What is the difference between a 'discrepancy model' and RTI-based identification for a Specific Learning Disability?

What is the difference between a 'discrepancy model' and RTI-based identification for a Specific Learning Disability?

• A. The discrepancy model requires a large gap between ability and achievement; RTI uses response to instruction data to determine LD.
• B. RTI requires a large gap while the discrepancy model uses progress data.
• C. Both rely on standardized test scores only.
• D. They are the same approach.

Answer: (A)

The main idea here is how each method decides if a student has a Specific Learning Disability. A discrepancy model looks for a noticeable gap between what a student is capable of (their overall intellectual ability) and what they actually achieve in school. If the gap is large enough, that gap suggests a learning disability independent of how the student is currently performing in instruction. RTI-based identification, on the other hand, centers on how the student responds to instruction over time. Rather than comparing ability to achievement, it uses progress-monitoring data from repeatedly measured outcomes as the student receives evidence-based instruction. If growth is insufficient or the student does not respond adequately to targeted interventions, that lack of progress indicates a potential learning disability. So, the key distinction is that the discrepancy model relies on an IQ–achievement gap, while RTI relies on ongoing response to instruction and observed growth. Why the other ideas don’t fit: RTI isn’t defined by a required large gap; it’s about growth and responsiveness to intervention. Both approaches don’t rely solely on standardized test scores; RTI uses frequent progress monitoring in addition to any assessments, and the discrepancy model emphasizes a gap between ability and achievement rather than ongoing progress data. They are not the same approach, since one uses a measured gap and the other uses data about how the student learns under instruction.

The main idea here is how each method decides if a student has a Specific Learning Disability. A discrepancy model looks for a noticeable gap between what a student is capable of (their overall intellectual ability) and what they actually achieve in school. If the gap is large enough, that gap suggests a learning disability independent of how the student is currently performing in instruction.

RTI-based identification, on the other hand, centers on how the student responds to instruction over time. Rather than comparing ability to achievement, it uses progress-monitoring data from repeatedly measured outcomes as the student receives evidence-based instruction. If growth is insufficient or the student does not respond adequately to targeted interventions, that lack of progress indicates a potential learning disability.

So, the key distinction is that the discrepancy model relies on an IQ–achievement gap, while RTI relies on ongoing response to instruction and observed growth.

Why the other ideas don’t fit: RTI isn’t defined by a required large gap; it’s about growth and responsiveness to intervention. Both approaches don’t rely solely on standardized test scores; RTI uses frequent progress monitoring in addition to any assessments, and the discrepancy model emphasizes a gap between ability and achievement rather than ongoing progress data. They are not the same approach, since one uses a measured gap and the other uses data about how the student learns under instruction.