I am looking for a reference regarding acceptable referral rates for psychological evaluations. Years ago, I read where 2% of a school population might be expected to be referred for special education testing. With the pressures of NCLB and state-wide testing mandates, I have seen an increase in the number of referrals. However, the “hit rate” is quite low (50%). I have also read that the “hit rate” should be at least 80%, if the referrals are appropriate. Additionally, I’m aware of the research regarding the impact of building-based support/screening teams. Schools that use formal procedures for general education intervention (prior to referral) have lower rates of referrals and higher rates of placements. If we want all students to meet the “standards”, then the curriculum must reflect the standards. Moving students out of general education may in fact decrease the likelihood of the students meeting standards. Therefore, referrals for special education should be reserved for those students who have a disability. Those students falling below standards need a different or more intense instructional approach. Special education placement is not necessarily the answer. Consequently, special education teachers and school psychologists have much to offer the general education teacher. However, they have little time to provide the needed support when they spend most of their time testing students who don’t have a disability. What percent of the school might be an appropriate number for testing? What is a national average? What “hit rate” is appropriate?
Steve
Re: referral rates
Steve,
i am a school psychologist and have tracked and monitored referral rates in my case load for years. Never heard of the 2% rule other than I think it was the Percentage of students expected to be LD. I have found considerable consistency in a 5% to 7% rule of all students for referrals, which would incorporate re-evals. I’ve been as high as 15% of the student population !
“Hit Rates” for me are at 40% now perhaps 33%, down from 60% a few years ago.
Remember, that a too high hit rate is not any better than a too low rate. (false positives and negatives and all that statistical stuff). I use the analogy of appendectomies by physician. This medical condition, like identifing LD, has no specific measure, rather it is a function of several measures and the quality of the physician’s decision making skills. Too high a hit rate, and people die or become septic from ruptured appendix, too low and the doctor has extra money for the new boat ! Hospitals monitor this stuff !
I find that referral rates and hit rates are directly dependent upon the curriculum expectations ,the quality of the teacher, and the expectations of the Principal/Administrator. Also what is the quality and value of the “pre-referral” interventions ?
I wouldn’t agree that referrals are only for special education students mostly because often we cannot even guess ahead this outcome. Referrals are for concerns about students. OK, OK then there is the student who has documented (on ITBS, etc) skills, but just a “shade” low acheivment. Should we test? probably not — but we also probably cannot get out of testing either. It’s a shame, too, because I sit across a table way too often telling teachers and family’s that “Johnny” is “below average” but is acheiving what we expect. Not a pleasant experiene.
David
Not sure that this answers your question. Dr. G. Reid Lyon, director of reading research at the National Institues of Health stated that 80% of children classified as LD have their greatest deficit in reading. Dr. Joseph Torgeson, a Florida State University professor and researcher with Dr. Lyon and NIH, stated that 70% of students classified as LD would not be classified as LD if they had received appropriate reading instruction and/or intervention in 1st and 2nd grades. So, I guess you could say that only 30% of those classified as LD actually have a true learning disability.