How Variable Are Interstate Prevalence Rates of Learning Disabilities and Other Special Education Categories? A Longitudinal Comparison

By Hallahan, Daniel P.; Keller, Clayton E. et al. | Exceptional Children, Winter 2007 | Go to article overview

How Variable Are Interstate Prevalence Rates of Learning Disabilities and Other Special Education Categories? A Longitudinal Comparison


Hallahan, Daniel P., Keller, Clayton E., Martinez, Elizabeth A., Byrd, E. Stephen, Gelman, Jennifer A., Fan, Xitao, Exceptional Children


There has been chronic and widespread dissatisfaction with procedures used to identify students as learning disabled. Critics have especially questioned the use of ability-achievement discrepancy as a criterion for eligibility for special education services (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Fletcher et al., 2002; Lyon et al., 2001; Siegel, 1989, 1992; Stanovich, 1991, 1993; U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, OSERS, 2002; Vellutino et al., 1996). Because of such extensive discontent with discrepancy as a method of identification, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) now allows an alternative method of identification: response to intervention (RTI). Without debating the merits of RTI, it is fair to say that the field of learning disabilities is about to enter a state of flux with respect to how students are identified; some would go even further and assert that the very construct of learning disabilities is being questioned (Kavale, 2005; Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2005). They see RTI as essentially redefining learning disabilities as being low achievement rather than unexpected low achievement relative to ability.

One of the most frequently died pieces of evidence used to argue that learning disabilities identification practices, including the use of discrepancy, are flawed has been the wide variability across states in the prevalence rates of learning disabilities (Algozzine & Korinek, 1985; Batsche et al., 2005; Kavale & Forness, 1998; MacMillan & Siperstein, 2002; Reschly, 2002; Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1984). For example, Reschly and Hosp have stated:

   The original purpose of the IQ-achievement
   discrepancy in the federal regulations was to
   provide guidance to states on SLD [specific
   learning disabilities] identification and to exercise
   control over SLD prevalence.

   The goal ... has not been achieved. Prevalence
   continues to vary significantly across
   the states for reasons that are not simply related
   to the stringency of the SLD IQ-achievement
   criteria or to other obvious
   features of SEA requirements. (p. 210)

In a similar vein, Reschly, in a discussion of high incidence versus low incidence categories, wrote:

   SLD varies from a low of about 3% in Kentucky
   to a high of over 9.5% in Rhode Island.
   ED [emotional disturbance] is prevalence
   varies from an unrealistically low 0.1% in
   Arkansas to a more realistic 2% in Minnesota.
   There are no ready explanations for
   variations by factors of 3 and 20 in SLD and
   ED prevalence, respectively. It stretches
   credulity to posit that variations of that magnitude
   actually exist in the respective populations
   of those and the other states. (p. 120)

In the 1980s, when researchers and policy makers first began to point to interstate prevalence variability as indicative of the vague or arbitrary criteria used to determine eligibility for learning disabilities services, Hallahan et al. (1986) conducted what was (and to this point has remained) the only direct comparison of state prevalence rates for all categories of special education. Although there was then and still continues to be undeniable variation in the prevaleace rates of learning disabilities from state to state, the categories of special education are also widely discrepant with respect to mean prevalence. For example, for 6- to 17-year-olds in the 2001 to 2002 school year, the national prevalence rates for learning disabilities, mental retardation, and visual impairments were 5.49%, 1.07%, and 0.05%; respectively (U.S. Department of Education, 2003).

Hallahan et al. (1986) applied a statistic, the coefficient of variation (CV), which statisticians recommend for comparing variability when the means of the conditions being compared are radically different (Friedman, 1972; Lang & Secic, 1997). …

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Default project is now your active project.
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

How Variable Are Interstate Prevalence Rates of Learning Disabilities and Other Special Education Categories? A Longitudinal Comparison
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger Reset View mode
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Help
Full screen

matching results for page

    Questia reader help

    How to highlight and cite specific passages

    1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
    2. Click or tap the last word you want to select, and you’ll see everything in between get selected.
    3. You’ll then get a menu of options like creating a highlight or a citation from that passage of text.

    OK, got it!

    Cited passage

    Style
    Citations are available only to our active members.
    Buy instant access to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

    "Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

    1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

    Cited passage

    Thanks for trying Questia!

    Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

    Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

    Buy instant access to save your work.

    Already a member? Log in now.

    Oops!

    An unknown error has occurred. Please click the button below to reload the page. If the problem persists, please try again in a little while.