Reprints and permission:

In the United States, students with specific learning dis-abilities (SLDs) can be identified and receive services in schools through the special education framework (Indi-viduals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 2004). Until the recent update of the Individuals with Dis-abilities Education Act (IDEA), federal law focused on “a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability ” (30 C.F.R. § 300.541[a][2], 1997) in a specific area for a student to be identified as having an SLD and therefore be eligible for special education services. Reschly and Hosp (2004) noted that 48 of 50 state inter-pretations of IDEA included some form of discrepancy model, but with varied definitions and procedures. Addi-tional criteria, including a demonstrated adverse impact on educational performance, were also required (IDEA, 1990; Welton v. Liberty 53 School District, 2001). As part of determining whether a severe discrepancy existed, a student’s ability and current levels of achievement were assessed, and the severity of the discrepancy between the two was evaluated (Lerner, 2003). This process was typi-cally accomplished using standardized tests of cognitive abilities or intelligence (IQ), standardized tests of aca-demic achievement, and a specific formula to calculate the discrepancy between the student’s IQ and achievement (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2005). Although the IQ-achievement (IQ-A) discrepancy model became prominent in the identification of students with SLDs (Mather & Gregg, 2006), several criticisms were evident. These included multiple methodologies within the IQ-A dis-crepancy model, varied thresholds for what constituted a severe discrepancy, inherent and controversial issues with tests of intelligence, inconsistent implementation between states, and problems with objective decision making (Lerner, 2003