A national survey of school psychologists’ practices in identifying specific learning disabilities.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examined the identification frameworks, specific models, and assessment practices used by school psychologists to identify students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) in public schools in the United States. We surveyed school psychologist practitioners using an online survey, conducted a review of state regulations addressing SLD, and evaluated the effects of state-level policies and school psychologists' characteristics on identification practices. Responses from more than 1,300 school psychologists revealed that multiple SLD identification frameworks are utilized and that state regulations generally have stronger effects on identification practices than do characteristics such as school psychologists' age, highest degree obtained, and years of experience. Frameworks with well-known psychometric limitations, such as those employing intelligence-achievement discrepancy formulas, remain commonly employed. We encourage more and better scientific research into both the conceptual and psychometric outcomes associated with SLD identification frameworks and urge application of evidence-based practices in the assessment and treatment of academic deficits. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.048 | 0.011 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it