Read/Search this Article
In 2001, the LD summit was held in Washington D.C., at which the traditional diagnosis method of LD, the discrepancy approach, was criticized. It was suggested that the discrepancy approach was inaccurate, and information drawn from the discrepancy approach was not useful to develop an educational plan. However, these criticisms are not necessarily true for the original concept of the discrepancy approach. This paper addresses the original concept of the discrepancy approach. Bateman suggested that the measurement of intelligence-achievement discrepancy was the first step of LD diagnosis, and the second step, examination of cognitive characteristics and skills, had to follow the measurement of discrepancy. In the second step, ITPA(Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities) was often used. However, the first step was overemphasized when the discrepancy approach was widely adopted. This is because accurate judgment of LD was focused to allow the proper use of special education budget, and the decline of ITPA led to a decline in the second step, which led to overemphasis on the first step. This study yielded a number of insights regarding LD diagnosis. First, intelligence-achievement discrepancy represents only a limited part of LD diagnosis, and more particular measurement of individual ability must follow that. Second, a method is required to detect children with LD. Without such a method, the discrepancy approach cannot work adequately.
京都大学大学院教育学研究科紀要 (58), 411-423, 2012-00-00