Table of Contents

Unveiling the Profile: A Psychological Perspective on the Assessment and Diagnosis of Learning Disabilities

The assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities (LDs) represent a complex, multifaceted endeavor within the field of psychology, demanding an interdisciplinary understanding that integrates cognitive, neurobiological, and educational perspectives.¹ This report elucidates the psychological principles and methodologies pivotal to the identification and diagnosis of LDs. It explores the critical role of standardized cognitive and academic assessments in delineating an individual’s learning profile, alongside the invaluable contributions of behavioral observations and clinical interviews in gathering comprehensive contextual data. The discussion extends to the psychological criteria underpinning diagnostic decisions, primarily referencing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), and the International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision (ICD-11). A significant emphasis is placed on the intricacies of differential diagnosis, a process essential for distinguishing LDs from other conditions that may present with similar learning challenges. Furthermore, this report underscores the indispensability of a multidimensional assessment approach, one that holistically considers cognitive, academic, and socio-emotional factors to construct an accurate and useful learning profile.² The inherent complexities and occasional controversies in LD identification necessitate hybrid methods that synthesize various data sources to inform both diagnosis and effective intervention strategies.² Ultimately, a thorough psychological assessment aims to move beyond mere identification of deficits to provide a clear understanding of an individual’s unique learning patterns, thereby guiding targeted support and fostering their potential.

I. Introduction: Defining Learning Disabilities from a Psychological Standpoint

A. Historical Context and Evolution of the LD Construct

The formal recognition of learning disabilities (LDs) as distinct clinical entities has a rich history, evolving significantly over the past several decades. In the United States, the federal government first acknowledged specific learning disabilities (SLD) as potentially disabling conditions in the 1960s, following recommendations from advisory committees.¹ This acknowledgment spurred the development of a substantial research base focused on the identification, etiology, and treatment of these conditions. Early conceptualizations often linked LDs to notions such as “minimal brain dysfunction,” attempting to explain unexpected difficulties in academic learning despite apparently adequate intelligence.¹ Samuel Kirk, a prominent figure in the field, viewed SLDs as an overarching category encompassing spoken and written language difficulties that manifested as disabilities in reading (dyslexia), mathematics (dyscalculia), and writing (dysgraphia).¹

Over time, the construct has shifted towards a more nuanced understanding of LDs as neurodevelopmental disorders with a presumed neurological basis.⁴ This evolution reflects broader advancements in psychology and neuroscience, moving from primarily behavioral descriptions of academic failure to an exploration of the underlying cognitive processes and neural mechanisms that contribute to these learning challenges. The American Psychological Association (APA), for instance, defines a learning disability as any of various conditions with a neurological basis marked by substantial deficits in acquiring certain academic skills.⁴ This transition from descriptive to process-oriented definitions has profound implications for assessment methodologies. Modern assessment practices aim not only to document academic underachievement but also to identify specific cognitive processing deficits that may be impeding learning, thereby informing more targeted interventions. The understanding that LDs are neurodevelopmental underscores the intrinsic nature of these conditions, differentiating them from learning problems stemming primarily from external factors.¹

B. Core Psychological Principles Underlying LD Assessment

Several core psychological principles form the bedrock of contemporary LD assessment and diagnosis:

Neurodevelopmental Nature: Learning disabilities are considered intrinsic to the individual, originating from differences in brain structure and function that affect cognitive processes crucial for learning.⁶ This neurodevelopmental perspective, as highlighted in the DSM-5, emphasizes that SLDs are not acquired through injury later in life (though brain injuries can cause learning problems, they are typically classified differently) but are rooted in developmental pathways.¹ Research increasingly points to specific cognitive, neurobiological, and even genetic factors contributing to these conditions.¹
Persistence: A hallmark of LDs is their persistent nature. The difficulties in acquiring and applying academic skills are not transient; they typically endure across an individual’s lifespan, particularly if appropriate interventions are not provided.³ While the specific manifestations of an LD may change with age and environmental demands—for example, a young child might struggle with decoding words, while an adult with the same underlying LD might read accurately but very slowly and with great effort—the underlying processing challenges often remain.¹
Unexpected Difficulty: Perhaps one of the most defining principles is that of “unexpected difficulty.” This means that an individual’s academic skills in one or more areas are substantially and quantifiably below what would be expected given their chronological age, overall measured intelligence, and exposure to adequate educational opportunities.¹ The learning problems are “unexpected” because they cannot be primarily attributed to other factors such as intellectual disability, sensory impairments, emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.¹ This principle necessitates a comprehensive assessment approach. To determine if an academic deficit is truly “unexpected,” clinicians must first establish a baseline of expected performance. This often involves administering standardized cognitive assessments to estimate an individual’s general intellectual abilities. Subsequently, standardized academic achievement tests are used to measure current skill levels. A significant discrepancy between this estimated potential and actual academic achievement, when other potential causes have been systematically ruled out, becomes a key indicator of a learning disability. This comparative process highlights the need for both cognitive and academic testing within a comprehensive evaluation and is fundamental to differential diagnosis.
Specificity: Learning disabilities are characterized by their specificity; they typically affect a relatively narrow range of academic and cognitive functions rather than global intellectual ability.¹ For instance, an individual might have a specific impairment in reading (dyslexia) while demonstrating age-appropriate skills in mathematics or oral language. This “specificity hypothesis” suggests that neurological variations selectively impair certain cognitive functions while leaving others intact, leading to distinctive patterns of strengths and weaknesses in an individual’s cognitive and academic profile.⁸ This contrasts with conditions like intellectual disability, where cognitive deficits are more generalized.

C. Purpose and Goals of a Psychological Assessment for LDs

A comprehensive psychological assessment for learning disabilities serves multiple critical purposes:

Identification and Diagnosis: The primary goal is to determine whether an individual meets the diagnostic criteria for a specific learning disorder, and if so, to specify the type and severity of the LD (e.g., SLD with impairment in reading, moderate severity).³
Understanding the Learning Profile: Assessment aims to create a detailed profile of the individual’s cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses.⁹ This involves identifying not only areas of difficulty but also areas of relative strength that can be leveraged in educational and therapeutic settings.
Informing Eligibility for Services and Accommodations: The assessment report provides the necessary documentation for individuals to access special education services, accommodations in academic or workplace settings (e.g., extended time on tests, assistive technology), and other forms of support.⁹
Guiding Intervention and Educational Planning: Beyond diagnosis, the assessment findings are crucial for developing tailored and effective intervention strategies and individualized education programs (IEPs) or support plans.¹⁰ Recommendations are typically provided for school, work, and daily living, aiming to foster effective strategies for learning and overall functioning.⁹

The assessment process, therefore, is not merely a diagnostic exercise but also serves prognostic and prescriptive functions. It seeks to provide a roadmap for support and intervention, emphasizing the practical utility of a thorough psychological evaluation in improving outcomes for individuals with LDs.

II. The Multidimensional Assessment Framework: An Integrative Approach

A. Rationale for a Multidimensional Approach

The assessment of learning disabilities necessitates a multidimensional approach due to the inherent complexity and heterogeneity of these conditions.¹ LDs manifest differently across individuals, affecting various combinations of academic skills and underlying cognitive processes. Relying on a single data point, such as a single test score or observation, is insufficient and often misleading for diagnostic purposes.¹² Legal mandates, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the United States, explicitly prohibit the use of any single measure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility for special education services.¹³

A multidimensional framework acknowledges that learning is a complex interplay of cognitive abilities, academic skills, socio-emotional well-being, and environmental influences.¹⁵ Therefore, a comprehensive evaluation must integrate information from various sources and methods to construct a holistic understanding of the individual’s learning profile.² This approach moves away from simplistic, one-size-fits-all diagnostic models towards a more nuanced, person-centered evaluation. Such an approach is also more robust in accurately differentiating LDs from other conditions that may present with similar learning difficulties, thereby ensuring that interventions are appropriately targeted. The call for “hybrid methods” in LD identification, which combine assessments of low achievement, response to instruction, and consideration of other disorders and contextual factors, further supports this integrative perspective.²

B. Key Components of a Comprehensive Evaluation

A comprehensive evaluation for learning disabilities typically involves a variety of assessment tools and strategies, gathering qualitatively different types of information that can be triangulated to form a robust diagnostic picture. The key components include:

Review of Records and Background Information: This foundational step involves a thorough examination of existing records, including developmental history (milestones, early concerns), medical history (illnesses, injuries, medications), educational history (school reports, standardized test scores, previous interventions), and family history (e.g., presence of LDs or related conditions in family members).⁶ This information provides crucial context and helps identify potential contributing factors or exclusionary conditions.
Clinical Interviews: In-depth interviews are conducted with the individual, their parents or caregivers, and their educators (teachers). These interviews gather qualitative data on the perceived difficulties, strengths, the onset and progression of concerns, behaviors observed in different settings, and the impact of learning challenges on daily life and emotional well-being.¹⁷ (This is covered in more detail in Section V).
Behavioral Observations: Observations of the individual’s behavior are conducted both during the clinical assessment (e.g., approach to tasks, attention, effort, frustration tolerance) and, ideally, in naturalistic settings such as the classroom (e.g., academic engagement, peer interactions, response to instruction).⁶ (This is covered in more detail in Section V).
Standardized Cognitive Assessments: Individually administered, norm-referenced tests are used to evaluate a range of cognitive abilities, such as verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory, processing speed, and fluid reasoning. These help to identify cognitive strengths and weaknesses that may underlie academic difficulties.¹⁹ (This is covered in more detail in Section III).
Standardized Academic Achievement Assessments: These tests measure an individual’s current level of performance in core academic areas like reading, writing, and mathematics, comparing them to age or grade-level peers.²¹ (This is covered in more detail in Section IV).
Assessment of Socio-emotional Functioning: Given the high comorbidity between LDs and socio-emotional difficulties (e.g., anxiety, depression, ADHD), this component involves assessing the individual’s emotional well-being, behavior, and social skills, often through rating scales, interviews, and observations.²³ (This is covered in more detail in Section VIII).
Assessment of Response to Intervention (RTI) Data: If the individual has participated in evidence-based instructional interventions, data on their response to these interventions (e.g., progress monitoring data) is reviewed.¹⁶ A lack of adequate progress despite high-quality instruction can be an indicator of an LD.

The use of a “variety of assessment tools and strategies” ¹³ is not merely about the quantity of measures used but about the systematic gathering of qualitatively different types of information. Each component provides a unique lens through which to view the individual’s functioning. The convergence (or divergence) of findings across these varied sources is critical for formulating an accurate diagnosis and a comprehensive understanding of the individual’s learning needs.

III. Standardized Cognitive Assessments: Unpacking the Cognitive Profile

Standardized cognitive assessments are a cornerstone of the psychological evaluation for learning disabilities. They provide quantitative and qualitative information about an individual’s underlying cognitive abilities, which are the mental processes involved in thinking, learning, and problem-solving.

A. Theoretical Frameworks Guiding Cognitive Assessment (e.g., CHC Theory)

The selection and interpretation of cognitive tests are often guided by established theories of intelligence and cognitive abilities. Among the most influential is the Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory, a hierarchical model that describes human cognitive abilities as comprising a general ability (g), several broad abilities (e.g., Fluid Reasoning – Gf, Comprehension-Knowledge – Gc, Short-Term Working Memory – Gwm, Processing Speed – Gs, Long-Term Retrieval – Glr, Auditory Processing – Ga, Visual Processing – Gv), and numerous narrow abilities nested within these broad domains.²⁰

CHC theory provides a scientifically grounded framework that moves beyond a single, global IQ score to a more nuanced understanding of an individual’s cognitive architecture. This is particularly relevant for LD assessment because it allows for the identification of specific patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses.²⁵ For instance, an individual might possess average or strong crystallized intelligence (Gc, acquired knowledge) and fluid reasoning (Gf, novel problem-solving), yet exhibit specific weaknesses in auditory processing (Ga) or working memory (Gwm). Such specific processing deficits are often hypothesized to underlie academic difficulties in areas like reading or mathematics.²⁰ The WJ IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities, for example, are explicitly designed to measure a range of CHC abilities, and its Gf−Gc Composite is often used as a measure of intellectual development, against which other cognitive processes (like Glr,Ga,Gv,Gs,Gwm) that can affect the development of reasoning and knowledge acquisition are compared.²⁰ This componential analysis of cognitive skills aligns with the principle of specificity in LDs, helping to pinpoint the cognitive mechanisms that may be contributing to the observed learning challenges.

B. Widely Used Standardized Cognitive Batteries

Several standardized, individually administered cognitive batteries are widely used in the assessment of learning disabilities. The choice of instrument often depends on the specific referral questions, the age of the individual, and the theoretical orientation of the psychologist.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V) / Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS): The Wechsler scales are among the most frequently used intelligence tests globally. The WISC-V, for children aged 6 to 16 years, provides a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) score and five primary index scores: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Visual Spatial Index (VSI), Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and Processing Speed Index (PSI).¹⁹ The WAIS is used for older adolescents and adults. These indices measure distinct cognitive domains:

Verbal Comprehension (VCI): Assesses the ability to access and apply acquired word knowledge, verbal concept formation, and verbal reasoning.¹⁹
Visual Spatial (VSI): Measures the ability to analyze visual details, understand visual-spatial relationships, and construct geometric designs.¹⁹
Fluid Reasoning (FRI): Evaluates the ability to detect underlying conceptual relationships among visual objects and use reasoning to identify and apply rules to solve novel problems.¹⁹
Working Memory (WMI): Assesses the capacity to register, maintain, and manipulate visual and auditory information in conscious awareness, crucial for tasks involving attention, concentration, and mental reasoning.¹⁹
Processing Speed (PSI): Measures the speed and efficiency of visual identification, decision-making, and decision implementation.¹⁹ The WISC-V and WAIS are valuable for identifying cognitive strengths and weaknesses that may be associated with LDs. For example, deficits in the WMI are often implicated in reading comprehension and mathematics difficulties, while slower PSI scores can impact performance on timed academic tasks.¹⁹

Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ IV COG): Grounded in CHC theory, the WJ IV COG assesses a broad spectrum of cognitive abilities across various age ranges (2 to 90+ years).¹⁰ It provides scores for numerous narrow abilities and broader CHC factors, including Gf,Gc,Gwm,Gs,Glr,Ga, and Gv.²⁰ A key feature for LD assessment is the Gf−Gc Composite, which is derived from tests measuring fluid reasoning and comprehension-knowledge. This composite is often used as a measure of intellectual development, and by comparing it to scores on other cognitive processing clusters and academic achievement tests, clinicians can identify patterns of strengths and weaknesses that are less influenced by processing deficits common in LDs.²⁰
Cognitive Assessment System (CAS): The CAS is based on the PASS theory of intelligence, which posits four essential cognitive processes: Planning, Attention, Simultaneous processing, and Successive processing.³⁰ It is designed for children and adolescents aged 5 to 17 years.³⁰ The CAS can be particularly useful in understanding the cognitive processing underlying specific learning difficulties. For example, weaknesses in Successive processing (handling information in a specific serial order) may be linked to decoding problems in reading, while difficulties in Planning (developing, selecting, and applying strategies to solve problems) might relate to challenges in mathematical problem-solving.³¹
NEPSY-II (A Developmental Neuropsychological Assessment): The NEPSY-II is a comprehensive battery designed to assess neuropsychological development in children aged 3 to 16 years.¹¹ It evaluates performance across six functional domains: Attention and Executive Functioning, Language, Sensorimotor Functions, Visuospatial Functions, Learning and Memory, and Social Perception (a domain added in NEPSY-II).³² Each domain comprises multiple subtests designed to tap specific cognitive functions (e.g., inhibition, phonological processing, visuomotor precision, list learning, theory of mind).³² The NEPSY-II is valuable for detecting underlying cognitive deficiencies that may impede a child’s learning and for developing targeted intervention strategies.¹¹

The availability of diverse cognitive assessment tools allows clinicians to select instruments that best address the referral questions and the individual’s characteristics. The trend in cognitive assessment for LDs is towards batteries that facilitate a componential analysis of cognitive skills, providing a more detailed understanding of an individual’s cognitive architecture than a single global IQ score can offer. This detailed profile of cognitive strengths and weaknesses is essential for understanding the nature of the learning disability.

C. Interpreting Cognitive Assessment Data

The interpretation of cognitive assessment data is a complex process that goes far beyond simply reporting scores. It involves:

Identifying Statistical Significance: Determining whether observed differences between scores (e.g., between different cognitive indices, or between an index score and the overall mean) are statistically significant, indicating a genuine strength or weakness.
Pattern Analysis: Looking for consistent patterns of performance across various subtests and indices that may be indicative of specific LD subtypes. For example, a pattern of weaknesses in phonological awareness (a narrow Ga ability), rapid automatized naming (often related to Gs and Glr), and verbal working memory (Gwm) is frequently associated with dyslexia.²⁵
Linking Cognitive Weaknesses to Functional Impact: Considering how identified cognitive weaknesses are likely to affect the individual’s academic learning (e.g., how a working memory deficit might impact multi-step math problem solving or reading comprehension) and their performance in everyday activities.
Integration with Other Data: Cognitive assessment results must be interpreted in conjunction with academic achievement data, behavioral observations, interview information, and background history to form a cohesive understanding of the individual.

Cognitive assessment, therefore, serves as a critical tool for understanding how an individual processes information and why they might be experiencing learning difficulties. The interpretation must forge clear links between cognitive findings and the observed learning challenges, providing a foundation for targeted interventions.

Table 1: Overview of Key Standardized Cognitive Assessment Batteries

Instrument Name	Key Cognitive Domains/Theoretical Basis	Typical Age Range	Specific Relevance to LD Assessment
WISC-V	VCI, VSI, FRI, WMI, PSI; FSIQ (Hierarchical model)	6:0-16:11 years	Identifies cognitive strengths/weaknesses (e.g., WMI, PSI deficits common in LDs); aids in diagnosing reading/language disorders, ADHD ¹⁹
WJ IV COG	CHC Theory (e.g., Gf,Gc,Gwm,Gs,Glr,Ga,Gv)	2-90+ years	Provides CHC-based profile; Gf−Gc Composite useful for pattern of strengths/weaknesses analysis, SLD identification ¹⁰
CAS (CAS2)	PASS Theory (Planning, Attention, Simultaneous, Successive processing)	5:0-17:11 years	Assesses cognitive processing underlying LDs (e.g., successive processing in reading, planning in math) ³⁰
NEPSY-II	6 Domains: Attention/Executive Functioning, Language, Sensorimotor, Visuospatial, Memory/Learning, Social Perception	3:0-16:11 years	Comprehensive neuropsychological assessment; detects underlying cognitive deficits impeding learning; informs interventions ¹¹

This table offers a comparative snapshot of these major cognitive assessment tools, facilitating a clearer understanding of their respective contributions to the diagnostic process for learning disabilities.

IV. Standardized Academic Achievement Assessments: Quantifying Learning Difficulties

Standardized academic achievement tests are indispensable tools in the diagnosis of learning disabilities. They provide objective, norm-referenced data on an individual’s current skills in fundamental academic areas.

A. Purpose and Role in LD Diagnosis

The primary purposes of academic achievement testing in an LD evaluation are:

Evaluating Proficiency: To assess an individual’s knowledge, skills, and performance in core academic domains such as reading, written expression, and mathematics.²¹
Measuring Learned Skills: These tests evaluate what a student has learned over a defined period, often in alignment with curriculum standards.²¹
Identifying Significant Deficits: A critical role is to determine if an individual’s academic skills are “substantially below” what is expected for their chronological age, grade level, or overall cognitive ability.³ This is a core criterion for diagnosing SLD according to DSM-5 and similar diagnostic frameworks.³ The results help quantify the extent of the learning difficulty.
Establishing Discrepancies (Historically and Contextually): While the strict IQ-achievement discrepancy model is no longer the sole or primary method for LD identification in many guidelines (e.g., IDEA 2004, DSM-5), comparing academic achievement with general cognitive ability can still provide context about whether the academic difficulties are “unexpected”.¹⁶

Academic achievement tests, therefore, provide the empirical evidence needed to document the “learning” component of a learning disability. They are essential for meeting diagnostic criteria that require academic skills to be significantly impaired.

B. Widely Used Standardized Academic Achievement Batteries

Similar to cognitive tests, a range of standardized academic achievement batteries are available to clinicians.

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT-III / WIAT-4): The WIAT is a comprehensive, individually administered test designed to assess academic achievement in individuals from early childhood through adulthood.²² It typically measures skills in:

Reading: Including word reading (decoding), pseudoword decoding (phonetic skills), reading comprehension (literal and inferential), and oral reading fluency.²²
Written Expression: Assessing spelling, sentence composition (grammar, syntax), and essay composition (organization, thematic development).²²
Mathematics: Covering math problem-solving (reasoning, application), numerical operations (calculation), and math fluency.²²
Oral Language: Often includes subtests assessing listening comprehension and oral expression.³³ The WIAT is frequently used in conjunction with Wechsler intelligence scales to examine discrepancies between cognitive ability and academic achievement, a common practice in LD evaluations.²²

Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH): The WJ IV ACH provides a comprehensive assessment of academic skills for individuals aged 2 to 90+ years.²⁶ It is co-normed with the WJ IV COG and WJ IV Tests of Oral Language, facilitating direct comparisons across cognitive and academic domains. Key areas assessed include:

Reading: Letter-Word Identification, Passage Comprehension, Word Attack (phonetic decoding), Oral Reading, Sentence Reading Fluency, Word Reading Fluency.²⁶
Written Expression: Spelling, Writing Samples (discourse-level writing), Sentence Writing Fluency, Editing.²⁶
Mathematics: Applied Problems (reasoning), Calculation, Math Facts Fluency.²⁶ The WJ IV ACH also offers specific clusters relevant to LD diagnosis, such as the Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge cluster, which is particularly useful in dyslexia evaluations as it measures the understanding of sound-symbol correspondences.²⁹

Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (KTEA-3): The KTEA-3 is another individually administered battery that provides an in-depth assessment of key academic skills in reading, writing, and mathematics for individuals aged 4 through 25.³⁴ It is used to identify learning disabilities, measure academic progress, and can be used for response to intervention (RTI) monitoring. A notable feature is the KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index, a brief, performance-based screener designed to identify risk for dyslexia by assessing skills such as word reading (timed and untimed) and spelling.³⁵

The choice of academic achievement battery may depend on the specific referral concerns, the age of the individual, the need for co-normed cognitive data (favoring WJ IV ACH if WJ IV COG is used), or the desire for specialized indices like the KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index.

C. Interpreting Academic Achievement Data

Interpreting academic achievement data involves more than just looking at standard scores and percentile ranks. A thorough interpretation includes:

Domain and Sub-skill Analysis: Examining performance across different academic domains (reading, writing, math) and, critically, within specific sub-skills. For example, in reading, it’s important to differentiate between difficulties in basic decoding (e.g., Word Attack on WJ IV ACH, Pseudoword Decoding on WIAT) versus reading comprehension.²⁶ Similarly, in math, distinguishing between calculation errors and problems with mathematical reasoning is crucial.³³
Identifying Normative Deficits: Determining which academic skills fall significantly below age or grade-level expectations based on normative comparisons.
Comparison with Cognitive Abilities: Analyzing academic scores in relation to the individual’s cognitive profile to identify any unexpected underachievement. A pattern where academic skills are significantly lower than predicted by overall cognitive ability is a hallmark of LD.²²
Qualitative Error Analysis: Examining the types of errors made by the individual can provide rich diagnostic information. For instance, are reading errors primarily phonetic, visual, or semantic? Are math errors due to miscalculation, misunderstanding of concepts, or misapplication of procedures?
Process Data Analysis: With the increasing use of digital assessments, “process data”—such as response times, number of response changes, or navigation patterns during an online test—can offer additional insights into how a student approaches tasks and may indicate an increased risk for an LD, even before formal diagnosis.³⁶ While not a standalone diagnostic, such data can supplement traditional scores.

The interpretation of academic achievement data, therefore, requires a blend of quantitative analysis (scores) and qualitative analysis (error patterns, observed behaviors, process data). This comprehensive approach helps to understand not only that a learning difficulty exists, but also the nature of that difficulty, which is essential for planning effective, targeted interventions.

Table 2: Overview of Key Standardized Academic Achievement Batteries

Instrument Name	Key Academic Areas Assessed	Typical Age Range	Specific Relevance to LD Assessment
WIAT-III/WIAT-4	Reading (decoding, comprehension, fluency), Written Expression (spelling, sentence/essay composition), Mathematics (problem-solving, calculation, fluency), Oral Language ²²	4:0 – 50:11 years (WIAT-III)	Identifies academic strengths/weaknesses; often used with Wechsler cognitive scales for discrepancy analysis; informs specific skill deficits ²²
WJ IV ACH	Reading (word ID, comprehension, phonics, fluency), Written Expression (spelling, writing quality, fluency), Mathematics (calculation, reasoning, fluency), Academic Knowledge ²⁶	2-90+ years	Co-normed with WJ IV COG/OL; provides CHC-based skill analysis; specific clusters for dyslexia (e.g., Phoneme-Grapheme Knowledge) ²⁹
KTEA-3	Reading (decoding, comprehension, fluency), Written Expression (spelling, composition), Mathematics (concepts, computation, applications), Oral Language ³⁴	4:6 – 25:11 years	In-depth skill assessment; includes Dyslexia Index for screening/risk assessment; useful for progress monitoring and intervention planning ³⁴

This table summarizes the scope and utility of these common academic achievement tests, underscoring their role in quantifying the specific academic challenges central to a learning disability diagnosis.

V. The Role of Behavioral Observations and Clinical Interviews

While standardized tests provide quantitative data on cognitive and academic skills, behavioral observations and clinical interviews yield rich qualitative and contextual information that is indispensable for a comprehensive understanding of an individual with a suspected learning disability.

A. Clinical Interviews: Gathering Rich Contextual Information

Clinical interviews are structured conversations designed to gather detailed information from multiple perspectives. They help to build a comprehensive picture of the individual’s history, current functioning, and the impact of their learning challenges.

Interviewing the Individual: This provides an opportunity to understand the individual’s own perception of their learning difficulties, their academic strengths and weaknesses, their educational and vocational history (for adults), their coping strategies, and their personal goals.¹⁷ For children and adolescents, this interview can shed light on their feelings about school, their awareness of their struggles, and their motivation.
Interviewing Parents/Caregivers: Parents or caregivers offer invaluable insights into the individual’s early developmental milestones (e.g., language development, motor skills), family history (e.g., presence of learning disabilities or related conditions in other family members), the onset and nature of the learning concerns, behaviors observed at home, support systems available, and strategies that have been attempted to address the difficulties.¹⁷ This historical perspective is crucial for establishing the developmental nature of LDs.
Interviewing Educators: Teachers and other school personnel can provide critical information about the individual’s academic performance in the classroom, their engagement with learning tasks, specific areas of struggle, their response to different instructional approaches, their behavior in the school setting, and their social interactions with peers.¹⁷ Teacher input is vital for understanding how learning difficulties manifest in the primary learning environment.

The significance of clinical interviews lies in their ability to:

Establish Context: They help to understand the historical development, onset, and progression of the learning difficulties.¹⁷
Identify Patterns: They can reveal patterns of strengths, weaknesses, and behaviors across different settings (home, school, community).¹⁷
Gather Subjective Information: Interviews capture the personal experiences, perspectives, and emotional impact of the learning challenges, which are not typically evident from standardized test scores alone.¹⁷
Inform Assessment Planning: Information gathered during interviews helps the psychologist to tailor the subsequent assessment process by selecting the most appropriate tests and identifying specific areas to focus on.¹⁷
Contribute to Differential Diagnosis: Interview data can help rule out exclusionary factors, such as inadequate instruction, significant psychosocial stressors, or lack of motivation, that might otherwise explain the learning problems.³

Clinical interviews are indispensable for understanding the lived experience of learning difficulties. They provide a narrative and context that standardized scores alone cannot offer and are crucial for assessing the functional impact of these difficulties on daily life, a key component of diagnostic criteria.³

B. Behavioral Observations: Assessing Functioning in Real-World Contexts

Behavioral observations involve the systematic watching and recording of an individual’s behavior in different settings. This direct method provides firsthand information about how an individual functions and approaches tasks.

Clinical Setting Observations: During the administration of standardized tests and other assessment activities, the psychologist carefully observes the individual’s behavior. This includes their approach to tasks, attention span, effort, frustration tolerance, anxiety levels, use of problem-solving strategies, response to feedback, and any atypical behaviors.⁶ For example, observing whether a child rushes through tasks impulsively, gives up easily when challenged, or exhibits signs of anxiety can provide important clues about underlying issues.
Naturalistic Observations (e.g., Classroom, Home): Whenever feasible, observing the individual in their natural environments, particularly the classroom for school-aged individuals, is highly valuable.¹⁷ Classroom observations allow the psychologist to see how the student engages with academic tasks, interacts with the teacher and peers, responds to instructional methods, and manages classroom demands.¹⁷ Observations at home can provide insights into homework behaviors, organizational skills, and family interactions related to learning.

The significance of behavioral observations includes:

Assessing Functional Skills: Observations reveal how learning difficulties impact the individual’s ability to perform everyday academic tasks and participate in relevant social and learning environments.¹⁷
Identifying Behavioral Manifestations: They can highlight specific behaviors that may be indicative of an LD or co-occurring conditions (e.g., inattention, impulsivity, avoidance of academic tasks, difficulty following directions).¹⁷
Corroborating or Contradicting Other Data: Observations can support, clarify, or sometimes contradict information gathered through interviews or test results, leading to a more complete and accurate picture of the individual’s challenges.¹⁷ For instance, a child might perform adequately on a structured, one-on-one vocabulary test but demonstrate significant word-finding difficulties during spontaneous classroom discussions.
Informing Intervention Strategies: Understanding how an individual behaves and learns in different settings can directly inform the development of targeted interventions and support strategies.¹⁷

Behavioral observations can reveal subtle but significant indicators of LDs that may not be captured by other methods. Observing a child’s approach to a challenging task, for example, can illuminate their metacognitive strategies (or lack thereof), their persistence, and their emotional regulation, all of which are relevant to understanding their learning profile and the functional impact of any identified disability.³

C. The Role of Informant Data (Rating Scales and Questionnaires)

Informant rating scales and questionnaires are structured tools used to systematically collect information from parents, teachers, and sometimes the individual themselves (self-report) about specific behaviors, symptoms, and adaptive functioning.¹⁷ These instruments typically ask raters to indicate the frequency or severity of a range of behaviors (e.g., related to attention, hyperactivity, anxiety, social skills, academic competence).

The use of multiple informants is crucial because behavior can vary significantly across different contexts and situations.³⁷ A child might exhibit more inattentive behaviors in a stimulating classroom environment than in a quiet home setting, or vice versa. Comparing ratings from different informants (e.g., parent versus teacher) can highlight these contextual variations.

While informant data is valuable, clinicians must be aware of potential challenges, such as rater bias or discrepancies between informants.³⁷ For example, a parent and a teacher might have different perceptions of a child’s behavior due to differing expectations, tolerance levels, or the specific demands of the environment. Such discrepancies are not necessarily indicative of “error” in reporting but can provide rich information about the child’s functioning in different settings and the varying perspectives of key adults in their life. Careful interpretation, considering the source of the information and the context, is essential.³⁷

Informant rating scales provide structured, often quantifiable data on behaviors and symptoms that complement the qualitative data from interviews and direct observations. This triangulation of information from multiple methods and multiple sources strengthens the validity of the assessment findings and contributes to a more comprehensive and reliable diagnostic process.

VI. Psychological Criteria for Diagnosing Learning Disabilities

The diagnosis of learning disabilities is guided by established criteria set forth in major diagnostic classification systems. These criteria provide a standardized framework for clinicians, though their application requires careful clinical judgment and the integration of comprehensive assessment data.

A. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR) Criteria for Specific Learning Disorder (SLD)

The DSM-5-TR, published by the American Psychiatric Association, is widely used in North America and other parts of the world for the diagnosis of mental and neurodevelopmental disorders, including Specific Learning Disorder (SLD).³ The DSM-5 consolidated previous separate learning disorder categories (reading disorder, mathematics disorder, disorder of written expression) into a single overarching diagnosis of SLD, with specifiers to denote the particular area(s) of academic difficulty.³

The diagnostic criteria for SLD are as follows ³:

Criterion A: Persistent Difficulties in Learning and Using Academic Skills: The individual must exhibit difficulties in at least one of the following six symptom areas, persisting for at least six months despite the provision of interventions targeting those difficulties:

Inaccurate or slow and effortful word reading (e.g., reads single words aloud incorrectly or slowly and hesitantly, frequently guesses words, has difficulty sounding out words).
Difficulty understanding the meaning of what is read (e.g., may read text accurately but not understand the sequence, relationships, inferences, or deeper meanings of what is read).
Difficulties with spelling (e.g., may add, omit, or substitute vowels or consonants).
Difficulties with written expression (e.g., makes multiple grammatical or punctuation errors within sentences; employs poor paragraph organization; written expression of ideas lacks clarity).
Difficulties mastering number sense, number facts, or calculation (e.g., has poor understanding of numbers, their magnitude, and relationships; counts on fingers to add single-digit numbers instead of recalling math facts as peers do; gets lost in the midst of arithmetic computation and may switch procedures).
Difficulties with mathematical reasoning (e.g., has severe difficulty applying mathematical concepts, facts, or procedures to solve quantitative problems).

Criterion B: Substantially Low Academic Skills: The affected academic skills must be substantially and quantifiably below those expected for the individual’s chronological age. This results in significant interference with academic or occupational performance, or with activities of daily living. This determination is confirmed by individually administered standardized achievement measures and a comprehensive clinical assessment. “Substantially below” is often interpreted as performance at least 1.5 standard deviations below the population mean for age on appropriate tests, though clinical judgment is also paramount.³⁸
Criterion C: Onset During School-Age Years: The learning difficulties must have begun during the school-age years. However, they may not become fully manifest until the demands for those affected academic skills exceed the individual’s limited capacities (e.g., in timed tests, reading or writing lengthy complex reports for a tight deadline, excessively heavy academic loads).
Criterion D: Exclusionary Factors: The learning difficulties are not better accounted for by intellectual disabilities, uncorrected visual or auditory acuity, other mental or neurological disorders (e.g., pediatric stroke, traumatic brain injury), psychosocial adversity (e.g., economic or environmental disadvantage, chronic absenteeism), lack of proficiency in the language of academic instruction, or inadequate educational instruction. This criterion underscores the importance of a thorough differential diagnosis.

Specifiers for SLD: The DSM-5 requires clinicians to specify all academic domains and subskills that are impaired:

With impairment in reading: This specifier encompasses difficulties with word reading accuracy, reading rate or fluency, and/or reading comprehension. The term “dyslexia” is listed as an alternative term to refer to a pattern of learning difficulties characterized by problems with accurate or fluent word recognition, poor decoding, and poor spelling abilities.³
With impairment in written expression: This includes difficulties with spelling accuracy, grammar and punctuation accuracy, and/or clarity or organization of written expression. The term “dysgraphia” may be used to describe these difficulties, particularly those related to transcription (spelling, handwriting) and/or text generation (ideation, organization).³
With impairment in mathematics: This involves difficulties with number sense, memorization of arithmetic facts, accurate or fluent calculation, and/or accurate math reasoning. The term “dyscalculia” is an alternative term used to refer to a pattern of difficulties characterized by problems processing numerical information, learning arithmetic facts, and performing accurate or fluent calculations.³

Severity Levels: The DSM-5 also requires specification of current severity:

Mild: Some difficulties with learning skills in one or two academic domains, but the individual may be ableto compensate or function well with appropriate accommodations or support services.
Moderate: Marked difficulties with learning skills in one or more academic domains, so that the individual is unlikely to become proficient without some intervals of intensive, specialized teaching during the school years. Some accommodations or supportive services may be needed at least part of the day in school, in the workplace, or at home to complete activities accurately and efficiently.
Severe: Severe difficulties with learning skills, affecting several academic domains, so that the individual is unlikely to learn those skills without ongoing intensive individualized and specialized teaching for most of the school years. Even with an array of appropriate accommodations or services, the individual may not be able to complete all activities efficiently.³

The DSM-5 criteria necessitate a convergence of evidence from multiple sources: persistent symptoms (Criterion A, often identified through interviews, observations, and school reports), documented low achievement on standardized tests (Criterion B), onset during school years (Criterion C, from history), and the systematic ruling out of other potential explanations (Criterion D, through differential diagnosis). The shift to a single overarching SLD category with specifiers acknowledges the frequent co-occurrence of difficulties across academic domains and allows for a more precise and nuanced diagnostic statement that better reflects the individual’s learning profile.³

B. International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) Criteria for Developmental Learning Disorder

The ICD-11, developed by the World Health Organization, is the global standard for diagnostic health information. It includes a category for “Developmental learning disorder,” which shows considerable conceptual overlap with the DSM-5’s SLD.³⁹

Key features of the ICD-11 criteria for Developmental Learning Disorder include ³⁹:

Characterized by significant and persistent difficulties in learning fundamental academic skills, which may include reading, writing, or arithmetic.
The individual’s performance in the affected academic skill(s) is markedly below what would be expected for their chronological age and general level of intellectual functioning.
These difficulties result in significant impairment in the individual’s academic or occupational functioning.
The disorder first manifests when academic skills are taught during the early school years.
Exclusionary factors are similar to those in DSM-5: the difficulties are not due to a disorder of intellectual development, sensory impairment (vision or hearing), a neurological or motor disorder (e.g., acquired brain injury), lack of availability of education, lack of proficiency in the language of academic instruction, or psychosocial adversity.

The ICD-11 provides specific codes for ³⁹:

Developmental learning disorder with impairment in reading (often referred to as dyslexia).
Developmental learning disorder with impairment in written expression.
Developmental learning disorder with impairment in mathematics (often referred to as dyscalculia).
Developmental learning disorder with other specified impairment of learning.
Developmental learning disorder, unspecified.

The convergence between DSM-5 and ICD-11 criteria regarding the core features of learning disabilities—persistent difficulties in specific academic areas, performance significantly below expectations, onset in childhood, and the exclusion of other primary causes—strengthens the international understanding and recognition of these conditions. Awareness of both systems is beneficial for psychologists, particularly in multidisciplinary or international contexts.

C. The Role of Clinical Judgment in Applying Criteria

While diagnostic manuals provide structured criteria, the application of these criteria in individual cases relies heavily on sound clinical judgment. This involves:

Integrating Diverse Data: Synthesizing information gathered from standardized tests (cognitive and academic), clinical interviews (with the individual, parents, teachers), behavioral observations, and reviews of educational and medical records.³ No single piece of information is sufficient for a diagnosis.
Contextual Understanding: Considering the individual’s unique developmental trajectory, cultural background, linguistic experiences, and environmental context when interpreting assessment data.⁶ For example, the performance of a child who is a recent immigrant and learning the language of instruction must be interpreted differently than that of a native speaker.
Determining “Substantial” and “Significant”: The criteria refer to academic skills being “substantially” below expectations and causing “significant” interference.³ While standardized scores provide quantitative benchmarks (e.g., 1.5 or 2 standard deviations below the mean), the determination of “substantial” and “significant” is not solely a matter of meeting a statistical cut-off.⁴ Clinical judgment is required to evaluate the real-world impact of the academic deficits on the individual’s functioning in school, work, or daily life, considering the totality of evidence. A score slightly above a typical cut-off might still be considered indicative of a significant deficit if other evidence (e.g., history of struggle, need for extensive support, qualitative observations of extreme effort) strongly supports an LD. Conversely, low scores primarily attributable to exclusionary factors (e.g., recent trauma, prolonged school absence due to illness, documented inadequate instruction) would not lead to an LD diagnosis, even if numerically low.
Weighing Exclusionary Factors: Carefully evaluating whether the learning difficulties are primarily the result of other conditions or circumstances. This often involves complex reasoning, especially when comorbidity is present (e.g., an individual with both ADHD and reading difficulties).

Clinical judgment, therefore, is the crucial element that bridges the gap between standardized criteria and the unique presentation of each individual. It ensures that diagnoses are not made mechanistically but are based on a thoughtful, evidence-based integration of all available information.

Table 3: DSM-5-TR Diagnostic Criteria for Specific Learning Disorder (Abridged)

Criterion	Description
Criterion A: Symptom Presence	Persistent difficulties in learning/using academic skills, with at least one of the following for ≥6 months, despite targeted help: <br> 1. Inaccurate/slow/effortful word reading <br> 2. Difficulty understanding reading meaning <br> 3. Spelling difficulties <br> 4. Written expression difficulties (grammar, punctuation, clarity, organization) <br> 5. Difficulty with number sense, facts, or calculation <br> 6. Difficulty with mathematical reasoning ³
Criterion B: Low Academic Skills & Impairment	Affected academic skills are substantially and quantifiably below chronological age expectations, causing significant interference in academic/occupational performance or daily living. Confirmed by standardized achievement tests and comprehensive clinical assessment.³
Criterion C: Onset	Difficulties begin during school-age years (may not fully manifest until demands exceed capacities).³
Criterion D: Exclusionary Factors	Difficulties are NOT better accounted for by: Intellectual Disabilities; uncorrected sensory acuity issues; other mental or neurological disorders; psychosocial adversity; lack of proficiency in the language of instruction; or inadequate instruction.³
Specifiers	Must specify all academic domains and subskills impaired: <br> – With impairment in reading (dyslexia) <br> – With impairment in written expression (dysgraphia) <br> – With impairment in mathematics (dyscalculia) <br> Also specify current severity: Mild, Moderate, or Severe.³

This table provides a structured summary of the DSM-5-TR criteria, highlighting the systematic, multi-faceted approach required for the diagnosis of Specific Learning Disorder.

VII. Differential Diagnosis: Distinguishing LDs from Other Conditions

A. Importance of Differential Diagnosis

Differential diagnosis is a critical and often complex component of the assessment process for learning disabilities. Its importance lies in the need to ensure diagnostic accuracy, which directly impacts the appropriateness and effectiveness of subsequent interventions.⁴² Many conditions can manifest with learning difficulties or academic underachievement, and it is crucial to distinguish an SLD from these other potential causes. Failure to do so can lead to mislabeling, overlooking co-occurring conditions that also require treatment, or implementing interventions that do not address the primary underlying problem, potentially hindering the individual’s progress and well-being.⁴² The exclusionary criteria (Criterion D) embedded within the DSM-5 and ICD-11 diagnostic frameworks explicitly mandate this process of considering and ruling out alternative explanations for the observed learning challenges.³

B. Key Conditions to Differentiate

Psychologists must carefully consider and differentiate SLD from several other conditions:

Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD):

Overlap: ADHD and SLD frequently co-occur, with comorbidity rates estimated between 31% and 45%.⁴⁴ Both conditions can lead to academic difficulties, and symptoms like inattention can be present in both.⁴²
Distinguishing Features: ADHD is primarily characterized by persistent patterns of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity that are pervasive across settings and interfere with functioning or development.⁴⁴ While individuals with SLD may appear inattentive, particularly during challenging academic tasks or due to frustration, this inattention is often more circumscribed and not as globally impairing as in ADHD, unless ADHD is also present.⁴² The core deficits in SLD relate to specific cognitive processes involved in learning academic skills (e.g., phonological processing in dyslexia), whereas ADHD involves broader difficulties with executive functions related to behavioral regulation, sustained attention, and impulse control.⁴⁴ If criteria for both disorders are met, both diagnoses can be given.⁴²

Intellectual Disability (ID):

Distinguishing Features: SLD involves specific deficits in learning academic skills despite generally average or above-average overall intellectual abilities.⁴ In contrast, Intellectual Disability is characterized by significant limitations both in intellectual functioning (reasoning, problem-solving, planning, abstract thinking, learning from experience – typically an IQ score around 70 or below) and in adaptive behavior, with onset during the developmental period.⁴⁵ The learning difficulties in ID are more global and commensurate with overall cognitive limitations, whereas in SLD, there is an “unexpected” gap between intellectual potential and specific academic achievement.
Assessment: Standardized cognitive assessments (IQ tests) are crucial in differentiating these conditions, alongside measures of adaptive functioning for ID.⁴³

Sensory Impairments (Vision/Hearing):

Distinguishing Features: Learning problems that are primarily the result of uncorrected visual impairments or hearing loss are excluded from an SLD diagnosis.⁴⁶ For example, if a child cannot read because they cannot see the words clearly due to an uncorrected vision problem, this is not dyslexia.
Assessment: Thorough vision and hearing screenings are essential early in the assessment process. If a sensory impairment is identified and corrected (e.g., with glasses or hearing aids), and significant learning difficulties persist beyond what can be attributed to the (corrected) sensory issue, then a co-occurring SLD might be considered.⁴⁶ The key is whether the sensory impairment is the primary cause of the academic underachievement.⁴⁶

Emotional or Behavioral Disorders (e.g., Anxiety, Depression, Conduct Disorder):

Overlap: Significant emotional or behavioral problems can interfere with a student’s ability to attend to instruction, complete academic tasks, and perform optimally in school.²³ Furthermore, students with SLD are at higher risk for developing secondary emotional issues, such as anxiety, depression, or low self-esteem, due to repeated academic failure and frustration.²³
Distinguishing Features: The clinician must determine the primary nature of the problem. Are the learning difficulties a direct consequence of a primary emotional or behavioral disorder (e.g., severe anxiety preventing school attendance or participation)? Or does the individual have an SLD that is contributing to or coexisting with emotional/behavioral problems?²³ A careful developmental history, assessment of the pervasiveness and onset of emotional versus academic problems, and consideration of the response to interventions targeting either domain can help clarify this relationship.

Effects of Inadequate Instruction or Environmental/Cultural/Economic Disadvantage:

Distinguishing Features: Learning difficulties must not be primarily attributable to a lack of appropriate educational instruction, limited opportunities to learn (e.g., due to frequent school changes or absenteeism), or significant environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantages.⁵ For example, a child who has not received systematic phonics instruction may struggle with decoding, but this would not necessarily indicate dyslexia if the problem resolves with appropriate teaching. Similarly, students from culturally or linguistically diverse backgrounds may face academic challenges related to language acquisition or unfamiliarity with the educational system, which must be distinguished from an intrinsic learning disability (see Section IX.B).
Assessment: This requires a thorough review of the student’s educational history, the quality and appropriateness of instruction received (including any interventions), and an understanding of their home and community environment.⁴¹

The process of differential diagnosis is iterative and requires careful, evidence-based reasoning. Comorbidity is a frequent consideration; an individual can have an SLD alongside another condition, such as ADHD or an anxiety disorder.⁴² In such cases, the psychologist must determine if the criteria for SLD are met independently of the effects of the co-occurring condition, and both diagnoses may be warranted if criteria for each are fulfilled.

Table 4: Differential Diagnosis: Key Distinguishing Features

Condition	Core Differentiating Characteristics from SLD
Specific Learning Disorder (SLD)	Specific cognitive processing deficit(s) underlying unexpected difficulty in acquiring specific academic skills (reading, writing, math) despite average/above-average general intelligence. Not primarily due to other factors. ³
Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)	Primary issue is a pervasive pattern of inattention and/or hyperactivity-impulsivity impacting functioning across multiple settings; learning problems often secondary to these behavioral/attentional deficits rather than a primary deficit in academic skill acquisition. ⁴²
Intellectual Disability (ID)	Global deficits in general intellectual functioning (IQ typically ≤70−75) AND significant impairments in adaptive behavior across multiple domains; learning difficulties are consistent with overall cognitive level. ⁴³
Sensory Impairment (Vision/Hearing)	Learning problems are primarily and directly attributable to uncorrected deficits in vision or hearing. If corrected, and specific learning issues persist beyond sensory explanation, SLD may co-occur. ⁴⁶
Emotional/Behavioral Disorder (e.g., Anxiety, Depression)	Primary issue is emotional dysregulation or behavioral disturbance that significantly impacts learning; academic difficulties are often a consequence of the emotional/behavioral state. SLD can also lead to secondary emotional problems. ²³
Inadequate Instruction / Environmental Disadvantage / Cultural or Linguistic Difference	Learning difficulties are primarily the result of insufficient or inappropriate educational experiences, lack of opportunity to learn, significant psychosocial adversity, or challenges related to acculturation or language acquisition rather than an intrinsic processing deficit. ⁷

This table provides a succinct overview of the primary distinctions crucial for accurate differential diagnosis, reinforcing the necessity of a comprehensive assessment that considers multiple alternative explanations for observed learning difficulties.

VIII. The Multidimensional Assessment in Practice: Integrating Cognitive, Academic, and Socio-emotional Factors

A multidimensional assessment culminates in the synthesis of diverse data streams—cognitive, academic, socio-emotional, behavioral, and historical—to create a comprehensive learning profile for an individual. This profile serves as the foundation for diagnosis and intervention planning.

A. Synthesizing Data for a Comprehensive Learning Profile

The creation of a comprehensive learning profile moves beyond an examination of isolated test scores or observations. It is an interpretive act that requires the psychologist to weave together disparate pieces of information into a coherent and meaningful narrative about the individual’s learning.⁵¹ This process involves:

Looking for Converging Evidence: Identifying consistent themes and patterns that emerge across different assessment methods (e.g., standardized tests, interviews, observations) and from various informants (e.g., individual, parents, teachers).⁵³ For example, if a child’s low score on a working memory subtest (cognitive data) aligns with teacher reports of difficulty following multi-step instructions (interview data) and observations of the child frequently asking for repetitions during testing (behavioral data), this convergence strengthens the hypothesis of a working memory deficit.
Identifying Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses: A key goal is to delineate the individual’s unique profile of cognitive and academic strengths alongside their areas of difficulty.⁸ This “specificity hypothesis” is central to the LD construct, suggesting that LDs involve selective impairments rather than global deficits.⁸ Recognizing strengths is as important as identifying weaknesses, as strengths can be leveraged in intervention.
Developing a Case Formulation: This involves constructing an explanatory model that integrates all relevant findings to explain the nature and origin of the learning difficulties.⁵¹ An “integrated report format,” as described by some practitioners, aims to present findings by domain of functioning, integrating data from parent reports, observations, teacher input, and standardized tests within each domain to tell a cohesive story.⁵² This holistic approach ensures that the assessment is not merely a collection of test results but a dynamic understanding of the individual learner.⁵⁵

This synthesis is crucial for moving beyond simply identifying that a student is struggling to understanding why they are struggling and how these challenges manifest in different contexts.

B. The Interplay of Cognitive and Academic Factors

A core component of the learning profile is the elucidation of the relationship between an individual’s cognitive processing abilities and their academic achievement.²⁵ The assessment aims to identify specific cognitive weaknesses—such as deficits in phonological processing, working memory, processing speed, fluid reasoning, or visual-spatial processing—that are likely contributing to the observed academic deficits in areas like reading (dyslexia), writing (dysgraphia), or mathematics (dyscalculia).⁸

For instance, a profile might reveal that a student’s difficulties in reading decoding and spelling (academic deficits) are strongly associated with identified weaknesses in phonological awareness (a component of auditory processing, Ga) and rapid automatized naming (related to processing speed, Gs, and long-term retrieval, Glr).²⁹ This connection helps to explain the underlying “basic psychological processes” that are disrupted, a concept central to many definitions of LDs. Understanding these cognitive underpinnings is vital for designing interventions that target not just the academic symptoms but also the contributing cognitive weaknesses.

C. Integrating Socio-emotional Factors and Psychological Well-being

Learning disabilities do not occur in an emotional vacuum. There is a well-documented bidirectional relationship between LDs and socio-emotional functioning.²³ A comprehensive learning profile must therefore integrate an assessment of the individual’s psychological well-being. This includes:

Assessing for Co-occurring Conditions: Screening for and, if necessary, formally assessing common co-occurring conditions such as ADHD, anxiety disorders, depression, and behavioral difficulties.²³ Approximately half of individuals with SLD may exhibit emotional-behavioral problems.⁴⁹
Understanding the Impact of LD on Well-being: Recognizing that the chronic stress and frustration associated with academic failure can lead to secondary emotional problems like low self-esteem, school avoidance, anxiety, or learned helplessness.²³
Considering How Well-being Affects Learning: Acknowledging that pre-existing or co-occurring socio-emotional issues can exacerbate learning difficulties by impacting motivation, attention, engagement, frustration tolerance, and resilience.²³

Integrating socio-emotional data is crucial for both accurate differential diagnosis (distinguishing SLD from primary emotional disorders) and for developing effective, holistic intervention plans. Interventions that solely focus on academic skills without addressing coexisting anxiety or attention problems, for example, may be less effective.⁴⁹ The profile should capture this interplay, informing recommendations that address both academic and emotional needs.

D. Considering Environmental and Contextual Influences

Individuals learn and develop within various environmental contexts, including the home, school, and community. A comprehensive learning profile considers these influences:

Home Environment: Factors such as literacy support at home, parental stress levels, socioeconomic status, and opportunities for cognitive stimulation can influence a child’s development and academic readiness.⁵
School Experiences: The quality of instruction, classroom environment, teacher-student relationships, peer interactions, and history of interventions significantly impact learning.¹⁷ The assessment must consider whether the student has had adequate and appropriate opportunities to learn.⁷
Cultural and Linguistic Background: As detailed in Section IX, an individual’s cultural and linguistic background can profoundly influence their learning experiences and performance on assessments. These factors must be carefully considered to avoid misinterpreting cultural or linguistic differences as disabilities.

Environmental factors can mediate the expression and impact of an LD. They can also, if adverse and pervasive, be the primary cause of learning difficulties, which would preclude an LD diagnosis. The learning profile must therefore reflect an understanding of these contextual variables.

E. Developing the Comprehensive Learning Profile for Diagnosis and Intervention Planning

The ultimate output of the multidimensional assessment is a rich, individualized learning profile that serves as the foundation for diagnostic decisions and all subsequent support and intervention efforts.⁵⁵ This profile should:

Clearly Articulate the Diagnosis: If an LD is diagnosed, the report should specify the areas of impairment (e.g., SLD with impairment in reading and written expression) and the level of severity, based on established criteria such as the DSM-5.³
Highlight Strengths and Weaknesses: The profile should provide a balanced view, detailing not only the areas of difficulty but also the individual’s cognitive and academic strengths, talents, and interests.⁸ These strengths can be pivotal in designing effective interventions and fostering resilience.
Provide Specific, Evidence-Based Recommendations: Based on the unique learning profile, the psychologist should offer concrete, actionable, and evidence-based recommendations for interventions, accommodations (e.g., extended time, assistive technology), and support strategies tailored to the individual’s needs at home, school, and, for adults, in the workplace.⁹ These recommendations should logically flow from the assessment findings, addressing the identified weaknesses while leveraging strengths.

This comprehensive learning profile transforms the assessment from a mere data-gathering exercise into a powerful tool for understanding the individual learner and guiding efforts to support their academic success and overall well-being. It should be a practical and useful document for the individual, their family, and educators.

IX. Ethical Considerations in LD Assessment and Diagnosis

The assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities carry significant ethical responsibilities for psychologists. Adherence to core ethical principles and professional practice standards is paramount to ensure that the process is fair, accurate, and ultimately beneficial to the individual.

A. Core APA Ethical Principles in Practice

The American Psychological Association’s (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct provides a foundational framework. Key principles include:

Beneficence and Nonmaleficence: Psychologists strive to benefit those with whom they work and take care to do no harm.⁵⁹ In LD assessment, this means conducting thorough and accurate evaluations that lead to appropriate diagnoses and helpful recommendations, while avoiding practices that could lead to misdiagnosis, stigmatization, or the overlooking of an individual’s needs. This involves using reliable and valid assessment tools and interpreting results cautiously.⁶⁰
Fidelity and Responsibility / Integrity: Psychologists establish relationships of trust and are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities. They promote accuracy, honesty, and truthfulness in the science, teaching, and practice of psychology.⁶⁰ For LD assessment, this translates to maintaining professional competence, accurately representing one’s qualifications, using assessment tools as intended by their developers, and transparently communicating the assessment process, findings, and limitations of those findings.⁶⁰
Justice: Psychologists recognize that fairness and justice entitle all persons to access and benefit from the contributions of psychology and to equal quality in the processes, procedures, and services being conducted.⁶⁰ This principle demands that LD assessments are conducted equitably, avoiding bias in procedures and interpretation, and advocating for fair access to appropriate services for all individuals, regardless of background.⁶⁰
Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity: Psychologists respect the dignity and worth of all people, and the rights of individuals to privacy, confidentiality, and self-determination.⁶⁰ This is manifested in LD assessment by obtaining truly informed consent in understandable language, ensuring the confidentiality of sensitive assessment data and diagnostic information, respecting cultural and individual differences throughout the process, and empowering individuals and their families in decision-making.⁶⁰

These overarching principles guide every stage of the assessment, from initial contact and test selection through to the interpretation of results and communication of diagnostic conclusions. Their application is particularly critical in LD assessment due to the potential for labeling and the significant impact a diagnosis can have on an individual’s educational path, self-perception, and life opportunities.

B. Non-Discriminatory Assessment Practices, especially for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Individuals

Assessing individuals from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds for learning disabilities presents unique challenges and requires heightened ethical sensitivity and specialized competence to avoid diagnostic errors.

Legal Mandates: The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in the U.S. mandates that evaluation procedures must be selected and administered so as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis.¹³ Assessments must be provided and administered in the child’s native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible to do so.¹³ IDEA also requires the use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies, and prohibits using any single measure as the sole criterion for determining whether a child has a disability.¹³
Best Practices: Professional guidelines from organizations like the APA and best practices articulated by experts such as Ortiz (2014) emphasize several key strategies ⁴¹:

Language of Assessment: Conducting assessments in the individual’s native language or most proficient language is crucial.⁴¹ If this is not possible, qualified interpreters or translators who also possess cultural knowledge should be used, with careful consideration of the limitations of translated tests.⁶⁴
Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Tools: Selecting assessment instruments that are validated for the specific cultural and linguistic group being assessed is paramount. Clinicians must be aware of potential biases in standardized tests normed primarily on majority populations and understand the limitations of test norms for CLD individuals.⁴¹
Contextual Information: Thoroughly evaluating the individual’s acculturation level, proficiency in both their first (L1) and second (L2) languages, educational history in different cultural contexts, and exposure to the language of instruction is essential.⁴¹
Multiple Data Sources: Relying on multiple sources of information (e.g., observations, interviews with family and community members, work samples, dynamic assessment) and looking for converging evidence is critical to reduce bias and increase diagnostic accuracy.⁵³
Evaluation of Learning Ecology: Assessing the learning environment and the individual’s opportunity to learn within that context is vital. This includes examining the cultural responsiveness of instruction and the curriculum.⁵³
Differentiating Difference from Disorder: A core task is to distinguish learning difficulties that stem from cultural or linguistic differences, or the process of language acquisition, from those that indicate an intrinsic learning disability.⁴¹

Failure to adhere to these non-discriminatory practices can lead to the misdiagnosis of CLD individuals, either by over-identifying LDs (mistaking language differences for disorders) or under-identifying them (attributing genuine learning disabilities solely to cultural or linguistic factors). This requires psychologists to be culturally competent and to act as “cultural brokers,” bridging understanding between the assessment process and the individual’s unique background.

C. Ethical Considerations in Test Selection, Administration, and Interpretation

Ethical practice demands careful consideration in the technical aspects of assessment:

Test Selection: Psychologists must select instruments that are technically sound—meaning they possess adequate validity (the test measures what it purports to measure) and reliability (the test yields consistent results) for the specific population being assessed and for the intended purpose of the assessment.⁶
Standardized Administration: Tests must be administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel in strict accordance with the standardized procedures provided by the test developers.¹³ Deviations from standard administration can invalidate the norms and compromise the results.
Interpretation: Results should be interpreted cautiously, within the context of all available information, including the individual’s background, behavioral observations during testing, and any identified limitations of the assessment tools themselves.⁶ Psychologists must avoid over-interpreting isolated scores or using test data in ways not supported by the evidence.⁵³ For instance, an IQ score should not be seen as a definitive measure of “innate ability” but as a sample of performance on a specific set of tasks at a particular point in time, influenced by numerous factors.

Ethical test use requires psychologists to be more than mere technicians; they must be thoughtful clinicians who critically evaluate their tools and interpret data responsibly, always considering the potential impact on the individual.

D. Communicating Diagnostic Findings Ethically and Effectively

The communication of assessment results and any diagnostic conclusions is a highly sensitive and critical part of the ethical practice of LD assessment.

Clarity and Understandability: Findings must be explained in clear, jargon-free language that is understandable to the individual, their parents, and other relevant parties (e.g., educators).⁹ Written reports should also be readable and accessible.⁵¹
Respectful Language: Using person-first language (e.g., “a child with a learning disability” rather than “a learning-disabled child”) or identity-first language if preferred by the individual or community, is essential to affirm dignity and avoid stigmatizing labels.⁶⁸ Condescending euphemisms (e.g., “special needs” when “disability” is appropriate and preferred) should be avoided.⁶⁸
Cultural and Emotional Sensitivity: Communication must be attuned to the cultural background and emotional state of the individual and their family.⁶⁴ Delivering a diagnosis can be an emotional experience, and psychologists must be empathetic and supportive.
Collaborative Approach: The feedback process should be collaborative, involving the individual and their family in understanding the findings and discussing next steps and recommendations.⁹ The goal is to empower them with information and a plan for moving forward.

Ethical communication aims to foster understanding, hope, and proactive engagement rather than stigma or despair. It focuses on the whole person, including their strengths, and provides a constructive path forward.

E. Guidelines from Professional Organizations

Professional organizations provide detailed ethical frameworks and standards of practice that psychologists are obligated to follow, ensuring a high standard of care in LD assessment:

American Psychological Association (APA): The APA’s Ethics Code outlines general principles (Beneficence and Nonmaleficence, Fidelity and Responsibility, Integrity, Justice, and Respect for People’s Rights and Dignity) and specific standards (e.g., related to Competence, Informed Consent, Bases for Assessments, Interpreting Assessment Results) that are directly applicable to LD assessment.⁶⁰
Council for Exceptional Children (CEC): The CEC’s Ethical Principles and Practice Standards provide specific guidance for professionals working with individuals with exceptionalities, strongly emphasizing non-discriminatory assessment, professional competence, use of evidence-based practices, and active collaboration with families and other professionals.⁶⁶
National Association of School Psychologists (NASP): NASP’s Principles for Professional Ethics focus on the unique context of providing psychological services in schools, emphasizing the rights and needs of children, responsible and fair assessment practices, multidisciplinary problem-solving, and advocacy.⁶⁰

Adherence to these comprehensive ethical codes and practice standards is a hallmark of professional psychological practice in the assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities.

Table 5: Principles of Non-Discriminatory Assessment for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Individuals

Key Practice	Rationale / Supporting Sources
Comprehensive Language Proficiency Assessment (L1 & L2)	To understand language dominance and skills in both languages, informing language of assessment and interpretation of verbal scores. ⁴¹
Use of Qualified Interpreters & Translators	To ensure accurate communication when native language assessment by a bilingual psychologist is not feasible; awareness of translation limitations. ⁶⁴
Selection of Culturally/Linguistically Appropriate Tools	To minimize test bias; use of tests validated for the specific population or with appropriate adaptations; awareness of norm limitations. ¹³
Consideration of Acculturation & Educational History	To understand how cultural background, length of residence, prior schooling (quality and language), and acculturation stress may impact performance. ⁴¹
Evaluation of Learning Environment & Opportunity to Learn	To rule out lack of adequate instruction or culturally unresponsive environments as primary causes of learning difficulties. ⁷
Multiple Data Sources & Converging Evidence	To obtain a holistic view and avoid reliance on single, potentially biased measures; includes interviews, observations, work samples, dynamic assessment. ¹³
Collaboration with Family & Community	To gain cultural insights, understand family perspectives, and ensure recommendations are culturally congruent. ⁴¹
Differentiate Difference from Disorder	To carefully distinguish between learning patterns attributable to cultural/linguistic diversity or language acquisition processes and an intrinsic learning disability. ⁴¹

This table consolidates best practices for assessing CLD individuals, offering a practical guide for psychologists to ensure fairness and accuracy, drawing from legal mandates and professional guidelines.

X. Writing the Psychological Report: Communicating Findings Comprehensively

The psychological report is the formal, written culmination of the assessment process. It serves as the primary vehicle for communicating complex findings, diagnostic impressions, and recommendations to the individual, their family, educators, and other relevant professionals. A well-crafted report must be clear, comprehensive, well-organized, and, above all, useful.

A. Key Components of a Psychoeducational/Neuropsychological Report for LDs

While specific formats may vary, comprehensive reports for LD assessment typically include the following sections ⁵¹:

Identifying Information: Basic demographic data.
Referral Question(s): Clearly stating the reasons for the assessment.⁵¹
Background Information: A summary of relevant developmental, medical, educational, family, and psychosocial history. For children with extensive medical histories, key points essential to the case conceptualization should be highlighted.⁵²
Assessment Procedures: A list of all standardized tests administered, clinical interviews conducted, behavioral observations made, and records reviewed.⁵²
Behavioral Observations: A description of the individual’s behavior during the assessment sessions, including their approach to tasks, effort, attention, cooperation, frustration tolerance, anxiety, and any adaptations made to the testing process.⁵²
Cognitive Assessment Results: A detailed interpretation of performance on cognitive tests, organized by domain (e.g., verbal abilities, nonverbal reasoning, working memory, processing speed). This section should integrate findings from various sources (e.g., parent/teacher reports, observations) and discuss patterns of strengths and weaknesses.⁵²
Academic Achievement Results: A detailed interpretation of performance on academic tests, organized by domain (e.g., reading, written expression, mathematics) and specific sub-skills within those domains. Again, integration of various data sources is key.⁵²
Socio-emotional Functioning: If assessed, a summary of findings related to emotional well-being, behavior, and social skills, often drawing from rating scales, interviews, and observations.⁵²
Summary and Diagnostic Impressions: This crucial section synthesizes all assessment findings into a cohesive narrative. It should directly address the referral questions, provide clear diagnostic statements based on established criteria (e.g., DSM-5), and explain the rationale for these conclusions. Diagnoses should be stated definitively, not tentatively (e.g., “meets criteria for…” rather than “appears to meet criteria for…”).⁵¹
Recommendations: Specific, concrete, practical, and evidence-based recommendations tailored to the individual’s unique learning profile. These should address needs at home, school, and, if applicable, the workplace.⁵¹ Recommendations should be essential and directly linked to the assessment findings.
Data Table (Appendix): Often includes a table of standard scores, percentile ranks, and confidence intervals for all administered standardized tests, including adaptive functioning if assessed.⁵²

The psychological report should be a testament to the comprehensive nature of the evaluation, transforming raw data into a meaningful and actionable understanding of the individual.

B. Integrating Multidimensional Data into a Coherent Narrative

Effective report writing is not merely a listing of test scores or observations; it involves skilled synthesis and interpretation.⁵¹ The psychologist must demonstrate how different pieces of data connect and contribute to a holistic understanding of the individual’s learning profile.⁵² This means:

Connecting Cognitive, Academic, and Behavioral Findings: Explicitly linking identified cognitive strengths or weaknesses to observed academic performance and behaviors. For example, the report might explain how a documented weakness in phonological processing (cognitive) likely contributes to the student’s difficulties with decoding words (academic) and their observed frustration during reading tasks (behavioral).
Explaining Socio-emotional Interactions: Discussing how socio-emotional factors (e.g., anxiety, low motivation, attentional difficulties) may be interacting with, exacerbating, or resulting from the learning disability.
Presenting a Holistic Picture: The report should paint a comprehensive picture of the individual as a learner, acknowledging their unique pattern of abilities and challenges, rather than focusing solely on deficits.

This integration makes the findings understandable and ensures that the recommendations are well-grounded in the overall assessment data.

C. Tailoring the Report to the Audience

The utility of a psychological report is significantly enhanced when it is written with the intended audience(s) in mind. While the core findings remain the same, the language and emphasis may need to be adapted:

Clarity and Accessibility: Reports should be written in clear, concise, and understandable language, minimizing psychological jargon.⁵¹ When technical terms are necessary, they should be explained, perhaps by providing qualitative descriptions of test responses or relating the problem to an example provided by the client or their family.⁵¹
Actionable Recommendations: Recommendations must be practical, specific, and actionable for the individuals who will be implementing them (e.g., parents, teachers, therapists).⁵¹ Vague or overly general recommendations are of little use.
Focus and Relevance: While comprehensive, the report should prioritize information that is most relevant to answering the referral questions and guiding interventions.

A report written for parents, for example, might use less technical language and focus more on practical home-based strategies, while a report shared with other medical or psychological professionals might include more detailed technical information. The overarching goal is to ensure the report is a useful tool that empowers those involved in supporting the individual with the learning disability.

XI. Conclusion: The Evolving Landscape of LD Assessment and Future Directions

The assessment and diagnosis of learning disabilities from a psychological perspective is a dynamic and evolving field, grounded in an ever-deepening understanding of the complex interplay between cognitive processes, academic skill development, neurobiology, and environmental factors. This report has underscored the critical importance of a comprehensive, multidimensional, and psychologically informed approach. Such an approach, which integrates data from standardized cognitive and academic assessments, rich qualitative information from clinical interviews and behavioral observations, and a careful consideration of socio-emotional and contextual factors, is essential for accurate diagnosis and the development of effective, individualized interventions.

The emphasis on early identification and intervention remains a cornerstone of best practice, as timely support can significantly alter the developmental trajectory for individuals with LDs, mitigating potential long-term academic and psychosocial difficulties.³⁶ Ongoing research continues to illuminate the neurobiological and cognitive underpinnings of various LD subtypes, paving the way for more precise diagnostic markers and targeted interventions.¹

The advent of technology is also beginning to shape the landscape of LD assessment. The analysis of “process data” from online standardized tests, for example, holds promise for identifying students at risk for learning disabilities based on how they interact with assessment items, potentially offering an earlier flag for more comprehensive evaluation.³⁶ However, such tools must be rigorously validated and used as one component within a broader assessment framework, not as standalone diagnostic instruments.³⁶

Critically, the field must continue to prioritize and refine culturally responsive and equitable assessment practices. Ensuring that assessment tools and procedures are fair and valid for individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds is an ongoing ethical imperative. This requires continued research, training, and a commitment from practitioners to engage in culturally competent assessment.

Ultimately, the goal of psychological assessment in the context of learning disabilities extends far beyond a diagnostic label. It is about constructing a comprehensive understanding of an individual’s unique learning profile—their strengths, their challenges, and the factors that influence their learning—to empower them with the strategies, support, and accommodations necessary to achieve their full potential and navigate their educational, occupational, and personal lives successfully.⁹ The journey from assessment to effective support is a collaborative one, involving the individual, their family, educators, and psychologists working together to foster resilience and create pathways to success.

XII. References

9 LDA America. (n.d.). Adult Learning Disability Assessment Process.

1 Taanila, A., Ebeling, H., Tiihala, A., Kaakinen, M., Moilanen, I., & Järvelin, M. R. (2020). Specific learning disabilities: A 50-year perspective. PMC.

4 American Psychological Association. (2023). Learning disability (LD). APA Dictionary of Psychology.

3 American Psychiatric Association. (2024, March). What Is Specific Learning Disorder?

25 Hale, J. B., Alfonso, V. C., Berninger, V. W., Bracken, B. A., Christo, C., Clark, E.,… & Yalof, J. (2010). Critical issues in specific learning disability identification: What we know and what we need to know. School Psychology Quarterly. (Conceptual link to CHC and academic achievement, though the snippet is about a study examining correlations)

20 Riverside Insights. (2015). The WJ IV Gf-Gc Composite and Its Use in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities. Assessment Service Bulletin Number 3.

19 ChildPsychologist.com.au. (n.d.). WISC-V IQ Test.

27 Child-Psychologist.com.au. (n.d.). WISC5 | Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children.

10 Education Elephant. (n.d.). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Tests of Cognitive Abilities.

28 American Printing House for the Blind (APH). (n.d.). Woodcock-Johnson IV: Large Print Edition.

31 NPİSTANBUL Brain Hospital. (2024). Learning Test – CAS Cognitive Assessment System.

30 Community-University Partnership (CUP), University of Alberta. (2012, June). Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) Tool Review.

32 Wikipedia. (2024, October 30). NEPSY.

11 Wiley. (n.d.). Essentials of NEPSY-II Assessment.

21 The Kingsley Clinic. (n.d.). Understanding Academic Achievement Tests and Their Benefits.

36 National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). (n.d.). Revolutionizing Learning Disability Identification Through Process Data Analysis.

22 Headway Psychology. (n.d.). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT).

33 South County Child & Family Consultants. (n.d.). WIAT III.

34 Research Connections. (n.d.). KTEA-3 Brief.

35 Pearson Assessments. (n.d.). Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement | Third Edition: Dyslexia Index.

26 TestingMom.com. (n.d.). Woodcock Johnson Test.

29 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (n.d.). Use of the Woodcock-Johnson IV for Dyslexia Evaluations. WJPerspectives.

71 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). (2015). Challenging behaviour and learning disabilities: prevention and interventions for people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges. (Focuses on challenging behavior but mentions assessment complexity in LD).

6 Educational Testing Service (ETS). (2017). Documentation for Test Takers with Learning Disabilities.

18 KOPoS Counseling. (n.d.). Learning Disability Testing.

17 Mentalyc. (n.d.). Psychoeducational Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide.

72 Lyons, R., & Rybczynski, S. (2023). Informant report and structured observation in communication assessment for adults with severe intellectual disability: Speech-language pathologists’ perspectives. International Journal of Developmental Disabilities.

37 Institute of Education Sciences (IES). (n.d.). Informant Discrepancies in Social-Behavioral Assessment: Psychometric and Practical Implications for Cross-Informant Data.

16 Social Security Administration. (2015, October 28). Chapter 12: Mental Disorders – B. Specific Learning Disorder. Disability Evaluation Under Social Security.

5 International Dyslexia Association (IDA). (2014, January). DSM-5 Changes for SLD (Dyslexia), An Interview with Dr. Rosemary Tannock.

39 FindACode.com. (2025). 6A03.0 Developmental learning disorder with impairment in reading – ICD-11 MMS.

40 FindACode.com. (2025). 6A03 Developmental learning disorder – ICD-11 MMS.

44 Günay Aksoy, Ö., & Çak, T. (2021). Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder and Specific Learning Disability: A Review of Comorbidity, Similarities, and Differences. Clinical Medicine & Research.

42 Compass Psychology. (2020, December). ADHD DSM5 Differential Diagnoses.

45 Special Olympics Arizona. (n.d.). Intellectual Disability vs. Learning Disability: Key Differences.

43 Cleveland Clinic. (2024, January 16). Learning Disabilities: What You Need to Know.

46 Texas Education Agency (TEA). (2022, December). Specific Learning Disability and Sensory Impairments.

47 Kurzweil, A., & Grodberg, D. (2021). Learning Disabilities. StatPearls.

23 Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., Girelli, L., Nacinovich, R., & Penna, M. P. (2023). Specific Learning Disabilities and Emotional-Behavioral Difficulties: Phenotypes and Role of the Cognitive Profile. Brain Sciences.

48 Schettler, T. (n.d.). Learning Disabilities, Behavioral/Emotional Disorders, Attention Disorders, Autism, Schizophrenia & Other Problems with Brain Function. Health and Environment Alliance.

50 West Virginia Department of Education (WVDE). (n.d.). Specific Learning Disabilities.

7 PANDA Minnesota. (n.d.). Specific Learning Disorders (SLD).

2 Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2019). The Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities: A Summary of Research on Policy and Practice. Perspectives on Language and Literacy. (Conceptual link to hybrid methods).

15 Wiekens, C. J., & Chioncel, D. O. (2016). Interdisciplinary learning of science and engineering students: a multidimensional approach. European Journal of Engineering Education.

3 American Psychiatric Association. (2024, March). What Is Specific Learning Disorder? (Repeated, primary source for DSM-5).

38 Thapar, A., Cooper, M., & Rutter, M. (2017). Neurodevelopmental disorders. The Lancet Psychiatry. (Conceptual link to DSM-5 criteria details).

24 Brain Wellness Institute. (n.d.). Learning Disability.

56 The Green Room Psychological Services. (n.d.). The Role of Neuropsychological Testing in Learning Disabilities.

58 National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (UK). (2015). The NICE guideline on challenging behaviour and learning disabilities: Prevention and interventions for people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges. (Focus on environmental factors in challenging behavior).

57 Prado, E. L., Phuka, J., Ocansey, E., Maleta, K., Ashorn, P., Ashorn, U.,… & Dewey, K. G. (2020). Extent and determinants of cognitive development in 5-year-old children in a peri-urban community in Malawi. PLoS ONE.

65 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2024). Perspectives of Bilingual Service Providers on Linguistically Responsive Assessment Practices for Young Children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology.

41 Colorado Department of Education (CDE). (2017, September). Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and Culturally and/or Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students.

53 Brocks, B. (n.d.). Nondiscriminatory Assessment & Legal Issues. California State University, Sacramento. (Citing Ortiz, 2014).

66 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (n.d.). Ethical Principles and Practice Standards.

62 American Psychological Association. (2009, June). Ethics Rounds: Disability and the Code of Ethics. Monitor on Psychology.

67 Schueller, S. M., & Torous, J. (2020). Scaling Up an Evidence-Based Mobile Health Intervention for Depression: Protocol for a Multi-Site Effectiveness-Implementation Study. JMIR Research Protocols. (Ethical considerations for assessment, APA code 9.01b).

63 ASK Resource Center. (n.d.). Six Principles of IDEA.

73 Goally. (n.d.). What is Non-Discriminatory Evaluation?

8 Compton, D. L., Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Lambert, W., & Hamlett, C. (2012). The cognitive and academic profiles of reading and mathematics learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities.

12 Texas Education Agency (TEA). (n.d.). Guidance for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Specific Learning Disability. (General evaluation principles).

36 National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD). (n.d.). Revolutionizing Learning Disability Identification Through Process Data Analysis. (Repeated, focus on process data).

54 Yildirim, B. F., Çiftci, K., & Aksoy, N. (2024). Artificial intelligence in psychological and educational assessment of individuals with special needs: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Assessment Tools in Education. (Focus on multidimensional data and interdisciplinary approach).

13 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). 34 CFR § 300.304 – Evaluation procedures. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations.

14 Education Service Center Region 13. (n.d.). Framework: Evaluation Procedures (Child Find and Evaluation).

74 Domenech Rodríguez, M. M., Power, J., & Watkins Jr, C. E. (2020). Culturally adapted psychological interventions: A lifespan perspective. Journal of Clinical Psychology. (Focus on cultural adaptation in assessment).

64 American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Guidelines for Providers of Psychological Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations.

66 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (n.d.). Ethical Principles and Practice Standards. (Repeated, primary source for CEC standards).

59 Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Medical Principles and Practice. (General medical ethics, beneficence/nonmaleficence).

75 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (n.d.). Our Standards.

76 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (n.d.). Current Position Statements.

70 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (n.d.). SLD Eligibility: Policy and Practice Recommendations.

60 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2010). Principles for Professional Ethics.

77 California Association of School Psychologists (CASP). (n.d.). Guide for Evaluation of School Psychologists.

78 California Association of School Psychologists (CASP). (n.d.). School Psychologists: Promoting Positive Behavior, Academic Success, and Mental Wellness.

51 Wiener, J., & Costaris, L. (2012). Teaching Psychological Report Writing: Content and Process. Canadian Journal of School Psychology.

52 Engle, J. (n.d.). Reports. In Beyond the WISC: Psychological assessment of cognitive functioning in special populations. Pressbooks.

12 Texas Education Agency (TEA). (n.d.). Guidance for a Comprehensive Evaluation of Specific Learning Disability. (Repeated, general evaluation principles).

55 VerifyEd. (n.d.). The Complete Learner Profiling Guide.

66 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (n.d.). Ethical Principles and Practice Standards. (Repeated, primary source for CEC standards).

59 Varkey, B. (2021). Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice. Medical Principles and Practice. (Repeated, general medical ethics).

61 Scribd. (n.d.). APA Code of Ethics in Testing. (User-uploaded document summarizing Hogan on APA ethics in testing).

68 American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Disability. APA Style: Bias-Free Language.

69 ADA National Network. (n.d.). Guidelines for Writing About People With Disabilities.

17 Mentalyc. (n.d.). Psychoeducational Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide. (Bot-generated summary).

3 American Psychiatric Association. (2024, March). What Is Specific Learning Disorder? (Bot-generated summary).

19 ChildPsychologist.com.au. (n.d.). WISC-V IQ Test. (Bot-generated summary).

20 Riverside Insights. (2015). The WJ IV Gf-Gc Composite and Its Use in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities. (Bot-generated summary).

31 NPİSTANBUL Brain Hospital. (2024). Learning Test – CAS Cognitive Assessment System. (Bot-generated summary).

32 Wikipedia. (2024, October 30). NEPSY. (Bot-generated summary).

22 Headway Psychology. (n.d.). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT). (Bot-generated summary).

29 Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. (n.d.). Use of the Woodcock-Johnson IV for Dyslexia Evaluations. (Bot-generated summary).

17 Mentalyc. (n.d.). Psychoeducational Evaluation: A Comprehensive Guide..17

3 American Psychiatric Association. (2024, March). What Is Specific Learning Disorder?.3

16 Social Security Administration. (2015, October 28). Chapter 12: Mental Disorders – B. Specific Learning Disorder. (Bot-generated summary).

49 Mammarella, I. C., Caviola, S., Girelli, L., Nacinovich, R., & Penna, M. P. (2023). Specific Learning Disabilities and Emotional-Behavioral Difficulties: Phenotypes and Role of the Cognitive Profile. Brain Sciences. (Bot-generated summary).

5 International Dyslexia Association (IDA). (2014, January). DSM-5 Changes for SLD (Dyslexia), An Interview with Dr. Rosemary Tannock. (Bot-generated summary).

79 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). 34 CFR § 300.304 – Evaluation procedures..13

41 Colorado Department of Education (CDE). (2017, September). Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and Culturally and/or Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students. (Bot-generated summary).

66 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (n.d.). Ethical Principles and Practice Standards. (Bot-generated summary).

53 Brocks, B. (n.d.). Nondiscriminatory Assessment & Legal Issues. (Bot-generated summary, citing Ortiz, 2014).

60 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). (2010). Principles for Professional Ethics. (Bot-generated summary).

13 U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). 34 CFR § 300.304 – Evaluation procedures..13

66 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). (n.d.). Ethical Principles and Practice Standards..66

53 Brocks, B. (n.d.). Nondiscriminatory Assessment & Legal Issues..53

3 American Psychiatric Association. (2024, March). What Is Specific Learning Disorder?.3

1 Taanila, A., Ebeling, H., Tiihala, A., Kaakinen, M., Moilanen, I., & Järvelin, M. R. (2020). Specific learning disabilities: A 50-year perspective. PMC. (Bot-generated summary).

19 ChildPsychologist.com.au. (n.d.). WISC-V IQ Test..19

20 Riverside Insights. (2015). The WJ IV Gf-Gc Composite and Its Use in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities..20

22 Headway Psychology. (n.d.). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT)..22

43 Cleveland Clinic. (2024, January 16). Learning Disabilities: What You Need to Know. (Bot-generated summary).

2 Fletcher, J. M., & Miciak, J. (2019). The Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities: A Summary of Research on Policy and Practice. Perspectives on Language and Literacy..2

41 Colorado Department of Education (CDE). (2017, September). Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and Culturally and/or Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Students..41

Works cited

Understanding, Educating, and Supporting Children with Specific …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6851403/
Assessment of Specific Learning Disabilities and Intellectual …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10795803/
What Are Specific Learning Disorders? – Psychiatry.org, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/specific-learning-disorder/what-is-specific-learning-disorder
learning disability (LD) – APA Dictionary of Psychology, accessed May 13, 2025, https://dictionary.apa.org/learning-disability
dyslexiahelp.rackham.umich.edu, accessed May 13, 2025, https://dyslexiahelp.rackham.umich.edu/sites/default/files/IDA_DSM-5%20Changes.pdf
Learning Disabilities Documentation Guidelines | ETS, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ets.org/disabilities/documentation/learning-disabilities.html
Specific Learning Disorders (SLD) Overview – PANDA, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pandamn.org/specific-learning-disorders/sld/
The Cognitive and Academic Profiles of Reading and Mathematics Learning Disabilities – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3366486/
The Adult Learning Disability Assessment Process – Learning …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://ldaamerica.org/info/adult-learning-disability-assessment-process/
Woodcock-Johnson IV: Tests of Cognitive Abilities – Education Elephant, accessed May 13, 2025, https://educationelephant.ie/wjiv-tests-of-cognitive-abilities/
Essentials of NEPSY-II Assessment – Wiley, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.wiley.com/en-br/Essentials+of+NEPSY-II+Assessment-p-9780470436912
Guidance for the Comprehensive Evaluation of Specific Learning Disabilities – Texas SPED Support, accessed May 13, 2025, https://spedsupport.tea.texas.gov/sites/default/files/2025-02/guidance-for-a-comprehensive-evaluation-of-sld.pdf
34 CFR § 300.304 – Evaluation procedures. | Electronic Code of …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/34/300.304
EVALUATION PROCEDURES – Legal Framework, accessed May 13, 2025, https://fw.escapps.net/node/3818
Full article: A multidimensional approach to examine student …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03043797.2016.1224228
Clinical Characteristics of Learning Disabilities – Mental Disorders …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332886/
Understanding Psychoeducational Evaluation and Testing – Mentalyc, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.mentalyc.com/blog/psychoeducational-evaluation
Testing for Dyslexia & Learning Disabilities, accessed May 13, 2025, https://kopscounseling.com/testing/learning-disability-testing/
WISC V | WISC Test | Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.childpsychologist.com.au/tests/wisc-v-iq-test
info.riversideinsights.com, accessed May 13, 2025, https://info.riversideinsights.com/hubfs/ASBs/Assessment-Service-Bulletin-3_The-WJ-IV-Gf-Gc-Composite-and-its-Uses-in-the-Identification-of-Specific-Learning-Disabilities.pdf
Understanding Academic Achievement Tests and Their Benefits – The Kingsley Clinic, accessed May 13, 2025, https://thekingsleyclinic.com/resources/understanding-academic-achievement-tests-and-their-benefits/
Wechsler Individual Achievement Tests | WIAT-III Assessment | Perth …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://headwaypsych.com.au/services/wechsler-individual-achievement-test-wiat/
Specific Learning Disabilities and Emotional-Behavioral Difficulties: Phenotypes and Role of the Cognitive Profile – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10003319/
Learning Disability – Brain Wellness Institute, accessed May 13, 2025, https://brainwellnessinstitute.com/learning-disability/
CHC Narrow and Broad Processes as Predictors of Basic Reading Achievement – ScholarWorks, accessed May 13, 2025, https://scholarworks.calstate.edu/downloads/rx913r232
Woodcock Johnson | Test Overview (2022 Update) – TestingMom.com, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.testingmom.com/tests/woodcock-johnson/
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC V), accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.child-psychologist.com.au/wechsler-intelligence-scale-for-children.html
Woodcock-Johnson IV: Large Print Edition | American Printing House, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.aph.org/product/woodcock-johnson-iv-large-print-edition/
www.hmhco.com, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.hmhco.com/~/media/sites/home/hmh-assessments/pdfs/wj_perspectives-useofthewoodcock-johnson_iv-fordyslexiaevaluations.pdf?la=en
Cognitive Assessment System (CAS) – Early Childhood Measurement and Evaluation, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ualberta.ca/en/community-university-partnership/media-library/community-university-partnership/resources/tools—assessment/casjun2012.pdf
Learning Test – CAS (Cognitive Assessment System) – NPİSTANBUL, accessed May 13, 2025, https://npistanbul.com/en/learning-test-cas-cognitive-assessment-system
NEPSY – Wikipedia, accessed May 13, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEPSY
WIAT III – South County Child & Family Consultants, accessed May 13, 2025, https://southcountychildandfamily.com/wiat-iii/
Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement (3rd ed.) Brief – Research Connections, accessed May 13, 2025, https://researchconnections.org/childcare/resources/206166
KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index – Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement | Third Edition, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Academic-Learning/Kaufman-Test-of-Educational-Achievement-%7C-Third-Edition:-Dyslexia-Index/p/100002043.html
Revolutionizing Learning Disability Identification Through Process Data Analysis, accessed May 13, 2025, https://ncld.org/ld-identification-through-process-data-analysis/
Informant Discrepancies in Social-Behavioral Assessment: Psychometric and Practical Implications of Cross-Informant Data – Institute of Education Sciences (IES), accessed May 13, 2025, https://ies.ed.gov/use-work/awards/informant-discrepancies-social-behavioral-assessment-psychometric-and-practical-implications-cross
Clinical Practice Guidelines on Assessment and Management of Specific Learning Disorders – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6345134/
6A03.0 Developmental learning disorder with impairment in reading – ICD-11 MMS, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.findacode.com/icd-11/code-1008636089.html
Developmental learning disorder – ICD-11 MMS – Find-A-Code, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.findacode.com/icd-11/block-2099676649.html
www.cde.state.co.us, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/ta_sld_cld
DSM-5 Differential Diagnoses: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), accessed May 13, 2025, https://compasspsy.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/ADHD-DSM5-Differential-Diagnoses-Dec-2020.pdf
Learning Disabilities & Disorders: What To Know – Cleveland Clinic, accessed May 13, 2025, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/4865-learning-disabilities-what-you-need-to-know
The Comorbidity of Specific Learning Disorders in Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder – JournalAgent, accessed May 13, 2025, https://jag.journalagent.com/cm/pdfs/CM-30602-REVIEW-GUNAY_AKSOY.pdf
Intellectual Disability Vs. Learning Disability – Special Olympics Arizona, accessed May 13, 2025, https://specialolympicsarizona.org/intellectual-disability-vs-learning-disability/
Sensory Impairments and Specific Learning Disabilities – Texas Education Agency, accessed May 13, 2025, https://tea.texas.gov/academics/special-student-populations/special-education/sld-and-sensory-impairments-12-2022.pdf
Learning Disability – StatPearls – NCBI Bookshelf, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK554371/
Learning Disabilities, Behavioral/Emotional Disorders, and Other Brain Disorders: What We Know – Collaborative for Health & Environment, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads-old/LearningDisabilitiesWhatWeKnow.pdf
Specific Learning Disabilities and Emotional-Behavioral Difficulties …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10003319/
Specific Learning Disabilities | West Virginia Department of Education, accessed May 13, 2025, https://wvde.us/academics/special-education/exceptionalities/specific-learning-disabilities
(PDF) Teaching Psychological Report Writing: Content and Process – ResearchGate, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241645431_Teaching_Psychological_Report_Writing_Content_and_Process
Strength-based report writing – The “integrated report format” – Beyond the WISC: Psychological assessment of cognitive functioning in special populations – British Columbia/Yukon Open Authoring Platform, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pressbooks.bccampus.ca/jengle/chapter/reports/
www.csus.edu, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.csus.edu/indiv/b/brocks/courses/eds%20244/pdf/2.nondisriminatoryassessment.legalissues.pdf
Fast and effective assessment for individuals with special needs form optimization and prediction models – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12016118/
Understanding Learner Profiling: A Complete Guide for Educators 2025 – VerifyEd, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.verifyed.io/blog/complete-learner-profiling-guide
The Role of Neuropsychological Testing in Learning Disabilities, accessed May 13, 2025, https://thegreenroompsych.com/the-role-of-neuropsychological-testing-in-learning-disabilities/
Psychosocial and environmental determinants of child cognitive development in rural south africa and tanzania: findings from the mal-ed cohort – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7164138/
Environmental interventions – Challenging Behaviour and Learning Disabilities – NCBI, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK355381/
Principles of Clinical Ethics and Their Application to Practice – PMC – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7923912/
www.nasponline.org, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.nasponline.org/Documents/Standards%20and%20Certification/Standards/1_%20Ethical%20Principles.pdf
APA Code of Ethics in Testing | PDF | Psychological Testing | Confidentiality – Scribd, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.scribd.com/document/239446746/APA-Code-of-Ethics-in-Testing
Disability as an ethical issue – American Psychological Association, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/06/ethics
Six Principles of IDEA the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act – ASK Resource Center, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.askresource.org/resources/six-principles-of-idea
APA Guidelines for Providers of Services to Ethnic, Linguistic, and Culturally Diverse Populations – American Psychological Association, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.apa.org/pi/oema/resources/policy/provider-guidelines
Barriers and Facilitators to Assessment Practices in Linguistically Diverse Children: A Preliminary Application of Theoretical Domains Framework | American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology – ASHAWire, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-24-00256
Ethical Principles and Practice Standards | Council for Exceptional …, accessed May 13, 2025, https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards/ethical-principles-and-practice-standards
Considerations for the Ethical Implementation of Psychological Assessment Through Social Media via Machine Learning – PMC, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8261642/
Disability – APA Style – American Psychological Association, accessed May 13, 2025, https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language/disability
Guidelines for Writing About People With Disabilities – ADA National Network, accessed May 13, 2025, https://adata.org/factsheet/ADANN-writing
SLD Eligibility – Policy and Practice Recommendations, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.nasponline.org/resources-and-publications/resources-and-podcasts/special-education/sld-eligibility-policy-and-practice-recommendations
Assessment – Challenging Behaviour and Learning Disabilities – NCBI Bookshelf, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK355385/
Full article: Structured observation and informant report assessments in intellectual disability: Reflections of qualified and student speech-language pathologists – Taylor & Francis Online, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17549507.2023.2297651
What is Non-Discriminatory Evaluation? – Goally, accessed May 13, 2025, https://getgoally.com/blog/neurodiversopedia/what-is-non-discriminatory-evaluation/
Introduction to the Special Section on Cultural Considerations in Collaborative and Therapeutic Assessment – PubMed Central, accessed May 13, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7265621/
CEC Professional Standards – Council for Exceptional Children, accessed May 13, 2025, https://exceptionalchildren.org/standards
Position Statements | Council for Exceptional Children, accessed May 13, 2025, https://exceptionalchildren.org/policy-and-advocacy/position-statements
Guide for Evaluation of School Psychologists, accessed May 13, 2025, https://casponline.org/pdfs/publications/CASP%20Guide%20for%20Evaluation%20of%20School%20Psychologists.pdf
School Psychologists’ Knowledge and Use of Evidence- based, Social-Emotional Learning Interventions, accessed May 13, 2025, https://www.casponline.org/pdfs/pdfs/school_psychologists’.pdf
accessed December 31, 1969, https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-III/part-300/subpart-D/section-300.304