State SLD Identification Policies and Practices

135 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

State Laws for RTI: An Updated Snapshot (2010, background): “For example, the latest of the series of SEA surveys prior to the 2004 IDEA amendments (Mercer, Jordan, Allsopp, & Mercer, 1996; Reschly & Hosp, 2004) reported on the definitions and criteria for identifying students with SLD without any differentiation between legal requirements and recommended or…”
Critical Issues in Response-To-Intervention, Comprehensive Evaluation, and Specific Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An Expert White Paper Consensus (2010, methodology): “…to using discrepancy models as a necessary but insufficient conditional model in SLD identification (Dombrowski, Kamphaus, & Reynolds, 2004; Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002; Tilly, Reschly, & Grimes, 1999; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003; Ysseldyke & Marston,…”
Introduction to Response to Intervention: What, Why, and How Valid Is It?. (2006, background): “Not surprisingly, these varying definitional features and criteria have led to large inconsistencies in LD prevalence between states and sometimes between districts within states (e.g., Reschly & Hosp, 2004; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2002).”