Premium
How Should Reading Disabilities be Operationalized? A Survey of Experts
Author(s) -
Speece Deborah L.,
Shekitka Lesley
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
learning disabilities research and practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.018
H-Index - 21
eISSN - 1540-5826
pISSN - 0938-8982
DOI - 10.1111/1540-5826.00038
Subject(s) - operationalization , psychology , reading (process) , learning disability , test (biology) , reading disability , standardized test , task (project management) , cognitive psychology , intelligence quotient , developmental psychology , dyslexia , mathematics education , cognition , linguistics , paleontology , philosophy , management , epistemology , economics , biology , neuroscience
In the face of accumulating research and logic, the use of a discrepancy between intelligence and reading achievement test scores is becoming increasingly untenable as a marker of reading disabilities. However, it is not clear what criteria might replace the discrepancy requirement. We surveyed 218 members of journal editorial boards to solicit their opinions on current and proposed definitional components and exclusion criteria. Three components were selected by over two‐thirds of the respondents: reading achievement, phonemic awareness, and treatment validity. However, only 30 percent believed IQ‐reading achievement discrepancy should be a marker. More than 75 percent of the respondents believed exclusion criteria should remain part of the definition. Mental retardation was the most frequently selected exclusion criterion despite rejection of intelligence test scores as a definitional component. Although the findings reflect uncertainty among experts on what elements should comprise a definition, they do signal a willingness to consider new approaches to the conceptually difficult task of defining reading disabilities.