Methodological errors are cited in a study of predictive utility for screening tests designed to identify high risk preschool children. (CL)

The purpose of this discussion is to describe and contrast several tenets of scientific behavior and practice with the behaviors and practices associated with advocacy. We argue that scientists must focus their efforts on solvable problems, consider their efforts to be uncertain, and present their findings dispassionately, so that others might…

The author describes the use of the revised Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude and the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-Educational Battery for students with learning disabilities. He cautions about making a diagnosis on the basis of only one test. (CL)

To eliminate some of the unfairness in graduation requirements for handicapped students, the author proposes a system in which secondary students would leave school when their goals were achieved. In doing away with the diploma, his approach would also mark the end of compulsory attendance, required classes, and competency testing. (CL)

The author addresses the concern that many learning handicapped students are being denied diplomas because of minimum competency testing (MCT). The beginnings of the MCT trend are traced, faults with MCT are pointed out, and legal aspects of MCT are considered. (SW)

This article addresses the need for guidelines for accommodating students with disabilities on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Third Edition. Urged are guidelines concerning: initial selection of tests to administer; modifications in administration; and interpretation and reporting of results. Guidelines should be based on student…

In the article the author refutes J. Fletcher and P. Satz's analysis of the etiology of reading disability on logical, theoretical, and empirical grounds. (Author/PHR)

In the rejoinder the authors describe the methodological and interpretive factors in the Vellutino et al, experiments which limited the degree to which the studies refuted perceptual deficit hypotheses of reading disability. Note: for more of the interchange see EC 114 687-688. (Author/PHR)

This response argues that Linda Siegel's paper (EC221505) confuses measures of intelligence with predicted achievement, calls for doing away with the construct of learning disabilities rather than the discrepancy definition model, and overlooks the need to determine which students qualify for special educational services for treatment of learning…

The author discusses the complex nature of assessing bilingual special education students, recommends a textbook on the topic, notes the contributions of J. Mercer's System of Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment, and cites the need for special educators to focus on the issue. (CL)

This critique of a paper by Linda Siegel (EC221505) challenges Siegel's assumptions on the relationship of Intelligence Quotient to learning disabilities as being unacceptable and non-literature-based, and points out that discussion of Intelligence Quotient cutoffs may be moot given that 49 states employ no cutoff for learning disabilities. (JDD)

This commentary supports Linda Siegel's challenge to the learning disabilities field (in EC221505) to produce data indicating that dyslexic readers differ from other poor readers in their cognitive processing, educational prognosis, and response to treatment. The commentary also points out that the existence of Matthew effects reinforces Siegel's…

The paper evaluates the empirical and theoretical basis upon which several recent studies reject the hypothesis of a visual-perceptual deficit in reading disabilities. (Author)

Use of the discrepancy approach in defining learning disabilities is challenged, as intelligence tests do not measure potential, are not independent from what is measured by achievement tests, and are not powerful predictors of low reading performance. Use of intelligence tests in analysis, identification, and definition of learning disabilities…

In commenting on Linda Siegel's argument (in EC221505) that Intelligence Quotient is not causally related to reading difficulties, this paper argues that Intelligence Quotient is relevant to the definition of reading disabilities but that present knowledge may not justify its use in the selection of children for special services. (JDD)