首页 -> 2007年第9期

学习困难鉴定模型的新发展

作者：赵俊峰　许　勇



　　这些争论正好表明学习困难是异质性的，存在多种不同的类型；而且即使同一种类型的学习困难也可能存在不同的亚类型。因此想用单一的方法，简单的标准是不可能准确鉴别的。美国教育部特殊教育计划办公室支助了很多研究，希望研究者们能够对学习困难鉴定方法的效度、信度、可操作性等方面进行科学的研究，因此争论还将会继续，但反应-干预模型的理论与实践应用说明它比能力-成绩差异模型更有效。而且此模型提倡的早期鉴别、综合性诊断与治疗、鉴别和干预相结合是今后学习困难研究的方向和应遵循的原则。
　　
　　参考文献
　　1Kavale K.A, Forness S.R. What definitions of learning disabilities say and don't say: a critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2000, 33: 239-256
　　2Dombrowski S.C, Kamphaus R.W, Reynolds C R. After the demise of the discrepancy: proposed learning disabilities diagnostic criteria. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 2004, 35(4): 364-372
　　3张小将, 刘昌, 刘迎杰. 学习不良鉴定的能力-成绩差异模型. 心理科学进展, 2006, 14(1): 229-234
　　4Kavale K.A. Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disability. www.nrcld.org/html/information/articles/ldsummit/kavale.pdf,2006-12-21
　　5辛自强, 俞国良. 学习不良的界定与操作化定义. 心理学动态, 1999, 7(2): 52-57
　　6Evans L.D. A conceptual overview of the regression discrepancy model for evaluating severe discrepancy between IQ and achievement score. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1990, 23: 406-412
　　7Siegel L.S. Why we do not need intelligence test score in the definition and analyses of learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1989, 22: 514-518
　　8Watkins M.W. Diagnostic validity of wechsler subtest scatter. Learning Disabilities: a Contemporary Journal, 2005, 3 (2): 8-27
　　9Stanovich K.E, Siegel L.S. Phenotypic performance profile of children with reading disabilities:a regressionbased test of the phonologicalcore variable-difference model.Journal of Educational Psychology, 1994, 86: 24-53
　　10Siegel L.S. IQ-discrepancy definitions and the diagnosis of LD: introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2003, 6: 2-3
　　11Stanovich K.E. The future of a mistake: will discrepancy measurement continue to make thelearning disabilities field a pseudoscience? Learning Disability Quarterly, 2005, 28: 103-106
　　12Peterson K.M.H, Shinn M R. Severe discrepancy: which best explains school identification practices for learning disabilities? School Psychology Review, 2002, 31(4): 459-476
　　13Proctor B, Prevatt F. Agreement among four models used for diagnosing learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2003, 36: 459-466
　　14Fletcher J.M, Denton C, Francis D.J. Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of learning disabilities: operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2005, 38(6): 545-552
　　15Bradley R, Danielson L, Doolittle J. Response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2005, 38(6): 485-486
　　16Deshler D.D, Mellard D.F, Tollefson J M , et al. Research topics in responsiveness to intervention: introduction to the special series. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2005, 38(6): 483-484
　　17Gartland D, Strosnider R. Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities.Learning Disability Quarterly, 2005, 28: 249-260
　　18赵微, 王津, 吴师伟. 我国学习困难研究的现状与展望.中国特殊教育, 2006,1:91-96
　　19Speece D.L, Case L.P, Molloy D E. Responsiveness to general education instruction as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 2003, 18(3): 147-156
　　20Fuchs L.S, Compion D.L, Fuchs D, et al. Responsiveness to intervention: preventing and identifying mathematics disability. Teaching Exceptional Children, 2005, 2: 60-63
　　21Mastropieri M.A, Thomas S E. Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 2005, 38(6): 525-531
　　22Kavale K.A, Holdnack F.A, Mostert M.P. Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific learning disability: a critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2006, 29: 113-127
　　(责任编校：焦青)
　　

[1] [2]