HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

Assessment. 2024 January ; 31(1): 53–74. doi:10.1177/10731911231194992.

Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities and Intellectual

Disabilities
Jack M. Fletcher1, Jeremy Miciak1
1University of Houston, TX, USA

Abstract
Author Manuscript

We review literature related to the assessment and identification of Specific Learning Disabilities
(SLD) and Intellectual Disabilities (ID). SLD and ID are the only two disorders requiring
psychometric test performance for identification within the group of neurodevelopmental disorders
in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – 5. SLD and ID are considered exclusionary of one another,
but the processes for assessment and identification of each disorder vary. There is controversy
about the identification and assessment methods for SLD, with little consensus. Unlike ID, SLD
is weakly related to full-scale IQ, and there is insufficient evidence that the routine assessment of
IQ or cognitive skills adds value to SLD identification and treatment. We have proposed a hybrid
method based on the assessment of low achievement with norm-referenced tests, instructional
response, and other disorders and contextual factors that may be comorbid or contraindicative
of SLD. In contrast to SLD, there is strong consensus for a three-prong definition for the
identification and assessment of ID: (a) significantly subaverage IQ, (b) adaptive behavior deficits
Author Manuscript

that interfere with independent living in the community, and (c) age of onset in the developmental
period. For both SLD and ID, we identify areas of controversy and best practices for identification
and assessment.

Keywords
specific learning disabilities; intellectual disability; intelligence testing; IQ-discrepancy; patterns
of strengths and weaknesses; response to intervention

Specific learning disabilities (SLD) and intellectual disabilities (ID) are part of the group of
neurodevelopmental disorders in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – 5 (DSM-5; American
Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Other neurodevelopmental disorders in DSM-5
Author Manuscript

include communication disorders, autism spectrum disorder, attention-deficit/hyperactivity

disorder (ADHD), and motor disorders. Neurodevelopmental disorders typically arise early
in development and represent impairments of language, academic skills, social skills,
intelligence, and adaptive behavior that are usually viewed as secondary to brain impairment
but with prominent environmental risk factors.

Article reuse guidelines: sagepub.com/journals-permissions

Corresponding Author: Jack M. Fletcher, Department of Psychology and Texas Institute of Measurement, University of Houston,
3695 Cullen Blvd., Heyne 126, Houston TX 77204-5022, USA. [email protected].
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
 Fletcher and Miciak Page 2

In this article, we focus first on the assessment of SLD and then on ID. For SLD, we
Author Manuscript

will explain why assessment procedures and identification are controversial, with no clearly
established guidelines. After reviewing the empirical evidence for different approaches to
the assessment and identification of SLD, we summarize an assessment and identification
approach that we term a hybrid approach because it combines components of identification
approaches consistent with findings from classification and measurement research (Fletcher
et al., 2019). In contrast to SLD, there is a strong consensus about the assessment and
identification of ID. We will present this consensus, relying on published, peer-reviewed
guidelines from the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities
(AAIDD; 2020) and the DSM-5 (APA, 2013).

It is appropriate to consider the assessment of SLD and ID in the same article because they
are the only neurodevelopmental or childhood disorders in DSM-5 that require psychometric
performance tests (e.g., achievement tests, IQ tests). In addition, they are exclusionary of
Author Manuscript

one another in DSM-5 and under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA),
which provides statutory guidance for school-based disability identification and services in
the United States. Unlike other neurodevelopmental disorders, SLD and ID are not examples
of co-occurring disorders (i.e., comorbidity) and differences in IQ and adaptive behavior
help differentiate them. Historically, the identification of both disorders has required an
assessment of IQ. However, SLD status is weakly related to IQ and the role of IQ testing
as part of the identification process is controversial (Fletcher & Miciak, 2017; Siegel,
1992; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). In contrast, intellectual deficits are a prominent part
of the definition of ID, and assessment of IQ is necessary for ID identification but not
sufficient (AAIDD, 2020). Adaptive behavior impairment is also a defining characteristic of
ID that is at least equally weighted with IQ (APA, 2013), representing pervasive areas of
difficulty sufficiently severe to prevent independent functioning in the community without
Author Manuscript

support. Adaptive impairment in SLD is narrow and restricted to domains influenced by

the development of reading, math, and writing skills (Bradley et al., 2002). The adaptation
difficulties do not result in a general lack of independence or difficulty performing activities
of daily living without support. The difference in adaptive functions is critical for accurate
identification because some children with SLD perform close to the range of ID on IQ tests.
Thus, assessment of adaptive behavior may be important for differentiating SLD and ID.

Specific Learning Disabilities

SLD is a highly prevalent disorder that represents a heterogeneous group of difficulties
with the development of academic skills involving reading, mathematics, and writing.
In the DSM-5, SLD replaced academic skills disorders first introduced in DSM-III and
Author Manuscript

maintained in DSM-IV and DSM-IV-TR. Historically, SLD is closely linked with ADHD
and the concept of brain-based behavior disorders (Rutter, 1982). This conceptualization was
important because it reduced the focus on SLD and ADHD as disorders that had largely
environmental etiologies involving parenting, motivation, and psychopathology.

At one point, what we now call SLD and ADHD were lumped together as a group of
heterogeneous conditions under terms like “minimal brain dysfunction” to emphasize the
origins in the brain (Clements, 1966). However, the range of behavior was too broad to be

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 3

useful, especially for assessment and treatment. In 1980, the DSM-III dropped “minimal
Author Manuscript

brain dysfunction” and separated academic skills disorders (i.e., SLD) from ADHD while
recognizing that these are often comorbid conditions requiring comprehensive treatment
plans that address both learning and behavioral impairments.

Not surprising because SLD affects how well children perform in school, SLD also has
origins in education with little involvement of the DSM-5. Kirk (1963) first used the
term “learning disability” to refer to children who had unexpected difficulties learning to
read, write, and do math. He emphasized that children with SLD often had strengths in
nonacademic domains, learned differently from children with intellectual and behavioral
difficulties, and that the difficulties were due to intrinsic factors involving the brain and
not to environmental factors like motivation. Kirk argued that children with SLD needed
specialized educational programs.
Author Manuscript

In 1975, the U.S. Congress passed Public Law 94–142, which required schools to provide
free and appropriate public education for all children, including children identified with
SLD and ID, and provided funds for special education programs (U.S. Office of Education
[USOE], 1977). Before Public Law 94–142, many children with SLD, ID, and other
neurodevelopmental disorders were not allowed to attend school or were simply allowed
to fail, viewed as intellectually or motivationally impaired. Now all schools are required to
find children with SLD and provide specialized intervention programs and accommodations
under the IDEA. SLD is 1 of 13 separate categories of eligibility for special education in
the most recent reauthorization of IDEA (US Department of Education, 2006), accounting
for about a third of all children presently served under IDEA. Colleges are also required
to provide accommodations for students with neurodevelopmental disorders under the
Americans with Disabilities Act, although there is no proactive obligation to find and
Author Manuscript

identify students with SLD, as under IDEA. Instead, secondary students must self-report
their disability status.

Many other developed countries have similar programs for SLD. In many respects, IDEA
(and similar international educational laws) has more influence on the assessment and
identification of SLD than DSM-5, although neither is specific in terms of methods or
approach. We will focus on the DSM-5 because of the charge for this special issue but bring
up issues involving IDEA when appropriate.

Diagnosis, Identification, and Clinical Features

Exactly how to assess and identify SLD has been controversial, although there is broad
consensus that SLD exists and leads to narrow difficulties with adaptation (Bradley et al.,
Author Manuscript

2002). Part of the problem is that there is no “gold standard” for SLD; it is a latent construct
that can be observed only in terms of how its manifestations are measured. There are
multiple approaches to measurement depending on the conceptual model for understanding
SLD (Fletcher et al., 2019).

In the DSM-5 (and IDEA), the primary characteristic is low achievement in reading, math,
and/or writing. These areas can include difficulty (a) accurately reading and spelling words
(basic reading, or dyslexia); (b) poor understanding of what is read despite adequate

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 4

basic reading skills (specific reading comprehension disability); (c) difficulties with math
Author Manuscript

calculations, representing a computational problem that involves number sense and math
facts (dyscalculia); (d) difficulties with math reasoning, usually manifested in word problem
difficulties; and (e) difficulties with writing that include the mechanical aspects of putting
words on paper (dysgraphia) or compositional difficulties due to organizational and/or
language problems.

The second feature of DSM-5 is persistence: difficulties in the development of academic

skills persist despite receiving adequate instruction. In many situations, children with SLD
are not identified until later in school and do not receive instruction in reading, math, and/or
writing that is tailored to their needs. It is difficult to separate SLD from academic problems
due to inadequate instruction, which might include ineffective general education classroom
instruction and/or remedial instruction. IDEA requires evidence of adequate instruction in
reading and math.
Author Manuscript

The third feature in DSM-5 is the age of onset. SLD involving basic reading, math, and
writing skills typically develop early in schooling, although exceptions exist. If the SLD
is specific to reading comprehension or written expression for stories and essays, it may
become apparent later in school (Catts et al., 2012). However, SLD in any domain is often
not identified until later in elementary and middle school, when academic deficits become
more pronounced in comparison to typically developing peers.

The fourth feature in DSM-5 (and IDEA) represents exclusionary factors (i.e., absence of
conditions or contextual factors that presumably contraindicate SLD). Although slightly
different in the DSM-5 and IDEA, these factors include ID, uncorrected vision or
hearing problems, behavioral or neurological conditions, psychosocial adversity, lack of
Author Manuscript

proficiency in the language of instruction, sociocultural factors, and inadequate instruction.

Differentiating academic problems associated with behavioral/ neurological conditions,
psychosocial adversity, and inadequate instruction is difficult because the academic
problems present similarly and the exclusionary condition may be comorbid.

Per the DSM-5, these features are evaluated through the administration of tests of
academic achievement, a developmental history, and school reports involving performance,
behavior, and instructional approaches. These evaluations are commonly completed by
schools but are also conducted by professionals outside of schools identifying as child
psychologists, neuropsychologists, speech pathologists, or school psychologists. Schools
often use formulae that determine the severity of academic impairment required for special
education services and for IDEA may involve discrepancies of achievement relative to
measured intelligence or unevenness in performance on tests of cognitive skills. There
Author Manuscript

is little empirical support for these methods of identification, which is why they are not
included in DSM-5. Other assessments may be needed to address contraindicative problems,
comorbid conditions, and contextual factors as presumptive causes of low achievement
(Fletcher et al., 2019).

Children with SLD may have impairments in more than one academic domain. For
example, a child who has problems with reading and spelling words (dyslexia) typically

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 5

has co-occurring problems with reading comprehension and writing. Children with reading
Author Manuscript

problems often struggle with math. Many identified with SLD have problems in all
three domains. In the DSM-5 (and IDEA), SLD can be coded for each domain that is
impaired in reading (word reading accuracy, reading fluency, reading comprehension);
written expression (spelling, grammar and punctuation, organization of written products);
and mathematics (number sense, math facts, accurate and/or fluent calculation, and accurate
math reasoning). The DSM-5 also requires an onset of at least 6 months, evidence of
adaptive impairment, and notes that while SLD originates in childhood, the magnitude
may not be apparent until more complex demands are made, such as the need to read
complex material (Catts et al., 2012). The onset and adaptive impairment requirements are
not explicitly required for identification under IDEA, but IDEA does require evidence of
educational need.

Comorbidity
Author Manuscript

There is significant co-occurrence of SLD involving reading, math, and writing. Moll et al.
(2014) reported that 30% to 50% of children with SLD had shared deficits in more than one
academic domain. This is likely because the cognitive skills that underlie different academic
skills overlap and can create problems in multiple areas, especially if language and working
memory are factors.

Children with SLD also commonly show comorbidity with other disorders, especially
ADHD. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) report from the National Survey of
Children’s Health found that 13.8% of children aged 3 to 17 years had been diagnosed
with either SLD or ADHD. Of these children, 4.2% were diagnosed only with SLD, 6%
with ADHD only, and 3.6% with both SLD and ADHD (Zablonsky & Alford, 2020).
Comorbidity estimates are best developed for children having problems with basic reading
Author Manuscript

(dyslexia). Depending on whether the sample is derived from a clinic or a research sample,
estimates of comorbidity range from 30% to 60% (Willcutt et al., 2007). In addition to
ADHD, another common comorbidity is early problems with the development of oral
language. About half of children identified with dyslexia show more general impairments
of language (Pennington & Bishop, 2009). About 25% of children with dyslexia experience
an internalizing behavior problem, and another 25% experience an externalizing behavior
problem, in part reflecting ADHD comorbidity (Willcutt et al., 2007). Longitudinal studies
show long-term associations between first-grade performance in reading and math and
subsequent problem behaviors in adolescence, which most frequently manifest as aggressive
behaviors for adolescent boys and mood problems for adolescent girls (Kellam et al., 1994).
Although there are fewer studies of math and writing SLD, the same patterns are apparent,
especially associations with ADHD (Willcutt et al., 2013).
Author Manuscript

The consideration of comorbidity is important for assessing SLD. Although SLD is referred
to as specific, this term should be understood to refer to the primacy of the impairment of
academic skills and the narrow impairment of adaptive behavior. In addition to overlapping
cognitive effects, frequent comorbidity raises questions about whether single deficits in
cognitive skills can fully account for SLD even when limiting to a single domain, such as
dyslexia (Pennington, 2006). Although some cognitive skills have strong associations with

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 6

specific academic domains, a single-deficit model does not seem adequate to account for
Author Manuscript

all cases. Thus, Pennington (2006) proposed multiple deficit models to more fully capture
how cognitive skills are expressed in academic deficits. Behavioral genetic studies show
overlap in the heritability of reading and math SLD and ADHD. However, the overlap
in heritability was much higher for reading and math SLD than for ADHD, suggesting
that the common contribution of genes to reading and math SLD is much higher than
with ADHD (Daucourt et al., 2020). According to the continuity hypothesis (Plomin &
Kovas, 2005), there are genes that are specific to each type of disorder. However, there
are also generalist genes that overlap across disorders. This view reflects the idea that
the traits that underlie SLD represent correlated liabilities that are dimensional because
shared risk variants are expressed to different degrees depending on academic proficiency
and environmental influences, such as instruction. No child should be evaluated for SLD
without considering comorbidity because treatment plans that only address academic deficits
Author Manuscript

and do not consider comorbidities or contextual factors are less likely to produce a strong
intervention response.

Specific Attributes of SLD

The assessment of SLD can be challenging because there is no strong consensus on its
definition, on how psychological performance tests should be used, and because SLD
often occurs with other difficulties in academics, behavior, and attention (see comorbidity
above; Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014). The attributes of SLD to be measured may include
IQ, cognitive skills, academic achievement, and instructional response. The problem of
definition is partly due to the dimensional nature of these attributes (Ellis, 1984). In a
dimensional disorder, the attributes (e.g., low achievement and instructional response) are
not categorical but occur on unbroken continua as part of a normal distribution. There is
Author Manuscript

no natural cut point to distinguish those with SLD from low achievers without SLD. As
such, thresholds for low achievement or inadequate instructional response are somewhat
arbitrary unless they are very severe (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014). Below, we will discuss
the consequences of dimensionality for the assessment of SLD.

The DSM-5 does not provide specific guidelines for the assessment of SLD. However, IDEA
provides more explicit guidelines without specifying preferences for different methods or
specific assessment procedures other than general guidelines for reliability, validity, and
cultural appropriateness. The IDEA criteria for SLD identification are summarized in Table
1 (US Department of Education, 2006, p. 46786). There are eight domains of academic
achievement in which SLD can occur and like the exclusionary criteria, are similar to
DSM-5, except that oral expression and listening comprehension are not considered SLD in
DSM-5. This exclusion is reasonable because oral expression and listening comprehension
Author Manuscript

are not academic skills and are better-considered examples of communication disorders.
These domains remained in IDEA because the Federal statutory definition of SLD, which
has been unchanged since 1975 and Public Law 94–142 includes speaking and listening as
examples of impairment. In practice, these domains are often not formally assessed when
evaluating SLD (Fletcher et al., 2019).

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 7

A major difference between IDEA and DSM-5 is the indication in the second criterion of
Author Manuscript

different identification methods in Table 1 that can be based on (a) “the child’s response to
scientific, research-based intervention,” commonly referred to as Response to Intervention
(RTI); or (b) “a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or
both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development.”
(IDEA, 2006, 34 CFR §300.309). The most common approaches under the second criterion
are (a) IQ-achievement discrepancy methods, which gained prominence in the 1977
guidelines for SLD for implementing Public law 94–142 (USOE, 1977) and (b) pattern
of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) methods that were intended to replace IQ-achievement
discrepancy methods by assessing cognitive and achievement skills more broadly. Both
general methods include the use of formulae for defining significant discrepancies in
some index of cognitive strength and an achievement weakness (weighted equally) with
no consensus on the size of the discrepancy needed to indicate clinical significance. The
Author Manuscript

most common is one standard deviation (which does not correct for the correlation of IQ and
achievement, leading to regression to the mean; Reynolds, 1984–1985) or one standard error
of measurement. We will term these latter approaches “cognitive discrepancy” methods and
the former “instructional response” methods. The difference in the methods reflects different
conceptualizations of the indicators of unexpected low achievement for SLD.

Reliability Issues Are Universal for SLD Identification Methods

All SLD identification methods have problems with reliability for individual identification.
The tests that are used are typically highly reliable but have small amounts of measurement
error. When imperfectly reliable tests are used to assess a firm threshold on a normal
distribution, there will be fluctuations of individual children around the threshold if
measurement error is not considered (Francis et al., 2005). In addition, different evaluations
Author Manuscript

use different tests with different normative samples so that different assessments do not
identify the same people with SLD or not-SLD even when the same method is used
(Macmann et al., 1989).

This unreliability at the individual level is apparent across multiple methods and approaches
to identification, including methods based on IQ-achievement discrepancies (Francis et al.,
2005; Macmann & Barnett, 1985), patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses (Miciak
et al., 2015, 2018; Taylor et al., 2017), and instructional response (Barth et al., 2008;
Fletcher et al., 2014; Hendricks & Fuchs, 2020). Even seemingly straightforward methods
that employ a single low achievement criterion (i.e., reading scores < 20th percentile)
demonstrate fluctuation in individual identification decisions over time and across tests
(Francis et al., 2005). If a formula or firm threshold is used, a student identified with one
method may not be identified with SLD using another formula because of differences in
Author Manuscript

tests, testing occasion, the threshold for identification, or how the discrepancy is defined.

If multiple tests within the same achievement domain are administered, and they are
consistently below the threshold to mark an academic difficulty, we can be more confident
that the student’s true score is below the threshold (Fletcher et al., 2014). Even better,
the standard error of measurement of the test could be specified and represented as a
confidence interval (as in assessments for ID) so that a range of scores could indicate

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 8

the presence of SLD. Other data that might inform a clinical judgment of SLD could be
Author Manuscript

utilized, but there is little research on how to incorporate this information reliably and
some efforts are not promising because of the excessive influence of psychometric tests
(Maki et al., 2022). These data could include previous academic and classroom performance,
grades, observations of the child, and the parents’ and teacher’s perceptions of the student’s
performance. The bottom line is that assessment and identification of SLD requires multiple,
converging data and is not reliable at the individual level if identification relies only on
psychometric tests and firm thresholds.

With this understanding of the reliability issue in hand, we turn to validity issues
for cognitive discrepancy and instructional response methods. Here we focus on group
comparisons of the proposed classification hypothesis where the reliability of individual
identification decisions is less of an issue. The premise is that for an identification method to
be valid, it must differentiate people the method defines as SLD and not-SLD on important
Author Manuscript

attributes not used as part of the definition, such as cognition, behavior, or future treatment
response (Morris & Fletcher, 1988).

Validity of SLD Identification Methods

Cognitive Discrepancy Methods.—There is a long history of research on the role of
cognitive skills in SLD. Academic skills themselves are complex cognitive skills strongly
related to domain-general and domain-specific cognitive skills. Such cognitive skills are
frequently represented as proximal causes of SLD (Johnson et al., 2010; Vellutino et al.,
2000), although these relations are correlational, not causal. The cognitive correlates of
different types of SLD do vary with the academic skills that are impaired, reflecting the
rich history of research on cognition and achievement (Grigorenko et al., 2020). This
variation is depicted in Figure 1. This figure was developed by composing samples of 8- to
Author Manuscript

9-year-old children who met different definitions of SLD (IQ-discrepancy and simple low
achievement <26th percentile, but not discrepant with IQ) in basic reading (Dyslexia) and
math computations (math). All children had a verbal or performance IQ of at least 80. The
typically developing group scored above the 25th percentile in reading and math and did not
meet the criteria for ADHD, which is why they tend to score above average. Figure 1 shows
cognitive profiles across measures associated with SLD in basic reading (dyslexia) and math
(dyscalculia). These SLD subgroups are different in the pattern of cognitive skills (Fletcher
et al., 1994).

This observed pattern of variation is the premise on which cognitive discrepancy methods
are based, seeking to document this pattern of strengths and weaknesses in cognitive and
academic skills. However, the evidence that assessing this variation in cognitive skills
Author Manuscript

independent of the academic domain contributes meaningful evidence for identification or

treatment is weak. We will not discuss these relations in depth, but many sources have
detailed expositions (Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Fletcher et al., 2019). There are five
general principles. First, SLD is associated with weaknesses in specific processes rather than
global intellectual impairment. Second, the cognitive components of SLD are dimensional
and occur on a normally distributed continuum of ability. This is important because
understanding typical development informs our understanding of atypical development, and

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 9

vice versa; there is no need for separate theories of the typical development of academic
Author Manuscript

skills and their manifestations in SLD. Third, each academic and cognitive component has
overlapping, but distinct signatures in the genome and in the brain. The unique features
support the validity of classifying SLD according to the area of academic impairment
(Elliott & Grigorenko, 2014; Fletcher et al., 2019). Fourth, the overlap of cognitive
skills across SLD partially explains comorbid associations (Willcutt et al., 2013). Finally,
cognitive deficits that are strongly related to SLD (e.g., phonological processing deficits or
deficits in working memory), like their academic manifestations, are chronic and lifelong in
the absence of intervention (Cirino et al., 2005).

IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Methods.—The role of intelligence and IQ testing has

a long history of controversy in research and practice on SLD. At one point, IQ tests
were used to gauge the potential of a child for learning. For example, Burt (1937) stated,
“Capacity must obviously limit content. It is impossible for a pint jug to hold more than a
Author Manuscript

pint of milk and it is equally impossible for a child’s educational attainment to rise higher
than his educable capacity” (p. 477). In this view, an IQ test is a measure of learning
aptitude where IQ sets an upper limit on a child’s capacity to master academic skills. Termed
“milk and jug” thinking (Share et al., 1989), there is little evidence that IQ scores truly
function as indicators of aptitude. Rather, they are a less direct assessment of achievement
that often declines over time in children with SLD because of impaired access to content
learning when reading is involved (Bentum & Aaron, 2003). Nonetheless, IQ testing was
at one point routine in assessments for the identification of SLD. From 1977 to 2004, U.S.
federal regulations for the identification of SLD under IDEA required documentation of a
significant discrepancy between higher IQ and lower achievement scores.

Figure 2 illustrates the framework for using an IQ-discrepancy method to differentiate

Author Manuscript

people with putative SLD and low achievers who presumably are achieving at expected
levels. There is extensive research on the validity of IQ-achievement discrepancy methods.
This research shows that it is difficult to differentiate groups of children who meet IQ-
discrepancy definitions from low achievers without a discrepancy in measures not used to
define the groups. The low achiever groups do not include children with ID, but scores
can range up to two standard deviations around the mean. These largely null results have
been reported on external measures of achievement and cognitive skills in large studies
(Fletcher et al., 1994; Siegel, 1992; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994) and two large-scale meta-
analyses (Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Stuebing et al., 2002). Figure 3 shows cognitive
profiles within the reading disability group from Figure 1. Note that the group profiles
are parallel and do not meet the criteria for statistically significant differences between
groups in elevation or shape (Fletcher et al., 1994). Although the difference between IQ and
Author Manuscript

achievement is about one standard deviation, on other cognitive measures the differences
average 0.3 standard deviations, consistent with the meta-analyses (Stuebing et al., 2002),
with negligible differences on cognitive skills most closely associated with the academic
domain. For example, there is little difference in phonological processing and rapid naming
between IQ-discrepant and low-achieving children in Figure 3.

The null findings extend to prognosis (Shaywitz et al., 1999), intervention response (Morris
et al., 2012; Stuebing et al., 2009; Vellutino et al., 2006), and brain function (Simos et

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 10

al., 2014; Tanaka et al., 2011). Although a limited number of studies show small group
Author Manuscript

differences in relation to IQ (e.g., (Hancock et al., 2016; Wadsworth et al., 2010), the
majority of studies that include such group comparisons find no differences.

Null results also extend to other domains of SLD, the use of different IQ indices (e.g.,
Verbal IQ, Performance IQ), and even to communication disorders (Fletcher et al., 2019).
These methods do not lack validity because individuals with an IQ achievement discrepancy
are not SLD. The underlying classification lacks validity because groups formed based on
the presence or absence of an IQ-achievement discrepancy do not differ in educationally
meaningful ways.

Expressly disavowed by DSM-5, IDEA (2006) continued to allow IQ-achievement

discrepancies because of concerns about the transition from commonly used methods but
indicated that states could no longer require this method and provided alternatives (see Table
Author Manuscript

1). These results also call into question the routine use of IQ tests as a component of SLD
identification because such tests are not strongly related to identification (or to SLD) and do
not generate data useful for treatment planning. IQ tests should be used only if there is a
question about ID (Fletcher et al., 2019).

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW).—An alternative, updated cognitive

discrepancy approach eschews the use of Full Scale IQ scores but may use a composite or
a subtest score from an IQ test or other measure to index a cognitive strength or weakness.
These methods focus on intra-individual patterns of cognitive processing strengths and
weaknesses as an inclusionary criterion for the identification of SLD. The operationalization
of a PSW method is illustrated in Figure 4, with SLD indicated by an academic weakness
in the presence of an unrelated cognitive processing strength and a cognitive processing
Author Manuscript

weakness presumably contributory to the academic weakness. Composites and subtests

from widely used norm-referenced cognitive and achievement test batteries are used and
sometimes treated as interchangeable despite differences in content and normative samples.

Multiple methods have been proposed to operationally define these PSW methods, including
(a) the concordance/discordance method (C/DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004); (b) the dual
discrepancy/consistency method (DDCM; Flanagan et al., 2018); (c) the discrepancy/
consistency method (D/CM; Naglieri, 1999); and (d) the core selective evaluation process
(C-SEP; Schultz & Stephens, 2015). These methods differ in multiple ways including their
use of relative or normative comparisons to establish strengths and weaknesses, the size of
the required discrepancy, what tests are required to be administered, and how exclusionary
factors are considered. Although frequently presented as interchangeable (Hale et al., 2010),
these methods do not identify groups with significant overlap (Miciak et al., 2016; Miciak,
Author Manuscript

Fletcher, et al., 2014).

In both statistical simulations (Miciak et al., 2018; Stuebing et al., 2012; Taylor et al., 2017)
and actual data (Kranzler et al., 2016; Miciak et al., 2016; Miciak, Fletcher, et al., 2014)
similar patterns emerge. The PSW methods that have been studied (C/DM, DDCM, and
D/CM) identified a surprisingly low number of individuals as SLD. In simulations, these
methods often identify less than 1% of the population with SLD at both the latent and

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 11

the observed levels. This low rate of identification results in high specificity and negative
Author Manuscript

predictive value estimates (e.g., good accuracy in identifying “Not SLD”). However,
sensitivity and positive predictive values were low, suggesting these methods struggle to
accurately identify individuals who truly have SLD. A large percentage of those who were
SLD at the latent level were not identified as SLD by PSW methods at the observed level.
Among those identified with SLD at the observed level, a low percentage were identified as
SLD at the latent level. In addition, agreement across methods was poor, suggesting they are
not interchangeable. In short, PSW methods subjected to empirical and statistical evaluation
were highly accurate for identifying individuals who were not SLD (low false-negative error
rates), but generated excessive false positives when indicating the presence of SLD.

There is little research on the validity of these widely implemented methods (Benson
et al., 2018; McGill & Busse, 2017; Schneider & Kaufman, 2017), but most empirical
studies yield null results. For example, Miciak, Fletcher, et al. (2014) compared academic
Author Manuscript

profiles of struggling learners who met CDM or DDCM criteria for SLD and low achievers
who did not meet SLD criteria. These comparisons did not yield differences in level or
patterns of performance (Figure 5). Miciak et al. (2016) evaluated whether PSW status was
associated with differential intervention response within a sample of struggling readers in
upper elementary school. Comparisons of posttest performance for those who met PSW
criteria for SLD with those who did not meet these criteria were largely null. In addition,
PSW status at baseline did not improve the prediction of instructional response beyond
baseline assessments of reading skills.

A premise of many PSW proponents is that an assessment of cognitive processes permits

the customization of interventions for a person identified with SLD. However, multiple
literature reviews and meta-analyses have concluded that support for aptitude by treatment
Author Manuscript

interactions and cognitively tailored interventions is largely null because such interventions
are not strongly associated with improved academic skills (Burns et al., 2016; Kearns &
Fuchs, 2013; Melby-Lervag et al., 2016). The overriding concerns about the relation of
these methods to treatment are laid on a longer history of lack of support for different
methods of cognitive profile analysis for IQ subtests (McGill et al., 2018). The utility of
extensive assessments of cognitive skills for the identification of SLD—with or without
profile analysis and discrepancy scores—has been widely questioned, especially given the
time and expense of these assessments (Burns et al., 2016; Fletcher & Miciak, 2017) and
the absence of evidence for value-added information facilitating identification or treatment
(Hajovsky et al., 2022).

Instructional Response Methods.—In a method based on instructional response, the

Author Manuscript

key attribute of the classification is the documentation of inadequate or poor instructional

response. A person with SLD has as a defining characteristic inadequate response to
appropriate instruction (see Figure 6). Assessment of instructional response can be based on
short assessments of reading or math fluency repeated multiple times during instruction or
intervention (curriculum-based measurement; CBM), or based on standardized achievement
measures administered following intensive intervention. There is a long history of research
on these methods with good evidence for validity and enhanced instructional outcomes
(Kovaleski et al., 2013; Stecker et al., 2005). How inadequate instructional response is

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 12

operationalized varies in practice and in research on methods that incorporate CBM.

Author Manuscript

Fuchs and Deshler (2007) identified at least three methods: (a) student growth over time
(slope); (b) post-intervention performance (final status), or (c) both (dual discrepancy).
However, none of these methods is free of the universal unreliability at the individual
level because these methods force the imposition of thresholds on continuous, normally
distributed measures that are imperfect because of measurement error (Fletcher et al., 2014).
Multiple assessments of the same construct using tests with similar normative bases and
confidence intervals may help with (but not fully ameliorate) this problem. Additional
data documenting fidelity of implementation of the evidence-based intervention are also
helpful for ruling out inadequate instructional opportunity (Kovaleski et al., 2013). These
assessments of instructional response are best collected in the context of a service delivery
framework known as multitier systems of support (MTSS), which includes universal
screening, interventions of increasing intensity, and ongoing progress monitoring using
Author Manuscript

CBM (Fletcher & Vaughn, 2009; Fuchs et al., 2008). Although often reduced to its role in
the SLD identification process because of the ease with which such data are collected, the
goal of MTSS is to prevent and treat academic difficulties—data for SLD identification are a
by-product.

In IDEA, instructional response data is explicitly required regardless of the SLD

identification process to document an adequate opportunity to learn (US Department of
Education, 2006, p. 46786). This helps to ensure that students will not be identified as SLD
if they have not had adequate instructional opportunities. For identification methods based
on instructional response, inadequate instructional response is considered inclusionary and
represents a necessary, but not sufficient attribute of SLD. In contrast, cognitive discrepancy
methods consider instructional response as exclusionary because of inadequate opportunity
to learn (Fletcher et al., 2019). While cognitive discrepancy methods are based on traditional
Author Manuscript

referral systems after the child begins to struggle, MTSS frameworks are designed to prevent
academic difficulties in all children, including those at risk of SLD (Fuchs et al., 2008).
The data on instructional response that might be used to determine SLD is a by-product of
the MTSS process, and the child may need an evaluation to determine why they are not
responding. These reasons can include SLD and may indicate a need for more intensive
instruction and the civil rights protections afforded by SLD identification.

Many critics of instructional methods for SLD identification suggest that the methods
attempt to identify SLD based solely on instructional response criteria (Reynolds &
Shaywitz, 2009) or that these methods ignore the need for a comprehensive evaluation that
includes the examination of comorbid and contextual factors (Hale et al., 2010). However,
implementation of instructional response methods for identification typically documents
Author Manuscript

multiple criteria: low achievement, inadequate instructional response, and consideration

of exclusionary factors (Bradley et al., 2002; Kovaleski et al., 2013). A comprehensive
evaluation is always recommended because eligibility decisions are high-stakes (Fletcher &
Miciak, 2019).

Evidence for the validity of methods based on instructional response continues to

accumulate. Groups defined as adequate and inadequate responders to instruction
demonstrate different academic, behavioral, and cognitive characteristics (Al Otaiba &

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 13

Fuchs, 2002; Cho et al., 2015; Miciak, Stuebing, et al., 2014). Neuroimaging research
Author Manuscript

shows differences in the brain activation patterns of adequate and inadequate responders
following intensive interventions in reading (Molfese et al., 2013; Nugiel et al., 2019; Rezaie
et al., 2011). Figure 7 provides an illustration of the cognitive findings, showing significant
differences in profile elevation, but not shape, among two groups of elementary school
inadequate responders based on final status accuracy and fluency measures and groups
of adequate responders and typical readers (Fletcher et al., 2011). These differences in
elevation are consistent with a continuum of severity hypothesis (Vellutino et al., 2006) that
posits a dimensional view of the attributes of SLD.

A Hybrid Method
A consensus group convened by the Office of Special Education Programs in the
Department of Education recommended three essential criteria for SLD (Bradley et al.,
Author Manuscript

2002). This consensus concluded that an assessment for SLD must document: (1) low
achievement; (2) insufficient response to evidence-based interventions; and (3) absence
of exclusionary factors: IDs, sensory deficits, serious emotional disturbances, lack of
opportunity to learn, and lack of proficiency in English.

Figure 8 highlights the three components, which combine methods based on simple low
achievement using norm-referenced tests and instructional methods based on curriculum-
based measures, thus applying more than one indicator of low achievement and inadequate
instructional response (Fletcher et al., 2019). In addition, comorbid conditions associated
with SLD are evaluated as well as contextual factors that may indicate issues other than
SLD, representing an assessment of the exclusionary factors that is broader and oriented
toward intervention. There is no use of IQ tests except to rule out ID. Cognitive skills are
not systematically evaluated outside academic domains because of the lack of evidence that
Author Manuscript

such measures provide unique information not captured by achievement tests (Hajovsky et
al., 2022).

In general, we interpret the evidence as favoring shorter, hypothesis-oriented approaches to

SLD assessment where the assessment measures may vary, especially when comorbidity
is considered. We propose that every person would receive a set of norm-referenced tests
from the same battery and additional testing as indicated to complement the instructional
response data. Even if the person has not been in an intervention where curriculum-based
measures have been collected, there should be a review of instructional history including
school reports, interventions attempted, and other academic services and accommodations.
Screening assessments for ADHD and for behavior problems should be administered, along
with additional assessments of language, especially if the individual does not have English
Author Manuscript

as a primary language.

The approach we have proposed integrates assessment features involving simple

low achievement with instructional response methods, providing multiple criteria and
consideration of exclusionary factors outlined in DSM-5 and IDEA (Fletcher et al., 2019).
For IDEA (2006), it meets the criteria for the required comprehensive evaluation, including
(a) the use of a variety of assessment tools; (b) use of multiple criteria for identification;
(C) use of technically sound instruments; (d) assessment of multiple areas of suspected

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 14

disability and all areas of need regardless of eligibility domain; (e) provision of assessment
Author Manuscript

data directly related to intervention; (f) assessment of relevant academic domains for SLD;
(g) assessment for exclusionary criteria; and (h) assessment of the adequacy of instruction in
reading and math.

Norm-Referenced Achievement Tests.—Norm-referenced achievement tests should

be targeted to the six academic domains of SLD identified in IDEA as well as DSM-5.
These assessments should include a brief assessment of foundational skills involved in basic
reading, math calculations, and basic writing, such as spelling, as well as higher order
skills such as reading comprehension, math reasoning, and writing composition. These latter
assessments take more time because they assess more complex skills, but they are essential
for children who are not impaired in basic academic skills but struggling in school. In
addition, it is always important to assess automaticity since the inability to work quickly
may require adaptative difficulties in classroom instruction. The goal is always to minimize
Author Manuscript

time spent testing and to the extent possible, assess with tests that have the same normative
basis. Current achievement levels, as well as individual strengths and weaknesses in reading,
math, and written expression, can help instructors individualize an intervention plan and
determine the necessary level of intensity.

Assessment of Instructional Response.—Assessing instructional response usually

involves the use of curriculum-based assessments of reading, math, and spelling. These
methods are given as serial probes and are usually time-constrained. In reading, a student
may be asked to read word lists or stories as quickly as possible every 1 to 4 weeks
during an instructional period; cloze or maze tasks are used that are more closely
related to comprehension, but these tasks are moderately to highly correlated with word
reading accuracy and fluency, and comprehension. In math, different grade-appropriate
Author Manuscript

calculations are given in a time limited fashion. In written expression, timed spelling
tests, alphabet writing tests, and other procedures are used. As noted earlier, normed-
referenced assessments can also be used as final status measures. The critical component
for identification is the student’s level at the end of an intervention period or some other
point in the instructional period. For identification, the end point is more important than the
slope or amount of change because the information on growth is contained in the end point.
For modifying instruction, the slope is very important (Fletcher et al., 2019; Kovaleski et al.,
2013). Figure 9 provides examples of progress monitoring charts for three actual students
who responded to intervention (A), responded but needed more time in intervention (B), and
did not respond to intervention (C).

Exclusionary Criteria.—Academic difficulties may be due to other disabilities, such as

Author Manuscript

a sensory problem, ID, or another pervasive disturbance of cognition, like autism spectrum
disorder. These disorders have specific identification criteria and require interventions that
address a much more pervasive impairment of adaptation that contrasts with the narrow
impairment in adaptive skills that characterizes SLD. In addition, contextual factors that
may interfere with achievement, such as limited English proficiency, comorbid behavioral
problems, and economic disadvantage should also be considered. The goal of this part
of the assessment is to determine whether such a condition is a primary cause of low

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 15

achievement, a comorbid condition, or a result of low achievement. The consideration

Author Manuscript

of these questions can also assist in planning for effective interventions. For example,
children with ADHD who receive interventions to address both their attention and academic
difficulties achieve better outcomes (Denton et al., 2020). Anxiety might also limit the
effectiveness of standalone academic interventions. If a child is struggling to read and
exhibits high levels of anxiety, a treatment program that addresses both reading and anxiety
may be useful (Grills et al., 2013).

Limited English proficiency is another issue that must be considered, particularly in areas
where many children come from homes in which English is not the primary language.
Children who grow up in households where the language at home is different from
the language of instruction are at greater risk for academic difficulties, primarily due
to the difficulties associated with mastering academic content while learning a second
language. Yet, there are no clear criteria or assessments that would differentiate a child
Author Manuscript

with achievement difficulties due to SLD from a child who demonstrates limited English
proficiency. One assessment strategy is to include assessments of oral language proficiency
and achievement in both languages. However, these results must also be considered in
context, as many English learners attend English-only classrooms and have not received
academic instruction in their first language. Parsing the interconnected issues of academic
difficulties and language proficiency takes careful consideration to ensure that students are
not identified with SLD simply because they lack the English proficiency to perform well on
achievement tests in English.

To address all potential exclusionary factors and better plan for treatment, the assessment
should routinely include parent and teacher rating scales of behavior and academic
adjustment, along with parent-completed developmental and medical history forms. These
Author Manuscript

scales may identify behavioral comorbidities and historical factors (e.g., history of brain
trauma) that are important to screen. If there is evidence for behavioral comorbidity, the
guidelines for identifying these disorders in the DSM-5 should be followed. Simply referring
a child for educational interventions without identifying and treating these factors will
increase the probability of a poor intervention response.

Conclusions: SLD
As the field of SLD research and practice moves toward the future, we encourage the
incorporation of assessments oriented to dimensional and probabilistic conceptions of
SLD, such as Bayesian methods (Wagner et al., 2019). Current psychometric approaches
are clearly not adequate and probabilistic approaches may help ameliorate the reliability
problems inherent to making categorical determinations for a dimensional disorder.
Author Manuscript

Practitioners should utilize psychometrically sound achievement data to help identify

interventions of appropriate intensity tied to specific areas of SLD. These interventions
should be explicit, customized, and address all of the individual child’s instructional needs,
regardless of special education eligibility status or label. Finally, research identifying
multivariate risk indicators that inform the early identification of individuals with higher
probabilities to develop academic difficulties and SLD (Catts & Petscher, 2022; Wagner et
al., 2019) should be prioritized, with an eye toward early intervention. A key change is to

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 16

move assessment from a static process oriented around eligibility for services and diagnosis
Author Manuscript

to a dynamic process oriented toward treatment and enhanced outcomes for people identified
with SLD and others who struggle with academic skills.

Intellectual Disabilities
Diagnosis, Identification, and Clinical Features
In contrast to SLD, there is strong consensus from research and practice on the attributes,
criteria, and assessment of ID (AAIDD, 2020). The primary attributes to be considered are
intelligence, adaptive behavior, and age of onset. The criteria are test scores that are two
standard deviations below average on multifactorial measures of IQ and achievement, with
age of onset in the developmental period. Assessment involves measures of IQ and adaptive
behavior, along with interviews, reviews of school and community records, and medical and
developmental history.
Author Manuscript

The consensus definition is a three-pronged set of criteria developed by the AAIDD in

a series of manuals now in its 12th edition (AAIDD, 2020). These manuals, which are
routinely used in research and clinical practice, date back to 1959 and have consistently
focused on these three attributes. As the AAIDD (2020) notes, “the three essential elements
of ID- limitations in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior, and early age of onset-
have not changed significantly over the past 60 years” (p. xii). The DSM-5 has similar
diagnostic criteria (APA, 2013) as do the IDEA regulations (IDEA, 2006), which adds the
need to document adverse effects on educational achievement. There are no substantive
differences in the AAIDD and DSM-5 criteria. Rather, definitions are aligned across
multiple sources. The AAIDD definition is included in Table 2, along with five assumptions
essential to the application that will be discussed in the context of applying the criteria. ID
Author Manuscript

replaces older terms, such as mental retardation and mental deficiency, which have negative
and offensive connotations (Schalock et al., 2007). This change was formally adopted by
Congress as Rosa’s Law in 2010 and codified in 2013 (Federal Register, 2013).

IDs are heterogeneous and have multiple causes. Although genetic causes are most
widely understood, about 60% of cases have no known etiology. The causes can
include environmental factors, including toxic exposure, brain trauma and infection, and
psychosocial deprivation (Ellison et al., 2013). Many causes are genetic and syndromic,
exemplified by single gene disorders like Fragile X syndrome (most common), Down
syndrome, and Williams syndrome. However, up to one-fifth of cases are due to mutations
known as copy number variants that have increased the number of known causes (Ellison
et al., 2013). There are many factors related to the development of ID, which are typically
Author Manuscript

discussed as risk factors (see below). In addition, the phenotypic expression of ID is highly
variable, especially since ID occurs in association with other disorders, most notably autism
spectrum disorder. What is important is that the identification of ID does not require the
identification of a cause (AAIDD, 2020). Co-occurring disorders are considered examples
of comorbidity, not causes of ID. Further, the presence of a genetic cause of ID does
not automatically result in the identification of ID. All three criteria must be present, but
the current editions of the AAIDD manual and DSM-5 emphasize the priority of adaptive
behavior deficits, partly because of the historical over-emphasis on IQ scores (APA, 2013).

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 17

Known causes of ID are more likely to produce moderate and profound levels of ID,
Author Manuscript

whereas mild ID is more likely to occur on the normalized continuum of IQ scores. To

understand this phenomenon, it is helpful to examine Zigler’s (1969) idea of developmental
versus difference manifestations of ID, which implicitly proposes a bimodal distribution
of IQ scores. Zigler argued that some forms of ID were familial and occurred as normal
variations on the IQ continuum. He contrasted these forms with “organic” forms of ID due
to genetic and environmental events (e.g., trauma) that impaired brain function and would
be part of a longer tail on the distribution of IQ scores. There is support for Zigler’s overall
framework in many studies (e.g., Weisz & Yeates, 1981). Ironically, one of the reasons
leading to the adoption of IQ-discrepancy methods for SLD identification was the Isle
of Wight studies by Rutter and Yule (1975). In these studies, Rutter and Yule attempted
to estimate the prevalence of “specific reading retardation.” They found that the bivariate
distribution of IQ and reading scores had a non-normal distribution, with a long tail that
Author Manuscript

represented “general backwards readers” whose reading levels were not discrepant with IQ.
However, Rutter and Yule did not exclude children with known or suspected neurological
disorders so backward readers were largely neurologically impaired children with IQ scores
more than two standard deviations below average. This observation supports Zigler (1969),
but SLD excludes ID and other epidemiological studies that exclude on the basis of low IQ
do not find a bimodal distribution (Fletcher et al., 2019). The key issue for any individual
suspected of ID is whether they meet the AAIDD/DSM-5 criteria.

Comorbidity
Comorbid conditions, such as personality disorder, psychosocial deprivation, emotional
disorders, and conditions like autism spectrum disorder, are common in individuals with ID.
It is not necessary to rule out comorbidities as a cause of impairments before a diagnosis
Author Manuscript

of ID can be established. When comorbid diagnoses are present, both ID and co-occurring
conditions are identified (APA, 2013, p. 39). Summarizing how the DSM-5 approaches ID,
Tassé and Blume (2018) stated,

… regardless of the presence of any other coexisting behavioral or mental illness

(such as antisocial personality disorder, to mention one), a diagnosis of intellectual
disability should be made if the individual meets all three diagnostic prongs of
intellectual disability, regardless of etiology or comorbid condition.
(p. 121)

It is well known that individuals with ID are vulnerable and three times more likely to
have a co-occurring behavioral disorder, including substance abuse (Salekin et al., 2010). A
comorbidity does not rule out ID.
Author Manuscript

Risk Factors
Different forms of ID do not have a known cause. There is no diagnostic requirement to
specify the cause of the disability, although that is possible in some cases. ID has multiple
risk factors, including genetic anomalies, family history, brain injury or microcephaly in
the developmental period, drug use, emotional deprivation and abuse, prenatal exposure to
alcohol and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, low levels of educational attainment, and other
factors. These risk factors cannot usually be organized to demonstrate a cause of the ID,

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 18

except in cases where a known genetic or brain-related etiology is present and even that in
Author Manuscript

itself does not establish an ID diagnosis (AAIDD, 2020).

Assessment and Identification of ID

Intelligence.—In applying the three-prong definition in Table 2, the first prong is evidence
of significantly subaverage general intellectual functioning, which is defined as a score on
an individually administered multifactorial intelligence (IQ) test approximately two standard
deviations below average. This test performance is usually represented as an IQ score of
approximately 70 or below on a test standardized with an average of 100 and a standard
deviation of 15. However, the determination of subaverage intellectual functioning is not
a bright line. Even the most reliable intelligence tests have measurement error expressed
as the standard error of measurement. If a two-standard error of measurement criterion is
used, which is standard practice, the measurement error of the test is typically around 5
Author Manuscript

points on either side of the observed score (AAIDD, 2020). Application of a two standard
error of measurement criterion is expressed as a 95% confidence interval. The confidence
interval indicates that if a person were tested 100 times, their score would fall into the 95%
confidence interval 95/100 times- not that there is a 95% probability that the obtained score
is the true score (a common error). In the AAIDD and DSM-5 manuals, this is expressed as
an IQ range of 65–75. This range reflects the reality that intelligence is not immutable and
different scores may be obtained on the same test over time and across different tests at the
same time.

An individually administered, comprehensive multifactorial test that assesses multiple

components of intelligence is required (AAIDD, 2020; APA, 2013). The most widely
accepted multifactorial IQ tests are different age-appropriate versions of the Wechsler
intelligence scales (e.g., Weschler Intelligence Scales for Children-5; Wechsler, 2014), the
Author Manuscript

Stanford–Binet Intelligence Test-5 (Roid, 2003), and the Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of

Cognitive Abilities—Fourth Edition (Schrank et al., 2014). Note that the Stanford-Binet and
the adult version of the Wechsler scales are outdated, but newly normed versions are in
development. Screening, short form, or group administered tests are not used to determine
the level of intelligence for a diagnosis of ID (AAIDD, 2020, p. 29). According to AAIDD,
the primary score should be one that incorporates at least three dimensions of intellectual
ability and include six subtests, representing a composite score (e.g., Full-Scale IQ) and
not a part score (e.g., Verbal or Performance IQ or verbal comprehension and perceptual
organization indices, or the general ability index).

It is not uncommon for individuals with ID to have multiple IQ scores over time.
Interpreting different IQ scores can be difficult because of differences across tests, such
Author Manuscript

as different task demands and different normative samples. In addition, there is the problem
of norms obsolescence, commonly referred to as the Flynn Effect (FE; Flynn, 1987). The
FE is the trend for IQ scores to increase over time. The rate is conventionally estimated at
0.3 points per year, or 3 points per decade, which is supported by two major meta-analyses
(Pietschnig & Voracek, 2015; Trahan et al., 2014). The FE is why test publishers try to
update the normative basis of major IQ tests every 10 years. In the past, the normative

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 19

standards used to create an age-adjusted, standardized IQ score could be as large as 50 years.

Author Manuscript

As the AAIDD (2020) manual states,

Current best practice guidelines recommend that in cases in which an IQ test with
aged norms is used as part of a diagnosis of ID, a correction of the full-scale IQ
score of 0.3 points per year since the test norms were collected is warranted …
(p. 42)

Note that these guidelines recommend correcting the actual score so that different tests have
comparable normative bases. It is really a correction of the normative basis for comparing
scores. The correction is analogous to corrections of money for inflation so that one can
compare the cost of goods in, for example, 2010 and 2020.

The scientific consensus about the need to correct for the FE is strong and virtually uniform,
leading to a near-unanimous agreement that the FE should be used in determining ID and
Author Manuscript

other eligibility decisions where a critical score is required (e.g., social security, special
education placement, and capital punishment). Test manuals for versions of the Wechsler
tests published since 2005 contain tables showing differences in scores for the current and
previous editions of the child and adult tests and descriptions of the problem of norms
obsolescence.

Adaptive Behavior.—For the second prong, there must be evidence of adaptive behavior
deficits defined in three domains of daily living: conceptual, social, and practical (APA,
2013, p. 38; AAIDD, 2020, p. 29). Adaptive behavior is a person’s capacity for habitually
performing activities of daily living in these three domains. The assessments do not measure
capacity but what the person does habitually in a community setting. If a quantitative
assessment is used, the score should be at least two standard deviations below the mean,
Author Manuscript

considering the standard error of measurement, and expressed as a 95% confidence interval.

Conceptual deficits include language, reading and writing, math, number and time concepts,
money management, and learning from experience. Social deficits represent interpersonal
skills, relationships, self-esteem, gullibility and being easily led by others, and naiveté.
Practical skills involve activities of daily living, including personal care, work, use of money,
health care, and safety.

Individuals with ID typically demonstrate both strengths and weaknesses in adaptive

behavior (see Table 2). The determination of whether a person has adaptive behavior
difficulties is based on the assessed individual’s deficits, rather than strengths. It is
inappropriate to weigh the assessed individual’s strengths against his or her weaknesses
Author Manuscript

when assessing adaptive functioning (AAIDD, 2020): “all people with ID have strengths, but
… the diagnosis of ID focuses on their significant limitations” (p. 40).

The identification of ID requires significant weaknesses in at least one of the three domains.
A single adaptive behavior deficit is sufficient for identification, indicating that ongoing
support is needed to perform adequately in one or more life settings at school, work,
home, or in the community (APA, 2013, p. 38). Adaptive behavior is not assessed based on
maladaptive behavior, which includes criminal behavior. Even individuals with ID have

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 20

behavioral problems and engage in criminal behavior. Maladaptive behavior is not an

Author Manuscript

indicator of the capacity for habitually performing activities of daily living (AAIDD, 2020).
This capacity is based on standards for community-based living, not controlled, structured
environments.

This concern especially applies to reports of strengths in adaptive behavior. Weaknesses in

a structured setting raise a different concern. When an individual manifests deficits in a
structured environment, these deficits demonstrate that even with the support provided by
the institution, the structure is not sufficient for the person to perform independently.

The assessment of adaptive behavior involves the compilation of a variety of sources of

information focused on reliable informants who had a position of responsibility or strong
knowledge of the persons functioning during the developmental period (e.g., caregivers,
family members, close friends, and teachers). Adaptive behavior is not assessed by only
Author Manuscript

interviewing the person suspected of ID because of poor self-report skills and what is known
as the “cloak of competence,” where people with mild levels of ID present themselves as
more capable than they demonstrate on a daily basis. Self-reports can be corroborated by
another source, but are not the primary source for assessing adaptive behavior.

When possible, formal assessments should be completed through the administration of

rating scales and semi-structured interviews with reliable caregivers, such as the Adaptive
Behavior Assessment System-3 (Harrison & Oakland, 2015), the Vineland Adaptive
Behavior Scales (Sparrow et al., 2016), and the Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scales (Tasse
et al., 2017). The Vineland is well-known for its reliance on a semi-structured interview in
which the caregiver is not asked direct questions about adaptive behavior, but is interviewed
about key areas in development related to activities of daily living. The interview is designed
Author Manuscript

to reduce responder bias that may be present with direct responses to questions. All three
scales can be used as rating scales and also have versions for teachers. Adaptive behavior
scales ask about behaviors that are completed habitually (i.e., typically) by the person,
not whether the person is capable of a particular behavior. Formal scales are designed
for caregivers and others who knew the person in the developmental period and are not
completed by the person being assessed because of concerns about the reliability of self-
reports.

Sometimes retrospective administrations of a standardized instrument are used with a

caregiver or other person who knew the person in the developmental period or at a time
when they were older, but trying to function in the community (Tassé, 2009). This practice
is supported by the AAIDD (2020, pp. 41–42). It requires asking the interviewee to define
a period of time when they were involved in caring or living with the person. The norms
Author Manuscript

appropriate for that age period are used. In many instances it is not possible to conduct
retrospective assessments using formal instruments because of sociocultural factors where
the semi-structured interview does not make sense to the respondent, a lack of appropriate
norms, or the absence of appropriate reporters (AAIDD, 2020, pp. 41–42).

Adaptive behavior assessment is very important for the diagnosis of ID. There is a risk of
excessive reliance on IQ tests, which are not sufficient for the identification of ID. Many

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 21

factors can produce subaverage scores on IQ tests, including other disorders, sociocultural
Author Manuscript

factors, and language minority status. Although IQ tests are reliable and valid for English
speakers raised in the United States, there are drawbacks when assessing people born in
another country and for whom English is not their native language. There are adaptations of
other tests for other countries and languages, but often the normative basis is not as strong as
the U.S. versions of multifactorial tests. As the DSM-5 indicates, when there are questions
about IQ scores, the adaptive behavior assessments should be given more weight. DSM-5
specifically establishes the severity of ID using adaptive behavior assessment and not IQ
levels.

Age of Onset.—The third prong is evidence of the onset of deficits in general intellectual
functioning and adaptive behavior in the developmental period, defined by the AAIDD
(2020) as up to 22 years. There is no specification of a specific upper limit in the DSM-5
criteria, but it is still understood as manifested in the developmental period. This assessment
Author Manuscript

is usually based on a review of history and interviews with caregivers (Reschly, 2009).

Conclusions: ID
We have relied on the AAIDD and DSM-5 manuals to emphasize the consensus that has
emerged over the past 50 years on the identification of ID. In contrast to SLD, the definition
and three pronged criteria are widely accepted. It is important for assessment professionals
to be familiar with these guidelines because assessments of ID frequently contribute to high-
stakes decisions, such as social security eligibility and capital punishment cases. In these
cases, it is critical that the assessment consider adaptive behavior in addition to IQ scores,
which contain measurement error and may reflect outdated norms. Full consideration of
adaptive behavior also assists with treatment planning: people with ID benefit from a range
of school and community support services and as Table 2 suggests, improve in adaptation
Author Manuscript

and independence. Appropriate identification can lead to much improved outcomes for
people with ID.

Discussion
This review of evidence-based practices for the assessment of SLD and ID yields
interesting comparisons. Both SLD and ID depend on psychometric assessment using
tests of performance. They are the only two childhood disorders in DSM-5 that require
performance-based assessment using tests. However, the criteria for identification and
assessment approaches to identify the disorders are very different. There is little consensus
on the assessment and identification of SLD. Assessment methods vary and many are in
wide use despite lack of evidence for their validity and established problems with reliability.
Author Manuscript

Fundamental measurement issues such as the role of measurement error, the use of fixed
thresholds on normal distributions, the increased unreliability of discrepancy scores, and
regression to the mean due to correlated tests are often ignored in research and practice.
In contrast, the assessment of ID reflects consensus around the definition and criteria.
Measurement issues are identified and addressed in practice guidelines. Firm thresholds
are not used and confidence intervals express a range of scores considering the standard
error of measurement of the tests. There is a clear rationale for multi-pronged criteria and

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 22

their integration, which is often missing for SLD assessments despite frequent calls to
Author Manuscript

consider multiple criteria and their embodiment in IDEA requirements. For both SLD and
ID, the ultimate decision requires clinical judgment based on reliable data. By definition,
SLD and ID are exclusionary of one another; the key difference between the two is in
adaptive behavior. SLD is a narrow impairment in adaptation, while ID is characterized by
more pervasive impairments that interfere with community independence. As such, the two
disorders require very different approaches to treatment, with a focus on academic skills in
SLD and a focus on independent living in ID. Nonetheless, it would be useful to see more
continuity in how issues related to reliability and measurement are treated so that assessment
procedures and diagnosis can be more streamlined.

Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication
Author Manuscript

of this article: This research was supported in part by grant P50 HD052117, Texas Center for Learning Disabilities
from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. The content is solely
the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development or the National Institutes of Health.

References
Al Otaiba S, & Fuchs D (2002). Characteristics of children who are unresponsive to early literacy
intervention: A review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 23(5), 300–316.
American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. (2020). Intellectual disabilities:
Definition, Classification, and Systems of Support (12th ed.).
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual – 5.
Barth AE, Stuebing KK, Anthony JL, Denton CA, Mathes PG, Fletcher JM, & Francis DJ (2008).
Agreement among response to intervention criteria for identifying responder status. Learning and
Individual Differences, 18, 296–307. [PubMed: 19081758]
Author Manuscript

Benson NF, Beaujean A, McGill RJ, & Dombroski SC (2018). Critique of the core-selective evaluation
process. Journal of the Texas Educational Diagnosticians’ Association, 47, 14–18.
Bentum KE, & Aaron PG (2003). Does reading instruction in learning disability resource rooms really
work? A longitudinal study. Reading Psychology, 24(3–4), 361–382.
Bradley R, Danielson L, & Hallahan DP (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to
practice. Routledge.
Burns MK, Peterson-Brown S, Haegele K, Rodriguez M, Schmitt B, Cooper K, Clayton SH, Conner
C, Hosp A, & VanDerHeyden AM (2016). Meta-analysis of academic interventions derived from
neuropsychological data. School Psychology Quarterly, 31, 28–42. [PubMed: 26192390]
Burt C (1937). The backward child. University of London Press.
Catts HW, Compton D, Tomblin B, & Bridges MS (2012). Prevalence and nature of late Emerging
poor readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 10, 166–181.
Catts HW, & Petscher Y (2022). A cumulative risk and resilience model of dyslexia. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 55, 171–184. [PubMed: 34365842]
Author Manuscript

Cho E, Roberts GJ, Capin P, Roberts G, Miciak J, & Vaughn S (2015). Cognitive attributes, attention,
and self-efficacy of adequate and inadequate responders in a fourth grade reading intervention.
Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 30(4), 159–170. [PubMed: 26997755]
Cirino PT, Israelian MK, Morris MK, & Morris RD (2005). Evaluation of the double deficit hypothesis
in college students referred for learning difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(1), 29–43.
[PubMed: 15727327]
Clements SD (1966). Minimal brain dysfunction in children (NINDB Monograph No. 3). U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 23

Daucourt MC, Erbeli F, Little CW, Haughbrook R, & Hart SA (2020). A meta-analytical review
of the genetic and environmental correlations between reading and attention-deficit/hyperactivity
Author Manuscript

disorder symptoms and reading and math. ScientificStudies of Reading, 24(1), 23–56.
Denton CA, Tamm L, Schatschneider C, & Epstein JN (2020). The effects of ADHD treatment and
reading intervention on the fluency and comprehension of children with ADHD and word reading
difficulties: A randomized clinical trial. Scientific Studies of Reading, 24(1), 72–89. [PubMed:
32982141]
Elliott J, & Grigorenko EL (2014). The dyslexia debate. Cambridge University Press.
Ellis AW (1984). The cognitive neuropsychology of developmental (and acquired) dyslexia: A critical
survey. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 2, 169–205.
Ellison JW, Rosenfeld JA, & Shaffer LG (2013). Genetic basis of intellectual disability. Annual
Review of Medicine, 64, 441–450.
Federal Register. (2013). https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/08/01/2013-18552/change-
in-terminology-mental-retardation-to-intellectual-disability
Flanagan DP, Alfonso VC, Sy MC, Mascolo JT, McDonough EM, & Ortiz SO (2018). Dual
discrepancy/consistency operational definition of SLD: Integrating multiple data sources and
Author Manuscript

multiple data-gathering methods. In Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp.

329–430). John Wiley.
Fletcher JM, Lyon GR, Fuchs LS, & Barnes MA (2019). Learning disabilities: From Identification to
intervention (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Fletcher JM, & Miciak J (2017). Comprehensive cognitive assessments are not necessary for the
identification and treatment of learning disabilities. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1),
2–7. [PubMed: 27932345]
Fletcher JM, & Miciak J (2019). The identification of specific learning disabilities: A summary of
research on best practices. https://texasldcenter.org/files/resources/SLD-Manual_Final.pdf
Fletcher JM, Shaywitz SE, Shankweiler D, Katz L, Liberman IY, Stuebing KK, Francis DJ, Fowler A,
& Shaywitz BA (1994). Cognitive profiles of reading disability: Comparisons of discrepancy and
low achievement definitions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 6–23.
Fletcher JM, Stuebing KK, Barth AE, Denton CA, Cirino PT, Francis DJ, & Vaughn S (2011).
Cognitive correlates of inadequate response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 40, 2–22.
Author Manuscript

Fletcher JM, Stuebing KK, Barth AE, Miciak J, Francis DJ, & Denton CA (2014). Agreement and
coverage of indicators of response to intervention: A multi-method comparison and simulation.
Topics in Language and Learning Disorders, 34, 74–89.
Fletcher JM, & Vaughn S (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic
difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30–37. [PubMed: 21765862]
Flynn JR (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure. Psychological
Bulletin, 101, 171–191.
Francis DJ, Fletcher JM, Stuebing KK, Lyon GR, Shaywitz BA, & Shaywitz SE (2005). Psychometric
approaches to the identification of learning disabilities: IQ and achievement scores are not
sufficient. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 98–110. [PubMed: 15813593]
Fuchs D, & Deshler DK (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and
shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20, 129–136.
Fuchs LS, Fuchs D, & Zumeta RO (2008). Response to intervention. In Grigorenko E (Ed.), Educating
Individuals with Disabilities: IDEIA 2004 and Beyond (pp. 115–139). Springer.
Grigorenko EL, Compton DL, Fuchs LS, Wagner RK, Willcutt EG, & Fletcher JM (2020).
Author Manuscript

Understanding, educating, and supporting children with specific learning disabilities: 50 years
of science and practice. American Psychologist, 75(1), 37–51. [PubMed: 31081650]
Grills AE, Fletcher JM, Vaughn SR, Denton CA, & Taylor P (2013). Anxiety and inattention as
predictors of achievement in early elementary school children. Anxiety, Stress & Coping: An
International Journal, 26, 391–410.
Hajovsky DB, Maki KE, Chesnut SR, Barrett CA, & Burns MK (2022). Specific learning disability
identification in an RtI method: Do measures of cognitive ability matter? Learning Disabilities
Research & Practice, 37(4), 280–293. 10.1111/ldrp.12292

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 24

Hale JB, Alfonso V, Berninger V, Bracken B, Christo C, Clark E, …Yalof J (2010). Critical issues in
response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification
Author Manuscript

and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223–236.
Hale JB, & Fiorello CA (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. Guilford Press.
Hancock R, Gabrielli JDE, & Hoeft F (2016). Shared temporoparietal dysfunction in dyslexia and
typical readers with discrepantly high IQ. Trends in Neuroscience and Education, 5(4), 173–177.
[PubMed: 28439565]
Harrison P, & Oakland T (2015). Adaptive Behavior Assessment System—Third Edition. Pearson.
Hendricks EL, & Fuchs D (2020). Are individual differences in response to intervention influenced
by the methods and measures used to define response? Implications for identifying children with
learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 53(6), 428–443. [PubMed: 32452719]
Hoskyn M, & Swanson HL (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading
disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. The School Psychology
Review, 29, 102–119.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) regulations, 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.3 et seq. (2006).
IDEA regulations commentary, 71 Fed. Reg. 46651, (2006, August 14). http://idea.ed.gov/
Author Manuscript

download/finalregulations.pdf
Johnson ES, Humphrey M, Mellard DF, Woods K, & Swanson HL (2010). Cognitive processing
deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature.
Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 3–18.
Kearns DM, & Fuchs D (2013). Does cognitively focused instruction improve the academic
performance of low-achieving students? Exceptional Children, 79, 263–290.
Kellam SG, Rebok GW, Mayer LS, Ialongo N, & Kalodner CR (1994). Depressive symptoms over
first grade and their response to a developmental epidemiologically based preventive trial aimed at
improving achievement. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 463–481.
Kirk SA (1963). Behavioral diagnosis and remediation of learning disabilities. In Proceedings of the
annual meeting: Conference on exploration into the problems of the perceptually handicapped
child (Vol. 1, pp. 1–7), Evanston, IL.
Kovaleski JF, VanDerHeyden AM, & Shapiro ES (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning
disabilities. Guilford Press.
Author Manuscript

Kranzler JH, Floyd RG, Benson N, Zaboski B, & Thibodaux L (2016). Classification agreement
analysis of Cross-Battery Assessment in the identification of specific learning disorders in children
and youth. International Journal of School & Educational Psychology, 4, 124–136.
Macmann GM, & Barnett DW (1985). Discrepancy score analysis: A computer simulation of
classification stability. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 363–375.
Macmann GM, Barnett DW, Lombard TJ, Belton-Kocher E, & Sharpe MN (1989). On the actuarial
classification of children: Fundamental studies of classification agreement. The Journal of Special
Education, 23(2), 127–149.
Maki KE, Kranzler JH, & Moody ME (2022). Dual discrepancy/consistency pattern of strengths and
weaknesses method of specific learning disability identification: Classification accuracy when
combining clinical judgment with assessment data. Journal of School Psychology, 92, 33–48.
[PubMed: 35618378]
McGill RJ, & Busse RT (2017). When theory trumps science: A critique of the PSW model for SLD
identification. Contemporary School Psychology, 21(1), 10–18.
McGill RJ, Dombrowski SC, & Canivez GL (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology:
Author Manuscript

History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. [PubMed:
30463666]
Melby-Lervåg M, Redick TS, & Hulme C (2016). Working memory training does not improve
performance on measures of intelligence or other measures of “far transfer” evidence from a meta-
analytic review. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(4), 512–534. [PubMed: 27474138]
Miciak J, Fletcher JM, Stuebing KK, Vaughn S, & Tolar TD (2014). Patterns of cognitive strengths
and weaknesses: Identification rates, agreement, and validity for learning disabilities identification.
School Psychology Quarterly, 29(1), 21–37. [PubMed: 24274155]

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 25

Miciak J, Stuebing KK, Vaughn S, Roberts G, Barth AE, & Fletcher JM (2014). Cognitive attributes of
adequate and inadequate responders to reading intervention in middle school. School Psychology
Author Manuscript

Review, 43(4), 407–427. [PubMed: 28579668]

Miciak J, Taylor WP, Denton CA, & Fletcher JM (2015). The effect of achievement test selection
on identification of learning disabilities within a patterns of strengths and weaknesses framework.
School Psychology Quarterly, 30(3), 321–334. [PubMed: 25243467]
Miciak J, Taylor WP, Stuebing KK, & Fletcher JM (2018). Simulation of LD identification accuracy
using a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses method with multiple measures. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(1), 21–33. [PubMed: 31130771]
Miciak J, Williams JL, Taylor WP, Cirino PT, Fletcher JM, & Vaughn S (2016). Do processing patterns
of strengths and weaknesses predict differential treatment response? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 108(6), 898–909. [PubMed: 27616784]
Molfese PJ, Fletcher JM, & Denton CA (2013). Adequate versus inadequate response to reading
intervention: An event-related potentials assessment. Developmental Neuropsychology, 38(8),
534–549. [PubMed: 24219694]
Moll K, Kunze S, Neuhoff N, Bruder J, & Schulte-Körne G (2014). Specific learning disorder:
Author Manuscript

Prevalence and gender differences. PLOS ONE, 9(7), Article e103537.

Morris RD, & Fletcher JM (1988). Classification in neuropsychology: A theoretical framework
and research paradigm. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 10, 640–658.
[PubMed: 3066798]
Morris RD, Lovett MW, Wolf MA, Sevcik RA, Steinbach KA, Frijters JC, & Shapiro M (2012).
Multiple-component remediation for developmental reading disabilities: IQ, socioeconomic status,
and race as factors in remedial outcome. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 99–127. [PubMed:
20445204]
Naglieri JA (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. John Wiley.
Nugiel T, Roe MA, Taylor WP, Cirino PT, Vaughn SR, Fletcher JM, Juranek J, & Church JA (2019).
Executive control brain activity during reading relates to change in reading skill. Cortex, 111,
286–302. [PubMed: 30557815]
Pennington BF (2006). From single to multiple deficit models of developmental disorders. Cognition,
101, 385–413. [PubMed: 16844106]
Author Manuscript

Pennington BF, & Bishop DV (2009). Relations among speech, language, and reading disorders.
Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 283–306.
Pietschnig J, & Voracek M (2015). One century of global IQ gains: A formal meta-analysis of the
Flynn effect (1909–2013). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10(3), 282–306. [PubMed:
25987509]
Plomin R, & Kovas Y (2005). Generalist genes and learning disabilities. Psychological Bulletin, 131,
592–617. [PubMed: 16060804]
Reschly DJ (2009). Documenting the developmental origins of mild mental retardation. Applied
Neuropsychology, 16(2), 124–134. [PubMed: 19430994]
Reynolds C (1984–1985). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. Journal of Special
Education, 18, 451–476.
Reynolds CR, & Shaywitz SE (2009). Response to intervention: Prevention and remediation, perhaps.
Diagnosis, no. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 44–47. [PubMed: 20161671]
Rezaie R, Simos PG, Fletcher JM, Cirino PT, Vaughn S, & Papanicolaou AC (2011). Temporoparietal
brain activity as a longitudinal predictor of response to educational interventions among middle
Author Manuscript

school struggling readers. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 17(5), 875–
885. [PubMed: 21740612]
Roid G (2003). Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, Fifth Edition. WPS Publishing.
Rutter M (1982). Syndromes attributed to “minimal brain dysfunction” in childhood. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 139, 21–33. [PubMed: 6119908]
Rutter M, & Yule W (1975). The concept of specific reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology
and Psychiatry, 16(3), 181–197. [PubMed: 1158987]

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 26

Salekin KL, Olley JG, & Hedge KA (2010). Offenders with intellectual disability: Characteristics,
prevalence, and issues in forensic assessment. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual
Author Manuscript

Disabilities, 3, 97–116.
Schalock RL, Luckasson RA, & Shogren KA (2007). The renaming of mental retardation:
Understanding the change to the term intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental
Disabilities, 45(2), 116–124. [PubMed: 17428134]
Schneider WJ, & Kaufman AS (2017). Let’s not do away with comprehensive cognitive assessments
just yet. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 32(1), 8–20. [PubMed: 27993770]
Schrank F, McGrew KS, & Mather N (2014). Woodcock—Johnson Tests of Cognitive Abilities—
Fourth Edition. Riverside Publishing.
Schultz EK, & Stephens TL (2015). Core-selective evaluation process: An efficient & comprehensive
approach to identify students with SLD using the WJ IV. Dialog: Journal of the Texas Educational
Diagnosticians Association, 44(2), 5–12.
Share DL, McGee R, & Silva PD (1989). I. Q. and reading progress: A test of the capacity notion of
I.Q. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 28, 97–100. [PubMed:
2914843]
Author Manuscript

Shaywitz SE, Fletcher JM, Holahan JM, Schneider AE, Marchione KE, Stuebing KK, Francis DJ,
Pugh KR, & Shaywitz BA (1999). Persistence of dyslexia: The Connecticut Longitudinal Study at
adolescence. Pediatrics, 104, 1351–1359. [PubMed: 10585988]
Siegel LS (1992). An evaluation of the discrepancy definition of dyslexia. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 25, 618–629. [PubMed: 1460383]
Simos PG, Fletcher JM, Rezaie R, & Papanicolaou AC (2014). Does IQ affect the functional
brain network involved in pseudoword reading in students with reading disability? A
magnetoencephalography study. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7, Article 932.
Sparrow SS, Cicchetti DV, & Saulnier CA (2016). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (3rd ed.).
Pearson.
Stanovich KE, & Siegel LS (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading
disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological–core variable-difference model. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 86, 24–53.
Stecker PM, Fuchs LS, & Fuchs D (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student
Author Manuscript

achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819.

Stuebing KK, Barth AE, Molfese PJ, Weis B, & Fletcher JM (2009). IQ is not strongly related to
response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76, 31–51.
[PubMed: 20224749]
Stuebing KK, Fletcher JM, Branum-Martin L, Francis DJ, & VanDerHeyden A (2012). Evaluation
of the technical adequacy of three methods for identifying specific learning disabilities based on
cognitive discrepancies. School Psychology Review, 41(1), 3–22. [PubMed: 23060685]
Stuebing KK, Fletcher JM, LeDoux JM, Lyon GR, Shaywitz SE, & Shaywitz BA (2002). Validity
of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational
Research Journal, 39, 469–518.
Tanaka H, Black JM, Hulme C, Stanley LM, Kesler SR, Whitfield-Gabrieli S, Reiss AL, Gabrieli JD,
& Hoeft F (2011). The brain basis of the phonological deficit in dyslexia is independent of IQ.
Psychological Science, 22(11), 1442–1451. [PubMed: 22006060]
Tassé MJ (2009). Adaptive behavior assessment and the diagnosis of mental retardation in capital
cases. Applied Neuropsychology, 16(2), 114–123. [PubMed: 19430993]
Author Manuscript

Tassé MJ, & Blume JH (2018). Intellectual disability and the death penalty. Praeger.
Tasse MJ, Schalock RL, Balboni G, Bersani H, Borth-wick-Duffy SA, Spreat S, Thissen D, Widaman
KF, & Zhang D (2017). Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale (DABS). AAIDD.
Taylor WP, Miciak J, Fletcher JM, & Francis DJ (2017). Cognitive discrepancy models for
specific learning disabilities identification: Simulations of psychometric limitations. Psychological
Assessment, 29(4), 446–457. [PubMed: 27504902]
Tolar TD, Barth AE, Fletcher JM, Francis DJ, & Vaughn S (2014). Predicting reading outcomes with
progress monitoring slopes among middle grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 30,
46–57. [PubMed: 24659899]

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 27

Trahan LH, Stuebing KK, Fletcher JM, & Hiscock M (2014). The Flynn effect: A meta-analysis.
Psychological Bulletin, 140(5), 1332–1360. [PubMed: 24979188]
Author Manuscript

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 34 CFR Parts 300 and 301: Assistance to states for the
education of children with disabilities and preschool grants for children with disabilities. Final
rules. Federal Register, 71, 46540–46845.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states for education for handicapped children:
Procedures for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal Register, 42, G1082–G1085.
Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, & Lyon RG (2000). Differentiating between difficult-to-remediate
and readily remediated poor readers: More evidence against the IQ-achievement discrepancy
definition of reading disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(3), 223–238. [PubMed:
15505962]
Vellutino FR, Scanlon DM, Small S, & Fanuele DP (2006). Response to intervention as a vehicle
for distinguishing between children with and without reading disabilities: Evidence for the role
of kindergarten and first-grade interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 157–169.
[PubMed: 16583795]
Wadsworth S, Olson R, & DeFries J (2010). Differential genetic etiology of reading difficulties as a
Author Manuscript

function of IQ: An update. Behavior Genetics, 40, 751–758. [PubMed: 20333543]

Wagner RK, Edwards AA, Malkowski A, Schatschneider C, Joyner RE, Wood S, & Zirps FA (2019).
Combining old and new for better understanding and predicting dyslexia. New Directions for
Child and Adolescent Development, 2019(165), 11–23.
Wechsler D (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th ed.). Pearson.
Weisz JR, & Yeates KO (1981). Cognitive development in retarded and nonretarded persons: Piagetian
tests of the similar structure hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 90(1), 153–178. [PubMed:
7267896]
Willcutt EG, Betjemann RS, Pennington BF, Olson RK, DeFries JC, & Wadsworth SJ (2007).
Longitudinal study of reading disability and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Implications
for education. Mind, Brain and Education, 1, 181–192.
Willcutt EG, Petrill SA Wu S, Boada R, DeFries JC, Olson RK & Pennington BF (2013).
Comorbidity between reading disability and math disability: Concurrent psychopathology,
functional impairment, and neuropsychological functioning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46,
500–516. [PubMed: 23449727]
Author Manuscript

Zablonsky B, & Alford JM (2020). Racial and ethnic differences in the prevalence of Attention-deficit/
Hyperactivity Disorder and learning disabilities among U.S. children aged 3–17 years. NCHS
Data Brief, 358. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db358.htm
Zigler E (1969). Developmental versus difference theories of mental retardation and the problem of
motivation. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 73, 536–556. [PubMed: 5762251]
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 28
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 1.
Cognitive Profiles for Children Who Are Only Impaired in Reading (RD) and in Math (MD)
Relative to Typical Achievers (NL).
Note. The groups differ in shape and elevation, suggesting three distinct groups. From
Fletcher et al. (2007). Reprinted with permission.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 29
Author Manuscript

Figure 2.
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Framework for Identification.
Note. From Fletcher and Miciak (2019, p. 12). Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-
ND 4.0 International.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 30
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 3.
Cognitive Profiles for Children in Figure 1 Who Meet IQ-Discrepancy Definitions of
Reading Disability and Poor Readers Who Are Not Discrepant With IQ.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 31
Author Manuscript

Figure 4.
The Relation of Cognitive and Academic Strengths and Weaknesses in a Pattern of Strengths
and Weaknesses (PSW) Identification Method.
Note. From Fletcher et al. (2019, p. 40). Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0
International.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 32
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 5.
Comparison of Achievement Profiles Not Used to Define Groups of Children With Specific
Learning Disability and Slow Learners in Two Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)
Methods.
Note. There are no significant differences in the shape or elevation of the achievement
profiles. TOSREC, Test of Silent Reading Efficiency and Comprehension; WJ, Woodcock-
Johnson III Tests of Achievement; Grade, Group Reading Assessment and Diagnostic
Evaluation. C-DM, consistency-discrepancy method; XBA, cross battery assessment
method. Data from Miciak, Fletcher, et al. (2014). From Fletcher et al. (2019, p. 53).
Reprinted with permission.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 33
Author Manuscript

Figure 6.
Instructional Response Framework for Identification.
Note. From Fletcher and Miciak (2019, p. 20). Licensed under Creative Commons BY-NC-
ND 4.0 International.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 34
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 7.
Cognitive Profiles of Inadequate Responders With Decoding and Fluency Deficits and Only
Fluency Deficits, Responders, and Typically Developing Children.
Note. Data from Fletcher et al. (2014). From Fletcher et al. (2019, p. 57). Reprinted with
permission.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 35
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 8.
Rubric for Identifying SLDs in a Hybrid Model.
Note. The three components are evaluations for low achievement, inadequate instructional
response, and other conditions and contextual factors associated with low achievement.
From Fletcher et al. (2019, p. 62). Reprinted with permission.
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Fletcher and Miciak Page 36
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript
Author Manuscript

Figure 9.
Individual Growth Curves for Three Adolescent Students Who Show Accelerated Gains
(Student A), Average Growth (Student B), and Low Average (Inadequate) Growth (Student
C).
Note. Panel A uses equated forms and estimated growth. Panel B shows actual raw score
growth, illustrating the importance of form equation and estimated growth for understanding
the fluctuations in raw scores. Data from Tolar et al. (2014). From Fletcher et al. (2019, p.
71). Reprinted with permission.
Author Manuscript

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 1.

IDEA Regulations for the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (US Department of Education, 2006, p. 46786).

A State must adopt … criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability … In addition, the criteria adopted by the State:
• Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability …
• Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and
Fletcher and Miciak

• May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability …
1 The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences
and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade- level standards: (i) Oral expression. (ii) Listening comprehension. (iii) Written expression. (iv) Basic reading skill,
(v) Reading fluency skills, (vi) Reading comprehension, (vii) Mathematics calculation, (viii) Mathematics problem solving.
2 (i) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using
a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; or (ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both,
relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using
appropriate assessments, consistent with §§ 300.304 and 300.305; and (3) The group determines that its findings under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are not primarily the result
of (i) A visual, hearing, or motor disability; (ii) Mental retardation; (iii) Emotional disturbance; (iv) Cultural factors; (v) Environmental or economic disadvantage.

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

Page 37
 Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript

Table 2.

Definition of Intellectual Disability and Assumptions Regarding Its Application (AAIDD, 2020, p. 1).

Intellectual disability is characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and in adaptive behavior as expressed in conceptual, social, and practical adaptive skills. The disability
originates during the developmental period, which is defined operationally as before the individual attains age 22.
The following five assumptions are essential to the application of this definition:
1 Limitations in present functioning must be considered within the context of community environments typical of the individual’s age peers and culture.
Fletcher and Miciak

2 Valid assessment considers cultural and linguistic diversity as well as differences in communication, sensory, motor, and behavioral factors.
3 Within an individual, limitations often coexist with strengths.
4 An important purpose of describing limitations is to develop a profile of needed supports.
5 With appropriate personalized support over a sustained period, the life functioning of the person with ID generally will improve.

Assessment. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2025 January 01.

Page 38