Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

Ability–Achievement Discrepancy

The ability–achievement discrepancy is defined as a statistically significant difference between a child’s score on a measure of achievement in one or another academic domain such as reading or math and the child’s score on a measure of intellectual ability, typically in the form of IQ. For a considerable period of time, the IQ-achievement discrepancy was the central criterion used by educators, school psychologists, and educational researchers to define specific learning disabilities in otherwise normal children. This entry discusses the history of the ability–achievement discrepancy, the origin of its use, and problems with its use to identify individuals with specific reading disability.

The use of the ability–achievement discrepancy criterion has a long history that dates back to Samuel Kirk and Barbara Bateman’s suggestion that learning disabilities can be defined as a collection of developmental disorders of neurological origin that affect various types of school-based learning in children who are not mentally challenged or impaired by extraneous impediments to learning such as sensory deficits, emotional disorders, or socioeconomic disadvantage. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act (U.S. Public Law 94–142, later renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act), adopted in 1975, mandated that learning disabilities be defined as the occurrence of achievement deficits in otherwise normal children who have at least average intelligence.

The Education for All Handicapped Children Act had significant impact because it led to the use of intelligence as a defining criterion in most state definitions of learning disability, typically in the form of an IQ-achievement discrepancy in one or another academic domain. The IQ-achievement discrepancy eventually became widely adopted as a basic prerequisite for diagnosing learning disabilities in schools and other institutions and for defining learning disabilities in empirical research studying the etiology and nature of hypothesized impediments to success in school learning.

Origin of the IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Definition of Learning Disability

The definition of learning disability specified in U.S. Public Law 94–142 and the widespread use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy as the central criterion for diagnosing learning disabilities were in large measure influenced by the work of Michael Rutter, William Yule, and their associates. These investigators conducted a large-scale epidemiological study evaluating the etiology of reading disability—the most common form of learning disability—and found that the percentage of children whose scores on measures of reading ability were two standard errors or more below the scores that were predicted by their ages and IQs was significantly higher than the percentage of children who were expected to fall in this range on the assumption of normality (i.e., 2.3%), thereby creating a “hump” in the tail end of the distribution of residual scores.

Rutter and Yule hypothesized that there were two types of impaired readers: one said to be afflicted by “specific reading retardation,” as defined by a significant discrepancy between observed reading achievement and expected or IQ-based reading achievement, along with the absence of general learning difficulties, and a second said to be afflicted by “general reading backwardness,” as defined by general learning difficulties along with the absence of any significant discrepancy between observed and expected reading achievement. Rutter and Yule’s distinction between specific reading retardation and general reading backwardness was in keeping with Kirk and Bateman’s seminal definition of learning disability, and it subsequently became the basis for what can be called “exclusionary definitions” of reading and other learning disabilities having the IQ-achievement discrepancy as their central defining criterion.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading