I. €1an ( 1|}. { _ .I' . 1 . ' ' 2,,3.._},\"’_11I1¥;., .21" . ' v I, I -, I I" I" ' .I' " . 4 {WM ,2 2 2,2",2‘IJ .12 ,2, I 1'. ‘11:.{1 2: S16. ‘ I I .‘ _I, , 1 ' . , '"I‘Uu: II.)'.2 Iii-'1”. ‘1 i . v‘.' . ' g," 1M, I" - w" I! ",3123 9!, "' {5-1.3 {'4 521"“ ' 2 “1.2,?“ -"-‘ Wt 31 1:2," ~G~ , , kl .h"?| Sr 11.1. X“ Q ' '*' I v“ 1*? fl ”.3: ":4; 4'1," 3 .\_ Ryfii M ’2 ' ““ka "fig A "“65?" I’wiw L " I12 "V" 2‘ "#2229‘253" ". ‘ ' ',,: . 2" I ‘ 'I“ I‘":.t\l.’:l;l‘i ‘" cl 4' .J“ ”(a ‘ ‘I|:.‘f‘:'."' .l 4 E ‘ .l ' I - ~ 2- , 22,- '2 - I. ' I? '7 '91" ‘I W??? _,.,1,-"3-'"m2"' "‘ 2,22» ! ," !‘ ""2522," 11,3;1},E.:59 "‘"S'Emfltf ,,!,;'{l",~"'ié& "(MW é". 94:1“: ' <' u, ‘I .. J:(‘ 1‘ I . . 11‘ D I§':“11‘I‘I‘?F:'::“:?':I ,‘II' ‘I I" .izlfiv. ‘ .I?":’.‘z‘| 1h 1'1'1‘L. r. :El'fl‘cj’,’ ‘4 P19, 1 “ .J.\;(:"|. ' I I IN "I ".I 8):")? .I "in. ".‘,l- "' 'I'nl: f ('4. ‘ '11:")"3-1‘Rt‘ "y“ . 2 '0' lug; '.‘ 1'! ' v.11 L .1104 H, IL.) .1361 I!1.,,~ ,IE ‘IV‘".".HI,’".2‘ 1,1 , , .1 . ,H 1 ' ’-“"' ' "(3!“ '-::’{.'.2"” I "1}? ‘-‘!’I 2‘ !'. '-"'--': 2 . '2'1‘, ‘ "-.. '1 ' I II nu Vila-.9.“ 1' l; . ‘1' ‘ “14" ”k, .1: . 'h‘J/i .W 1". Vlr‘lv 1. 1' H u . I fl I ‘ ‘ I-l "'31:“? 4,1' 3. \l’ 3",", 12,11: '1": .Iz‘u‘wp' SM]. '1' 1.1“? 5.1.1:! PH“ '1. . 1 (3‘ 1..."! -‘_I '1" ‘1 1.1.1. . . I ', WI. I ',\I . I. ,,- ,1. ,:.'..1 1,1 ”LII...” ,' ...\'J,_ ,' H . ,1”, (1.“ 1 1 . "I I" "”42. .l ' J t: ' ’4' "I! I . I!" 0.. "A" :f' “h". @A; k" “1,! )0 -I I I ‘ l I‘-l .1" I . I "In"?! ' u ,1.|I"}{ '22.]! ' 1.1;; ,5": 2:" ‘ ,:"""!"2/'/ ." f», " ~- "-9,-1iiflg'9-uj . ! I, 5/2222 25!}! '22,...12. .- .2, _. .. !" I.'! W, 6!" “(1'23“ ..,!+!|,II'I" .1212! HI,» ""!,,.' 18:11 ‘- I r. .2 2'2! “12 , '3, .H a» 5:22,. 4,2 2 . 2 4," ifs)" ”it . "'1'”, ' is" . l J ' I1111l‘1'39.i'1‘|'l!")11 1.”. I‘: $1M " '11.: $ “3'41“"ytx‘gfi"&fig‘1F-'.4I’II. if ,.,. H ". ".1 .l ;! 13%. '. ,9"! '2 [W 232W : ‘v ( .1 I 3.4;. '1 I1; ,I _ .. 14' ,"1 ‘.:«'I ,' ,1 , ""5 , ' '-," - "I: :2: "'-‘ '13 . _«'- ', g , '-. 3 I! i"! "7"" «'! “!"' ”2 ", " If, i! 21 :2‘32": :12 12"!“ " 22$?! , "’13 1.24" 2."! ‘2 '%||.IHII “'0! .II . ~ 2.!!l H, H 2 4,21%]11141. I 111.! 1. . 1, I . u o r, H villain-1L" 3'" :' 'I'H.“ "'1"? ' lflh ”I .‘o‘ :thl' -I ' - 2 I .I. .' . ill “I I"! "I I" II ll" ‘4 dull")W ,"!“ I ‘2'. I'- I!" "Q 4“,}! I. [I 1 I l'I, 1"” , ,. .3 I" I111. . ..,. .‘1 '1',” “.‘ .I'I'1 I” .", l ”1 "M‘!\" "4&0 whit" I! :1. " 1'1"!" "(IIIU I. ","!,t'", Jung” 't-"u. 2" ”ii‘fi‘Q'l ‘ (I 2 ,2... l l v.‘;'1ll24$,' ’ I! .I"'Il’.,l‘ ._ J l , l“ . ' I ""3!!! .. IC' [2’ I l lI-1 I. .' ' ... 1"." ,il, 1.x" ' 1.." I:! "1”,. '. “Hg“ 'l,[flff:!rs‘-. : '1’]. Q," .‘.I' .‘V. vi. .».. 2“: “1'1"" " if "I” ' "l , 1!. .' .1: ‘2 v 'I" 125:" ,I?‘ 2:0, .' "13$ ‘ 1 m ,. _‘ A.” 5,..- WW llllmillllllmli m2 201 v“_‘_\ ‘ r , Eb‘b Lida in. is"; a Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Influence of Adaptive Behavior, Verbal/Perform— ance IQ Discrepancy, IQ, and Socioeconomic Status on the Decision of Special Educators in a Mid— Western City to Label a Student Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally Impaired presented by Joanne Court Witte has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophymmmem Special Education Adm1n1stration Mam/L» Major professor [km November 11, 1985 MCI!i-.._ ‘4"— u’ l ' 1' 1A1 ' . . 0.12771 MSU ‘ LIBRARIES m RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to remove this checkout from your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. mm Militia! ‘**flvrewnlllllil’m l i l THE INFLUENCE OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, VERBAL/PERFORMANCE IQ DISCREPANCY, IQ, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS IN A MID-WESTERN CITY TO LABEL A STUDENT LEARNING DISABLED OR EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED BY Joanne Court Witte A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology: Special Education 1985 ABSTRACT THE INFLUENCE OF ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR, VERBAL/PERFORMANCE IQ DISCREPANCY, IQ, AND SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL EDUCATORS IN A MID-WESTERN CITY TO LABEL A STUDENT LEARNING DISABLED OR EDUCABLE MENTALLY IMPAIRED BY Joanne Court Witte The problem of labeling students for special education is of major interest in the field. The overrepresentation of minority students who are of low socioeconomic status has been of continuing concern especially for Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) students. The lack of clarity and agreement on definition has been of equal concern for Learning Dis- abled (LD) students. This study assessed the influence of adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and socioeconomic status (SES) on the professional's deci- sion to label a student LD or EMI. Additionally, staff members were asked to indicate their number of years teach- ing, role, educational level, professional development activities, and number of decisions in which they have been involved to determine if, and how, these characteristics influenced their decisions. Two levels, high and low, of each of the four variables were combined in all possible ways to result in sixteen case descriptions that were presented to the 248 members of the ..J Joanne Court Witte Lansing School District Special Education professional staff in a questionnaire. Each person was asked to make two decisions about each case description: (1) On a continuum of 0 to 10, what is the likelihood that this student is Learning Disabled? (2) On a continuum of 0 to 10, what is the likelihood that this student is Educable Mentally Impaired? Results of these data were analyzed by multivariate analysis of variance--repeated measures design--in an effort to ascertain the relationships between the four independent variables and the demographic characteristics of the staff on the labeling decisions. Major findings were: 1. There were naidifferences in the tendency to be influ- enced by SES based on the demographic characteristics of the staff. 2. High SES did not result in a tendency to label the student LD, nor did low SES result in a tendency to label the student EMI when considered in relation to demographic characteristics. 3. Of the four variables investigated, the LD decision was most influenced by high verbal performance IQ discrep- ancy and high (near normal) IQ. 4. 0f the four variables investigated, the EMI decision was most influenced by low adaptive behavior and low IQ. 5. There was a tendency for high SES to result in the EMI label when variables were considered independently. DEDICATION To Larry whose loving support and encouragement made it possible. ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I wish to thank the members of my doctoral committee, Dr. Donald Burke, Dr. Carol Sue Englert, Dr. Anne Soderman, and Dr. Richard Featherstone, for their help and support in completing this dissertation. Dr. Soderman and Dr. Feather- stone, who were with me from the beginning, offered much needed advice and counsel. Dr. Burke and Dr. Englert, who joined me near the end, were instrumental in shaping this document. I am especially'grateful to Dr. Burke, my commit- tee chairman, for his faith.in my ability to finish what I had started. Three other people were particularly important in bringing this dissertation to completion. Dr. David Solomon provided statistical expertise which was invaluable: Dr..Joe Byers inspired the original idea; and Dr. Charles Mange, now retired, assisted me greatly in the early stages. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS L I ST 0F TABLE S C O O O O C O O O O C O O I O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES O I O O I O O O O O O O O O O 0 CHAPTER I. CHAPTER II. CHAPTER III. INTRODUCTION 0 o o o o I. o o o o 0 Statement of Problem . . Purpose . . . . . . . . Need . . . . Statement of Hypotheses Definitions . . . . . . Limitations . . . . . . Assumptions . . . . . . REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE . . . . . Introduction . . . . . . . . . Socioeconomic Status and Minority Overrepresentation . . . . . . . EMI Redefined . . . . Learning Disabilities Definition . Research Studies on Race, SES, and Special Class Placement . . . . Decision Making . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY 0 O O O O O O O C O 0 Introduction . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . Questionnaire . . Design and Development Demographic Data . . Case Descriptions Pilot Study . . . Data Collection . . . Data Analysis . . . . iv Page vi vii Page CHAPTER IV. ANALYSIS OF RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Analysis of Demographic Data . . . . . . . 95 Analysis of Case Descriptions . . . . . . 110 Hypothesis 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 Hypotheses 2 and 3 . . . . . . . . . 116 Hypothesis 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 Hypothesis 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129 CHAPTER V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 3 1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Discussion of Results . . . . . . . . . . 136 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 Demographic Data . . . . . . . . . . 136 Labeling Decisions . . . . . . . . . 139 e Socioeconomic Status Consider d in Relation to Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . 139 Significant Variables Considered in Relation to Demographic Characteristics . . . . . . . . 143 Significant Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . 147 Decision Making . . . . . . . . . . . 151 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154 Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 APPENDICES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 161 Appendix A. Questionnaire . . . . . . . . 161 Appendix B. Indicators of Independent variables . . . . . . . . . . 165 Appendix C. Cover Letter . . . . . . . . 173 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 174 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. LIST OF TABLES Number and Percent of Respondents in Special Education by Number of Years .. . .. . .. . . Returned and Not Returned Questionnaires by Role of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Relationship Between Questionnaires Returned and Not Returned by Role of Respondents . . . . . . . Number and Percent of Respondents by Educational Level 0 O O O O O O I O O O O O l O O O O I O O 0 Number and Percent of Respondents by Level of Employment 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Number and Percent of Respondents by Number of IEPCs Attended in One Month . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Role of Respondents and Number of IEPCs Attended in One Month . . . . . . . . . Number and Percent of Respondents by Year of Last College Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Year of Last College Course by Role of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Year of Last College Course by Educational Level of Respondents . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Year of Last College Course by Employment Level of Respondents . . . . . . . Crosstabulation of Year of Last College Course by number Of IEPCB O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O Tests of Significance for Totals Using Sequential Sums of Squares for Years of Experience of Respondents O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Tests of Significance for Totals Using Sequential Sums of Squares by Role of Respondents . . . . . vi Page 96 97 100 101 102 103 104 105 107 108 109 110 115 115 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Tests of Significance for Totals Using Sequential Sums of Squares by Educational Level of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=2, M=2-1/2, N=55) for Years of Experience and Labeling Decisions of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . Univariate F Tests with (2,119) D.F. for Years of Experience and Labeling Decisions of Respondents Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=4, M=1-1/2, N=54-l/2) for Role and Labeling Decisions of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Univariate F Tests With (4,118) D.F. for Role and Labeling Decisions of Respondents . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for LD Adaptive Behavior by Role of Respondents . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for LD VP IQ Discrepancy by Role of Respondents . . . . . . . Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=3, M=2, N=55) for Educational Level and Labeling Decisions of Respondents O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I Univariate F Tests with (3, 119) D.F. for Educational Level and Labeling Decisions of Respondents O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Means and Standard Deviations for Educational Level and LD VP IQ Discrepancy Labeling Decisions of Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Educational Level and EMI Labeling Decisions of Respondents . Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=1, M=3, N=56-1/2) for All Labeling Decisions of Respondents I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Univariate F Tests with (1, 119) D.F. for All Labeling Decisions of Respondents . . . . . . . . Means and Standard Deviations for Each Significant Variable in the Labeling Decisions of Respondents vii Page 116 117 118 119 120 120 121 122 122 123 124 126 126 127 LIST OF FIGURES LD, MR, and ED Service Rates, 1976-77 to 1982-83 LD, MR, and ED as Percentages of All Handicapped, 1976-77 to 1982-83 0 o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0 Composite Incidence Rates for LD, EI, and EMI StUdentS o o o o o o o o o o o 0'. o o o o o o 0 Percentage of Each Racial and Ethnic Group Accounted for by Students Classified as LD and EMR’ 1970-77 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 Matrix of Case Description Factor Combinations Cases Containing High and Low Levels of Each Variable I O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Eight Independent Variables by Cells . . . . . . viii Page 11 12 84 112 113 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of Problem In recent years there has been a great deal of interest and controversy among professionals in special education about the question of labeling students for special educa- tion. It is generally accepted in Michigan, and indeed nationwide, that labeling students is inevitable because funding is tied to labeling. Local districts are reimbursed with both state and federal funds based on the number of students in each category of disability. Once the fact of labeling is accepted, which label to choose is the next question. With the mild to moderate handicaps, the choice is rarely clear-cut. Potter (1982) stated the case succinctly: If a child is not physically handicapped but ap- pears to be in need of special education services, he/she is classified into one of three cate- gories--mental retardation, learning disabilities, or emotional disturbance. Unfortunately, these categories do not have clear universally accepted, mutually exclusive definitions, thus misclassifi- cations can easily occur.(p. 7) For several reasons the choice between the Learning Disabled an» and Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) labels is of particular interest. First, these two categories deal primarily with intellectual functioning. Second, in the 2 past few years there has been a great increase in numbers of LD students combined with a large decrease in numbers of EMI students (Tucker, 1980). Third, these two categories are concerned mainly with that grey area of slow learners who often don't appear to fit into any category in special education. Even though the choice between labels is often ambigu- ous, the procedure by which a student is labeled is well- defined. In Michigan, the initial labeling decision is made by a committee, the Individualized Educational Planning Com- mittee (IEPC), composed of (l) a representative of the public agency, (2) the studentls teacher or a teacher appro- priate for the student if the child is not enrolled in special education, fin a member of the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team, and (4) the parents (Michigan Special Edu- cation Rules R 340.1721-b). The Multidisciplinary Evalua- tion Team (MET) often includes a psychologist and a social worker. In addition, professionals such as a speech thera- pist, a teacher consultant, an occupational therapist, a physical therapist, an audiologist, and others may also provide information. The IEPC has several duties. First, it determines eligibility, and second, it plans the student1s program. To determine whether or not the student is Learning Disabled, the IEPC is expected to base its decision on the report of a diagnostician who may be either a psychologist, a speech and language teacher, or a teacher consultant, and the child's 3 teacher (R 340.1713). In practice, a psychologist is usual—- 1y included. To determine whether or not a student is Educable Mentally Impaired, a psychologist and at least one other person must assess the student (R 340.1705). There are a great many safeguards in Michiganfis Special Education Rules and in federal law Pd; 94-142 about how the evaluation must be done. There must be a full and indivi- dual evaluation by a multidisciplinary team and assurance that testing does not discriminate on the basis of language or culture. To quote the rule: Information presented to the individualized educa— tional planning committee shall be drawn from a variety of sources, including parent input, apti- tude and achievement tests, teacher recommenda- tions, physical condition, social or cultural background, adaptive behavior, and other pertinent information. No single procedure shall be used as the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a person. (R 340.1721a(2) in part) Purpose A number of factors influence the decision about which label to choose for a particular student. This study examined four of those factors. The purpose pf this study was to investigate the influence pi the studgpt'g adappive b havior verba erformance I d'scre anc fu scale I nd soc’ econom c status SES on e rofessiona 's deci- sion n the Lans'n Sc 00 D's rict about w at t abel ap indigidual student Learning Disabled (LD) pr Educablg Mentally Impaired (EMI). 4 Three of the four factors were chosen for investigation because they are related to eligibility criteria for quali- fying a student for special education as specified in the Michigan rules. Adaptive behavior and IQ were selected because they are cited in the rules. Severe discrepancy, for which verbal/performance IQ discrepancy was used as an indicator in this study, is also cited in the rules. To qualify as Learning Disabled a student must show: (1) a disorder in one or more of the basic psy- chological process involved in understanding language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations . . . (2) The IEPC may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if the child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more areas listed in the subrule .. . and if the MET team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy be— tween achievement and intellectual ability .. . (R340.l713). In Lansing this rule has been interpreted to mean that the student must have a near normal, or at least not subnormal, IQ. An IQ above 70 is the accepted standard. In addition, the student must show a discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability that in Lansing is indicated by grade level. The standards are: a one year discrepancy for grades kindergarten and first, a one and one half year discrepancy for grades two and three, a two year discrepancy for grades four to six, three years for grades seven to nine, and four years for grades ten to twelve» Estimated learning potential, or intellectual ability, is determined by a psychological evaluation done by a psychologist; 5 achievement is determined by a combination of classroom performance and individual achievement tests administered by a teacher consultant. If the discrepancy between the estimated learning potential and achievement meets the grade level criteria already described, then the student qualifies as Learning Disabled in Lansing (Team 0 erat'ons, 1982). To be classified as Educable Mentally Impaired a student must manifest: (a) development at a rate approximately 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean as deter- mined through intellectual assessment, UH score approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles on a standardized test in read- ing and arithmetic, (c) lack of development primarily in the cogni- tive domain, and (d) impairment of adaptive behavior (R340.l705). In Lansing, this rule has been interpreted to mean an IQ below 70 as assessed by a psychologist on a standardized intelligence test and impaired adaptive behavior as assessed either by a social worker on an adaptive behavior scale or by teacher report. In this study these three factors were treated as if they'point.definite1y to one category or the other. ‘An IQ above 70 indicated the LD label but not the EMI label: an IQ below 70 indicated the EMI label but not the LD label: severe discrepancy (to be discussed in detail later) indi- cated the LD label but not the EMI label: and impaired adaptive behavior indicated the EMI label but not the LD label. 6 The fourth factor, socioeconomic status, was chosen because it does not point to either label. It has generally been accepted, and will be fully considered later, that low SES and the EMI category go hand in hand while the LD cate- gory is more often associated with higher SES. 'Therefore the influence of SES on the labeling decision was of great concern in this study especially in light of the fact that the Michigan Rules specifically prohibit a determination of disability based only on socioeconomic factors. A determi- nation that a child is Educable Mentally Impaired, “shall not be based solely on behaviors relating to environmental, cultural, or economic differences“ (R 340.1705(3)). Simi- larly, a child shall not be identified as Learning Disabled ”if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of .. . environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage“ (R 340.1713(3)(e)). While looking at the relationships between the four variables already mentioned, certain characteristics of the decision-makers including number of years of teaching, role, educational level, professional development activities, and number of decisions in which the professional has been involved were investigated also. How do adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, full scale IQ, and SES relate to the demographic characteristics of Lansing team members to result in an individual decision about whether to label a particular child Learning Disabled or Educable Mental 1y Impaired? 7 Need The need to clarify the differences between the high incidence categories of impairment (i.e., LD and EMI) is evident in the literature. Even though some authors (Gajar, 1979, 1980: Epstein, 1983; Gaar, 1983) consider the differ- ences definitive, others (Neisworth, 1975; Eno, 1980: Potter, 1982) believe the lines of distinction are blurred. It has been shown, historically at least, that EMI students are primarily of low SES. 'The literature is replete with evidence that minority and low socioeconomic status students are overrepresented in EMI special education programs (Hurley, 1969: Katz, 1970: Heller, 1982: Mercer, 1973; Franks, 1971: M.L. Smith, 1982; Kaufman, 1981; MacMillan, 1982: Ysseldyke, 1983; Adelman, 1982; Sarason, 1979; Neer, 1973; Reynolds, 1982). It has also been shown by a great deal of evidence that the LD category of special education is not clearly defined (Ysseldyke, Algozzine & Epps, 1983: Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1980: Ysseldyke, Algozzine, Shinn & McGue, 1982; Argulewicz, 1983: Rist, 1982; Banas, 1984; Epps, Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1983: Epps, Ysseldyke & McGue, 1984; Shepard, 1983). David Greenburg (1984) further emphasized the need for research on classification when he discussed the evaluation section of the 1984 6th Annual Department of Education's report to Congress on PuL. 94-142: The report section on protection in evaluation focuses on eligibility criteria and standards for placement decisions. That focus may be inter- preted to reflect a de-emphasis of concerns 8 regarding non-discriminatory and/or multi- disciplinary evaluation accompanied by a re- emphasis on concerns regarding inappropriate over- identification of children as Learning Disabled. (p. 205) Gerber (1984) also discussed the 1984 6th Annual Report to Congress. comprise the largest categorical group currently receiving special education services in the nation. for 39 percent of all students served in 1981-82 and for 41 percent in 1982-83. Association of Directors of Special Education which gave reasons for the great increase in students classified as LD. In the directors' opinion, the increase is due to: 1. 2. 3. Gerber (1984) illustrated his point with several charts, see Figures 1 and 2, showing the seven year trend for students identified LD, EMI, and emotionally disturbed (ED) . Improvements in identification and assessment procedures. Liberal eligibility standards applied by local districts. Diminishing instructional options other than special education for students with learning problems. Greater social acceptance and preference for the classification learning disabled, as op- posed to the classification mentally retarded. Judicial interference with identification pro- cedures for students thought to be mentally retarded. (p. 212) In his comments about the charts, he asserted: Clearly not only the numbers but also the percent- ages of students identified as Learning Disabled have risen dramatically since 1976 while percent- ages of students identified as mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed have changed only slightly. (p. 216) He pointed out that students identified as LD They accounted Gerber quoted a report by the National fi‘ ‘ an 3 .. % 1 .- ' q 50 ..-..«....aau.nuuocanon-.00000000Noon..00...0..."...coco-cocoon. .... o o c o .. . ‘ ”1‘?" f I ' I ' “.21.; I t I IS Figure 1. LD, MR, and ED Service Rates, 1976-77 to 1982-83. (Source: Exceptional Chlldrep, Nov. 1984, Vol. 51, No. 3.) 15 4o . .fl'_,,o / 30 .. // ‘- % 0/4....» “-0--.. “no.“ 20 " ‘--o---- an ‘7‘. ------- 4 ID - .n oooooooooooooo ‘ oooooooooooo 0. ooooooooooooo .. ............ .Uo ........... .. . m (min r T ' ' “”53: YEAIS Figure 2. LD, MR, and ED as Percentage of All Handicapped, 1976—77 to 1982-83. (Source: Exceptional Chil; dren, Nov. 1984, Vol. 51, No. 3.) 10 The statistics for Michigan are much the same as pre- sented in Trends in Special Education (1983). The three charts in Trends depicting percentages of aggregate students in the categories of EMI, EI, and LD all used different scales (EMI used increments of .05: BI used increments of .10: and LD used increments of .20). If the three Michigan charts are superimposed using the same scalee(.10), the rise of LD students appears dramatically as displayed in Figure 3. James Tucker (1980) traced the percentages of students classified LD and EMI from 1970 to 1977. He found that the percentage of blacks in EMI classes glg decline but the increase in the total number of LD classes has been so great that'blacks are still overrepresented in special education as a whole. In fact, as shown in Figure 4, Tucker contended that the overrepresentation of blacks in the EMI category had actually shifted to overrepresentation in the LD category. In addition to controversy over the fact of labeling itself, there is an increasing amount of research on both the decision-making process and the team approach in decision-making (Kehle, 1980: Boucher, 1981: Yoshida, 1978; Ysseldyke & Regan, 1978: Ysseldyke, Algozzine & Thurlow, 1980; Ysseldyke & Thurlow, 1983; Harber, 1981a, 1981b: Knoff, 1984; Smith, 1981: Holland, 1980; Salvia, 1980). Results are contradictory. However, it is generally accept- ed that the factors that influence the decision-makers have Percentages to State.Aggregate Enrollment (8) 3.00 2.90 2.80 2.10 2.60 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.00 1.90 1.80 1.70 1.60 1.50 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.10 1.00 .90 .80 .70 .60 .50 .40 .30 .20 .10 0 Figure 3. 11 LD EI EMI V In ‘9 F m ¢ 0 H N m F f‘ P- h r~ P- at m» m ,3 0‘ 0‘ 0‘ 0\ m a: o\ a. 0‘ ¢ H 0". 0" 0-4 H H H H H 0-! dents. (Source: cation, Oct. 1983.) Composite Incidence Rates for LD, EI, EMI Stu- Michigan Trends in Special Edu- 12 '12 6.5 I p. 6.0 . /M 5.5 " V0 1 WM“ ' 5.0 L 29/0 \D 4.5 ' / 4.0 P 3.5 + as ' .5 a" 33 “.541” 3.0 L 3.: 3:0 2.: 2.5 ’ 2.: 2.2 2.2 2.0 ) Mex '- I. lean LS I u: a 1.1 AmmcanlMR 1.5 L4 ID > LO LO 7 .n . v t Ammm "MR ' " .u n 1,. .S r «.5 .1 'I 1 l l L L 1— I070 I97I I972 I973 I974 l‘)75 I976 I977 Figure 4. Percentage of Each Racial and Ethnic Group Accounted for by Students Classified as LD and EMR 1970-77. Education, Vol. (Source: 14' N00 The Journal of Special 1, 1980.) 13 not been clearly delineated. Even though the legal process by which a child is labeled for special education is explicitly stated in the rules, in practice a great many problems develop during the decision-making process. In addition to professional knowl- edge, each team member brings to the process a background and history of beliefs, attitudes, and values that help shape his/her decision. This study is aimed at investigat- ing professionals' opinions about the factors that influence them in their labeling decisions. It is not concerned with whether or not students are fairly or accurately labeled. Rather, it is concerned with the opinions and beliefs of the decision-makers before they attend IEPCs. Statement of Hypotheses The hypotheses to be tested in this study stated in directional terms are: 1. Among professionals, there will be no significant dif- ferences in the tendency to be influenced by SES based on years of experience, role, educational level, profes- sional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. 2. With mild to moderately handicapped Learning Disabled (LD) and Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) students, the lower socioeconomic status (SES) students will tend to be labeled EMI by professionals regardless of years of experience, role, educational level, professional 5. 14 development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. With mild to moderately handicapped LD and EMI students, the higher SES students will tend to be labeled LD by professionals regardless of years of experience, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. 0f the four independent variables-~adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and SES--the most variance will be accounted for by IQ and verbal/perform- ance IQ discrepancy combined. a. Students with 10's above 70 and a difference of 15 or more points on verbal/performance IQ discrepancy will tend to be labeled LD by professionals regard- less of number of years of experience, role, educa- tional level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. b. Students with 10's below 70 and a difference of 8 or less points on verbal/performance IQ discrepancy will tend to be labeled EMI by professionals regard- less of number of years of experience, role, educa- tional level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. With mild to moderately handicapped LD and EMI students, adaptive behavior will have less effect than will SES, 15 verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, or IQ on the the labeling decision for professionals regardless of years of experience, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. Definitions The following terms are used repeatedly in this study. A general definition is given for each term and, when appro— priate, a specific explanation of how the term is used in this study. Adaptivg Behavior In the broad sense, adaptive behavior means being socially and cognitively competent in one's environment. When adaptive behavior is measured, the effectiveness or degree tO‘which an individual meets the standards of per- sonal independence and social responsibility expected of his/her cultural group is assessed (Grossman, 1983L. Im- pairment in adaptive behavior is one of several criteria used to determine whether or not a student is Educable Mentally Impaired as described in the Mlchigah Speclal Edu- cation Rules R 340.1705 (1) (d). Educable Mentally Impaired Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) is one of several categories of impairment described in the Michigan Special 16 Educatlon Rules. R 340.1705 indicates that to be determined EMI, a student must manifest: (a) development at a rate approximately 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean as deter- mined through intellectual assessment. UH scores approximately within the lowest 6 percentiles on a standardized test in reading and arithmetic. (c) lack of development primarily in the cogni- tive domain, and (d) impairment of adaptive behavior. Because most authors in other states refer to the mildly mentally retarded as Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) in- stead of Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI), the two terms will be used interchangeably. Individualized Educational Planning Committee An individualized Educational Planning Committee (IEPC) determines that a student is eligible for special education and plans the student's program. R 340.1721 (b) lists the participants in the committee. There must be at least a representative of the public agency and the student's teacher. At the initial and three-year re-evaluation meet- ings, a member of the multidisciplinary evaluation team muSt attend. Also, the parents must be invited. R 340.1721 (6) defines the responsibilities of the IEPC. They include determination of eligibility, consideration of the need for a change in educational status, and the development of the annual individualized educational program (IEP). R 340.1721 (e) specifies that the IEP drawn up by the committee must include a statement of the person's present level of per- formanoe, a statement of annual goals including short-term l7 instructional objectives, the projected dates for initiation of services and the anticipated duration, appropriate cri- teria with evaluation procedures and schedules for determin— ing whether or not the instructional objectives are being met, a statement of the specific special education and related services to be provided, and the extent to which the person is able to participate in regular education programs. Learning Disabilities hichigan Special Education Rulp 340.1713 defines a learning disability as: (1) A disorder in one or more of the basic psy- chological processes involved in understand- ing or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as percep- tual handicaps, brain injury» minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems which are primari- ly the result of visual, hearing, or motor handicaps, or mental retardation, or emo- tional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (2) The Individualized Educational Planning Com- mittee may determine that a child has a spe- cific learning disability if the child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one (1) or more of the areas listed in this subrule, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability levels, and if the multidisciplinary evaluation team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in one (1) or more of the following areas: (a) Oral expression (b) Listening comprehension (c) Written expression (d) Basic reading skill (e) Reading comprehension 18 (f) Mathematics calculation (9) Mathematics reasoning Multidisciplinagy Evaluation Team The Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team (MET) is de- scribed in R 340.1701 (a) (e) as '. . . a minimum of two persons who are responsible for evaluating students sus- pected of being handicapped or handicapped persons being re- evaluated.“ The team shall include 'at least one special education-approved teacher or other specialist with knowl- edge in the area of suSpected disabilityu' Socioeconomic Status Broadly interpreted, socioeconomic status (SES) means the relative social class membership of a person based upon a number of factors including type of occupation, educa— tional level, type of housing, ways of spending leisure time, community activities, familial history, etc. People are often thought to be of low, middle, or high status. SES depends not only on tangible evidence such as income level but also on some intangible evidence such as the honor one is accorded in one's community. For this study, SES was defined narrowly in terms of occupations. Occupations yielding wages at or below poverty level were used to indicate low SES and occupations yielding wages in upper middle income levels were used to indicate high SES. Occupations were taken from the (LS. Census Bureau Earnings by Occupapion and Educatigh: 1980 Census (1984). 19 VerbalZPerformance IQ Discrepancy The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-~Revised (WISC-R) assesses the verbal potential of a child by means of information, similarities, arithmetic, vocabulary, com- prehension, and (alternate) digit span subtests. The per- formance potential is judged by picture completion, picture arrangement, block design, object assembly, coding, and (alternate) mazes subtests. Each set of subtests yields a score called verbal IQ and Performance IQ. These two scores are combined to result in a full-scale IQ score. Verbal- performance discrepancy means that there is a significant difference between these two IQ scores. There is disagree- ment in the literature on what constitutes a “significant” discrepancy (Kaufman, 1979; Epps, Ysseldyke 8 Algozzine, 1983; Ysseldyke, Algozzine & Epps, 1982). For this study, a difference of 15 or more points between verbal and perform- ance IQ, in accordance with Epps, et a1. (1983), was used to indicate a discrepancy large enough to qualify a student as Learning Disabled. This choice will be more fully explained in Chapter 3. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children--Revised (WISC-R) is a commonly used individual intelligence test. As previously mentioned, it yields a verbal IQ, and a per- formance IQ which can be combined into a full scale IQ. IQ tests are believed to be measures of scholastic aptitude or predictors of school achievement. To qualify as EMI, a 20 child must score approximately 2 to 3 standard deviations below the mean on an individual IQ test: to qualify as LD a child must show a severe discrepancy between achievement and potential that is usually assessed, in part, by administer- ing an IQ test. The WISC-R is used to indicate both full scale IQ and verbal/performance IQ discrepancy in the case descriptions in this study. Exactly how and why the WISC-R is used in the case descriptions will be explained in detail in Chapter 3. Limitations Many variables may influence the decision about which label to choose for a particular student. The fact that this study considered only four variables--adaptive be- havior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and SES-— should not be taken to mean that there are no other vari— ables that may be operating. Undoubtedly many subtle vari- ables influence the decision to choose a particular label. Student variables that may affect.the classification decision include race, sex, and attractiveness of the stu- dent. Also, the teacher's interpretation of the child's classroom behavior and physical characteristics may be in- fluential. Parental preference for a given label, although not investigated in this study, deserves further discussion because it may be a very significant factor in the ultimate decision made in real situations. Identification as Learn- ing Disabled is almost universally believed to be preferred 21 by parents over identification as Educable Mentally Im- paired. Because of the expense and adversarial relation- ships resulting from special education due process hearings, many school districts may accede to parental desire for the LD classification rather than incur the expense and other difficulties associated with hearings to contest the issue. Thus, parental preference may be a major influence in actual situations where a different handicap is clearly indicated by evaluation data. A system variable which may affect the classification decision is the availability of staff and, consequently, programs. Even though the state and federal rules specify that an appropriate program must be provided for a student, if there is none, the student is usually placed in an exist- ing program unless there is strong parental objection. The quality of programs and staff may also influence decisions. If a choice between several existing programs is necessary, efforts may be made to place a student in what the district considers to be a "good" program. This study was done in a middle-sized urban, mid- Western city and, therefore, the results should be gen- eralized cautiously. The Lansing School District has about 23,000 students, about 39% of whom are racial minorities. Approximately 10% of the total population are special educa- tion students and of those, about one quarter are minori- ties. Lansing keeps no statistics on the SES of its stu- dents. Heller (1982) has shown that even though minority 22 students are overrepresented nationwide, especially in the EMI category, there is the least amount of racial overrepre- sentation in the Midwest (p. 11). Also, it is often assumed that minority students are of low'SES, but no such assump- tion was made in this study. This study considered SES apart from racial or ethnic status. It should also be remembered that Lansing borders on Michigan State University. Due to close proximity to a university, Lansing staff members have ready access to re- cent research and developments in the field of special education, and hence they may be more sophisticated than the majority of special education staff members nationwide. Assumptions A basic assumption was made in this study, that sub- jects would respond to a paper/pencil task as they would respond in a real life situation. This may not be true. It is possible that the paper/pencil task was too far removed from real life for subjects to comply. A second assumption was made that the items used to represent adaptive behavior and socioeconomic status in the case descriptions in the questionnaire were an accurate reflection of what they were intended to represent. For example, it is assumed that being an engineer does, in fact, indicate high socioeconomic status, and that the ability to go to the store to make a purchase does, in fact, indicate high adaptive behavior. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduction The literature concerning labeling students for special education is extremely voluminous and complex. Because the focus of this study was labeling students Learning Disabled (LD) and Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI), this literature review concentrates on those two areas and centers upon the factors that influence professionals in making such classi- fication decisions. In addition, literature on the decision-making process itself was reviewed in an effort to determine the principles that operate when one is called upon to decide for or against a particular label. )huflmof the literature on labeling students EMI con- cerned the overrepresentation of blacks and minorities in EMI classes, especially during the early years of special education. 'The fact that minorities have been overrepre- sented in the EMI category has been well documented. How- ever, authors disagree on the reasons for the overrepresen- tation. One group of scholars believes overrepresentation results from social/cultural phenomena and a second group believes clinical or medical causes are at the root of the problem. Both viewpoints will be presented in this review. 23 24 In an attempt to alleviate overrepresentation, the defini- tion of EMI was changed in the early 1970's due partly to court cases alleging unfair labeling of minorities and part- ly to the increasing importance of adaptive behavior as a criterion for the EMI label. The literature on labeling students LD primarily con- cerned the lack of agreement on definition and disputes about eligibility standards. Very often, an author defined learning disabilities and then applied that definition to a group of students previously labeled LD to see whether or not they qualified under his/her guidelines. Because there is so little agreement on definition, there are no common standards for labeling students LD. A number of research studies done over the past two decades that concerned the relative importance of socio- economic status (SES) and minority status in labeling stu- dents will be reviewed in this chapter. These studies attempted to determine whether or not special class placement due to low intellectual ability was influenced by race or SES or a combination of both. Results were contradictory. If one wishes to investigate the factors that influence labeling, then the process of decision-making itself needs attention also. There is a growing body of research on the decision making process that is divided into two categories. In some studies, the factors that influence individuals toward a particular decision were discussed, and in other 25 studies, the process by which teams of evaluators reached a decision about an appropriate label for a particular student was discussed. Therefore the review of the literature will be divided into five major areas: First, SES and minority overrepre- sentation in the EMI category will be examined with atten- tion given to both the cultural and clinical schools of thought concerning the causes of overrepresentation. Second, the revised definition of EMI will be discussed in conjunction with court cases that have influenced the defi- nition and controversy about the appropriate assessment of adaptive behavior. Third, the attempts of scholars to operationalize various definitions of learning disabilities will be explored. Fourth, specific research studies on race, SES, and special class placement will be reviewed. Fifth, the newly emerging body of research on decision making engaged in by special education personnel both indi- vidually and in teams will be examined. Socioeconomic Status and Minority Overrepresentation A number of scholars discussed the overrepresentation of minorities in EMI classes before the mid-l970!s. Heller (1982) reported: The Office of Civil Rights (OCR) routinely exam- ines disproportion in special education and other programs by means of a biannual survey of the nation's school and school district enrollments. An immediate and primary concern of OCR revealed by the survey data, is a persistent disproportion of minority children and males in classes for Educable Mentally retarded students. “h 4) 26 He continued: However defined, the prevalence of mild mental retardation is correlated with the SES of the family and neighborhood in which the child lives. (The lower the status, the higher the rated As we have seen, mild mental retardation is also correlated with ethnicity [SIC], minority children have higher rates. (p. 26) Mercer (1973) supported this position: We would anticipate a heavy concentration of per- sons from ethnic minorities among low scores on IQ tests if only because many persons from ethnic minorities have low SES. q» 167) MacMillan (1982) stated, "There is no question that ethnic minority children have been overrepresented in pro- grams for EMI children" (p. 73). MacMillan also contended that behavioral research indicates that there is a close relationship between mental retardation and SES (p. 1). Kaufman and Hallahan (1981) asserted that a “propor- tionately high percentage of males and individuals from minority and low socioeconomic groups are mildly mentally handicapped" (p. 373). They continued: There is a strong association between socioeco- nomic status and mild mental retardation. Chil- dren who are diagnosed as mildly retarded are much more likely to come from low SES environments. The prevalence of mild mental retardation is higher among specific ethnic/racial groups if the group is also of lower SES. (p. 220) There is general agreement that low SES, minority status and the EMI label are highly correlated but there are two separate schools of thought concerning the reason. One group, exemplified by Mercer (1973), Sarason (1979), and Farber (1968), believes the cause is social/cultural: the other group, exemplified by Kavale (1980), Chase (1970), and 27 Cravioto (1975): proposes medical/clinical reasons for the retardation. Cultural Etiology MacMillan (1982, 1980, 1984) presented the case for cultural retardation: Most cases of mental retardation cannot be traced to a specific cause, and in the case of EMR chil- dren, it is rare that a cause can be established. But physical factors .. . are more likely to be associated with severe retardation; social- psychological factors . . . are most likely to play a part in mild retardation. (1982, p. 79) He discussed at length (1982, Chapter 3) the fact that in cultural familial retardation, many environmental variables such as a poor genetic pool from which to draw, poor nutri- tion, retarded parents, poor medical care, lack of prenatal care, poor language models, low need for achievement, and lack of intellectual stimulation are related to mild retardation. Mercer (1973) viewed mental retardation as a social systems classification bestowed upon a person by society. She argued that the majority of children labeled Mentally Retarded (MR) were labeled by the school and were retarded only while they were in school. They were the '6-hour retarded“ or the situationally retarded. Once out of school, they faded into the community and held jobs and raised families. She showed that 40-45% of high IQ children came from blue collar homes, but 95% of the children with 10's below 70 came from blue collar homes. To Mercer, "From a social system perspective 'mental retardate' is an 28 achieved social status and mental retardation is the role associated with that status“ (p. 27). Heller (1982) agreed with Mercer (1973) and MacMillan (1980) that schools have always been the chief identifier of EMI children. According to Heller (1982), "About 2/3 of individuals diagnosed as mild MR may disappear into the normal population during late adolescence, losing the label once they leave school“ (p. 25). Sarason and Doris (1979) supported the position that the school itself is a factor in familial retardation since "such children are not identified before school entry and disappear after they leave school” (p. 153). Katz (1970) concurred, "Mental retardation may be a social role, acquired as a result of experience by high grade retardates, who have been assigned certain statuses as a result of psychological characteristics" (p. 18). Heller (1982) offered some reasons for the relationship between low SES and school performance. He maintained that child rearing styles may deemphasize motivational support for cognitive achievement; parental encouragement of verbal development and the provision of good verbal models may be lacking: and parents may not require or encourage children to practice the use of complex verbal symbols (p. 16). Heller (1982) argued: It is clear that mild mental retardation is large- ly a cultural invention and not an objective bio- logical property. It reflects society"s expecta- tions regarding intellectual performance and is subject to modification as values change. (p. 172) 29 Farber (1968) stated the case very strongly when he said the mentally retarded are an 'organizationally surplus" population that makes an indirect contribution to social structure through the particular problems they create for the society. Furthermore: By their very incompetence and deviance, the popu- lations require for remediation and control a series of institutions to meet the legal, welfare, health, and educational difficulties involved. (p. 13) Sarason and Doris (1979) maintained: Mental retardation is never a thing or a charac- teristic of an individual but rather a social invention stemming from time-bound societal values and ideology that make diagnosis and management seem both necessary and socially desirable. The shifting definitions and management of mental retardation are not understandable in terms of the 'essence' of the 'condition' but rather in terms of changing societal values and conditions. (p. 417) Gliedman (1980) agreed: The incidence of handicaps that stem from a physi- cal or genetic cause is roughly the same among all ethnic groups, yet minority children were greatly over-represented in such categories of handicaps as mild retardation or mild emotional disturbance where no clear physical or genetic cause could be imputed. (p. 179) Clinical Etiology The case for biological or clinical causes of mental retardation has been cogently presented by research in the field of medicine that shows that lack of proper nourishment affects brain development significantly. Chase (1970) studied 19 children who had been admitted to Denver Chil- drenfs Hospital for undernourishment during their first year 30 of life. Three to four years later these children were compared to a control group. 'The test group was lower in height, weight, head circumference, and developmental quotient. The extent of impairment of their physical and mental development appeared to correlate with the duration of the undernourishment. The nine children treated during the first four months of life had a developmental quotient of 95. If the children were treated after four months, their developmental quotient was 70. Social factors associated with the undernourishment were parental separation, alcohol problems, inadequate money, and many young siblings. According to Chase (1970), if the undernourishment was corrected before four months of age, the developmental quo- tient approached normal by age three and one half. Chase pointed out that in underdeveloped countries where breast feeding is a common practice, undernutrition usually occurs after breast feeding stops at about age 12-18 months. In this country, where breast feeding is not generally encour- aged for the population as a‘whole, undernutrition occurs much earlier. Birch (1971) compared the intelligence of 37 previously malnourished children with the sibling closest to them in age. The malnourished children had all been hospitalized for diagnosed kwashiorkor (high carbohydrate, low protein diet) in the Army Central Hospital in Mexico City when they were between the ages of six and 30 months. The average 31 hospital stay was six weeks with a range of one to two months. Three years after the children were discharged, the Wecshler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) was admin- istered to them and to the control sibling. The full scale IQ for the previously malnourished child was 13 points lower than for the sibling. Verbal and performance IQ were both lower. .All differences were found to be significant. Cravioto (1975) agreed that the younger the child the worse the effects of malnutrition were and the longer the condition lasted. One constant feature of malnourished infants was their reduced exploratory behavior. They never regained what was lost, not only in motor behavior but also in hearing and speech, social personal behavior, problem solving ability, eye-hand coordination, and categorizing skills (p. 31-35). In fact, the lag in language development continued to be present even after clinical recovery (p. 82- 83). Cravioto endeavored to explain the link between malnu- trition, intellectual. competence, and learning. The simplest hypothesis is that nutrient deficiency directly affects the intellect by producing central nervous system brain damage. However, there are three indirect mechanisms. First, the loss of learning time really means a loss in experience. Second, the interference with learning during a critical period of‘development leads to abnormalities in sequential emergence of competence or a redirection of the developmental course in undesired directions. Third, 32 motivation and personality changes could result due to a reduction in responsiveness and an increase in apathy. This apathy may reduce the value of the child as a stimulus to the mother, and, consequently, she reduces her interactions with the child (p. 91). Kavale (1980) maintained that malnutrition results in intrasensory processing problems, and affects the acquisi- tion of academic skills because it interferes with percep- tion and cognition. He pointed out that environmental stress interferes with food metabolism: thus, learning is reduced due to undernourishment of brain cells. Kavale was describing the ”culturally disadvantaged" (CD) child. His research was done in California where a culturally disad- vantaged child can only be labeled EMI or Emotionally Im- paired (EI) but not LD. Kavale demonstrated that the CD child had characteristics similar to the LD child and should have that category available as an option. In Michigan, we have no such restriction on labels. In summary, it could be said that the two schools of thought on causation--cultural vs clinica1--are not‘actually' in conflict. Instead, the medical evidence supports the position that cultural disadvantage leads to impaired de- velopment. The cultural group recognizes that there is a difference in the EMI children, at least while they are in school. They also maintain that the schools are the insti- tution chiefly responsible for identifying this difference. The clinical group offers a reason. 33 EMI Redefined Three closely related trends converged in the early 1970's to bring about a new focus for the definition of EMI. First, a number of court cases were instituted which chal- lenged the placement of minority children in EMI classes. Second, the American Association on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) changed its definition of EMI. Third, adaptive behavior received renewed interest as a criterion for the EMI label. Court Cases During the early 1970's, a number of court cases relat— ing to the infringement of the rights of minorities to the proper placement of their children in EMI classes were entered into the courts. Burket (1982) provided a detailed review of these cases. Several of the cases which have had a direct impact on the identification and placement issue will be discussed. In Diana ys. State Board of Education (1970), nine Mexican-American students in California claimed they were improperly placed in classes for the mentally retarded. They objected to the fact that the IQ tests used to place them there were culturally biased. The case was settled by a stipulated agreement which specified that the State of California would test bilingual students in both their primary language and in English and that all Mexican- Americans and Chinese-Americans already in special classes would be reevaluated (Burket, 1982, p. 38). 34 In Mattie vs. Holla_de (Mississippi, 1977), the issue was that minority children were placed in Educable Mentally Retarded (EMR) classes at a rate over three times that of majority children. Conversely, non minority children were placed in resource rooms and more integrated LD classes at a rate more than double that of minority children. The case was settled in 1979 by a consent decree that ordered the state of Mississippi to enact a child find program, to collect information sufficient to determine whether each local district was placing children in the least restrictive environment, and to identify, refer, evaluate, and place EMI and LD children in a nondiscriminatory manner (Burket, 1982, p. 44-45). In hghry P. V§l_gilg§_(California, 1974), the judge ruled that minority children were unfairly discriminated against by the use of IQ tests standardized on the majority population. He ordered the state to stop using all stand- ardized IQ tests to identify or place black children in EMI classes without prior court approval of the test. The state was ordered to monitor and eliminate disproportion in place- ment of black children. The state was also ordered to reevaluate every black child currently identified as an EMI pupil without using a standardized IQ test that had not been approved previously by the court (Burket, 1982, pp. 45-46). In Parents in Action on Special Edhcation (PASE) y§l Hannon (1974) in‘Chicago, several parents of EMI students indicated that black students were placed in EMI classes at 35 a rate three times that of whites. The plaintiffs further alleged that the WISC, WISC-R, and Stanford-Binet intelli- gence tests were racially biased. The judge decided that the students were erroneously diagnosed as mentally retarded but he found only one'itemnon the Stanford—Binet and eight items on the WISC and WISC-R that he determined were cul— turally biased. He ruled that the tests, when used with other criteria, were not discriminatory (Burket, 1982, p. 48-49). As a result of the high; and Larry P. cases, many children in California were determined ineligible for spe- cial education. Myers, MacMillan, and Yoshida (1978) com- pared matched samples of decertified and certified EMI children from 12 districts to see whether or not school psychologists could be considered biased in their original certification of the children. Forty-five percent of the children retested after the court cases were returned to regular classes, but Myers et al. found no evidence of "racist intent to overrepresent" (p. 6). Nothing except IQ at the time of decertification distinguished the two groups. In the authors'be related to the four independent student variables in a within-subjects design. The demographic data consisted of both continuous and discrete variables to be related to the labeling deci- sions in a: between-subjects design (Pedazur, 1982; Kerlinger, 1973). MANOVA was chosen because according to Borg and Gall (1983), “multivariate analysis of variance is a statistical technique for determining whether several groups differ on more than one dependent variable“ (p. 554). In chapter IV, the results of the data analysis will be discussed. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF RESULTS Introduction The purpose of this study was to investigate the in- fluence of adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ dis- crepancy, IQ, and socioeconomic status (SES) on the decision to label :3 student Learning Disabled (LD) or Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI). In addition, the effect of several demographic variables including number of years as a special educator, role, educational level, professional development activities and number of decisions in which respondents have been involved on the labeling decisions was investigated. In this chapter, the results of the data from the ques— tionnaire distributed to the Lansing special education pro- fessional staff will be analyzed. The analysis will be divided into two sections: (1) analysis of the results of the demographic data, and (2) analysis of the results of the case descriptions" Of the 248 questionnaires sent to the professional staff in the Lansing School District Special Education Department, 154 were returned for a rate of return of 59.7%. However, because some of the questionnaires were completed incorrectly, this analysis contains data from 147 94 95 questionnaires or 59.3%. Of the 147 returned question— naires, there were instances where isolated items were not answered. These are reported as missing cases. Analysis of Demographic Data The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Nie et al., 1975) was used to analyze data on the question- naires. The SPSS Condescriptive and Crosstabs sub programs were used to generate summary information about the demo- graphic data. The mean number of years as a special educator in Lansing was 12.178 years with a standard deviation of 5.597 and a minimum of one year and a maximum of 26 years. The mean number of years in the present role was 7.082 with a standard deviation of 5.215 and a minimum of one year and a maximum of 25 years. The actual number of years in special education for each staff member is shown in Table 1. Slightly over half the staff, 55.8%, has been in special education for 6 to 15 years. The roles occupied by the respondents in this study are shown in Table 2. 'Table 2 also shows the number of ques- tionnaires returned and not returned by role. Program con- sultants (78.9%) and teacher consultants (72.2%) had the greatest percentage of return with classroom teachers next (59.0% and 67.5%). Psychologists and social workers (about 30% each) had the lowest rate of return. 96 TABLE 1 Number and Percent of Respondents in Special Education by Number of Years No. of No. of % of Years Staff Staff 1 to 5 21 14.3 6 to 10 36 24.5 11 to 15 46 31.3 16 to 20 34 23.1 21 to 26 9 6.1 Missing 1 .7 Totals 147 100.0 TABLE 2 Returned and Not Returned Questionnaires by Role of Respondents Role Returned Ngt Returned No. % No. % Teachers, High Incidence 62 59.0 43 41.0 Teachers, Low Incidence 27 67.5 13 32.5 School Psychologists 4 30.8 9 69.2 Teacher Consultants 13 72.2 5 27.8 Speech Therapists 9 50.0 9 50.0 Program Consultants 15 78.9 4 21.1 Administrators 3 42.9 4 57.1 Social Workers 3 30.0 7 70.0 Physical Therapists 4 50.0 4 50.0 Occupational Therapists 7 70.0 3 30.0 Totals 147 101 98 For this study, classroom teachers were divided into the two categories of “high incidence“ and “low incidence!‘ “High incidence“ teachers were those certified and teaching inlthe high incidence categories of Educable Mentally'Im- paired, Emotionally Impaired, Learning Disabled, and Pre- primary Impaired. “Low incidence“ teachers were those cer- tified and teaching in the low incidence categories of Physically or Otherwise Health Impaired, Hearing Impaired, Visually Impaired, Severely Mentally Impaired, Severely Multiply'Impaired, and Trainable Mentally Impaired. ‘ Because there were so few peopleein some roles, cate- gories were collapsed into five role groups for the data analysis. The groups were (1) high incidence teachers, (2) low incidence teachers, (3) support personnel (psycholo- gists, social workers, speech therapists, physical thera- pists, and occupational therapists), (4) teacher consult- ants, and (5) administrators (administrators and program consultants). Groups were formed in this way for several different reasons. High and low incidence teachers were separated because they have very different training and experience. Low incidence teachers were not expected to be as familiar with the LD and EMI categories that were of interest in this study as were high incidence teachers. Support personnel were grouped together because they perform similar functions over a broad range of disabilities and ages. Teacher consultants formed a separate group because, in Lansing, they are part of the diagnostic team and 99 therefore they work with a broad range of ages and levels of children. Program consultants and administrators were grouped together because program consultants function more like administrators than teachers. Even though they are not administrators, they regularly chair IEPC meetings and assist in making decisions about programming, and staff and facility allocation. Once role groups were formed, a chi-square analysis was computed to determine whether or not any particular role did not return questionnaires in expected proportions. The results are shown in Table 3. At the .05 level (the level of significance chosen for this study), a value of 7.903 with 4 degrees of freedom was not sufficient to show a significant relationship between questionnaires returned and not returned by role. A value of at least 9.488 was re- quired. Therefore, there was no significant difference in questionnaires returned and not returned by role. Table 4 reports the educational level including number and percentage of respondents at each level. Four educa— tional levels--bachelor of arts, master of arts, master of arts plus, and educational specialist or above--were used. Master of arts plus was included as a separate category because, in Lansing, the college or university course credit requirement to reach this step on the salary scale is equiv- alent to a second master's degree. Also, it is the terminal 100 .u~ nos 5 «x men mm ma am ow moa manuoa Am.oH. Am.~c “ems Am.mH. .m.~q. “my cmcusuwm Hos m m mm ma me Lo. uoz A¢.mH. as.oav Am.sm. A>.m~v Ammo .mv sea as ma hm pm me Ace cocusumm asuoa muoDMuumficaEc¢ mucsuasmcou Hmccomumm muonomoe mumnomoe nonsmoa uuommsm mococflocH mococfiocH sou no“: mucmccommmm mo waom an pocusumm uoz can cocusuom moufimccowumoso coosuom mfismcowumamm m mam<fi 101 TABLE 4 Number and Percent of Respondents by Educational Level Educational Level No. of Staff % of Total BA 48 32.7 MA 64 43.5 MA+ 30 20.4 EdS or above 5 3.4 Total 147 100.0 step on the salary scale for most employees. Almost 64% of the staff was at the master's and master‘Sjplus levels. Table 5 lists the level, including number and percent- age, at which respondents work. If preprimary and elemen- tary were combined, then the elementary and secondary levels were almost equal and comprised approximately 80% of the staff. The other 20% (approximately) worked at all. levels. The category “all levels“ included staff members such as diagnosticians, administrators, some program consultants and some low incidence teacher consultants whose responsibili- ties spanned more than one level. On the questionnaire, respondents were asked to indi- cate the professional development activities in which they engaged. The total number of activities reported by respondents was 313 because almost everyone participated in 102 TABLE 5 Number and Percent of Respondents by Level of Employment Level No. of Staff % of Total Preprimary 12 8.2 Elementary 48 32.6 Secondary 62 42.2 All Levels 25 17.0 Total 147 100.0 more than one activity. Attending workshops and inservices and reading professional books and journals were activities reported as engaged in most frequently. In addition, many respondents had taken college courses recently. Only four people reported no professional development activities. Even though professional development activities was mentioned in each of the five hypotheses, it will not be discussed with each hypothesis because no tests were con- ducted relating professional development activities to the labeling decisions. Comparison tests were not performed because everyone, with the exception of four people, en- gaged in at least two professional development activities. Many respondents indicated professional activities such as teaching courses, presenting workshops, and serving on pro- fessional committees in addition to the choices given on the 103 questionnaire. Because so many peOple participated in dif- ferent combinations of activities, no comparisons were possible. Table 6 lists the number of IEPCs and the number of respondents who attended that number of IEPCs during the month of April, 1985. The majority of respondents (70.1%) attended six or less IEPCs during the month. Eighteen people (12.2%) attended from 15 to 41 IEPCs during the month. TABLE 6 Number and Percent of Respondents by Number of IEPCs Attended in One Month Number of IEPCs Number of Staff % of Total 0 to 5 103 70.1 7 to 14 26 17.7 15 to 41 18 12.2 Total 147 100.0 In order to find out who attended IEPCs, a cross tabu- lation was done for role and number of IEPCs as shown in Table 7. The great majority of staff members, over 70%, attended from 0 to 6 IEPCs during April, 1985. Over two- thirds of those attending 0 to 6 IEPCs were teachers. The group that participated most heavily in IEPCs, over 15, was Administrators. This group included program consultants who chair IEPCs as one of their major job responsibilities. 104 TABLE 7 Crosstabulation of Role of Respondent and Number of IEPCs Attended in One Month Role Number of IEPCs Row 0 to 6 7 to 15 Over 15 Total High Incidence Teachere 46 13 3 62 Row % 74.2 21.0 4.8 42.2 Column % 44.7 41.9' 23.1 Low Incidence Teachers 25 2 0 27 Row % 92.6 7.4 0 18.4 Column % 24.3 6.5 0 Support Personnel 18 8 l 27 Row % 66.7 29.6 3.7 18.4 Column % 17.5 25.8 7.7 Teacher Consultants 8 5 0 13 Row % 61.5 38.5 0 8.8 Column % 7.8 16.1 0 Administrators 6 3 9 18 Row % 33.3 16.7 50.0 12.2 Column % 5.8 9.7 69.2 COLUMN TOTAL 103 31 13 147 COLUMN % 70.1 21.1 8.8 100.0 105 “Number of decisions in which professionals have been involved“ was mentioned in each of the 5 hypotheses. How- ever, number of decisions corresponds to “number of IEPCs in which respondents participatedd“ This factor was discussed in the previous section. This variable will not be analyzed in relation to each hypothesis because it has been shown to be so closely related to role. Rather, role will be analyzed for each hypothesis. Table 8 shows the year in which the last college course was taken by each respondent. About 65% of the respondents have taken a course within the last three years. TABLE 8 Number and Percent of Respondents by Year of Last College Course Year No. of Staff % of Total 1961 through 1964 3 2.0 1970 through 1973 12 8.2 1974 through 1977 12 8.2 1978 through 1981 20 13.6 1982 through 1985 95 64.6 Missing 5 3.4 Totals 147 100.0 Because the majority of respondents took a course with- in the 1ast three years, “year of last college course“ was 106 divided into two categories--before and after 1982. To find out who was taking college courses, a number of crosstabula- tions were done. Table 9 shows the crosstabulation of year of course and role» Teachers, including teacher consult- ants, took most of the courses after 1982 while support personnel took more courses before 1982. Table 10 shows the crosstabulation of year and course and educational level. People with MA degrees took most of the courses both before and after 1982. Table 11 shows the crosstabulation.of year of last course and level at which the respondent was working. One hundred percent of the preprimary teachers took courses after 1982. For the other three groups, about two-thirds of the respondents took courses after 1982. Table 12 shows the crosstabulation of year of last course and number of IEPCs participated in during April, 1985. IEPCs were divided into three categories--0 to 6,'7 to 15, and over 15. The 0 to 6 category contained the highest number of courses taken. Of these, most courses were taken after 1982.. This group has previously been shown to be teachers. The above 15 group, most of whom were administrators and program consultants, was evenly divided before and after 1982. From this information it is apparent that Lansing has a Special Education staff composed of professionals mostly at the MA and MA-I- educational levels, most of whom have been 107 «ca ca NH mm hm «m madaoa zzaqou m.mm o.m> o.¢¢ m.Hm o.Hh w cEsHoo m.m m.m m.HH «.mw m.m¢ m 30m mm m a HH mm «v mama um» c nonssz m.mv o.m~ o.mm m.mH o.mN m cEsHou m.¢H ¢.m m.am m.oH m.mm w 30m 5v 5 m ea m ma «mma ouomom monasz Hmuoa muousuumH:«Ep< mucmuasmcou Hmccomuom mumnomoa muonomoa wannabe uuommsm mocwnwocH oucoofiocH son swam mucoccommom mo oaom an onusou m mamCB omoaaoo ummq mo and» mo :ofiumasnmumwOuo Crosstabulation of Year of Last College Course 108 TABLE 10 by Educational Level of Respondents MA Ed.S. BA MA plus plus Total Number Befere 1982 14 21 10 2 47 Row % 29.8 44.7 21.3 4.3 Column % 29.2 35.0 34.5 40.0 Number After 1982 34 39 19 3 95 Row % 35.8 41.1 20.0 3.2 Column % 70.8 65.0 65.5 60.0 TOTAL 48 60 29 5 142 Crosstabulation of Year of Last College Course 109 TABLE 11 by Employment Level of Respondents Level Prepri- Elemen- Second- All mary tary ary levels Total Number Before 1982 0 16 23 8 47 Row % 0 34.0 48.9 17.0 Column % 0 34.8 37.1 34.8 Number After 1982 11 30 39 15 95 Row % 11.6 31.6 41.1 15.8 Column % 100.0 65.2 62.9 65.2 TOTAL 11 46 62 23 142 110 TABLE 12 Crosstabulation of Year of Last College Course by Number of IEPCs Attended Number of IEPCs 0 to 6 7 to 15 Over 15 Total Nu er Before 1982 33 8 6 47 Row % 70.2 17.0 12.8 Column % _ 32.0 29.6 50.0 Number After 1982 70 19 6 95 Row % 73.7 20.0 6.3 Column % 68.0 70.4 50.0 TOTAL 103 27 12 142 working for over 12 years. In addition, many of them regu- larly engaged in a number of professional development ac- tivities, and often this included taking a college course. The majority of professionals attended from 0 to 6 IEPCs during April, 1985. Analysis of Case Descriptions The SPSS subprogram MANOVA--repeated measures design (Nie et al., 1975) was used to analyze the case lll descriptions. Each respondent was asked to make two inde- pendent decisions about each of the 16 case descriptions. Thirty-two decisions were made. The decisions were: (1) On a continuum of 0 to 10, what is the likelihood that this student is Learning Disabled? (2) On a continuum of 0 to 10 what is the likelihood that this student is Educable Mental— ly Impaired? Sixteen cases were used because each of the two levels of the four variables was combined in all pos- sible ways with every other variable in a counterbalanced design as previously discussed and shown in Figure 5--Matrix of All Factor Combinations. For the analysis, cells were formed by grouping cases containing high and low levels of each of the four variables as shown in Figure 6. The means for the high and low levels of each of the four independent variables were computed for each of the two dependent variables. Then the low mean was subtracted from the high mean for the learning disabled label and for the educable mentally impaired label. The cells formed are shown in Figure 7. Thus, the eight categories of independent variables which were compared to themselves and to the demographic variables were: LD AD, LD VP, LD IQ, LD SES, EMI AD, EMI VP, EMI IQ, and EMI SES. Because the low mean was subtract- ed from the high mean, cases with negative ratings indicated that for a particular decision, LD or EMI, low cases were rated higher than high cases. If the mean was positive, high cases were rated more highly. 112 .manmfium> comm mo mam>og 30a was swam mcwcwmucou mommu .m ousmwm mousnc maaou aaaom mouns< aaaox wounsm houn5< aaaou umm maunu umm mwuau mango mama mango mama mason mama mason mama umm son yam songs: ofixosn cousmq huuow cousmq cousmq moses soq mason sag sou mouse :04 maEmn ova huuow maxomn oma huuow cog owxomn muuoo anus: sag anus: mums: henna mums: a»; oxomn anon mucus Moon csnom anon anon chaos ass canon «ma annex zoq swam seq swam sag swam sou swam msusum 0H mocmmmuomwp uow>mnon ofieocoooofioom 0H muom\uo> o>fiummc¢ 113 .mHHoU an mudguaum> unaccomoccu unmwm .5 ouamwm mam saw u sos mam Ham I swam mam saw as ass u 30s as saw u pass as Ham a> Ham n 30s soamamuomsa as a> Ham u amsa moamamuomaa as a> ass as sza u 30s aos>mawa m>saamoa aza . amsa Hoa>uama w>suamo< Hza mam as u 30s mam as I swam mam as as as u 30s as as I swam as as a> as n 3os soamamaumaa as a> as - amam soamamuomsa as a> as a< as u 30s aos>mama m>saasc< as u amaa uos>mama w>aaamca as ssmo saunas sosumsamsum> macs: assaumsaMsum> 114 Hypothesis 1 Along professionals there will be no significant dif- ferences in the tendency to be influenced by SES based on years of experience, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. When data were analyzed in terms of the influence of demographic variables on the labeling decisions, no signifi- cant differences were found at the .05 level. For this study, the .05 level of probability was chosen as the level of significance throughout. Years of Experience The multivariate tests in Table 13 indicate that years of experience were not significant in the labeling decisions. Role The multivariate tests in Table 14 indicate that role was not significant in the labeling decisions. Educat on Le e The multivariate tests in Table 15 show that educa- tional level was not significant in the labeling decisions. Thus, Hypothesis 1, that the influence of SES on the labeling decisions is not affected by years of experience, role, educational level, professional development activi- ties, or number of decisions in which professionals have been involved, is upheld. None of the demographic variables 115 TABLE 13 Tests of Significance for Totals Using Sequential Sums of Squares for Years of Experience of Respondents Mean Signifi- Source of Variation DF square F cance of F Within Cells 119 23.93462 Years of Experience 2 46.51397 1.94338 .14774 (Corrected Total) 121 24.30783 R-Squared = .03163 Adjusted R-Squared .01535 TABLE 14 Tests of Significance for Totals Using Sequential Sums of Squares by Role of Respondents Mean Signifi- Source of Variation DF square F cance of F Within Cells 118 24.28556 Role 4 31.32089 1.28969 .27802 (Corrected Total) 122 24.51623 R-Squared = .04189 Adjusted R-Squared .00941 116 TABLE 15 Tests of Significance for Totals Using Sequential Sums of Squares by Educational Level of Respondents Mean Signifi- Source of variation DF square F cance of F Within Cells 119 24.98760 Educational Level 3 5.81832 .23285 .87334 (Corrected Total) 122 24.51623 R-Squared = .00584 Adjusted R-Squared 0 had any influence on whether or not SES was a factor in the labeling decisions. Hypotheses 2 and 3 Because Hypothesis 2 and Hypothesis 3 are so‘closely related, the same statistical tests pertain to both hypothe- ses and the same tables apply in all cases. Therefore, Hypotheses 2 and 3 will be discussed together. HypoEQesie 2: With mild to moderately handicapped Learning Disabled and Educably Mentally Impaired students, the lower socioeconomic status students will tend to be labeled EMI by professionals regardless of years of experi- ence, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. 117 Hypptheeis 3: With mild to moderately handicapped LD and EMI students the higher SES students will tend to be labeled LD by professionals regardless of years of experi- ence, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. Years of Experience As shown in Table 16, the multivariate tests of the interaction of years of experience and the labeling deci- sions were found not to be significant at the p<.05 level. Throughout this study, all four multivariate tests will be shown in accordance with the recommendation of Barker and Barker (1984) that “their inclusion will enable the reader to evaluate hypotheses that may differ from those formulated by the investigator“ (p. 106). TABLE 16 Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=2, M=2—1/2, N=55) for Years of Experience and Labeling Decisions of Respondents Approx. Hypoth. Error Sig. of Test Name value F DF DF F P111818 .13493 1.023186 16.00 226.00 .43439 Hotellings .14605 1.01323 16.00 222.00 .44362 W11k8* .86907 1.01759 16.00 224.00 .43895 Roys** .09097 .47008 * F statistic for Wilk's lambda is exact. ** The probability for Roy's criterion may be inaccurate. 118 Even though the multivariate tests were not signifi- cant, individual univariate tests were done to see if any of the four independent variables were affected by years of experience. For this study, the Hummel and Sligo procedure was used as described in Barker and Barker (1984). In this procedure, univariate analysis of variance is routinely done after the multivariate analysis. Even though Barker and Barker do not advise using the univariate tests if the multivariate tests were not significant, that procedure was followed in this study because the univariate tests are more powerful than the multivariate tests and, therefore, some noteworthy relationships might become evident. The univariate tests for years of experience and label- ing decisions were not significant as shown in Table 17. TABLE 1 7 Univariate F Tests with (2, 119) D.F. for Years of Experience and Labeling Decisions of Respondents variable Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F LD AD 1.958933 3.52108 .55623 .57485 LD VP 4.76148 3.86732 1.23121 .29563 LD IQ 2.42489 4.97569 .48719 .61557 LD SES .20161 .95937 .21015 .81076 EMI AD 2.09294 1.57582 1.32816 .26886 EMI VP 1.66951 1.00709 1.65775 .19494 EMI IQ 4.24287 4.60966 .92043 .40116 EMI SES 1.41751 .66659 2.12652 .12376 119 Role As shown in Table 18, the multivariate tests of the influence of role on the labeling decisions were found not to be significant at the .05 level of probability. TABLE 18 Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=4, M=1-1/2, N=54-1/2) for Role and Labeling Decisions of Respondents Approx. Hypoth. Error Sig. of Test Name Value F DF DF F Pillais .33331 1.29533 32.00 456.00 .13315 Hotellings .38415 1.31451 32.00 438.00 .12085 Wilks .69953 1.30664 32.00 410.94 .12666 Roys* .17287 .13299 * The probability for Roy's criterion may be inaccurate. The univariate tests for role and labeling decisions as shown in Table 19 found SES‘not to be significant for either the LD or the EMI decision. Even though the SES decisions were not significant, the univariate tests for LD adaptive behavior and for LD verbal/performance IQ discrepancy were significant at the~.05‘alpha level. In order to find out which groups were influenced by LD adaptive behavior, indi- vidual means for the different groups were compared. Table 20 shows that special education teachers certified in low incidence disabilities and support personnel were more 120 Univariate F Tests with (4, 118) D.F. for Role and Labeling Decisions of Respondents variable Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F LD AD 12.44439 3.24005 3.84083 .00570* LD VP 10.10265 3.63975 2.77564 .03015* LD IQ 2.36621 5.00355 .47291 .75553 LD SES .04386 .97055 .04519 .99610 EMI AD 2.04063 1.58232 1.28964 .27804 EMI VP 1.06837 1.07099 .99577 .41182 EMI IQ 5.43246 4.55688 1.19214 .31791 EMI SES .37878 .72000 .52609 .71675 * p < .05 TABLE 20 Means and Standard Deviations for LD Adaptive Behavior by Role of Respondents Standard Role Mean Deviation N High Incidence Teachers .5315 1.9500 52 Low Incidence Teachers -.8942 1.6100 26 Support Personnel -.7772 2.0460 23 Teacher Consultants .0288 1.5547 13 Administrators .1667 .9598 15 121 likely to rate case descriptions low in adaptive behavior as LD than were other professionals. The table of means and standard deviations for VP IQ discrepancy, Table 21, shows that all groups rated case descriptions high in verbal/performance IQ discrepancy as LD but support personnel and administrators did so more than. other groups of professionals. 'Teachers certified in low incidence disabilities were much less influenced by VP IQ discrepancy than were other groups.‘ TABLE 21 Means and Standard Deviations for LD VP IQ Discrepancy by Role of Respondents Standard Role Mean Deviation N High Incidence Teachers 1.8630 2.2849 52 Low Incidence Teachers .7788 1.5622 26 Support Personnel 2.0272 1.4366 23 Teacher Consultants 1.8942 1.2664 13 Administrators 2.6333 2.0526 15 Edpcationai Leyei The multivariate tests for educational level and label- ing decisions were not significant at the .05 level of probability as shown in Table 22. The univariate tests as shown in Table 23 indicate that there are no statistically significant differences among 122 TABLE 22 Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=3, M=2, N=55) for Educational Level and Labeling Decisions of Respondents Univariate F Tests with (3, 119) D.F. Level Approx. Hypoth. Error Sig. of Test Name Value F DF DF F Pillais .28542 1.49831 24.00 342.00 .06442 Hotellings .33101 1.52632 24.00 332.00 .05635 Wilks .73570 1.51366 24.00 325.44 .06017 Roys .17321 .05960 TABLE 23 for Educational and Labeling Decisions of Respondents Variable Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F LD AD 3.88993 3.53306 1.10101 .35161 LD VP 18.10206 3.49236 5.12328 .00212* LD IQ 7.24091 4.85849 1.49036 .22069 LD SES .54806 .95005 .57687 .63131 EMI AD .31551 1.6296 .19360 .90058 EMI VP 1.49671 1.06017 1.41176 .2427? EMI IQ 11.68921 4.40650 2.65272 .05181* EMI SES .28549 .71948 .39680 .75554 * p < .05 123 educators with different levels of education in the effect of SES on their ratings. However, LD VP IQ discrepancy was significant and EMI IQ was marginally significant. When the individual means were compared in Table 24, it was apparent that professionals at the MA and MA+ educational levels gave cases high in VP IQ discrepancy higher LD ratings than did professionals with a BA degree. TABLE 24 Means and Standard Deviations for Educational Level and LD VP IQ Discrepancy Labeling Decisions of Respondents Standard Educational Level Mean Deviation N BA .8778 1.3797 44 MA 2.1875 2.1250 54 MA+ 2.3705 1.9213 28 EdS or Above 1.5833 2.6732 3 Table 25 shows that high IQ influenced all groups to be less likely to rate case descriptions as EMI. MA and EdS and above educational levels were especially influenced. However, there were only 5 professionals at the Eds and above level. When all the multivariate and univariate tests were taken into account, Hypothesis 2, that low SES students would tend to be labeled EMI by professionals regardless of 124 TABLE 25 Means and Standard Deviations for Educational Level and EMI IQ Labeling Decisions of Respondents Standard Educational Level Mean Deviation N BA -4.5744 1.9816 42 MA -4.9653 2.3929 54 E68 or Above -6.5250 3.0406 5 years of experience, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved, was not upheld in this study. Hypothe- sis 3, that high SES students would tend to be labeled LD by professionals regardless of years of experience, role, edu- cational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved, was not upheld either. Rather, socioeconomic status was not a significant factor in either the LD or the EMI labeling decision. Hypotheeis 4 Of the fOur independent variables--adaptive behavior, ‘verballperformance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and socioeconomic status-~the most variance will be accounted for by verbal/ performance IQ discrepancy and IQ combined. 125 a. Students with 108 above 70 and a difference of 15 or more points on verbal/performance IQ discrepancy will tend to be labeled LD bprrofessionals regard- less of number of years of experience, role, educa- tional level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. b. Students with 108 below 70 and a difference of 8 or less points on verbal/performance IQ discrepancy will tend to be labeled EMI by professionals re- gardless of number of years experience, role, edu- cational level, professional development activi- ties, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. When all categories were collapsed so that only the eight variables--LD AD, LD VP, LD IQ, LD SES, EMI AD, EMI VP, EMI IQ, EMI SES-~were considered, the multivariate tests were all significant as shown in Table 26. In order to see which of the eight variables were significant, univariate tests were done. Table 27 shows that for the LD decision, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy and IQ were statistically significant, and for the EMI decision, adaptive behavior, IQ, and SES were statistically significant. In order to assess the relative importance of each of these factors, individual means were computed as shown in Table 28. Because the high mean was subtracted from the low 126 TABLE 26 Multivariate Tests of Significance (S=l, M=3, N=56-1/2) for All Labeling Decisions of Respondents Exact Hypoth. Error Sig. of Test Name value F DF DF F Pillais .89198 118.70176 8.00 115.00 0* Hotellings 8.25751 118.70178 8.00 115.00 0* Wilks .10802 118.70178 8.00 115.00 0* Roys .89198 0* * p < .05 TABLE 27 Univariate F Tests with (l, 119) D.F. for the Labeling Decisions of Respondents variable Hypoth. MS Error MS F Sig. of F LD AD 1.42734 3.54184 .40299 .54674 LD VP 390.81758 3.85165 101.46760 0* LD IQ 217.33537 4.91708 44.20012 0* LD SES .01829 .94017 .01946 .88929 EMI AD 99.04586 1.59734 62.00658 0* EMI VP 2.89647 1.07090 2.70469 .10263 EMI IQ 3287.29281 4.58559 716.87509 0* EMI SES 4.63429 .70881 6.53808 .01178* * p < .05 127 TABLE 28 Means and Standard Deviations for Each Significant Variable Standard Variable Mean Deviation N LD VP 1.7695 1.9635 128 LD IQ 1.3340 2.1943 128 EMI AD - .9380 1.3094 127 EMI 10 -5.1171 2.2254 127 EMI SES .1939 .8219 127 mean, the difference between each mean and zero is of interest. For the Learning Disabilities decision, case descrip- tions with high VP IQ discrepancy were marked an average of 1.7695 points higher than were cases with low VP IQ discrep- ancy. Also for the LD decision, the case descriptions with high IQ were marked an average of 1.3340 points higher than cases with low IQ. The negative ratings for EMI AD and EMI IQ indicate that cases with low levels of adaptive behavior and IQ were rated higher than cases with high levels of those factors. For the EMI decision, case descriptions with low adaptive behavior were rated an average of .9 points higher than those with high adaptive behavior. Also for the EMI decision, cases with low IQ were rated an average of 5.1171 points higher than cases with high IQ. Case 128 descriptions high in SES were rated an average of .1939 points higher than cases with low SES for the EMI decision. In view of the above results, Hypothesis 4a is ac- cepted. High IQ, defined as above 70 for this study, and high verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, defined as a differ- ence of 15 or more points on the WISC-R for this study, were very influential in choosing the LD label regardless of years of experience, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which professionals have been involved. Hypothesis 4b is partial-— 1y accepted. Low IQ did lead to the EMI label, but verbal/ performance IQ discrepancy was not significant for the EMI label. Low adaptive behavior, however, led to the EMI label. High SES resulted in a slight tendency to rate students EMI also. Hypothesis 5 With mild to moderately handicapped LD and EMI stu- dents, adaptive'behavior'will have less effect than‘will SES or IQ or verbal/performance IQ discrepancy on the labeling decision for professionals regardless of years of experi- ence, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which they have been involved. As previously shown in Tables 26, 27, and 28, IQ and verbal/performance IQ discrepancy had a significant effect on the LD labeling decision. 'These same tables have also shown that adaptive behavior had an effect in that low 129 adaptive behavior led professionals to rate cases more EMI. Therefore, hypothesis 5 is partially accepted since IQ and VP IQ discrepancy had a greater effect than adaptive behav- ior, but adaptive behavior did have a significant effect on the EMI labeling decision. Thus, adaptive behavior was not the least important variable as had been expected. Summary The results of this study may be summarized as follows: 1. The influence of SES on the labeling decisions was not affected by the demographic variables years of experi- ence, role, educational level, professional development activities, or number of decisions in which the profes- sional has been involved. 2. High SES did not result in a tendency to label the student LD, nor did low SES result in a tendency to label the student EMI when labeling decisions were con- sidered in relation to demographic variables. 3. Of the four variables investigated--adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and SES--the LD decision was influenced most by high verbal/performance IQ discrepancy and high IQ (defined as above 70). 4. Of the four variables investigated, the EMI decision was influenced most by low IQ (defined as below 70) and impaired adaptive behavior. 5. There was a tendency for high SES to result in the EMI label when variables were considered independently. 130 The implications of these results will be discussed in detail in Chapter V. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary The problem of labeling students for special education is of paramount importance in the field today. With the mild to moderate high incidence categories of Educable Mentally Impaired (EMI) and Learning Disabled (LD), the choice between labels is often unclear. This study investi- gated four factors--adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and socioeconomic status (SES)—-that influ- ence the choice between the LD and EMI labels. Three of the four factors were chosen because they are cited in the Michigan Speciai Educa§ien Rulee_for eligi- bility as LD or EMI. To be labeled LD, a student must show a near normal IQ and a significant discrepancy between achievement and abilityu For this study, discrepancy was indicated by high verbal/performance IQ discrepancy (over 15 points) on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children- Revised (WISC-R). To be labeled EMI, a student must show impaired adaptive behavior and intellectual development approximately two to three standard deviations below the mean. The fourth factor, socioeconomic status, is specifi- cally prohibited in the rules from being a sole determinant. 131 132 In this study, the influence of these four factors was related to demographic characteristics of the staff includ- ing years of experience, role, educational level, profes- sional development activities and number of decisions in which the professionals have been involved. It is important to understand that the study was concerned with the opinions of staff members about the factors that influence labeling. It was not concerned with numbers of children from different socioeconomic levels that were actually labeled LD or EMI. It was hypothesized that the influence of SES on the labeling decisions would not be affected by demographic variables: high SES students would be labeled LD; low SES students would be labeled EMI: a combination of an IQ above 70 and a verbal/performance IQ discrepancy of over 15 points would lead to the LD label; a combination of an IQ below 70 and low verbal/performance IQ discrepancy would lead to the EMI label; and adaptive behavior would have less effect on the labeling decisions than would the other three factors. Literature in five different areas was reviewed. First, documentation was presented that indicated that low socioeconomic status and minority students have historically been overrepresented in the EMI category. Two points of view were discussed regarding the cause of the overrepresen- tation. One group of scholars believed the overrepresenta- tion was caused by cultural/social factors, and thus mental retardation is an ascribed social status. A second group believed medical reasons primarily related to a lack of 133 proper nutrition, and hence, impaired brain development caused the problem. Second, the revised definition of the American Associa- tion on Mental Deficiency (AAMD) was discussed in which the upper limit of mental retardation was reduced from an IQ of 85 to one of 70 and adaptive behavior was emphasized. In addition, court cases alleging that low SES and minority students had been unfairly placed in EMI classes were re— viewed. A number of adaptive behavior scales were commented upon and the controversy that surrounds the measurement of adaptive behavior was addressed. Third, literature relating to the lack of consensus on a definition for learning disabilities was presented. Studies were reviewed that concluded that there are no common eligibility standards, and that there is a great deal of confusion about what a learning disability is and how it should be measured. A fourth area reviewed concerned re- search studies on socioeconomic status, race, and special class placement. The majority of these studies found that low SES and racial minority membership did lead to special class placement. The studies covered a wide range of disci- plines from the field of medicine to the social sciences. The fifth area reviewed was decision making. Several studies done at the Institute for Learning Disabilities in Minnesota were reviewed. These studies concluded that not only are the outcomes in labeling students LD unclear but the process by which the students are labeled is also nebu- 134 lous. Researchers have largely been unable to determine how or why special education placement decisions are made. A participant observation study (Bloom, 1980) that did yield some useful information was reviewed. In this study it was, found that parents were largely disenfranchised and there were many unwritten rules operating during team meetings. To obtain information about the relationship between factors that influence the labeling decisions, a question- naire was administered to the 248 members of the Lansing School District Special Education professional staff. The questionnaire consisted of two parts. First, demographic data were requested from participants including years of experience, role, educational level, professional develop- ment activities, and number of decisions in which the pro- fessional has been involved. Second, 16 hypothetical case descriptions of first, second, and third graders who were said to be achieving significantly below grade level were presented to the par- ticipants. The case descriptions were designed so that each factor was portrayed as high (present) or low (absent). When each of the two levels of the four factors was combined in all possible ways, 16 case descriptions resulted. (Re- spondents were asked to make two decisions about each case description: (1) On a continuum of 0 to 10, what is the likelihood that this student is Learning Disabled? (2) On a continuum of 0 to 10, what is the likelihood that this 135 student is Educable Mentally Impaired? Thus, 32 responses were requested from each participant. Just over 59% of the questionnaires were returned in this study. Demographic data were analyzed by the Statisti- cal Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, Nie et al., 1975), Crosstabs, and Condescriptive subprograms. Case descriptions were analyzed by SPSS Multivariate Analysis of Variance--repeated measures design (Nie et al., 1975). Major findings of this study were: Lansing staff mem- bers have been special educators an average of twelve years (standard deviation, just over 5 years). Staff members were about equally divided between elementary and secondary levels and everyone engaged in a number of professional development activities including taking college courses. Over 65% of the staff members, mostly teachers, have taken a course within the last three years. There is great variety in number of IEPCs attended, but about 70% of the staff, again mostly teachers, attended from 0 to 6 IEPC meetings in April, 1985. In the opinion of the professionals who participated in this study, there was no difference in the influence of SES on the labeling decisions based on demographic characteris- tics of the staff. In fact, when considered in relation to demographic data, SES was not a significant factor in the decision to choose between the LD or EMI labels. Of the four variables investigated, the LD decision was most in- fluenced by high verbal/performance IQ discrepancy and high 136 IQ (defined as above 70). For the EMI decision, low IQ (defined as below'70) and low adaptive behavior were most influential. There was a slight tendency for SES to lead to the EMI label. Discussion of Results Introduction Results of the analysis of data will be discussed in this chapter under three main headings. JFirst, results of the demographic data will be considered. Second, the label- ing decisions will be addressed under the following subsec- tions: (1) socioeconomic status (SES) considered in relation to demographic characteristics, (2) significant variables considered in relation to demographic character- istics, and (3) significant independent variables. Third, the process of decision making for Lansing professionals will be explored. Demographic Data Results of the demographic data indicate that the average professional staff member in Lansing has been a special educator for just over twelve years, seven of those in the present role» Over one half the staff has been in the field for six to fifteen years. Most of Lansing's first year staff members are preprimary teachers. Staff members work in about equal proportions between elementary and secondary levels, about 40% each, with the remaining 20%, mostly diagnosticians and administrators, working at all 137 levels. Most staff members, over 60%, have master's degrees. Everyone engages in a number of professional develop- ment activities. In fact, because everyone engages in so many of the same activities, it was decided that no useful distinctions between type of activity, demographic data, and labeling decisions could be made. In many cases respondents listed activities on the questionnaire such as presenting at workshops, committee membership, and leadership roles in professional organizations. As a part of this question, respondents were asked when they took their last college course. Over 65% have taken a course in the last three years. Thus, professional development seems to be important to respondents. Because the majority of respondents had taken college courses after 1982, crosstabulations were done by year of course (before and after 1982) and demographic data. When crosstabulations were done by role and year, it was evident that teachers took most of the courses after 1982. One group that noticeably did not take courses after 1982 was the support group. Eleven of that group were physical therapists (P.T.s) and occupational therapists (O.T.s), most of whom end their education with the bachelor's degree. Apparently once a degree is earned, status in the field is attained by membership in professional organizations and professional certification, rather than by a master's degree. 138 A group that conspicuously did take courses after 1982 is preprimary teachers of whom 100% are taking courses now probably to enable them to meet certification requirements. This past year all but one of the preprimary teachers were newly hired. There was great variety in the number of Individualized Educational Planning Committee (IEPC) meetings attended. When crosstabulations were done by number of IEPCs attended and role, it was evident that program consultants attended the most IEPCs. Since chairing IEPCs is a major responsi- bility for them, this is understandable. Most teachers attended 0 to 6 IEPCs in April. It should be pointed out that April is not a typical month for number of IEPCs held because it is the beginning of transition IEPCs during which students are advanced to the next level for the following year. Staff members did not return questionnaires in equal proportions. Teachers had the best rate of return, approxi— mately 70%. However, “teachers“ were not a homogeneous group. There were actually four groups of teachers. They were: (1) classroom teachers certified in high incidence disabilities, (2) classroom teachers certified in low inci- dence disabilities, (3) teacher consultants who are primari- ly diagnosticians, and (4) program consultants who perform quasi-administrative duties even though they are certified teachers. Because they perform similar functions, for the 139 analysis of data program consultants were grouped with ad- ministrators. Support personnel had the poorest rate of return. Psy- chologists and social workers returned only about 30% of the questionnaires sent to them while speech therapists, P.T.s, and OJLs returned about 50% of the questionnaires. Several P.T.s and O.T.s said they did not return the questionnaires because they did not feel qualified to make labeling deci- sions. Several psychologists and social workers said they could not participate because the information in the case descriptions was too inadequate to make a decision. The poor rate of return by support personnel who attend a great many IEPC's and for whom assessment and diagnosis are major responsibilities, means conclusions about labeling decisions must be tenuous. If there is such a person, the average Lansing profes- sional is a teacher who has been a special educator for about 12 years, seven of those in the present role. This person has a master's degree and has taken a college course since 1982. He/she also reads professional books and jour- nals, attends workshops and inservices, and participated in about six IEPCs in April, 1985. L b ’ D cis ns Socioeconomic Stetus Censidered ip Relation to D no r c C r c eris s The results of this study support the position that in Lansing socioeconomic status is not a significant factor in 140 the decision to label a student Learning Disabled or Educable Mentally Impaired when decisions are considered in terms of years of experience, role, or educational level. The majority of authors and researchers (MacMillan, 1982; Mercer, 1973: Heller, 1982; Bergan & Smith, 1966: Neer, Foster, Jones & Reynolds, 1973) have shown that most EMI students are also of low SES. The literature (Scarr- Salapatek, 1971; Franks, 1971; Prillaman, 1971: Lanier & Wittmer, 1977) also shows a connection between race and EMI status which is pertinent because most low SES EMI students are also of racial minorities. Several studies (Kealy & McLeod, 1978: Gelb, 1984) indicate that high SES led to the LD label. Yet for the professionals surveyed in this study, that is not the case. When SES is considered in terms of years of experience, role, and educational level, it makes no difference in the labeling decision. There are several possible reasons for this result. First, perhaps overrepresentation of Blacks and low SES students has not existed historically in Lansing, and there- fore has never had to be addressed as a problem. Heller (1982) has shown that the majority of EMI students are also minorities. It is easy to see which students are members of minority groups. In Lansing, the December 1, 1984 special education student count showed that of the EMI students, 32% were Black, 61% were white and 7% were other. Of the LD students, 31% were Black, 55% were white and 14% were other. EMI students accounted for 10.6% of the total special educa- 141 tion students and LD accounted for 32.8% of the total. Of all special education students in all categories, 26.8% were Black, a percentage that compares favorably to the 30% Black students in the Lansing School District overall. Thus Blacks are not overrepresented in special education in Lansing. Both Heller (1982) and Broman (1975) have shown that minority status is linked to low SES. Conceivably because Blacks are not overrepresented, low SES is not a factor with which Lansing professionals are forced to deal. According to Heller (1982), there is the least amount of overrepresen- tation of Blacks in the midwest. “The midwest is even more homogeneous, with all average disproportion indexes near zero“ (p. 338). A second point is that this study concerns decision making and opinion on the part of professionals. It does not concern actual numbers of identified EMI students who might be of low SES. 'This study shows that in the Opinion of the professionals in Lansing who participated, SES, as portrayed in the case descriptions, was not important in the decision to label a student LD or EMI when considered in terms of demographic characteristics. While indicating SES by occupation in hypothetical case descriptions is commonly done, (Ysseldyke, 1980) it is possible that the SES state- ments in the case descriptions were so obvious that people consciously avoided letting them influence their decisions even though in real life, SES might be a factor. 'The case 142 description/questionnaire approach, as used in this study, does not allow subtle influences to be measured. Bloom (1980) certainly found SES to be important in very subtle ways. Perhaps people were reacting as they think they should, not as they really would. Third, there are several community wide social trends that may actively impact the opinions of professionals. Lansing is the seat of state government and as such it has a tradition of affirmative action and sensitivity to minori— ties. It is also the home of Michigan State University. By virtue of working in a university community, Lansing profes- sionals can be expected to be more aware of recent research, teaching techniques, and crucial issues in education than other professionals might be. Still another relevant factor might be that in the early 1970's the Lansing School District was desegregated by court order. It was found that elementary schools were racially segregated due to neighbor- hood racial patterns. To achieve desegregation, the schools were divided into upper and lower elementary buildings, and students were bussed out of their neighborhood to another school for racial integration. After the initial period of unrest, the situation has been accepted. Thus there has been a history in the schools of attention to minority issues. It is very likely that these factors, and probably others, have converged so that in the opinion of profession- als in Lansing, high or low SES should not be an important 143 factor in the decision to label a student LD or EMI. How- ever, several other variables were significant. Significant Variabies Considered in Relatien to Demegrephie Characeeristics When labeling decisions were considered by role, LD adaptive behavior (LD AD) and LD verbal/performance IQ dis- crepancy (LD VP) were significant. When decisions were considered by educational level, LD VP and EMI IQ were significant. No variables were significant when considered by years of experience. Each variable will be discussed individually. Role and LD Adeptiye Behavior: LD AD was significant for teachers endorsed in low incidence areas and for support personnel. Those two groups rated cases low in adaptive behavior as more LD than did other groups. One would expect low adaptive behavior to result in the EMI, not the LD, label. However, since they do not regularly work with this population, teachers endorsed in low incidence disabilities would not be expected to be as familiar with the qualifica- tions necessary for LD classification as would certain other groups of professionals. From the low adaptive behavior case descriptions, it was obvious something was wrong with the student, but perhaps the 10's in the upper 603 seemed too high to label the student EMI, so they chose the LD label. Thus the label choice could be a result of not knowing the rules for LD classification. 144 The support personnel group included four psycholo- gists, three social workers, nine speech therapists, seven O.T.s and four P.T.s. Two things could have happened. First, this group as a whole could be expected to have had very little, if any, classroom teaching experience even though it is possible that some members of the group were classroom teachers before becoming certified in their pres- ent role. Ferrazzara (1983) found that professionals with- out classroom teaching experience made very different deci- sions from those with teaching experience. In her study, psychologists without classroom experience were particularly different. Their lack of classroom teaching experience could have led support group personnel to make decisions not in accord with what is expected. Second, members of the group, other than psychologists and social workers, might be unfamiliar with the qualifica- tions for LD and EMI students with respect to adaptive behavior. The four psychologists and three social workers who returned questionnaires should be very familiar with the rules for qualifying students. However, the P.T.s and O.T.s who made up the majority of the group could not be expected to be familiar with general special education rules because they perform a specific function, usually with students in low incidence categories. Also, P.T.s and O.T.s attend IEPCs to describe their services only if their services will be needed, but they generally do not actively participate in 145 the eligibility decision since the provision of their serv- ices does not depend on the classification of the student. Speech therapists in Lansing are a mixed group. Some of them work exclusively with and are familiar with high incidence disabilities while others work exclusively with and are familiar with low incidence disabilities. They are assigned to one area or the other and do not work with both at the same time although they might have worked with both high and low incidence disabilities at some time in their careers. As a group, they probably fall between psycholo- gists/social workers and P.T/O.T.s in their knowledge of eligibility criteria. gpie and LD yerbaiZPerformance IQ Discrepancy: LD VP IQ discrepancy was statistically significant when considered by role. All groups rated case descriptions high in VP IQ discrepancy as LD but support personnel and administrators were most influenced while low incidence teachers were least influenced. According to eligibility criteria in the Michi- gan Rules, it is to be expected that VP IQ discrepancy would lead to the LD label, but the large differences due to role are interesting. Low incidence teachers only rated high cases an average of .7 points higher than low cases, while support personnel rated high cases an average of 2.0 points higher than low cases and administrators rated them an average of 2.6 points higher. There was a difference of almost two points on a scale of 0 to 10 between the ratings of low incidence teachers and administrators. Here again, 146 perhaps the low incidence teachers are less familiar with the LD and EMI eligibility rules than other groups, and therefore they were less influenced by VP IQ discrepancy. For the support personnel and administrators/program con- sultants, VP IQ discrepancy was very important in the LD decision. Ed c t na Le nd LD V rba P rf rm nc I D s- crepancy: When decisions were considered by educational level, VP IQ discrepancy was much more important for profes- sionals at the master's degree and master's degree plus levels. They rated high cases an average of more than two points higher than low cases while professionals with bache- lom's degrees rated high cases an average of only .8 points higher than low cases. It is to be expected that high VP IQ discrepancy would lead to the LD label, but this difference was more influential for professionals with master's degrees than for those with bachelom's degrees. It is not surpris- ing that professionals with master's degrees believe LD VP IQ discrepancy is very important. Almost all professionals in Lansing endorsed in learning disabilities have master's degrees. When the category first became part of the rules many teachers returned to school for certification, but at that time, locally, it was not possible to become certified without obtaining a master's degree. Since then, under- graduate programs have been instituted but there have been few opportunities in the district to hire new teachers. 147 Thus in Lansing with its older staff, almost all LD teachers have master's degrees. Educational Level end EMI IQ: The second significant variable for educational level was EMI IQ. 4All groups rated case descriptions with low'IQ as.EMI but professionals at the master's degree plus and Educational Specialist and above levels did so particularly. It is to be expected that low IQ would lead to the EMI label but the differences between groups are significant. Many of the master's plus staff members were originally endorsed EMI and one would expect them to know the eligibility'rules. In fact, many people from this group became endorsed in LD later. There certainly are very few EMI endorsed first year teachers in Lansing. The drop in numbers of EMI students led to a need to recertify EMI teachers in other disabilities that have rising numbers, not to a need to hire more. The high rat- ings of EdS and above professionals resulted form a group of only five people. Significant Indepepdent variables When data were collapsed into classification categories alone, without respect to demographic variables, all multi- variate tests were significant. Of the eight variables, LD AD, LD VP, LD IQ, LD SES, EMI AD, EMI VP, EMI IQ, EMI SES, five, LD VP, LD IQ, EMI AD, EMI IQ, and EMI SES, were significant. High LD verbal/performance IQ discrepancy and high IQ led to the LD label: low adaptive behavior and low 148 IQ led to the EMI label; high SES resulted in a slight tendency toward the EMI label. Each result will be dis- cussed individually. LD V rb P r r no I D cr : Cases high in VP IQ discrepancy were rated an average of 1.7 points higher than cases low in VP discrepancy by all professionals. LD VP IQ discrepancy was also significant for professionals by role and by educational level as previously discussed. In spite of the cautions of Banas (1984) and Kaufman (1979) about using discrepancy criteria to qualify students for LD, it seems that Lansing professionals are very much influenced by VP IQ discrepancy as are many other professionals. Even though it may not be the best way to establish qualifica- tions for LD, it seems to be commonly used. It is important to keep in mind that there are many other factors that might affect the LD labeling decision that were not part of this study. For example, if reading achievement, not VP IQ discrepancy, is the real reason Lansing professionals label students LD, that would not be apparent from this study. Based on this study, it can only be said that of adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and SES, high verbal/performance IQ discrepancy influences profes- sionals toward the LD label. LD IQ: cases high in IQ were rated an average of 1.3 points higher for the LD decision than were cases low in IQ. Therefore, IQ made a significant difference for the labeling 149 decision in the expected direction. Full scale IQ in the case descriptions varied from 84 to 92 (a difference of 8 points) for the high cases, and from 56 to 68 (a difference of 12 points) for the low cases. The difference between the top of the low group and the bottom of the high group was 16 points which was greater than the difference between the top and bottom of each group. Therefore, the high group was very different from the low group. IQ was extremely im- portant to professionals in their labeling decision. Thus the two criteria of VP IQ discrepancy and relatively high IQ together resulted in the LD label as specified in the Michi- gan Rules. EMI Adaptive Behavior: For the EMI decision, cases low in adaptive behavior were rated an average of .9 points higher than the high cases. Professionals were significant- ly affected by adaptive behavior for the EMI decision, and they were affected in the expected direction as specified in the Michigan Rules for EMI eligibility; Lansing profes— sionals do seem to recognize and subscribe to the importance of impaired adaptive behavior, at least as presented in the case descriptions, for qualifying EMI students. However, the fact that impaired adaptive behavior led to the LD label for low incidence teachers and support personnel, when data were considered by role, illustrates the confusion that surrounds understanding and measuring adaptive behavior. 150 ‘EM;_;Q: For the EMI decision, IQ made a significant difference for professionals. Cases with low IQ were rated an average of more than 5 points higher than cases with high IQ. Therefore, the combination of low IQ and low adaptive behavior as specified in the eligibility criteria in the Michigan Rules led to the EMI label. EMI IQ was also sig- nificant by educational level. As expected, low IQ led to the EMI label while high IQ led to the LD label. EMI Socioeconomic Status: Itis curious that cases high in SE5 were rated an average of .19 points higher than cases low in SES for the EMI decision. Because low cases were subtracted from high cases, the difference from zero is of interest. If cases were evenly rated, the difference between the high and low cases would be zero. Even though .19 is not very different from zero, it did prove to be statistically significant. Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1980) conducted a study in which some aspects of the design were similar to the present study. They used multivariate analysis of variance in their computer simulation study of decision making in referrals. Their sample of 83 professionals was randomly assigned to one of 16 cases differing in referral statements. As in this study, they had two levels of four variables-(l) sex, (1) SES, (3) attractiveness, and (4) behavioral vs. academic reason for referral. Participants were then asked to choose information and make four decisions--(l) eligibility (yes or no), and extent to which the child was, (2) LD, (3) EMI, or 151 (4) emotionally disturbed (EI). They set the level of significance at .05, but also, “an additional criterion of at least a 0.5 unit difference between means was established in an attempt to separate trivial from important outcomes" (p. 5). If one were to apply this criterion to the EMI SES .19 difference in means, the difference may not be important. It is possible that professionals have become so at- tuned to the fact that SES should not influence their deci- sions that they overreact and rate cases high in SES as EMI. Argulewicz (1983) found that mid-high SES Blacks were actually underrepresented in the EMI category. He specu- lated that this was due to public criticism of minority overrepresentation and court decisions against placement of Blacks as EMI. Perhaps there is a backlash effect against labeling low SES students EMI. It is also important to keep in mind that SES had no influence on the labeling decisions when considered in terms of years of experience, role or educational level. Decision Making Lansing professionals seem to be trying very hard to follow the rules in decision making. They seem to be most influenced by factual data--IQ scores and VP IQ discrepancy. The fact that IQ information appears to be so important is in agreement with Smith and Knoff (1981) when they found that IQ “tips the balance' (p. 55). 'Their results indicated that once IQ information was given, further problem solving 152 attempts ceased. In a subsequent study, Knoff (1983) learned that classroom observation was most important to professionals when given a list of traits to order. Knoff (1983) concluded that his results refuted the importance of IQ, but perhaps not. The Knoff study dealt with lists of traits in isolation. It is very possible that professionals would not rate IQ highly on a list of traits, but that it would be influential when considering an actual child. Reschly and Lamprecht's (1979) study is germaine. They found that labels result in expected outcomes unless the subject has had a chance to view the child. In fact, the longer subjects viewed the child, the more realistic their predictions were. Probably what happens is that the more professionals view an actual child, the more factors they take into account in making a decision that fits that par- ticular case. This would agree with Ferrazzara (1984) who found that professionals with teaching experience made bet- ter decisions about children than those with no teaching experience. If one is teaching the child, one has ample opportunity to view the child. Even though professionals may order a list of traits in a way they think they should, when they rate a hypothetical child a different set of internal guidelines may become ascendant. When they view and decide about an actual child, still a third set of standards may become dominant. Kaplan (1977) discussed judgment on the part of humans in general. He referred to the “zone of ambiguity“ in 153 judgment tasks as the area "between that which can be ob- served and that which must be inferred because it cannot be observed" (p. 3). We base judgments on observable cues but we infer the reason behind the cues because it cannot be observed. Boucher (1981) also talked about ambiguity. She explained that teachers try to reduce ambiguity when per- ceiving others. We make what we see fit into our system of beliefs. Kaplan also maintained that in judgments dealing with social values, we must separate the facts from the social values, especially when scientific facts are en- tangled with social values. When making labeling decisions we try to rely on scientific facts such as IQ scores when a number of social values, our feelings about labels and IQ scores, are actually operating. To Kaplan, when human observers are unable to combine evidence efficiently, they rely more or less consistently on one source when there is conflicting evidence from two sources. The case descriptions which professionals rated were full of conflicts. What they seemed to do was sort out and rely on the factual information as much as possible. This point of view agrees with Salvia and Meisel (1980) when they proposed that people apply simple or complex rules to reduce the information they perceive so that they can sort, store, categorize, and then use the information available to them. Apparently this happened in the present study. For these case descriptions, it appears that Lansing profes- sionals sought out and based decisions on the IQ and VP IQ 154 discrepancy information as much as possible. They used adaptive behavior to fill in the gaps but stayed away from SES as much as possible. In the opinion of Lansing profes- sionals, the “hard“ data are most important. Conclusions Based on the findings of this study, several conclu- sions seem to be in order. Fir c c a does ot a ear t be as 'nf u n 'a a ' d ' 'o as traditionally it hes been eheugnt te ee. In this study, using the case description approach, in the opinion of professionals who participated, SES when considered in terms of demographic data was not highly influential in the deci- sion to choose between the LD and EMI labels. The high status case descriptions did not tend to be labeled LD disproportionately, nor did the low status case descriptions tend to be labeled EMI disproportionately. Even though the literature shows the EMI label to be highly correlated with low SES, that did not appear to be the case in this study. The literature shows a correlation between the LD label and high SES much less strongly, but at least at the level of folklore in the profession, the two have been thought to be closely related. Yet in this study, the labeling decisions were not influenced by SES when considered in relation to the demographic characteristics of the respondents. In terms of judgment and opinion, when analyzed by role, years 155 of experience, and educational level, socioeconomic status did not appear to be important in the labeling decisions. However, SES was influential when variables were considered without regard to demographic characteristics. In that case, high SES led to a slight tendency toward the (EMI label. Perhaps respondents were so concerned with not letting low SES influence their decisions that they overreacted and tended to rate high SES cases as EMI. There has been a great deal written about minority and low SES overrepresentation in the EMI category of special education, and there have been numerous court cases alleging unfair labeling. It has been implied that this overrepre- sentation was aided by attitudes of professionals, but this does not seem to be borne out by this study. When asked to respond to case studies, these professionals were not great- ly influenced by socioeconomic status. Sec nd ' ib 't cr t r‘a s c ' d M' i an S ec' Educ t'on Ru s s d r 'd t ba or deciding beeueen the LD end EMI 1ebels. For the LD deci- sion, significant discrepancy and near normal IQ‘were the major influences. For the EMI decision low IQ and impaired adaptive behavior were the two most influential criteria. In spite of the difficulty in measuring impaired adaptive behavior, respondents recognized specific behaviors that indicated impairment in this area. It seems that respond- ents are familiar with the Michigan Rules and endorse their 156 credibility. They seem to agree that the rules are “right" and they will use them to make decisions. Third, ge eeem t9 heye eenfieeeg fee; end opinioe ehen tr ino o n . -r ,- a or: q-t ' , -1 - :o-i'no deci- eieee. In the opinion of the professionals who participated in this study, SES was not of major importantance in choos- ing between the LD and EMI labels. If, in fact, most EMI students are of low status and most LD students are of high status in Lansing, as seems to be the case nationwide, then either opinions change during the group IEPC meeting or low status students do actually fit the EMI eligibility criteria. We need to know which situation is occurring. If Opinions change during team meetings, then we need to know why and how. If, in fact, low status students do fit the EMI criteria, then we want to be sure we provide service. We have been so attuned in the field to reducing unfair overrepresentation of low SES and minority students, that we may have denied services to some students who qualify. Recommendations Based on the results of this study, several recommenda- tions appear to be in order. F'r r e ca 0 d r' r ed. The local district needs to foster research efforts by encourag- ing professionals to participate more fully in research. Obviously, participation in research by professionals cannot be coerced, but we will not advance knowledge in the field 157 unless research efforts are actively encouraged. Some groups of professionals in this study did not return ques- tionnaires at a desirable rate. Only 30% of the psycholo- gists and social workers returned the questionnaires. These two groups seem especially'reluctant to participate in local research projects. Yet they are extremely important in the team decision making process in special education. We need their input included with that of other professional groups. Physical therapists and occupational therapists were also reluctant to participate because many of them do not feel qualified to participate in eligibility decisions. Yet they too are part of the team, and they do participate. Perhaps instruction in the area of eligibility criteria needs to be added to the college curriculum of those who plan to work in educational settings. Second t e entir r a f dec k' ds no more inyestigetion. In this study, the opinions of profes- sionals involved in decision making, were investigated. In addition to gathering more information about opinions that influence decisions, we need to observe and report what happens in team meetings, and then we need to compare the two to try to ascertain who is actually making the placement decision based on what information. The research on deci- sion making is extremely varied both in approach and in results. Two main approaches, statistical and participant observation, have been used. Ysseldyke, Algozzine, and Thurlow (1980), by using the statistical approach, concluded 158 that they knew decisions were made but they were not sure who made them or how. Bloom (1980), by using participant observation, was able to determine who made decisions and how. Perhaps his approach will prove to be more fruitful for decision making research. Tune, ye eeee e9 yelee mege highly ehe generibetions O_ -a 1'10 0 OU‘:-'0!z - ! 1‘ a ‘s 0 d‘ F.°! uokiDO. Historically, the diagnosticians have decided the child's fate, and the teacher has carried it out. With the advent of the Multidisciplinary Team in federal and state legisla- tion, teaching personnel were supposed to take a more active role in eligibility and placement decisions. For some reason, professionals in the field seem to view teachers as the group least capablreof making appropriate eligibility decisions. Yet there is evidence (Ferrazzara, 1983: Reschly & Lamprecht, 1979; Knoff, 1983) to support the fact that teachers do make appropriate eligibility and placement deci— sions. Teachers need to be more highly regarded as decision makers. Fou ' r r on MMlity criteria. The concerns with using verbal/ performance IQ discrepancy as an indicator of learning disa- bilities were discussed at length in this study. These problems illustrate the need for Operationalizing the LD definition. Since the inception of the state and federal legislation, practitioners have debated the merits of vari- ous definitions of and standards for eligibility criteria. 159 We need an organization similar to the AAMD to develop uniform standards and guidelines. Many authors and re— searchers deplore the seeming chaos about what constitutes a learning disability and its measurement, but no one has taken the initiative in advocating the setting of common standards. It is too easy now to use the category for purposes of convenience. Perhaps standards must be set at the local and intermediate levels first. This may have to be a “bottom up" rather than a I'top down“ endeavor. In summary, as special educators we are charged with diagnosing children's disabilities and placing them in ap- propriate programs so that their abilities can be developed to the maximum extent possible. This is not a charge we take lightly. The first step in the process is to classify children so that a direction can be charted for developing a suitable program. Labeling is an especially sensitive area due to litigation on overrepresentation and to our need not to saddle children with a burden they cannot remove. This labeling is done in team meetings. Team meetings are a relatively new phenomenon in special education that devel- oped largely for philosophical, not empirical, reasons. Even though we all agree that team meetings are good, we know very little about how teams function. This study endeavored to discover the influence of adaptive behavior, verbal/performance IQ discrepancy, IQ, and SES in the opinions of the participating professionals 160 before they are called upon to decide between the LD and EMI labels. For participating professionals, the LD decision was most influenced by verbal/performance IQ discrepancy and near normal IQ. The EMI decision was most influenced by low IQ and low adaptive behavior. SES was not influential when considered in relation to demographic characteristics of the staff, though high SES did result in a slight tendency toward the EMI label when variables were analyzed independ- ently. Based on the results of this study, SES does not appear to be as influential in the choice between the LD and EMI labels as it has been thought to be. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 161 Please return to: QUESTIONNAI R E Joanne mm Hill-So. Men. 887-3116 Dear Colleague: by courier I would like to request 20 to 30 minutes of your time to complete this questionnaire. Before you begin, please answer the following questions about yourself. 1. l have been a special educator for—(number) of years. 2. My present roleis: _special education teacher __ areas of endorsement _ school psychologist _ program consultant __ teacher consultant _ administrator _speech therapist _ school social worker other (please specify) I have been in my present role for__ (number) years. My educational level is BA MA MA+ EdS or above I work at: _Preprimary level _Elementary level _Secondary level _ All levels (number) IEPC's in the last month. l have participated in approximately #995590 My professional development activities for the last year include: __ Reading professional books and journals _. Workshops and lnservices __ College or university courses _ Other (please specify) __ None that I can remember 8. The last college course I took was in____(date). Because you are a special educator, you are well aware of the problems we encounter in classifying students for special education. Many factors are involved in the decision about which category is appropriate for each student. In an effort to better understand the decision-making process and the interaction of some of these factors, please read the following 16 hypothetical case descriptions and answer two questions about each one. 1. On a continuum from O to 10, what is the likelihood that this student is Educable Mentally Impaired? 2. On a continuum from O to 10, what is the likelihood that this student is Learning Disabled? We all understand that we could not classify actual children based on one paragraph of information. Be as- sured, however, that your participation here will add to the knowledge concerning the relative importance of several factors in the decision-making process. DIRECTIONS Assume that the 16 hypothetical students are achieving significantly below grade level. Read the case descriptions and answer based on the information given. Place a vertical line on the continuum at the point where you believe each student falls. Answer each of the two questions independently of each other. The statistical test used allows for the fact that both answers could be high or low. 99°F.“ EXAMPLE Cass is a 14 year old 9th grader who has been referred for special education services. Cass has trouble being attentive in school, and needs constant encouragement. On We Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children — Revised (WISC-RI Cass scored 90 on verbal IQ and 95 on performance IQ for a full scale score of 92 Mother has enrolled Cass in a reading clinic and is willing to accept help from school for Cass. l l J LikelihoodLlNrflI 23456189101 ’ Low High CASE DESCRIPTIONS ROBIN is an 8 year old 3rd grader who has been referred for special education services. Robin asks ques- tions appropriately, understands instructions, and is sociable with others. Robin performs chores around the house, and is very dependable in carrying out responsibilities. On the WISC-R Robin attained a score of 84 for verbal IQ. For performance l0 Robin obtained a score of 101. Robin’s full scale score was com- puted to be 91. Robin lives with mother and two older siblings who often care for Robin while mother works in a laundry. Mother is very concerned about Robin and tries to do what is best in spite of limited financial resources. .1 . LikelihoodEM17712345678910' Lw ' Hug-l. l .1 l 1 Likelihood“)? '0 ‘I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910' LikelihoodEMl? '0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10' 162 JODY is a 6 year old Ist grader who has been referred for special education services. Jody gets to and from school alone, shows good large motor control, pays attention to a purposeful activity, and can be depended upon to care for personal belongings. Jody also shows consideration for others feelings. On the WISC-R Jody obtained a score of 52 for verbal IQ and 73 for performance IQ. Full scale IQ was computed to be 60. Because mother and father are both teachers, they believe it is very important to spend time with Jody at home talking about daily tasks and activities. They try to expose Jody to dif. ferent experiences which might foster social and intellectual growth. L I l l LikelihoodLD? '0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 It? LikelihoodEMl? '012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910' MARTY is a 7 year old 2nd grader who has been referred for special education services. Marty takes care of clothing, travels around the neighborhood alone, and makes simple purchases. Marty responds when talked to and speaks in simple sentences. On the WISC-R Marty obtained a score of 55 for verbal IQ and 74 for performance IQ, for a full scale score of 63. Marty's mother shows genuine concern but an impaired ability to provide for Marty's emotional and physical needs. Even though she works long hours at a local restaurant, she doesn’t earn enough to care for herself and Marty properly. l _ 1 n l l LikelihoodLD? '0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 0 9 10' LikIlihoodEMl? '0 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 910' LEE is a 6 year old 1st grader who has been referred for special education services. Lee needs help get- ting coat and boots on and off, gets lost when outside the schoolroom, and moves very slowly and slug- gishly. Lee does not respond when talked to, and does not pay attention to an activity for longer than 5 minutes. On the WISC-R Lee scored 54 for verbal IQ. Performance IQ measured 71. Full scale IQ was computed to be 61. Father and mother both work part time in a nursing home. They are con- cerned about Lee but they have so many personal and economic problems themselves that they are able to spend little time helping Lee. l_ l I l 1 LikelihoodLD? '0 1 2 3 4 5 0 7 0 9 10' LikelihoodEMl? r0 ‘ 2 3 O 5 0 7 0 9101 TRACY is a 6 year old Ist grader who was referred for special education services. Tracy cannot name the days of the week or tell time. Tracy cannot run errands in the neighborhood, and cannot be de- pended upon to take care of personal belongings. Tracy seems to resent teachers and other authority figures. On the WISC-R Tracy scored 56 for verbal IQ. Performance IQ measured 72. Full scale IQ was computed to be 62. Because mother and father are very concerned about Tracy's school problems, they have engaged a therapist to help with the social problems and enrolled Tracy in an afterschool tutoring program close to the bank where mother is manager for help with the learning problems. I j I l I LiltelihoodL07012345678910' LikelihoodEMl7r012345678910' LYN is an 8 year old 3rd grader referred for special education services. Lyn has to be made to do things and needs constant encouragement to complete tasks. Lyn disrupts games by refusing to follow rules, interferes with others activities and is unreliable. Lyn obtained a score of 88 on verbal l0 on the WISC-R. Performance l0 measured 91 . Full scale ID was computed to be 89. Mother works for a cleaning service and is trying to find a better place to live. She hopes Lyn will feel more secure and self- confident and less demanding of adult attention once their situation improves. l 1 J 1 4‘ Likelihood”)? '0’1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10' LikelihoodEMl? '0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 163 JACKIE is a 7 year old 2nd grader who has been referred for special education services. Jackie is con- scientious, considerate of others, and assumes responsibility. Jackie organizes leisure time appropriate- ly and explores surroundings to find things to do. On the WISC-R Jackie obtained a score of 85 for verbal IQ and 85 for performance IO. Full scale IO was computed to be 84. The maternal grandmother, with whom Jackie lives, seem to care very much about Jackie's school difficulties. Grandmother is in poor health and says Jackie worries about how they will get food and medicine. This may affect Jackie's ability to perform in school. | _ I I LikelihoodLO? 012 3 4 5 6 7 B 9 10' LikelihoodEMl? '0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 BTO' GERRY is a 6 year old 1st grader referred for special education services. Gerry has difficulty throwing and catching a ball and runs and jumps awkwardly. Gerry does not respond in complete sentences, and must be given instructions one at a time. Gerry is very slow at completing tasks. On the WISC-R Gerry scored 60 on verbal IQ. Performance IO measured 60 also. Full scale IO was computed to be 56. Gerry's father and mother report that Gerry has been difficult to manage at home, but that progress has been made since they have had Gerry in individual tutoring and since father has relinquished some job demands to subordinates in his company so that he can spend more time with Gerry. I I l I LikelihoodLD7'012345676910' LikelihoodEMl7'012345678910' JAMIE is a 6 year old 1st grader referred for special education services. Jamie is able to initiate activi- ties, and is dependable and responsible. Jamie gets to and from school alone, can use the telephone ap- propriately, and takes care of clothing. On the WISC-R Jamie obtained a verbal IQ score of 65, and a performance IQ of 70 which computes to a full scale score of 67. Jamie lives with father and two younger siblings. Jamie frequently misses school to care for the two younger children while father works at a gas station. Father is very concerned about Jamie's schoolwork even though he seems some- what overwhelmed by his present situation. ]. . .___, __, "I l J LikelihoodLO? 012345676910 LikelihoodEMl? r012345676910' LOU is an 8 year old 3rd grader who has been referred for special education services. Lou has diffi- culty engaging in an assigned activity and has to be made to do things. Lou jumps from one task to another unless constantly reminded to attend to the task at hand. Also, Lou sometimes threatens others and damages their property. On the WISC-R Lou obtained a score of 85 for verbal IQ. Perfor- mance IO measured 102. Full scale IO was computed to be 92. Because mother and father teach at the local university, they are aware of agencies where they can receive help with Lou's problems. They have enrolled Lou in the local reading clinic and see some improvement. However, they are open to help and advice from school. 1 l J LikelihoodL07|01§ § 4 5 6 7 8 910' LikelihoodEMl? r0—1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910' LAUREN is an 8 year old 3rd grader who has been referred for special education services. Lauren seems interested in other children and offers to help when asked. Lauren can be sent on errands and make small purchases. Lauren expresses pleasure or anger vocally and reads suitable books. On the WISC-R Lauren obtained a verbal IQ score of 88 and a performance IO score of 91, for a full scale score of 89. Father is concerned about Lauren’s schoolwork and spends time helping Lauren in the evenings in spite of being very busy with his engineering business. The parents also feel that outside experiences such as trips and cultural events will help Lauren's achievement in school. I . l #4 LIkelIhoodLD? 'T1 2 3 4 5 6 7 6 910 LikeluhoodEMl? 012 3 4 5 6 7 6 910' l6Ll DALE is an 8 year old 3rd grader who has been referred for special education services. Dale is help- ful and considerate of others, particiates in group games and activities, and shares and takes turns. Dale takes care of clothing and uses money for simple purchases. On the WISC-R Dale scored 81 for verbal IQ. Performance IO measured 96. Full ID was computed to be 89. Dale receives help at home on school work primarily from mother. However, the whole family is very supportive with father expres- sing interest and concern by attending conferences at school even though he must leave his consulting firm to do so. They have offered to hire a private tutor if school personnel think it would help. Likelihood LO? WWW Likelihood em? "6 1 2 F4 Te 6 7 F's—“Ho PAT is a 7 year old 2nd grader referred for special education services. Pat becomes easily discouraged, does not pay attention to instructions, and cannot complete tasks without constant encouragement. Pat cannot be sent on errands in the neighborhood, or be depended upon to take care of belongings. On the WISC-R Pat attained a verbal IQ score of 63; performance IO measured 67. Pat's full scale IO was computed to be 65. Mother reports that some of Pat's difficulties might be due to the fact that she can't afford proper housing on her pay as a waitress. Currently Pat does not attend school regular- ly due to inadequate clothing for the weather. Mother hopes this situation will be corrected soon. LikelihoodLD? '61? s 4 s e 7 {—619 1 LikelihoodEMl? W12 3 4 s s 7 a 910‘ CHRIS is a 7 year old 2nd grader who has been referred for special education services. Chris has dif- ficulty relating to peers partly because of not taking turns and not sharing. Chris teases and picks on others. Chris gets upset if given a direct order, and has a negative attitude toward rules. On the WISC- R Chris achieved a score of 85 on verbal IQ. Performance IO measured 85. Full scale IO was computed to be 84. Chris's parents report that father has just been promoted to a new job as director of market- ing which requires him to travel and entertain business associates. Therefore, Chris may be feeling neg- lected at the present time but they believe once father is established, Chris's performance will improve. LikelihoodL07'01! 3 4 5 6 7 0 910' LikelihoodEMl? '012 3 4 5 6 7 8 910' AUBREY is an 8 year old 3rd grader who has been referred for‘ special education services. Aubrey shows no interest in participating in games, is apathetic and unresponsive, and does not mix well with others. Aubrey is often late for school, is careless with toys and supplies, and is unreliable. Aubrey obtained a score of 78 on verbal IQ on the WISC-R. Performance IO measured 93. Full scale IO was computed to be 84. Mother reports that Aubrey has no friends in the neighborhood partly because it is unsafe. Mother works as a custodian and as soon as she finds a better job she wants to move to a nicer area. fi J Likelihood LD? 1 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 LikelihoodEMl? '0 1 5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10' KELLY is a 7 year old 2nd grader who has been referred for special education services. Kelly initiates group activities with other children, and shows an interest in others. Kelly goes on errands for simple purchases, gets to and from school alone and can tell time. On the WISC-R Kelly obtained a verbal IQ score of 73. Performance IO measured 65. Full scale IO was computed to be 68. Mother reports that Kelly has friends in the neighborhood, especially in the skiing class and church group Kelly attends. The live-in babysitter who cares for Kelly while mother works as the personnel manager of a local company is a special friend of Kelly's- 1 #_—————1 [0712345678910 1 L 1 Likelihood LD? r0 1 2 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 10' Likelihood EMI? APPENDIX B INDICATORS OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES APPENDIX B INDICATORS OF INDEPENDENT VARIABLES Adaptive Behavior Indicators Adaptive Behavior--High Jamie Kelly Jackie Marty Able to initiate activities, dependable and responsible, gets to and from school alone, can use the telephone, takes care of own clothing. Initiates group activities with other chil- dren, shows an interest in others, goes on errands for simple purchases, gets to and from school alone, can tell time. Conscientious and assumes responsibility, considerate of others, organizes leisure time appropriately, explores surroundings to find things to do. Takes care of clothing, travels around the neighborhood alone, makes simple purchases, responds when talked to, speaks in simple sentences o 165 166 Adaptiye Behayior—-High (Continued) Lauren Jody Robin Dale Interested in other children, offers help if asked, can be sent on errands and can make small purchases, expresses pleasure and anger vocally, reads suitable books. Gets to and from school alone, shows good large motor control, pays attention to a pur- poseful activity, can be depended upon to care for personal belongings, shows consideration of others feelings. Asks questions appropriately, understands in- structions, is sociable with others, performs chores around the house, is dependable in carrying out responsibilities. Helpful and considerate of others, partici- pates in group games and activities, shares and takes turns, takes care of clothing, uses money for simple purchases. Adaptiye Behavier--Low Pat Easily discouraged, does not pay attention to instructions, cannot complete tasks without constant encouragement, cannot be sent on errands in the neighborhood, or be depended upon to take care of belongings. 16? Adaptive Behavior--Low (Continued) Gerry Lyn Lee Chris Tracy Difficulty throwing and catching a ball, runs and jumps awkwardly, does not respond in complete sentences, must be given instructions one at a time, slow at completing tasks. Has to be made to do things, needs constant encouragement to complete tasks, disrupts games by refusing to follow rules, interferes with others activities, is unreliable. Needs help getting coat and boots on, gets lost when outside the schoolroom, moves very slowly and sluggishly, does not respond when talked to, does not pay attention to an activity for longer than 5 minutes. Difficulty relating to peers because of not taking turns and sharing, teases and picks on others, gets upset if given a direct order, negative attitude toward rules. Cannot name the days of the week, cannot tell time, cannot run errands in the neighborhood, cannot be depended upon to take care of personal belongings, resents teachers and other authority figures. 168 Adeptiye Behayier--Lew (Continued) Aubrey Lou Shows no interest in participating in games, is apathetic and unresponsive, does not mix well with others, often late for school, careless with toys and supplies, is unreliable. Difficulty engaging in an assigned activity, has to be made to do things, jumps from one task to another unless constantly reminded to attend to the task at hand, threatens others, damages others property. Verbal/Performance IQ Discrepancy Indicators Verba P rformanc I D‘scre anc --H h Verbel IQ Performaece IQ 54 71 56 72 78 93 55 74 85 102 52 73 84 101 81 96 VerbalZPerformence IQ Discrepaecy--Lew Lyn Chris Aubre Jacki Lou Laure Robin Dale Name Gerry Lyn Jamie Chris Kelly Jackie Lauren Y e n 169 Vereal IQ 65 60 88 65 85 73 85 88 IQ Indicators Performaece IQ 67 60 91 70 85 65 85 91 IQ--Lew Name §22£§ Pat 63 Gerry 56 Lee 61 Jamie 67 Tracy 62 Kelly 68 Marty 63 Jody 60 170 Socioeconomic Status Indicators Secioecenoeic Stetes-—High Gerry Chris Tracy Kelly Lauren Jody In individual tutoring, father relinquished some job demands to subordinates so he can spend more time with Gerry. Father promoted to a new job as director of marketing, requires travel and entertaining business associates. Engaged a therapist to help with social problems, enrolled in tutoring program for help with learning problems, mother is bank manager. Friends in skiing class and church group, live-in babysitter while mother works as personnel manager of local company. Father spends time helping with homework in spite of being busy with engineering business, participates in outside experiences such as trips and cultural events. Mother and father both teachers, believe it is important tospend time with child talking about daily tasks and activities, outside experiences to foster social and intellectual growth. 171 Socioeconomic S;atus--High (Continued) Dale Family attends conferences and school functions even though it means father leaves his consulting business, offered to hire private tutor. Soeioeconomic States--Lew Pat Lyn Lee Jamie Aubrey Jackie Can't afford proper housing on her pay as a waitress, does not attend school regularly due to inadequate clothing for the weather. Mother works for a cleaning service, is trying to find a better place to live. Mother and father both work part-time in a nursing home, father and mother concerned but so many personal and economic problems. Lives with father and two younger sibs, misses school to care for sibs while father works at a gas station. Lives in unsafe neighborhood, mother works as a custodian, as soon as she finds a better job she will move to a nicer area. Lives with grandmother who is in poor health, worries about where to get money for food and medicine. 172 Socioeconomic Stetus--Low (Continued) Marty Works long hours at a local restaurant, mother shows impaired ability to provide for emo- tional and physical needs. Robin Lives with mother and two older sibs who care for Robin while mother works in a laundry, mother is concerned and tries to do what's best in spite of limited financial resources. APPENDIX C COVER LETTER 173 April 8. 1985 Dear Colleague: Your professional opinion is needed to complete this re- search. Please take a few minutes of your valuable time to fill out this questionaire. After you finish the questionaire. tear off and keep the top portion of the double coupon. Leave the other half stapled to the questionaire and send both to me-- Joanne Witte --by courier. «7-3/4 To show my appreciation for your help, a drawing will be held on Wed. April 20. 1985. and two winners will be selected from the coupons that are returned. First prize will be a $10.00 gift certificate from Mt. Jack's Restaurant. and second prize will be five lottery tickets. The winning numbers will be posted at Hill-So. Mezz., Beekman. North. Team offices. and each Secondary Special Education office. Your participation is, of course, voluntary. and I assure you that your responses will be kept anonymous. Sincerely. 9W REFERENCES REFERENCES Adelman, Howard S., Taylor, Linda, 8 Nelson, Perry. (1982, October) “Prevalence and Treatment of Learning Prob- lems in Upper and Lower Income Areas," American Qeurnai e; Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 719-724. Algozzine, Robert & Mercer, Cecil. (1980) “Labels and ex- pectancies for Handicapped Children and Youth." In L. Mann & Sabatino (EdsJ, The Feur§h geyiew e; Speciai EgeeeEiee, (pp. 287-313). New York: Grune and Stratton. emericen Associaeien ee Mental Deiicieeey Agaptiye Beheyior Scaie. (1981) Publishers Test Service, Monterey, California: McGraw-Hill. Argulewicz, Edward N. (1983, Spring) "Effects of Ethnic Membership, Socioeconomic Status, and Home Language on LD, EMR, and EH Placements," Legging Dieabiiity Quarteriy, Vol. 6, pp. 195-200. Bailey, Donald J. & Harbin, Gloria L. (1980) “Nondiscrim- inatory Evaluation,“ ExcepEienai Childree, Vol. 46, No. 8' pp. 590-596. Banas, Norma E. (1984) Specific Leereing DisebiiiEieeg Identifies. and Qlarified. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Miami, Miami, Florida. Bannatyne, A. (1968) “Diagnosing Learning Disabilities and Writing Remedial Prescriptions,“ Qeurnal e; Learning Disaeiiieies, Vol. 1, pp. 242-249. Barker, Harry R. a Barker, Barbara M. (1984) Mu ri te Anaiysis e; Veriance (MANOVAQ: e Precticei Geide ee Ies Uee ie Scientifiic Deeisiee flakieg, The University of Alabama Press: University, Alabama. Bergan, John R. a Smith, James O. (1966) "Effects of SES and Sex on Prospective Teacher's Judgments,‘ eneal Regardation, Vol. 4, pp. 13-15. 174 175 Birch, H.G., Pineiro, C., Alcalde, E., Toca, T. s Cravioto, J. (1971) “Relation of Kwashiorkor in Early Childhood and Intelligence at School Age,“2Pedieeric Reseerch, V01. 5' pp. 579-5850 Bloom, Mark William. (1980) gpeeiei Edgceeieh Decisien- Making 12.28 Urben Sehoei gyeeeh, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Boston University, Boston. Borg, Walter, & Gall, Merideth. (1983) Edecational Re- seerch, Fourth Egieion, New York: Longman, Inc. Boucher, C. Robin. (1981, Jan.) “Teacher Attributioning in Decision-Making“ Psycheiegy,ih the Scheeie, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 115-120. Broman, S. H., Nichols, P.C. & Kennedy, W.A. (1975) Pre— schegi IQ, geeheeei ehg Eeriy Deyeiopmeht Correlates, Hillsdale, New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Brosnan, Faye Lee. 1(1984) An anElIY late the Oyerrepresenheeien e; Miheriey Studente grem he! §§§ flames in. 15.29.2121 Mustangs ”Within the. State 2!. Qeiigeghie, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Clarement Graduate School, Claremont, California. Brown, L. L. & Hamill, D. J. (1978) “Behavior Rating Profile: An Ecological Approach to Behavioral Assess- ment,“ Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed. Brown, Richard Lee. (1980) 1§eeiei Ecenehic eeeeee end Miid Mentei Sebnermeiiey, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Burket, David Vernon. (1982) .52 Anaiysis 9; Assessment end Piacement e; Hendicepped Chiidren ih hhe Public Schools 9; the District e; Qeiehhie, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C. Chase, H. Peter & Martin, Harold Pa (1970) “Undernutrition and Child Development,“ he! Ehgiend Jegrhel e; Medi- eihe, Vol. 282, No. 17, pp. 933-939. Clarizio, Harvey & Bernard, Robert. (1981) “Recategorized WISC-R Scores of Learning Disability Children and Dif- ferential Diagnosis,“ _eyehelegy ih ehe eeheele, Vol. 18' pp. 5-120 Clarizio, Harvey & veres, Valerie. (1983, October) ”WISC-R Patterns of Emotionally Impaired and Diagnostic Util- ity,“ eycheiegy ih ehe §eheele, Vol. 20, pp. 409-414. 176 Cravioto, J. a DeLicardie, E. R. (1975) “Environmental and Learning Deprivation in Children with Learninngisa- bilities.“ In W.M. Cruickshank & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.) Perceptuel Learning Disebilities ihughildren,yoli,;L Research and Theeryr (pp. 3-104), Syracuse: Syracuse University Press. Cremins, James R. (1981, April) “Larry P. and the EMR Chi id,“ Eéusatiea. and Training 9f the Mentallx Retarded, pp. 158-161. Ikfll, Edgar A. (1965) Vinelend Social heEuriey Scale, Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Earnings hy Occupation and Edeeeeion, 1980 Cenees (1984) U.S. Bureau of the Census, Washington, D.C. Eno, Lawrence & Woehlke, Paula. (1980, October) “Diag- nostic Differences Between Emotionally Handicapped and Learning Disabled Students,“ Psycholegy ih ehe Schoole, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp. 469-473. Epps, Susan, McGue, Matthew & Ysseldyke, James E. (1982, April) “Interjudge Agreement In Classifying Students as Learning Disabled,“.Psycholegy ih ehe Scheois, vol. 19' NO. 2' pp. 209-220. Epps, Susan, Ysseldyke, James a Algozzine, Bob. (1983) “Impact of Different Definitions of Learning Disabili- ties on the Number of Students Identified,“lJoernal e; Psychoeducaeienal Assessment, Vol. 1, pp. 341-352. Epps, Susan, Ysseldyke, James E. a McGue, Matthew. (1984, Winter) “I Know One When I See One--Differentiating LD and Non-LD Students,“ Learning Disability_Qgerterly, V01. 7' pp. 89-1010 Epstein, Michael & Cullinan, Douglas. (1983) “Academic Performance of Behaviorally Disordered and Learning Disabled Pupils,“ _he Journal e; Special Ed c ti n, V01. 17' NO. 3' PP. 303-307. Farber, B. (1968) Meneel Re;ardatien--I§s Seciei Context and Social Conse uenc 8, Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Ferrazzara, Miriam L. (1983) .Agreeheht ahd Dieegreeheht Ahong,thlg_S§gdy;1eeh Members ih Their Appraieel e; Children, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Rutgers University, The State University of New Jersey. Gaar, Basil L. & Plue, William V; (1983, Winter) “Separate vs. Combined Categories for Mental Retardation and Specific Learning Disabilities,“ earhihg Disebiliey Querterly, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 77-79. 177 Gajar, Anna H. (1980) “Characteristics Across Exceptional Categories EMR: LD: ED" The losraal of Sessial Educat'on' V01. 14' NO. 2' pp. 165-173. Gajar, Anna H. (1979) “Educable Mentally'Retarded, Learning Disabled, Emotionally Disturbed: Similarities and Differences,“ Exceptional Children, Vol. 45, pp. 470-472. Gelb, Steven Allen. (1984) Secial variables ee Prediceors e§_Disability Prevalence ih Normative and Non-Normative Special Edueation Clessifications, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle. Gerber, Michael M. (1984, November) “The Department of Education's 6th Annual Report to Congress on P.L. 94- 142: Is Congress Getting the Full Story?“ Excepeional thldren, Vol. 51, No. 3, PP. 209-224. Gliedman, J. a Roth, W. (1980) The Unexpected hinority-- Handicapped Children ih America, New York: Harcourt Brace, Javanovich. Greenburg, David E. (1984, November) “The 1984 Annual Report to Congress: Are We Better Off?“ Exceptional Children, Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 203-207. Grossman, Herbert J. (Ed.) (1983) Qléfiéification ih hehpel Reeepgepieh, Washington D.C.: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Harber, Jean R. (1981a, Spring) “Assessing the Quality of Decision-Making in Special Education,“ The Journal pi: Special Education, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 77-90. Harber, Jean R. (1981b) “Evaluating Utility in Diagnostic Decision Making,“ The Journal pl Special Education, V01. 15' NO. 4’ pp. 413-428. Harrington, Frances T. (1983) BASE; gpeeehee e; lQ Information, Teecher Behaylei; Rating Ihfermation, Perceiyeg Disability, ehg Professionel hele liele e_f_ ehe Rater ih ehe glacement e; Behaviep Disordered seedehts, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale. Heber, R. (1962) “Mental Retardation: Concept and Classification.“ In E. Trapp and P. Himelstein (Eds.) Readings eh the Exceptiepal Chil , New York: Appleton- Century Crofts. 178 Heller, Kirby A., Holtzman, Wayne 8. a Messick, Samuel (Eds.) (1982) Placing Children _ih Special Educaeion: h gheeeegy fie; figeiey, Washington DAL: National Academy Press. Hurley, Roger L. (1969) Peyerty end Mental Retardation: h Causal Relationship, New York: Random House. Kaplan, M. s Schwartz, S. (1977) Humen Judgment and Deci- sion Processes ih Applied Settings, New York: Academic Press. Katz, Lee. (1970, November) “Analysis of Selected Social and Psychological Factors Related to Mental Retardation,“ University of Michigan, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 111 156). Kaufman, Alan S. (1979) Intelligent Testing yith the WISC- R, New York: John Wiley and Sons. Kauffman, James M. & Hallahan, Daniel P. (EdsJ (1981) Handbook pl Speciel Educeeioh,.Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Inc. Kavale, Kenneth A. (1980, Spring) “Learning Disability and Cultural-Economic Disadvantage: The Case for a Relationship,“ Leerning Dieability Quareerly, vol. 3, pp. 97-112. Kealy, Jean & McLeod, John. (1976, November) “Learning Disability and Socioeconomic Status,“ gournel p; Learn- ing Dieabilieiee, Vol. 9, No. 9, pp. 64-67. Kehle, Thomas J. a Guidubaldi, John. (1980) “Do Too Many Cooks Spoil the Broth? Evaluation of Team Placement and Individual Education Plans on Enhancing the Social Competence of Handicapped Students,“ Journal pf Learn- ing Wise. Vol. 13, pp- 26-30. Kerlinger, Fred. (1973) Foundatiohs e; Behayieral Re- eeerch, 2nd Edieien, New York: Holt Rinehart and Winston. Keyes, Joyce Ann Hester. (1982) Pupil §eeieeceh0pic Status, Pupil Rece, ehg Raciel Cemposition pl phe School District ee Componehts pf ehe Special Egheeeion Placepene Decisioh, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute. Knoff, Howard M. (1983) “Effects of Diagnostic Information on Special Education Placement Decisions,“ Exceptiehal Childreh, V01. 49, No. 5, pp. 440-443. 179 Knoff, Howard M. (1984, October) “Placement Decisions Revisited: IQ Doesn't Always Tip the Scale,“ Vol. 51, NO. 2’ pp. 122-128. Lambert, Nadine. (1977, August) “Contributions of School Classification, Sex, and Ethnic Status to Adaptive Behavior Assessment: Field Study of the Efficacy of AAMD Adaptive Behavior Scale, Public School version,“ University of California, Berkley, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 156 687). Lanier, James & Wittmer, Joe. (1977, January) “Teacher Prejudice in Referral of Students to EMR Programs,“ The Scheol Ceeheeler, pp. 165-170. Lenkowsky, Ronald & Blackman, Leonard S. (1968) “The Ef- fect of Teacher's Knowledge of Race and Social Class on Their Judgments of Children's Academic Competence and Social Acceptance,“ ental Retargetieh, Vol. 6, pp. 15- 17. Lesser, 6., Tyler, G. & Clark, D. (1965) “Mental Abilities of Children from Different Social Class and Cultural Groups.“ _oaosreehs of the _osiesx of _e§___R eareh in Child Myelepme nt, Vol. 30, pp. 1-115 . MacMillan, Donald L. (1982) Mehtal Retardation ih Scheol ahd Seeiety, Boston: Little Brown and Co. MacMillan, Donald L., Jones, Reginald L. & Aloia, Gregory F. (1974) “The Mentally Retarded Label: A Theoretical Analysis and Review of Research,“ flericen geurnal 9_f_ Mental Deficiency, Vol. 79, No. 3, pp. 241-261. Mercer, Jane R. (1973) Labeling hhe heheelly_Retarded, Qlinical end Seciel System Perspectiyee eh hental Reterdetion, Berkeley: University of California Press. Mercer, J.R. & Lewis, J.F. (1978) _S_ye§ep pf, M t -c Pluralistie Aesessment; Cehceptuel ehd Techhical Mahual, Riverside, California: Institute for Pluralis- tic Assessment Research and Training. Miehigah §peeiel Educehien Rele . (1983, August) Michigan Department of Education, Lansing, Michigan. Myers, Edward C., MacMillan, Donald L. s Yoshida, Roland K., (1978) “Validity of Psychologists' Identification of EMR Students in the Perspective of the California De- certification Experience,“ Jeerhal pl Scheel Psychol- egy, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 3-15. 180 Neer, William L., Foster, Dorothy, Jones, John G. & Reynolds, Donald A. (1973, September) “Socioeconomic Bias in the Diagnosis of Mental Retardation,“ Excep- tiehei Children, Vol. 40, pp. 38-39. Nie, Norman, Bull, C. Hadlai, Jenkins, Jean G., Steinbren- ner, Karin & Bent, Dale H. (1975) §tetisticei Package fer the geeie; Seiehces, Zhd Editien, New York: McGraw- Hill, Inc. Niesworth, John T. & Greer, John G., (1975) “Functional Similarities of Learning Disability and Mild Retarda- tion,“ Exceptionei Childreh, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. l7-25. Nihira, K., Foster, R., Shellhaas, M. & Leland, B. (1974) AAMD Adaptiye Beheyior Seaie (1974) Reyisien, Washing- ton, DC: American Association on Mental Deficiency. Pedhazur, Elazar J. (1982) Multisls Begggfifiigs in. Behayierel Research, Expiehetiph and Predictien, New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Potter, Margaret L. (1982, July) “Application of a Deci- sion Theory Model to Eligibility and Classification Decisions in Special Education,“ Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota, (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 228 820). Prillaman, Douglas. (1975, October) “An Analysis of Placement Factors in Classes for the Educable Mentally Retarded,“ xceptienei Children, Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 107-108. Reiss, Steven, Levitan, Grant W. & Szyszko, Joseph. (1982) “Emotional Disturbance and Mental Retardation: Diagnos- tic Overshadowing,“ merieeh Jeurhei e; Mentei Defi- ciency, Vol. 86, No. 6, pp. 567-574. Reiss, Steven & Szyszko, Joseph. (1983) “Diagnostic Over- shadowing and Professional Experience with Mentally Retarded Persons,“ m Jewel 91 Mengei Defi- ciency, Vol. 87, No. 4, pp. 396-402. Reschly, Daniel & Jipson, Frederick J. (1976) “Ethnicity, Geographic Locale, Age, Sex, and Urban-Rural Residence as Variables in the Prevalence of Mild Retardation,“ limeriean M e; hem; Deficiency, Vol. 81, No. 2, Reschly, Daniel 8 Lamprecht, Michael J. (1979) “Expectancy Effects of Labels: Fact or Artifact,“ xceptiehai thidren, Vol. 46, pp. 55-58. 181 Reynolds, Cecil R. & Gutkin, Terry B. (1982) The Hendbook 91 Scheol Peycholegy, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. Rist, Ray C. & Harrell, Jan E. (1982, January) “Labeling the Learning Disabled Child: The Social Ecology of Educational Practice,“ merieen Jeurnal e; Orthepsy- elliétrY' V01. 52' NO. 1' pp. 146-160. Root, Herbert Dean Jr. (1983) Qlessificatieh 91: Emotionally Disturbed, Leernihg Disabled, and Mildly Mentally Reherded Children in Albemarle Cehhty, Vir- gihia, Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia. Rubin, Rosalyn, Krus, Patricia & Balow, Bruce. (1973, April) “Factors in Special Class Placement,“ Excep- tienal Children, Vol. 39, No. 7, pp. 525-532. Salvia, John A. & Meisel, Julius C. (1980) “Observer Bias: A Methodological Consideration in Special Education Research,“ he Ml e_f_ Special Education, Vol. 14, NO. 2' Pp. 261-270. Sarason, Seymour B. & Doris, John. (1979) Edhcehional Hendicap, Phblie gelicy, end Secial Hi'ehery, h Broed- ehed Perspectiye _o_n Mental Retardatien, New York: The Free Press. Scarr-Salapatek, Sandra. (1971) “Race, Social Class, and IQ,“ Science, Vol. 174, No. 4016, pp. 1285-1295. Shepard, Lorrie A., Smith, Mary Lee & Vojir, Carol P. (1983, Fall) “Characteristics of Pupils Identified as Learning Disabled,“ flerieah Educatienal Reeeerch Jour- El] V01. 20' NO. 3' pp. 309-3310 Slate, Neldea M. (1983) “Nonbiased Assessment of Adaptive Behavior: Comparison of Three Instruments,“ W Smith, Corinne R. & Knoff, Howard M. (1981) “School Psy- chology and Special Education Student's Placement Deci- sions, IQ Still Tips the Scale,“ he Jehrhal p; §peeiel Edgcation, Vol. 15, pp. 55-64. Smith, I. Leon 8 Greenberg, Sandra. (1974, February) “Teacher Attitudes and the Labeling Process,“ Exeep- tienel Children, pp. 319-324. Smith, Mary Lee. (1982) H9_w Edgcaters Deeide Whe i_s_ Leerning Disablsdi.533:Llenge re Bsxshelesx and Publis. gelicy 1h the Scheole, Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas. 182 Team Operations: Leneing Gpidelihee {er hhltidieciplihary Eyelhatien T ms, (Unpublished). (1982, January) Lansing, Michigan. Thurlow, Martha L., Christenson, Sandra & Ysseldyke, James E. (1983, September) “Referral Research: An Integra- tive Summary of Findings.“ Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota, Report No. 141, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 244 439). Trehds ih Special Edeeehien, 1973-198;, 2hd Edihieh. (1983) Michigan State Board of Education, Special Education Services. Trotman, Frances Keith. (1977) “Race, IQ, and the Middle Class,“ ournel pf Edheehiehel Peycholegy, Vol. 69, No. 3, pp. 266-273. Tucker, James A. (1980) “Ethnic Proportions in Classes for the Learning Disabled: Issues in Nonbiased Assessment,“ The Jeurnal pf Speciel Edueaeieh, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 93-105. Warren, Sue Allen, Gardner, David C. & Hogan, Daniel W. (1975, Fall) “Teacher Nominations of Minority and Low SES Students for Special Education,“ ducahion, Vol. 96, No. 1: PP. 57-62. Yoshida, Roland, Fenton, Kathleen, Maxwell, James & Kaufman, Martin. (1978) “Group Decision-Making in the Planning Team Process, Myth or Reality?“ Joernel p; geheel Psycholegy, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp. 237-244. Ysseldyke, James E. (1983, April) “Current Practices in Making Psycho-educational Decisions About Learning Disabled Students,“ Journal p_f_ Learning Disabilities, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 226-233. Ysseldyke, James E. & Algozzine, Bob. (1982) Cripicel lssses is _eeei_S 81 sad Esmeeisl _JessLBd 211.. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co. Ysseldyke, James E. & Algozzine, Bob. (1980a, March) “Diagnostic Decision-Making in Individuals Susceptible to Biasing Information Presented in the Referral Case Folder,“ Institute for Research on Learning Disabili- ties, University of Minnesota, Report No. 26, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 197 513). Ysseldyke, James E., Algozzine, Bob & Epps, Susan. (1983) “A Logical and Empirical Analysis of Current Practice in Classifying Students as Handicapped,“ xcephiehel Children, Vol. 50, No. 2, PP. 160-166. 183 Ysseldyke, James E., Algozzine, Bob, Regan, Richard R., Pot- ter, Margaret, Richey, Linda & Thurlow, Martha. (1980b, July) “Psychoeducational Assessment and Decision-Making: A Computer Simulated Investigation,“ Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, Uni- versity of Minnesota, Report No. 32, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 203 607) Ysseldyke, James E., Algozzine, Bob & Richey, Linda. (1982, April) “Judgment Under Uncertainty: How Many Children Are Handicapped?“ Excepeiehal Childr n, Vol. 48, PP. 531-534. Ysseldyke, James E.,.Algozzine, Bob, Shinn, Mark R. & McGue, Matthew. (1982) “Similarities and Differences Between Low Achievers and Students Classified Learning Dis- abled,“ The Ml pi Speciel Educahieh, Vol. 16, No. ll pp. 73-850 Ysseldyke, James E., Algozzine, Bob & Thurlow, Martha. (1980, August) “A Naturalistic Investigation of Spe- cial Education Team Meetings.“ Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota, Report No. 40, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 203 614). Ysseldyke, James E. & Foster, Glen G. (1978) “Bias in Teacher's Observations of Emotionally Disturbed and Learning Disabled Children,“ xceptiohalighilgeeh, vol. 44: pp. 613-615. Ysseldyke, James E. & Regan, Richard R. (1979, February) “Nondiscriminatory Assessment and Decision Making: Embedding Assessment in the Intervention Process,“ Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, Uni- versity of Minnesota, Report No. 7, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 185 764). Ysseldyke, James E. 8 Thurlow, Martha. (1983, September) “Identification/Classificatin Research: An Integrative Summary of Findings,“ Institue for Research on Learning Disabilities, University of Minnesota, Report No. 142, (ERIC Document Reproduction Services No. ED 244 440).