Psychology
in
rhe
Schools
Volume
30.
Januury
IY93
DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY SCALES:
PROFILES
OF
LEARNING-DISABLED SUBTYPES]
DAVID
E. McINTOSH
Oklahoma State University
BETTY
E. GKIDLEY
Ball State University
The purpose
of
this study was to determine whether distinct subgroups
of
children
with learning disabilities could be identified using a single, recently developed instru-
ment
-
the Differential Ability Scales (DAS). Ward’s method
of
cluster analysis was
used
to
group
83
school-verified children with learning disabilities from the standard-
ization sample. The following six subgroups were identified: (a) generalized, (b) high
functioning, (c) normal, (d) underachievement, (e) borderline, and
(f)
dyseidetic. Not
all subgroups displayed the expected discrepancy between intelligence and achieve-
ment associated with the current definitions
of
I.D. In subsequent discriminant analyses,
both achievement and diagnostic subtests were necessary for accuracy in classifica-
tion. This study provided evidence
of
the DAS’s ability to diagnose the learning disabled
differentially and provided distinct profiles for LD subgroups. Administration
of
the
diagnostic subtests along with achievement subtests can provide the clinician with
valuable diagnostic information for LD.
When a new psychoeducational instrument appears, a logical question arises: “HOW
can this test be used to identify students with learning disabilities?” The Differential
Ability Scales (DAS; Elliott,
1990)
has recently become available for general use for
assessment
of
children from ages 2% through
17
years. The DAS was constructed to
reflect the content and organization of the British Ability Scales (Elliott, Murray,
&
Pearson,
1979).
Because of the broad age range, normative structure, and breadth of
content, the DAS should have
a
variety of applications
in
school and clinical settings
and in research (Elliott,
1990).
The DAS differs from other cognitive measures in that
(a) the General Conceptual Ability (GCA) score (Composite score) incorporates only
subtests that are salient measures
of
“g” having been found to have substantial loadings
on that factor (Elliott,
1990);
(b) subtests measuring specific processing skills (diagnostic
subtests) are not included in determining the total composite score; and (c) achievement
measures are included that were normed on the same standardization sample as the
cognitive measures.
The DAS’s author indicates that the structure
of
the instrument provides a sound
basis for profile analysis by measuring a wide range of abilities reliably and distinctively.
However, the diagnostic usefulness of the DAS has yet to be determined. If distinct
profiles for separate learning-disabled subgroups can be identified, the efficacy of the
DAS
in the diagnostic process will be supported.
As yet there do not appear to be any other studies examining the performance of
children with learning disabilities on the DAS. Although research is lacking
on
the DAS,
there has been some relevant research using the British Ability Scales (Elliott et al.,
1979).
‘The standardization edition
of
the DAS and data therefrom have been used with the permission
of
The
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be addressed to David McIntosh,
322
N.
Murray, Dept.
Psychological Corporation. This standardization edition may differ from the final published edition.
of
Applied Behavioral Studies in Education, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
OK
74078-0254.
剩余13页未读，继续阅读
资源评论
