Premium
Can ability‐achievement regression to the mean account for MDT discretionary decisions?
Author(s) -
Furlong Michael J.,
Feldman Marcy G.
Publication year - 1992
Publication title -
psychology in the schools
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.738
H-Index - 75
eISSN - 1520-6807
pISSN - 0033-3085
DOI - 10.1002/1520-6807(199207)29:3<205::aid-pits2310290302>3.0.co;2-c
Subject(s) - psychology , regression analysis , class (philosophy) , test (biology) , regression , special education , linear regression , criterion referenced test , academic achievement , social psychology , statistics , mathematics education , standardized test , mathematics , paleontology , artificial intelligence , computer science , psychoanalysis , biology
The test scores of 153 referred students who received inconsistent placements according to California's discrepancy criterion, which does not take regression into account (standard score distribution procedure), were reanalyzed using a procedure that accounts for regression. Students involved in these MDT discretionary decisions were placed into one of three groups: ineligible (originally met discrepancy criterion, but not placed), resource class (originally did not meet discrepancy criterion, but placed in a less restrictive pull‐out program), and special day class (originally did not meet discrepancy criterion, but placed in a more restrictive, essentially full‐time special education class). All of these placements were inconsistent with the nonregressed ability‐achievement discrepancy criterion the MDTs used at the time of the IEP meeting. To evaluate how many of these students could be considered to be underachieving when regression is considered, regressed discrepancy scores were computed using the students' scores on the WISC‐R and one or more of the following achievement tests: WRAT, PIAT, and W‐J. Regression “accounted” for a significant proportion of the inconsistent placements in all three groups: ineligible (25.0%), resource class (31.5%), and special day class (46.9%). Implications for professional practice and public policy are discussed.