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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of learning disabilities 2005-01, Vol.38 (1), p.79-85
Hauptverfasser: Giovingo, Lauren K., Proctor, Briley E., Prevatt, Frances
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 &amp; 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>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=16422197$$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 &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Journals</collection><collection>Health &amp; 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 &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>One Literature (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Education Database (ProQuest)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Arts &amp; 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 &amp; 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