The findings indicated that in two of the three models tested, comparing individuals to their grade-matched peers (i.e., using grade-based norms) resulted in more LD diagnoses than comparing individuals to their age-matched peers (i.e., age-based norms).</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Age</subject><subject>Age Factors</subject><subject>Appropriateness</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>College students</subject><subject>Colleges</subject><subject>Comparative analysis</subject><subject>Correlational studies</subject><subject>Courts</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Educational Status</subject><subject>Elementary school students</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Learning Disabilities</subject><subject>Learning disabled students</subject><subject>Learning Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Minimal Brain Dysfunction</subject><subject>Models, Psychological</subject><subject>Normative data</subject><subject>Norms</subject><subject>Nosology. Terminology. Diagnostic criteria</subject><subject>Peer Group</subject><subject>Psychoeducational assessment</subject><subject>Psychoeducational Methods</subject><subject>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</subject><subject>Reference Values</subject><subject>Referrals</subject><subject>Special education</subject><subject>Students</subject><subject>Techniques and methods</subject><subject>Universities</subject><subject>USA</subject><issn>0022-2194</issn><issn>1538-4780</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2005</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>8G5</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AIMQZ</sourceid><sourceid>AVQMV</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><sourceid>GUQSH</sourceid><sourceid>K50</sourceid><sourceid>M1D</sourceid><sourceid>M2O</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0U1v1DAQBmALgei28A8qZCHRW2Ds-CvHZVUKqIIeKNfItSfbVEm8eDaH_nu87IoCQnCy5HlmNPbL2KmA10JY-wZASikaBRpqByDAgHjEFkLXrlLWwWO22JFqZ47YMdEdAChpzVN2JLSVtq5hwW6vCXnq-EX2Eau3njDyTymPxL9ippn4cv37dT_xK7oPtwnjHPy2T5Mf-JIIiUactrxLmXu-SsOAa-RXaTMPP9Qz9qTzA-Hzw3nCrt-df1m9ry4_X3xYLS-roLTZVqGRTbDCdrWIaIOUrrtporYQjTROOKWMM1KjjMJH0TVOoEfVyOCbWkGA-oSd7educvo2I23bsaeAw-AnTDO1xioNypn_Qm2FVLVxBb78A96lOZdnU1u-toQgtShI7VHIiShj125yP_p83wpod3m1f8urtL04zJ5vRowPTYeACnh1AJ6CH7rsp9DTgzNqN9QWd7p3mPvws3z-0TRaO13KYl8mv8Zf9v_Xbt8BJiCxtQ</recordid><startdate>200501</startdate><enddate>200501</enddate><creator>Giovingo, Lauren K.</creator><creator>Proctor, Briley E.</creator><creator>Prevatt, Frances</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>PRO-ED, Inc</general><general>Sage</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</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>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>0-V</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7RV</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88B</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>88G</scope><scope>8A4</scope><scope>8C1</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>AVQMV</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BEC</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>HEHIP</scope><scope>K50</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>KB0</scope><scope>LIQON</scope><scope>M0P</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1D</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M2M</scope><scope>M2O</scope><scope>M2S</scope><scope>MBDVC</scope><scope>NAPCQ</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><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200501</creationdate><title>Use of Grade-Based Norms Versus Age-Based Norms in Psychoeducational Assessment for a College Population</title><author>Giovingo, Lauren K. ; Proctor, Briley E. ; Prevatt, Frances</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c456t-c929c717f31de7c228fb9d570d6268184468625e2d1ad1f981eae492ca9340c03</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2005</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Age</topic><topic>Age Factors</topic><topic>Appropriateness</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>College students</topic><topic>Colleges</topic><topic>Comparative analysis</topic><topic>Correlational studies</topic><topic>Courts</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Educational Status</topic><topic>Elementary school students</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Learning Disabilities</topic><topic>Learning disabled students</topic><topic>Learning Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Minimal Brain Dysfunction</topic><topic>Models, Psychological</topic><topic>Normative data</topic><topic>Norms</topic><topic>Nosology. Terminology. Diagnostic criteria</topic><topic>Peer Group</topic><topic>Psychoeducational assessment</topic><topic>Psychoeducational Methods</topic><topic>Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Psychopathology. Psychiatry</topic><topic>Reference Values</topic><topic>Referrals</topic><topic>Special education</topic><topic>Students</topic><topic>Techniques and methods</topic><topic>Universities</topic><topic>USA</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Giovingo, Lauren K.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Proctor, Briley E.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Prevatt, Frances</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>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Social Sciences Premium Collection【Remote access available】</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Education Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Psychology Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Education Periodicals</collection><collection>ProQuest Public Health Database</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)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Literature</collection><collection>Social Science Premium Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>Arts Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>eLibrary</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>Education Collection (Proquest) (PQ_SDU_P3)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</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>Sociology Collection</collection><collection>Art, Design and Architecture Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>One Literature (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Education Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Arts & Humanities Database</collection><collection>Medical Database</collection><collection>Psychology Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Research Library</collection><collection>ProQuest Sociology Database</collection><collection>Research Library (Corporate)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</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><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of learning disabilities</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Giovingo, Lauren K.</au><au>Proctor, Briley E.</au><au>Prevatt, Frances</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ695585</ericid><atitle>Use of Grade-Based Norms Versus Age-Based Norms in Psychoeducational Assessment for a College Population</atitle><jtitle>Journal of learning disabilities</jtitle><addtitle>J Learn Disabil</addtitle><date>2005-01</date><risdate>2005</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>79</spage><epage>85</epage><pages>79-85</pages><issn>0022-2194</issn><eissn>1538-4780</eissn><coden>JLDIAD</coden><abstract>Considerable discussion has occurred about the most appropriate methods for diagnosing learning disabilities (LD) in postsecondary students. Two of the many areas of controversy that have emerged include the appropriate diagnostic criteria to use and the appropriate referent group. A review of previous court cases demonstrates that the issue of whether to compare an individual to the general population or to a smaller referent population has not been adequately clarified. Furthermore, few empirical studies have examined the impact of choosing different referent groups on the likelihood that one will be diagnosed with LD. Therefore, this correlational study described the levels of agreement between three diagnostic models of LD, using both age- and grade-based norms to represent two referent groups for each of the three models. The sample included 155 postsecondary students referred for testing due to academic difficulties. The findings indicated that in two of the three models tested, comparing individuals to their grade-matched peers (i.e., using grade-based norms) resulted in more LD diagnoses than comparing individuals to their age-matched peers (i.e., age-based norms).</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>15727330</pmid><doi>10.1177/00222194050380010601</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0022-2194 |
ispartof | Journal of learning disabilities, 2005-01, Vol.38 (1), p.79-85 |
issn | 0022-2194 1538-4780 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_67450486 |
source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); MEDLINE; SAGE Journals |
subjects | Adolescent Adult Age Age Factors Appropriateness Biological and medical sciences College students Colleges Comparative analysis Correlational studies Courts Diagnosis, Differential Educational Status Elementary school students Female Humans Learning Disabilities Learning disabled students Learning Disorders - diagnosis Male Medical sciences Minimal Brain Dysfunction Models, Psychological Normative data Norms Nosology. Terminology. Diagnostic criteria Peer Group Psychoeducational assessment Psychoeducational Methods Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry Psychopathology. Psychiatry Reference Values Referrals Special education Students Techniques and methods Universities USA |
title | Use of Grade-Based Norms Versus Age-Based Norms in Psychoeducational Assessment for a College Population |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-10T18%3A35%3A28IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Use%20of%20Grade-Based%20Norms%20Versus%20Age-Based%20Norms%20in%20Psychoeducational%20Assessment%20for%20a%20College%20Population&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20learning%20disabilities&rft.au=Giovingo,%20Lauren%20K.&rft.date=2005-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=79&rft.epage=85&rft.pages=79-85&rft.issn=0022-2194&rft.eissn=1538-4780&rft.coden=JLDIAD&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/00222194050380010601&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E57124368%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=194222251&rft_id=info:pmid/15727330&rft_ericid=EJ695585&rft_sage_id=10.1177_00222194050380010601&rfr_iscdi=true |