Learning Disability Documentation Guidelines

The University of Wisconsin endorses the "National Joint Council on Learning Disabilities" (NJCLD, 1998, pg.1) definition of a learning disability and recognizes an aptitude-achievement discrepancy as the most widely held model for diagnosing a learning disability. It also recognizes alternative diagnostic models including discrepancies within specific achievement areas, an intra-cognitive pattern of discrepancy, and information processing discrepancies. In general, a discrepancy of 1.5 standard deviations or more is needed to establish a pattern that reflects disability rather than strengths and weaknesses associated with a typical learning profile. Identifying a discrepancy alone, however, is not sufficient to warrant the diagnosis of a learning disability. Documentation must provide evidence that clearly links the specific deficit areas to the functional limitations experienced by the individual student.

Students are responsible for providing documentation that a) supports the learning disability diagnosis, and b) provides justification for the requested accommodations. To establish a need for accommodation, documentation should reflect the current impact of the learning disability in the individual's academic life. In general, this means that testing should have been conducted within the past three years for a high school student and within the past five years for an adult. Adult-based norms, particularly for measures of aptitude or intelligence, are preferred and, in some cases, may be required. The University reserves the right to request a re-evaluation when documentation is not current or comprehensive enough to support the provision of accommodation. In this case, the cost of the re-evaluation is borne by the student.

The diagnosis of a learning disability shall be based on multiple forms of evidence (i.e., standardized test results, informal assessment results, observational data, historical data) that support a learning disability diagnosis. Evidence should be precise, objective, valid and acceptable within the field. Evidence should also point towards a common hypothesis, utilize multiple methods/settings/raters/times, and reflect accurate and objective interpretation. Reports should follow statistically sound and widely accepted practices for interpreting evidence. Conflicting data should be acknowledged and objectively weighed. Alternative explanations for lower than expected performance (e.g., motivation, lack of prior learning opportunities, low aptitude, or other disabilities) should be considered and ruled out when making the diagnosis of a learning disability.

Accuracy and objectivity of interpretation is essential when integrating evidence. Frequently, clinicians report scores but draw inaccurate interpretations from them. Common errors in interpretation are assigning meaning to non-significant, unreliable score differences (e.g., differences of a few points between WAIS-III subtests or composites), reporting standard scores as percentile scores or grade scores to exaggerate differences between scores, and other practices that are incompatible with accurate psychometric interpretation. Reports that do not follow statistically sound and widely accepted practices for interpreting evidence are generally not deemed credible.

Finally, many reports fail to provide objective analyses of available evidence. Because it is rare for evidence to be entirely consistent with a diagnosis, we prefer reports that note the ambiguity inherent in conflicting evidence. Reports that selectively present evidence favoring a particular diagnosis, while overlooking or ignoring contrary evidence, are generally less acceptable than reports that objectively weigh and acknowledge conflicting evidence. Ideally, a report presents a coherent body of evidence and justification for accepting or rejecting a disability diagnosis and recommended accommodations. Although the University of Wisconsin will consider all forms of evidence, it is important for clients, and those assessing clients, to understand how evidence will be weighed or valued in determining a student's eligibility for services or accommodations.

A qualified professional trained in the diagnosis of learning disabilities in adults (e.g., school or clinical psychologist, neuropsychologist, learning disability specialist) should prepare documentation. Additional assessment from a speech pathologist is warranted when receptive and/or expressive language disorders are suspected. Psychometric tools normed for adults and/or a college population provide the most useful information about college students and their skills and abilities relative to their educational peers. It is generally not recommended to include projective tests, personality assessments, or other material not pertaining to the establishment of a learning disability. Such data would only be appropriate when students' difficulties may be partly or wholly due to emotional disabilities.

Acceptable clinical assessment utilizing multiple forms of evidence must answer the following questions:

1. What is the client's disability?
2. How severe is the disability? (Include evidence that the client's performance is unusual relative to the general population.)
3. Is there evidence of the client's average/above average aptitude? (Rule out low aptitude as a contributing factor.)
4. What evidence is there of one or more of the following:
   
   • An aptitude/achievement discrepancy in one or more areas listed in the NJCLD definition of LD (listening speaking, reading, writing, reasoning or mathematical abilities)?
   • An intra-cognitive discrepancy demonstrated by a pattern of significant strengths and weaknesses in cognitive skills?
   • A processing deficit in one or more areas of psychological processing?
   • An intra-achievement discrepancy evidenced by widely discrepant performance across one or more achievement areas.
5. How are the identified deficit areas (i.e., the skill areas, cognitive profile, processing deficits or achievement areas) related to the area of functional limitation?
6. What alternative explanations for the deficits have been considered (e.g., limited English proficiency, poor instruction, limited attendance) and how have they been ruled out?
7. If accommodation recommendations have been made, how will they lessen or assist the individual in compensating for the specific functional limitations identified in the assessment?
8. What treatment or intervention has been implemented (e.g., tutorial support, informal test accommodations, repeating of classes, etc.) and what has been the outcome? Specify the type of intervention, treatment, or accommodation; its implementation (duration, intensity, frequency); the client's effort and consistency in adhering to the implementation plan; and the outcome(s) for the client and others.

In addition to the above, the following data shall be included:

• Composite standard scores. For technical reasons, these scores are preferred to other types of metrics.
• Scale and subtest scores. These scores are helpful in evaluating the presence and severity of discrepancies.
• Statistical comparisons among scores. These data help establish the degree to which the reported discrepancies are likely to occur in the general population.
• Performance or achievement in non-disabled domains. These data can be helpful in establishing student strengths.