EEC550

Additionally, the directions for completing the summary and reflection for the article this coming week are posted on the discussion board. I am also including them here:

1. Read the attached article (it is on the discussion board and also available under content in week 2):

Comparing Characteristics of High-Incidence Disability Groups: A Descriptive Review

2. Complete the discussion post for Week 2. Write a 3-2-1 summary in paragraph form using APA citations as necessary. Your summary should include 3 things you learned, 2 things that surprised you, and 1 question you still have. Then respond to the posts of two classmates. Your responses should also be written in paragraph form. Elaborate and give details for your response. “I agree” is not an acceptable response. Tell why you agree. You will not be able to view other’s posts until after you have completed and posted your summary.

EEC 550 1

Department of Educational Leadership & Special Education

EEC 550: Instruction for Students with High Incidence

 

Disabilities

Required Texts:

Diamond, L. & Thorsnes, B.J. (Eds). (2008).

Assessing reading: Multiple measures for kindergarten through twelfth grade

(2nd ed.). Novato, Ca: Arena Press.

Honig, B., Diamond, L., Gutlohn, L. & Cole, C. (2013). Teaching reading sourcebook (2nd ed.). Novato, Ca: Arena Press.

Moats, L. & Tolman, C. (2009). The challenge of learning to read (2nd ed.). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling. Longmont, Co: Sopris-West.

Moats, L. (2009). The sounds of English: Phonetics, phonology, and phoneme awareness (2nd ed). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling. Longmont, Co: Sopris-West.

Moats, L. (2009). Spellography for teachers: How English spelling works (2nd ed). Language essentials for teachers of reading and spelling. Longmont, Co: Sopris-West.

Course Description:

The focus of this course is on high-incidence disabilities, specifically learning disabilities and language disorders encountered in general and special education environments. Specific emphasis will be on the understanding of characteristics and interventions that support these types of students. The course will also emphasize research based instructional strategies and accommodations for students with high incidence disabilities. Field experiences are required.

This course is an important foundation for being an effective and efficient learning support teacher and supporting the learning needs of students in other disability categories as well. Therefore, the following assessments and activity requirements are designed to demonstrate that you have advanced understanding in the practice of programming and instructing students with learning disabilities.

To be successful in this course you will need to place yourself in the mindset of doing EXCELLENT work. Simply completing the assignments is not sufficient to earn an A in this course. The work that is expected in the course project is work that is expected of every special educator.

Course Goals

·

Recognize and explain basic assessment and statistical concepts relative to identification of students with high incidence disabilities

· Identify the etiologies and medical aspects of various diagnoses affecting individuals with disabilities in order to contribute to effective program planning.

· Recognize patterns of typical behavioral milestones and how patterns of students with disabilities may be different, and plan effectively for positive teaching of appropriate behaviors that facilitate learning.

· Identify the screening, pre-referral, and classification process and placement procedures.

· Consider the implications of language development in working with students with disabilities.

· Describe and assess the impact of language development and listening comprehension on academic and non-academic learning of students with disabilities.

· Demonstrate a conceptual understanding of the components of reading and describe how these areas pose challenges for students with disabilities

· Become familiar with a four-processor model of reading (context, meaning, phonological and orthographic) and understand that reading depends on language proficiency.

· Explain the relationship between phoneme awareness, phonological processing, and phonics.

· Clearly articulate and model the use of explicit and systematic instruction in the teaching of content area literacy for all students with disabilities across all reading levels.

· Identify effective instructional strategies to address areas of need.

· Identify methods to increase knowledge and pedagogical skills through participation in meaningful professional development.

· Identify and implement differentiated instructional strategies through the use of matching appropriate strategies to student characteristics, integrating student initiated learning opportunities and experiences into ongoing instruction, e.g., universally designed approaches.

· Identify methods to facilitate educational progress and include all students using the Standards Aligned System

COURSE REQUIREMENTS /TESTS AND ASSIGNMENTS

Readings

For each week, please come to class prepared to discuss the readings and/or websites. You should interact with the readings actively, just as you teach your students to do the same.

Quizzes

There will be regular quizzes on material from class and the readings. You will generally be informed when there will be a quiz (as stated in the syllabus). You may use any of your class resources to complete these quizzes. However, if waning class participation leads me to believe that students are not completing the assigned readings, there may be unannounced quizzes. Quizzes must be completed on D2L before class begins on the day they are due.

Article Reviews

You will be expected to review two articles from peer-reviewed journals in the field of learning disabilities. The reviews should be 2-3 pages. You should also be prepared to briefly discuss your review with the class. The first review should be from a practice-based journal. Teaching Exceptional Children is a great example of a practice-oriented journal. These types of articles explain teaching strategies or discuss current practices for teachers. Attach a copy of the article to your review.

The second review should be from a scholarly article. Scholarly articles are in journals such as Exceptional Children, Remedial and Special Education; Behavior Disorders, etc. The key to look for is whether the journal has pictures – if it does, it’s very unlikely that it is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal. The scholarly article may be a literature review, a study, or a “talk piece.”

To pick a topic for your reviews, look at the course schedule topics list below:

· Concept of Specific Learning Disability – Is it a construct worth saving?

· Interventions for Students ADHD

· Increasing Reading Fluency

· Enhancing Reading Comprehension

· Speech Disorders

· Instruction for Students with Language Disorders

· Written Expression

· Spelling

· Dyslexia (Be careful with this one! The definition is not what you probably think it is!)

· Dyscalculia

· Dysgraphia

· Learned Helplessness

· Direct Instruction

· Emotional & Behavioral Supports for Students with LD

· Learning Strategy Development and Use

· Graphic Organizers

· Mnemonic Devices

· Response to Intervention

· Other topics by approval

Choose one topic that interest you and then search ERIC or PsychInfo using the library databases for articles in the area.

When reviewing the paper ask yourself how the topic relates to students with learning disabilities and what the implications are for students and teachers. The topic MUST be related to students with high-incidence disabilities. Do not pick a topic about students with severe disabilities autism. If you’re in doubt, clear it with one of us first.

On the day you turn in the review, be prepared to share your paper with another student or the class during a discussion at the beginning of class.

Formal Assessment Project

In this project you are required to identify a (real) student identified with, or at-risk for a high incidence disability. You will administer a formal assessment as well as informal assessment measures. You will analyze assessment data and make instructional recommendations based on your findings.

My hope is that the final product of this assignment will look similar to an artifact that would serve as evidence that a teacher or school psychologist would bring to an Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting and/or a multi-tiered system of support team meeting. The evidence provided in this product will support and justify your instructional decisions, as well as your professional opinions regarding a student’s academic, social, and/or behavioral performance. Finally, the final product will be in a format that can be reviewed by other individuals on the multidisciplinary or IEP team, so they may collaborate on decisions regarding the whole child.

Directions:

1. Identify a student who has been identified with, or at-risk for a high incidence disability in your placement to assess.

2. Determine what formal screening assessment to administer.

3. Determine what two diagnostic assessment measures you plan to use (From Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures).

1. You will choose two assessments based on the level of the student and your initial assessment of the student’s needs (see pp. 14-15 in Assessing Reading for a flowchart to determine which assessments to use. If you’re working with postsecondary learners use the 4-12 chart).

4. Plan how and when you will administer the first assessments.

5. Administer assessment and collect data.

6. Analyze the assessment data.

7. Summarize how the student performed on the assessment (BE SPECIFIC!! Provide statements regarding strengths displayed and area for growth).

8. Based on your data analysis, formulate a behavioral goal for the student in order to facilitate growth in an area requiring growth. Make sure the goal is written in a way that it will be clear when the student has met the goal (i.e., observable and measurable).

1. C – Condition

2. N – Name of Student

3. B – Observable Behavior

4. C – Criterion for Goal Completion

9. Using your goal, list benchmarks you want the student to meet in order to show progress is being made towards the goal.

1. B – Observable Behavior

· Successive approximations towards that behavior

10. *Write lesson plans (i.e., design instruction) that specifically targets the first benchmark. Note: The lessons plans you include here are the ones from Project #2 – Language Based Lesson Plans.

11. Teach the lesson plans and document the outcomes.

12. Following a period of instruction (E.g., one week of targeted lesson plans), re-assess your student to find out if/what progress has been made as a result of your instruction. Collect assessment data. NOTE: For formal assessments this is not enough time to provide reliable data – this is an exercise to teach you the procedures.

13. Analyze your data. Consider how it compares to the data you collected and analyzed at the beginning of the project (i.e., steps 4 and 5).

14. Using your findings, determine what criterion was met, if any. If no progress has been demonstrated, develop a hypotheses as to why the student is not progressing. Consider redesigning your instructional strategies and/or supports.

15. Plan your next step of instruction for the student based on his or her present level of performance.

16. Write additional lesson plans targeting the student’s new benchmark.

17. Go through steps 10-15 as many times as necessary to meet the goal formulated in step 7.

Final Product to Include:

Place all of the following materials in a 3-ring binder with dividers.

Section One: Contextual Information

Summary of Student Information.

· Length parameters: No more than 1.5 pages, no less than two paragraphs.

· Environment Analysis. There is a template that will guide your analysis. Length parameters: No more than1.5 pages, no less than whatever is required to complete the form (i.e., address each of the specified points, even if it is with “Not applicable”).

Section Two: Baseline Data

· Administer Assessments.

· Write a summary describing (a) the instruments(s) used to assess the student, (b) why the instrument(s) was chosen, (c) technical information about the assessment(s) (e.g., reliability, validity), (d) how cultural bias was minimized by the instrument(s), and possible limitations to the instrument(s).

Raw Data: Baseline data (i.e., data reflecting where the student was performing prior to intervention), progress monitoring data, and final assessment data is to be submitted. Data collection forms, permanent products, and/or observational (anecdotal) data are expected.

Data Analysis: An analysis of your data is to be presented in the form of a summary of findings (you may use a Data Triangulation form and/or a graphical representation (e.g., histogram, pie chart).

Section Three: Intervention

· Formulate and write an intervention/instructional goal. The goal is to be written in observable and measurable terms and show direct connection to the overall goal. Include a time frame (i.e., after how many instructional opportunities) for when the benchmark/objective is to be met by the student. Use CNBC format.

· Lesson Plan. Present no fewer than three lesson plans designed to each benchmark/objective.

· Monitor Progress. Collect data on the outcomes of your lesson plans designed to target instruction on prescribed benchmarks/objectives. Include your data with its corresponding lesson plan.

Section Four: Analysis and Implications

· Analyze progress monitoring data.

· Summarize your progress monitoring data.

· Determine how your instruction has impacted the student’s learning by comparing your intervention data to your baseline assessment data.

· Length parameters: No more than 1.5 pages, no less than one paragraph.

· Based on your data, delineate what additional steps are necessary for the student to be successful in meeting the overall instructional goal. Does the student require continued targeted instruction? Does the student require a referral to the multidisciplinary team for further evaluation?

Language Based Lesson Plans – Field Based Experience

For this project, we will have workshops in class in which you will develop a broad unit of study to address language needs of students with high incidence disabilities. You will use an individual or group of students with a high incidence disability in language. The lesson plan may be course-based or may be developed as a tutorial for an individual student who needs explicit instruction in one or more of the following areas:

1) Phonological Development

2) Phonics

3) Morphological Development

4) Semantics

5) Syntax

6) Pragmatics

If you have difficulty finding a student in the K-12 environment, you may choose to work with a student through Shippensburg’s Learning Center or support a student who is an English Language Learner.

We will discuss this project in more depth at our class on February 15th.

Scoring Rubric for Final Project

Student Name: _____________________________________

Section One: (10 points)

_____Summary of Student Information (6 points)

_____Information listed included: age, sex, student preferences as observed

_____Environmental Analysis (4 points)

_____Detailed information about the environment (4 points)

Section Two: (50 points)

_____Assessment Administered (12 points)

_____Information about instrument used to assess student (2 points)

_____Discuss why the instrument was chosen (2 points)

_____Describe the technical soundness of instrument (2 points)

_____Discuss how cultural bias was minimized (2 points)

_____Delineate possible limitations (2 points)

_____Raw Data (8 points)

_____At least one scoring sheet (3 points)

_____Additional anecdotal observations and permanent products (5 points)

_____Data Analysis (20 points)

_____Summary of findings (5 points)

_____Used numerical language (5 points)

_____Graphical representation (10 points)

Section Three (60 points)

______Intervention Goal (20 points)

_____Condition (2 points)

_____Name (2 points)

_____Behavior (2 points)

_____Criterion (2 points)

_____Observable (5 points)

_____Measurable (5 points)

_____Benchmarks/Objectives (20 points)

_____Observable (5 points)
_____Measurable (5 points)

_____Direct connection to overall goal is clear to the reader (5 points)

_____Delineated time frame (5 points)

_____Lesson plans (10 points)

_____Three or more plans (1 point)

_____Lesson plans have clear instructional connection to target benchmark (3 points)

_____Materials are listed (3 points)

_____Targeted benchmark is listed (3 points)

_____Progress Monitoring (10 points)

_____Data is collected on all three lesson plans (2 points)

_____Permanent products are included with detailed anecdotal records

(5 points)

_____Data collected is clearly aligned to the benchmark targeted (3 points)

Section Four: (40 points)

____Analysis of Progress Monitoring Data (20 points)

_____Progress monitoring data is summarized using measurable/numerical language (15

points)

_____Intervention data and baseline data is compared (5 points)

_____Implications (20 points)

_____Additional steps are delineated (10 points)

_____Recommendations about student needs are based on data discussed (10 points)

Holistic Assessment: (40 Points)

_____ The holistic assessment includes proper APA citations, grammar and spelling, clarity of presentation (both visually and structurally), and a subjective assessment of the usefulness of the data, lessons, and description. (40 points)

Final Points (200)__________

Class

Participation

Class participation and prior preparation is critical for this course. We will draw heavily on the text, but it will not be regurgitate to you on class nights. Assigned readings will be discussed in class.

EXPECTATIONS FOR WRITING INCLUDING GRAMMAR AND SPELLING

Expectation for your grammar and spelling is high in this course. The materials that you prepare in this course are materials that your principal, colleagues, parents, and students will see. They WILL judge you based on your writing. If you struggle with writing, now is the time to address it. If you turn in work that has multiple grammar, spelling errors and/or word usage errors (e.g., “there” instead of “their”, “your” instead of “you’re”, “principle” instead of “principal”, etc.) you will automatically lose 10% of your grade for that assignment. If while grading the assignment we determine there are so many errors that it is unreadable, you will need to redo the assignment. The highest score possible on a complete rewrite is a C+.

It is far better to be proactive and ask others to proofread your work or go to the Learning Center BEFORE you turn in your work. There is a writing tutor who works with graduate students at the Learning Center. That person will help you proofread your work and will offer suggestions on how to improve your writing. We cannot emphasize enough how important this is for you as a school professional.

Course Grades:

In graduate school, grades are earned according to individual student performance on described activities; as a warning, this is an intense and difficult course. Effort is important, but the outcome of your effort is the product upon which grades are based. Final grades are assigned as follows using a total points earned scale:

· Grades of A are
reserved
for students whose products are consistently exemplary and commensurate with the work of an accomplished graduate student. A products provide clarity of thoughts and ideas with no grammatical, structural, or spelling errors.

· Grades of B are earned by students whose products are good but not outstanding. B products provide detail and explanation; may have a few grammatical, structural, or spelling errors.

· Grades of C are earned by students whose products are limited, but display sufficient understanding; may have major grammatical, structural, or spelling errors. Earning a C will result in the graduate school placing the student on academic probation. Earning two C grades will result in dismissal from the program and the university.

Grades on individual projects will follow this model as well. An “A” indicates exceptional work that is on par with excellent work at the graduate level. A “B” indicates adequate work at the graduate level. A “C” indicates inadequate work at the graduate level.

GRADING SCALE

A   (95-100%)   A mark of excellence

A- (90-94%)

B+ (88-89%)

B   (84-87%)   Above average

B- (81-83%)

C+ (76-80%)

C   (70-75%)   Academic Probation

D   (60-69%)  

F   (0-59%) Failure to meet the objectives of the course

Attendance and Testing Policies:

If you are absent from class, it is your responsibility to secure any notes from a classmate. Attendance is critical for this course. I know that there are unavoidable absences, but please don’t add to them with avoidable ones.

Only medically excused absences, officially recognized religious holidays, university approved activities, or a written school district obligation will make a student eligible to make up an in-class quiz, hand in an assignment late, or miss an important in-class assignment.

More than one unexcused absence will result in your grade being reduced by a full letter grade. Continued absences will result in a failing grade.

Students with Disabilities:

Any student with a disability that requires special considerations and/or modifications, please provide documentation from the Office of Disability Services. In addition, you must inform me of any suggested accommodations that will maximize class participation, completion of assignments, etc. by the second class meeting so that accommodations can be implemented. I try to provide explicit assignment expectations and generous timelines. However, it you need additional accommodations; please schedule a meeting with one of us to discuss your needs.

Plagiarism

ALL projects and activities must be done by the student and must be original for this course. Plagiarism, stealing, or passing the work or ideas of others as the work or ideas of yours is academic dishonesty and will not be tolerated. Copying someone else’s work or cheating on a test will result in a ZERO for the infraction, which will obviously lower your course grade. Please see the graduate catalog for more specific information on plagiarism. Papers should be submitted through the Dropbox in D2L.

This is a tentative outline of topics. I reserve the right to change the syllabus to meet needs that are observed during the course. Additional readings and assignments may be provided in class.

Class	Topics	Preparation
Week 1 Jan 25	· Introductions · Syllabus · Basic Concepts
Week 2 Feb 1	Online · Characteristics and Etiology of High Incidence Disabilities & At-Risk Learners	· Read article: Comparing Characteristics of High-Incidence Disability Groups: A Descriptive Review Due: Discussion Post on D2L – Post 3, 2, 1 Summary of article and respond to the posts of two classmates
Week 3 Feb 8	LETRS Module 1 – The Challenge of Learning to Read · RTII process · Reading is a national priority · Learning to read is not natural · Importance of language in learning to read	· Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – The Big Picture (p. 2-18) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Comprehensive Reading Model (p. 744-754) · IRIS module – The Pre-Referral Process: Procedures for Supporting Students with Academic and Behavioral Concerns http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/preref/#content
Week 4 Feb 15	LETRS Module 1 – The Challenge of Learning to Read continued · Importance of language in learning to read · Four-Part Processing Model of Word Recognition and the brain Project overview	· DUE: IRIS assessment via D2L Dropbox – The Pre-Referral Process: Procedures for Supporting Students with Academic and Behavioral Concerns Assessment · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Decoding and Word Recognition (p. 161-168)
Week 5 Feb 22	Complete LETRS Module 1 – The Challenge of Learning to Read · Review the Four-Part Processing Model of Word Recognition and the brain · Dyslexia and subtypes of reading disabilities · Reading assessments and administration	· DUE: Article Review 1 (practice-based article) via D2L Dropbox · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Fluency (p. 321-358) · Read Assessing Reading Multiple Measures – Introduction to Assessing Reading (p. 5-15)
Week 6 Mar 1	LETRS Module 2 – Speech Sounds of English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Phoneme Awareness · Phonology and Phonological Awareness	· DUE: Quiz 1 (on D2L) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Phonological Awareness (p. 116-127)
Week 7 Mar 8	LETRS Module 2 – Speech Sounds of English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Phoneme Awareness continued · Speech Sounds of English Language	· DUE: Article Review 2 (scholarly article) via D2L Dropbox · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Phonemes (p.22-27)
Week 8 Mar 15	Spring Break	·
Week 9 Mar 22	LETRS Module 2 – Speech Sounds of English: Phonetics, Phonology, and Phoneme Awareness · Teaching and Assessing Phonological Skills · Practice teaching phonological activities Workshop – designing lessons based on initial assessments	· DUE: Parts 1 and 2 of Project on D2L * bring your initial assessments with you to class · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – How to Teach Phonological Awareness (p. 128-158)
Week 10 Mar 29	Complete LETRS Module 2 Begin LETRS Module 3 – Spellography for Teachers: How English Spelling Works · Connection between print and speech · 5 Principles of Spelling 1. History of the English language (etymology)	· Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Sound/Spellings (p. 28 – 35)
Week 11 Apr 5	LETRS Module 3 – Spellography for Teachers: How English Spelling Works continued · 5 Principles of Spelling 2. Grapheme Phoneme Correspondence 3. Position of a phoneme 4. Letter patterns (including 6 syllable types)	· DUE: Quiz 2 (on D2L) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Syllables (p. 36 – 41) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Phonics (p. 170 – 240)
Week 12 Apr 12	LETRS Module 3 – Spellography for Teachers: How English Spelling Works continued · 5 Principles of Spelling · Meaning (morphemes) · Multisyllabic word reading · Lingering questions regarding word recognition, the bottom processors, and the impact on language development/reading comprehension	· Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Multisyllabic Word Reading (p. 260 – 318) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Morphemes (p. 42 – 47)
Week 13 Apr 19	· Vocabulary · Fluency	· DUE: Quiz 3 (on D2L) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Specific Word Instruction (p. 407 – 486) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Word Consciousness (p. 570 – 606)
Week 14 Apr 26	· Fluency · Language Comprehension · Revisit the RTII model	· DUE: Quiz 4 (on D2L) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Fluency Instruction (p. 360 – 404) · Read Teaching Reading Sourcebook – Comprehension (literary and informational) (p. 608 – 742)
Week 15 May 3	· Math	· DUE : Formal Assessment Project and Lesson Plans · Reading TBD
Week 16 May 10	Finals Week Online	· Iris Module – RTI (Part 3): Reading Instruction http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti03-reading/cr_assess/#content · DUE: IRIS Assessment on D2L http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti03-reading/cr_assess/#content *Everyone must answer question numbers 2, 4, & 6. You do not need to complete the other questions on the assessment.

Recommended Readings: (these links to articles are not required readings for this class, but are resources to further understanding of topics important to your field of study)

http://dravet.org/about-dravet/Childs-physical-growth-cognitive-development

http://www.interventioncentral.org/response-to-intervention

http://www.ncset.org/publications/viewdesc.asp?id=1097

http://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/lbld.htm

http://www.asha.org/public/speech/disorders/ChildSandL.htm

http://www.ldonline.org/article/56113/

http://www.eslcafe.com/

http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/articles/teachtechnique/strategiesforteachingsocialskills/index.php

95R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006, Pages 95–104

Comparing Characteristics of
High-Incidence Disability Groups

A Descriptive Review

E D W A R D J . S A B O R N I E , C H A N E V A N S , A N D D O U G L A S C U L L I N A N

A B S T R A C T

More than 2 decades ago, Hallahan and Kauffman
and others suggested a cross-categorical approach to teaching
students identified with high-incidence disabilities (i.e., emotional–
behavioral disabilities, learning disabilities, and mild intellectual dis-
abilities) because their behavioral and academic characteristics
were seen to be more similar than different. Since that time, more
than 150 articles and other works have discussed and compared
the characteristics of students across these high-incidence disabil-
ity categories. This descriptive review examined 34 studies com-
paring various characteristics of students with high-incidence
disabilities. The results indicate that students with emotional–
behavioral disabilities, learning disabilities, and mild intellectual
disabilities do not differ markedly in social adjustment, but do dis-
play considerably different cognitive and behavioral profiles.
Implications for instruction and placement are discussed.

THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES OF STU-
dents in the three categories of high-incidence disabilities—
emotional–behavioral disorders (EBD), learning disabilities
(LD), and mild intellectual disabilities (MID)—have been of
interest to teachers, psychologists, researchers, and school
professionals for some time. Part of the interest in high-
incidence disabilities lies in the fact that more than 70% of
all youth with disabilities are served in these three groups.
Over the years, research has shown that students with high-
incidence disabilities share characteristics in areas such as

social skills (Gresham, Elliot, & Black, 1987), time on task
(O’Sullivan, Ysseldyke, Christenson, & Thurlow, 1990), aca-
demic growth (Gajar, 1980; Margalit & Roth, 1989), and
interactions with peers (Moore & Simpson, 1983). When as-
signed to cross-categorical special education classrooms or
general education classes, they also share the same teachers,
academic curricula, and behavioral programs.

More than one quarter of a century ago, Hallahan and
Kauffman (1976, 1977) proposed using a cross-categorical or
noncategorical approach to teaching students with mild or
high-incidence disabilities, grouping them according to their
behavioral characteristics rather than by their disability label.
In their seminal article “Labels, Categories, Behaviors: ED,
LD, and EMR Reconsidered” (Hallahan & Kauffman, 1977),
they asserted that students identified in any one of the three
high-incidence categories were more alike than different in
their needs for academic and behavioral instruction. Among
other factors, Hallahan and Kauffman pointed to confusing
definitions in each of the three categories as one justification
for grouping them together. The standards for identification
in the late 1970s seemed to sometimes depend on who was
doing the assessment, which instruments were used, and
whether a student did not manifest a specific trait. In com-
paring student behavior, Hallahan and Kauffman (1977) con-
sidered several characteristics: IQ, underachievement, and
personality and social adjustment. By examining the research
of the time (e.g., Balthazar & Stevens, 1975; Zigler, 1975),

96 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

three groups of high-incidence disabilities cannot be attained.
Our goal in this review was to find an answer to the follow-
ing modest question: Are students in the three categories of
high-incidence disabilities more alike than different?

METHOD

Participants

Students and youth who participated in the studies reviewed
herein had been identified as having EBD, LD, or MID by
traditional means (i.e., individual state, federal, or similar
definitions). The academic settings included general educa-
tion, resource rooms, self-contained classrooms, and separate
schools. Students’ grade levels ranged from kindergarten
to 12th grade, and ethnicities included African American,
European American, Hebrew, and Latino. In the 22 studies
that specified gender, more than 65% of the participants
were boys, and approximately 50% of the participants were
elementary-age children. Of the total of 34 studies found for
the present review, 13 studies examined issues pertaining to
students with EBD, LD, and MID; 7 studies considered
aspects covering only groups with LD and MID; and 14
empirical reports provided data concerning groups with EBD
and LD only. No studies considered a comparison between
groups with EBD and groups with MID on any variable of
interest.

Most studies used for this examination included as par-
ticipants actual students or youth with EBD, LD, or MID
(e.g., Clarizio & Bernard, 1981; Slate, 1995). A few inves-
tigations (e.g., Algozzine, Morsink, & Algozzine, 1988;
Boucher & Deno, 1979), however, included teachers, parents,
or other adults as participants who were asked to categorize
or rate various traits found in the children with EBD, LD, and
MID.

Literature Search

The Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC),
EdInfo, Education Abstracts, and PsycInfo electronic data-
bases were used to find relevant studies from 1977 to the
present in which students in the categories of high-incidence
disabilities were the participants or foci of the study. A va-
riety of keywords and descriptors were used to obtain the
correct participants and relevant studies, such as emotional
disturbance, psychiatric disturbance, educable mental retar-
dation, and so on. A manual search of the reference lists from
the obtained studies was also conducted to ensure that the
related literature exploration was as comprehensive as possi-
ble. Our search for related literature produced a total of 152
published reports, including peer-reviewed journal articles,
chapters, dissertation abstracts, and monographs. Of these, 58
empirical studies found in peer-reviewed journals were used

they concluded that instructional grouping based on disabil-
ity labels was “educationally useless” (p. 146) and recom-
mended a noncategorical model driven by students’ specific
academic, behavioral, and social deficits.

The interest in high-incidence disability identification,
characteristics, placement, and programming has flourished
since the 1970s (see also Reschly, Tilly, & Grimes, 1999).
Since 1977, more than 150 studies and other works examin-
ing similarities and differences across students with EBD,
LD, and MID have been published (Sabornie, Cullinan,
Osborne, & Brock, 2005). Sabornie et al. conducted a meta-
analysis to determine if quantitative research could meaning-
fully separate students with EBD, LD, and MID across the
domains of IQ, academic achievement, and behavior. They
were also interested in determining whether Hallahan and
Kauffman’s (1977) conclusions concerning cross-categorical
similarities were still true today. Sabornie et al. found 58
group research studies that included the necessary data to
compare characteristics of students, all of whom had been
identified by state and federal criteria, in high-incidence dis-
ability categories. The participants ranged from preschool to
12th grade, and school placements included general educa-
tion classrooms, resource rooms, and special education self-
contained settings. The meta-analysis examined the three
disability groups with a pairwise assessment of LD versus
MID, MID versus EBD, and LD versus EBD comparisons.
Sabornie et al. found an effect size (ES) of 2.36 for compar-
isons involving students with LD versus those with MID in
IQ, a relatively robust effect size of −2.17 for comparisons of
students with MID versus EBD in IQ, and a very weak effect
size of 0.14 for the LD versus EBD comparison in IQ.
Regarding IQ, then, students with MID were not at all simi-
lar to those with EBD or LD. Academic achievement ESs
were significantly different across all comparisons involving
the three groups (favoring students with LD and those with
EBD over students with MID), and the ESs involving the
behavior of students with EBD were found to significantly
favor both students with LD and those with MID. Although
the meta-analysis results of Sabornie et al. are not the main
focus of this article, they will be included in the discussions
that follow for comparison purposes.

The purposes of this article are (a) to examine additional
cross-categorical studies not found in other reports and (b) to
further illuminate the characteristics of students in the three
high-incidence disability groups. In other words, the intent is
to closely examine the published research concerning stu-
dents in the high-incidence categories in the same way
in which Hallahan and Kauffman (1976, 1977) did so
originally—by using a descriptive review of findings. The
studies not found in Sabornie et al. (2005) and reviewed here
provide substantive and unique information concerning stu-
dents identified as having EBD, LD, and MID. Without a
comprehensive review of all the available research literature,
using both meta-analytical and traditional review techniques,
a complete picture of the similarity or dissimilarity across the

97R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

in the Sabornie et al. (2005) meta-analysis; 34 additional
studies from the same sources could not be included in this
meta-analysis and, thus, were included in the present,
descriptive review. The following a priori selection criteria
were used for studies to be included in the present examina-
tion:

1. The study included a comparison of at least
two of the three groups of high-incidence dis-
ability (i.e., EBD vs. LD, EBD vs. MID, LD
vs. MID) on a relevant dependent variable.

2. The study was a group design investigation,
with group contrast statistics reported.

3. Each study had to appear in a peer-reviewed
journal. In an attempt to control for study
quality—an elusive concept with little agree-
ment among experts (see Wortman, 1994)—we
eschewed research literature (e.g., disserta-
tions) that was not found in peer-reviewed
journals. The 34 studies selected in the present
review of the literature were found in 21 differ-
ent peer-reviewed journals.

The Sabornie et al. (2005) meta-analysis selected three
domains of interest for dependent variable comparisons
across the categories of high-incidence disabilities: IQ, aca-
demic achievement, and behavior. In the present descriptive
review, we were able to categorize the available studies into
the following realms: IQ, academic, social, behavior, func-
tional skills, and other. The other category encompassed four
subtypes of investigations: student characteristics (not associ-
ated with the other five domains), parent perceptions, teacher
attitudes and decisions, and ethnicity and socioeconomic sta-
tus (see Table 1). Studies concerning postschool status were
included in the functional skills domain. Data from one of the
34 studies (i.e., Margalit, 1989) were used in more than one
domain of interest (i.e., academic and behavior). The first
author and two doctoral students in special education were
involved in the literature searches and in coding studies into
the available domains of interest. Discussions between the
three primary literature searchers led to concurrence when
there was disagreement regarding the placing of a study into
a suitable domain of interest for this review.

RESULTS
Table 1 presents a summary of the studies used in the present
descriptive review.

Intelligence Comparisons

According to federal regulations, to be eligible for the in-
tellectual disability category, a student must exhibit signifi-
cantly below-average general intellectual functioning along

with deficits in adaptive behavior. Although individual states
interpret this requirement differently, a nationwide survey
(Denning, Chamberlain, & Polloway, 2000) revealed that
60% of the states used an intelligence test cutoff score of 70,
or a score of at least 2 standard deviations below the mean, to
meet the intellectual functioning criterion. In order for a stu-
dent to qualify as having either EBD or LD, however, aca-
demic shortfalls must not be caused primarily by intellectual
deficits or mental retardation.

Hallahan and Kauffman (1976, 1977) stated that chil-
dren with EBD and LD also had below-average IQs. In the
mid-1970s, they surveyed more than 100 students with LD
and found the mean IQ to be 91 (Hallahan & Kauffman,
1977). Research studies from the 1970s to the present have
continued to show that students with EBD have IQs in the
low-average range, with a mean of about 90 to 95 (Kauffman,
2005).

Three of the research comparisons in this review (Clar-
izio & Bernard, 1981; Petersen & Hart, 1978; Slate, 1995) in-
cluded cognitive ability scores of students in the high-incidence
disability groups. As a group, these studies found that stu-
dents with MID had substantially lower cognitive ability
scores than students with EBD and LD. Slate also found that
students with MID and LD differed in the degree of dis-
crepancy between Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–
Revised (WISC-R) Verbal and Performance IQ scores, with
the group with LD demonstrating larger Verbal–Performance
IQ discrepancies.

In the Sabornie et al. (2005) meta-analysis, IQ findings
from 25 studies compared mean IQ scores of students with
MID and LD; 11 studies included IQ comparisons of students
with EBD and those with MID; and 26 investigations com-
pared IQ functioning across EBD and LD groups. The mean
ES estimates for IQ with both LD versus MID and MID ver-
sus EBD comparisons were found to be quite substantial
(2.36 and −2.17, respectively; the negative ES favors EBD
over MID). In contrast, the IQ comparison between LD and
EBD was very weak, with an average weighted ES estimate
of only 0.14.

Academic Domain Comparisons

Lack of achievement in school is typically one of the first
indicators of a cognitive disorder (Beirne-Smith, Ittenbach, &
Patton, 2006) and one of the five characteristics of emotional
disturbance. It is no surprise, therefore, to find students with
EBD, LD, and MID with low academic performance. Halla-
han and Kauffman (1976, 1977) maintained that within this
construct, there was more overlap than uniqueness among
students in the three groups.

The majority of the articles reviewed here concurred
with the original conclusions of Hallahan and Kauffman
(1976, 1977) regarding academic achievement. Seven of the
11 comparisons indicated no significant differences among
students with high-incidence disabilities on academically

98 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

TABLE 1. High-Incidence Disability Comparison Studies Reviewed

Study Domain Variable Results

Clarizio & Bernard (1981) IQ WISC-R subtest scores EBD = LD
LD > MID

Petersen & Hart (1978) IQ WISC-R LD, EBD > MIDa

LD = EBD

Slate (1995) IQ WISC-III, WISC-R LD > MID

Jaben (1986) Academic Creative thinking LD = EBD

Margalit (1989) Academic Academic competence LD = EBD

Margalit & Roth (1989) Academic Spelling LD = MID

Ysseldyke et al. (1991) Academic Time on academics MID < LD, EBD LD = EBD

Downing et al. (1990) Social Mainstream social skills LD > EBD on some skills
LD = EBD on other skills

Margalit (1995) Social Loneliness LD = EBD

Moore & Simpson (1983) Social Verbal statements LD = EBD

Elmquist et al. (1992) Behavior Alcohol use LD < EBD

Gadow et al. (1990) Behavior Aggression LD < EBD

Handwerk & Marshall (1998) Behavior Problem behaviors LD < EBD and LD = EBD on inattention

Margalit (1989) Behavior Social adjustment LD > EBD and LD < EBD on social maladjustment

McConaughy et al. (1994) Behavior Behavior problems LD < EBD

Sindelar et al. (1985) Behavior Deviant behaviors LD < EBD

Affleck et al. (1990) Functional skills Postschool status MID, LD > EBD

Botuck et al. (1996) Functional skills Job placement LD = MID

Levy et al. (1993) Functional skills Job training LD = MID in employment
LD < MID in wages

Rimmerman et al. (1995) Functional skills Employment problems LD = MID

Algozzine et al. (1998) Other Teachers’ instructional practices LD, EBD > MID

Barona et al. (1993) Other SES and ethnicity MID > LD, EBD

Bernard & Clarizio (1981) Other SES LD = EBD = MID

Boucher & Deno (1979) Other Teachers’ perceptions of characteristics LD = EBD

Teachers’ goals LD = MID

Elliott & Boeve (1987) Other Ethnicity LD = EBD = MID

Gelb & Mizokawa (1986) Other SES LD, MID > EBD

Leigh et al. (1995) Other Teachers’ instructional issues LD < EBD, MID

MacMillan et al. (1998) Other Ethnicity LD > MID

Morgan (1986) Other Locus of control LD > EBD internal locus
of control

Potter et al. (1983) Other Identification LD > EBD, MID

Rizzo & Kirkendall (1995) Other Attitudes of preservice teachers Older persons less tolerant
of EBD

Simpson & Myles (1989) Other Mainstream modifications LD = MID = EBD

Singh et al. (1994) Other Medication treatment LD = EBD

Stern et al. (1991) Other Drug use among family members LD < EBD

Ysseldyke & Algozzine (1981) Other Referral problems LD, MID < EBD

Note. EBD = emotional–behavioral disorders; LD = learning disabilities; MID = mild intellectual disabilities; SES = socioeconomic status; WISC-R = Wechsler Intel-
ligence Scale for Children–Revised; WISC-III = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, third edition.
a Interpretation: In this study from the IQ domain, students identified as EBD and LD were both shown to score higher than those with MID on the WISC-R, and stu-
dents with LD and EBD were found to be statistically similar in scores on the WISC-R.

99R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

oriented variables. Four studies compared students with LD
with those with MID on academic acquisition or improve-
ment after having been taught a specific intervention.
Although individuals with MID made slightly fewer gains
than those with LD, there was no significant difference in stu-
dents’ posttest scores in skills such as spelling performance
(Margalit & Roth, 1989).

Two additional studies compared elementary-age stu-
dents with EBD and those with LD in academic competence
(Margalit, 1989) and creative thinking skills (Jaben, 1986).
Here again, no significant differences were found between
the two disability groups. Jaben used a treatment-control
model to teach divergent thinking skills to 98 students in self-
contained EBD and LD classrooms. The treatment group,
consisting of students with both EBD and LD, received 14
weeks training in creative processing techniques, while the
control group was offered no additional intervention. Jaben
used the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as a pretest–
posttest measure of verbal fluency, flexibility, and originality.
Students with EBD and LD in the treatment group scored sig-
nificantly higher than did students with the same disabilities
who received no intervention, with no substantial difference
between the students with EBD and those with LD within
each group.

Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Christenson, and Muyskens (1991)
explored classroom and home environments using qualitative
and quantitative methods to compare the levels of academic
activity and emphasis for 122 students with EBD, LD, and
MID. It was found repeatedly in different settings (separate
classroom, resource room) and for different content areas
(math, reading, and writing) that students with MID received
significantly less academic instruction and were given signif-
icantly more free-time activities than students with EBD or
LD. When home environments were examined, it was found
that families of students with EBD were rated lower on secu-
rity and valuing education than were families of students with
LD. Supporting school effort was also rated lower for fami-
lies of students with EBD than for those of students with LD
or MID.

Sabornie et al. (2005) examined findings from 33 stud-
ies to determine if an ES difference among groups with EBD,
LD, and MID could be discerned within the academic
achievement domain. Unlike IQ, the mean effect sizes indi-
cated only moderate differences for one of the comparisons,
LD versus MID (ES = 0.42, favoring the group with LD), but
a strong difference between students with MID and those
with EBD (ES = −0.70, favoring those with EBD). There was
a weak but statistically significant difference between stu-
dents with EBD and LD, with an ES of −0.22 favoring stu-
dents with LD.

Social Domain Comparisons

Hallahan and Kauffman (1976) concluded that even though
social adjustment deficits were generally associated with EBD,

students with LD and MID were also lacking in this area.
Referring to the American Association on Mental Disability’s
(AAMD’s) criterion for adaptive behavior deficiency, they
stated that it was “logical to assume that personality and
social adjustment are synonymous with adaptive behavior”
(p. 144). Therefore, they concluded that students with MID
would share this characteristic with those with EBD and LD.

The results from the three studies comparing 10 vari-
ables for students with EBD and those with LD only in the
social domain were equivocal, with one study (Downing,
Simpson, & Myles, 1990) showing significant differences,
but two additional investigations (Margalit, 1995; Moore &
Simpson, 1983) indicating no differences between the two
groups. Downing et al. (1990) asked 56 general and special
education teachers to rate students with EBD and with LD on
their proficiency and use of nonacademic skills, including
asking for help, avoiding swearing and fighting, obeying
rules, and interacting with teachers. Students with LD were
rated higher on following school and classroom rules, but
equal to those with EBD in cursing, fighting, and interacting
with teachers. In contrast, no significant differences were
found in verbal interactions among 45 students with EBD or
LD and their peers and teachers (Moore & Simpson, 1983).
Students with EBD and LD both emitted significantly more
neutral and negative than positive comments to peers. They
also made more negative comments to their teachers than did
their nondisabled peers.

Behavior Domain Comparisons

As with social skill deficits, it is expected that students with
a primary identification of EBD will exhibit more problem-
atic behaviors than students with LD or MID. On a behavioral
continuum, maladaptive episodes of students with EBD are
experienced more often and are more intense and longer last-
ing than are those of students whose primary diagnosis is
either LD or MID. Although Hallahan and Kauffman (1976)
agreed that “subtle differences do arise in the frequency with
which certain behaviors are exhibited” (p. 36), they main-
tained that students with LD and MID also exhibit behavioral
deficits in areas of interpersonal relationships and social–
emotional adjustment.

Our review of six studies comparing the behaviors of
students in high-incidence disability groups found that stu-
dents with EBD exhibited more acting out, hyperactivity,
social maladjustment (Margalit, 1989), externalizing and in-
ternalizing behaviors (Handwerk & Marshall, 1998), and illi-
cit drug and alcohol use (Elmquist, Morgan, & Bolds, 1992)
than did students identified with LD or MID. The vast major-
ity of the behavior variable comparisons concurred that stu-
dents with EBD had significantly more behavioral problems
than students with LD or MID. Margalit (1989) used teacher
rating scales to measure the adjustment of 73 boys with either
EBD or LD. She found that boys identified as having EBD
were more hyperactive and socially maladjusted than were

100 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

boys identified with LD. Although not as hostile or aggres-
sive, the boys with LD were still seen as having interpersonal
relationship deficits. Other studies concurred that although
students with LD experienced behavioral problems, students
identified with EBD had significantly more problems with
aggression, self-destructive behaviors, withdrawal, and inat-
tention (Handwerk & Marshall, 1998; McConaughy, Matti-
son, & Peterson, 1994; Sindelar, King, Cartland, Wilson, &
Meisel, 1985).

In contrast with these results, Gadow, Sprafkin, and
Grayson (1990) found in their validation study of the Help–
Hurt Game that 38 elementary-age students with EBD and
LD exhibited no significant differences. The students, ages 5
to 10, were randomly divided into two groups, each contain-
ing students with both disabilities. One group was shown a
cartoon with a high content of aggressive action, while the
other watched one filled with altruistic deeds. Then, each
child played a game where he or she could either “help” or
“hurt” a fictitious playmate. The determining variable for
aggression seemed to be the cartoon program—either violent
or helpful—and not membership in a disability group.

Elmquist et al. (1992), included here in the behavior
domain, examined alcohol and drug use among adolescents
with high-incidence disabilities. Elmquist et al. used a self-
report measure with 110 sixth to twelfth graders with EBD
and LD to determine the extent of alcohol use. The results of
the survey showed no significant difference in use among stu-
dents with EBD versus students with LD who were taught in
resource or general education classes. Students with EBD
who were taught in self-contained settings, however, reported
a significantly higher use of both alcohol and illegal drugs
than either students with LD or students with EBD served in
less restrictive settings.

Sabornie et al. (2005) considered 41 comparisons for
evidence of similarity or difference in behavior among stu-
dents with EBD, LD, and MID. They found the ES estimate
to be nugatory (−0.01) for the behavioral domain comparison
of students with LD versus those with MID. In the MID ver-
sus EBD comparison (ES = 0.70), students identified as hav-
ing EBD exhibited significantly greater behavioral problems.
The third comparison—LD versus EBD—showed another
strong and statistically significant difference between the
groups, with an ES estimate of 0.72, favoring better behavior
among those with LD. These findings correspond to those
from the present descriptive review in that students with EBD
had significantly more behavior problems than students in the
other categories.

Functional Skill Comparisons

The construct of functional skills is particularly germane to
students with MID, and just as synonymous with adaptive
skills as “personality and social adjustment” (Hallahan &
Kauffman, 1977, p. 144). The American Association on Men-

tal Retardation (AAMR) listed 10 domains of adaptive skills
in its 1992 definition of intellectual disability (Luckasson et
al., 1992), and functional utility is implicit throughout the
descriptions of self-direction, health and safety, leisure, and
work. The present review examined four studies concerning
the acquisition of functional skills or postschool status across
the three high-incidence disability groups.

Although dismal postschool outcomes for students with
EBD are widely recognized (e.g., Greenbaum et al., 1996;
Oswald & Coutinho, 1996; Wagner, 1995), none of these
studies compared students with EBD to those with LD or
MID. We found three studies (Botuck, Levy, & Rimmerman,
1996; Levy et al., 1993; Rimmerman et al., 1995) that were
associated with results from an adult employment training
program, the Young Adult Institute. This project offered indi-
viduals preplacement assessment and training before begin-
ning work. There was no indication that the disabilities of
individuals with LD or MID were important factors in ini-
tial job placement or types of problems experienced on the
job. Differences between salaries were noted, however, with
young adults with LD receiving higher wages than those with
MID.

In a postschool status investigation (Affleck, Edgar, Le-
vine, & Kortering, 1990), former students with LD and those
with MID were contacted twice—at 6 months and 30
months—after either graduating or “aging out” of special
education programs in a statewide telephone survey. Ques-
tions were asked concerning postsecondary education,
employment, salary, and independent living. Individuals with
LD rated their status on all variables significantly higher than
did young adults with MID.

Other Comparisons

Research in the last domain includes results from studies
(n = 15) concerning the perceptions of students, parents, and
educators on such diverse topics as locus of control (Morgan,
1986), parent requests for general education modifications
(Simpson & Myles, 1989), presence of alcohol abuse among
parents (Stern, Kendall, & Eberhard, 1991), and knowledge
of psychotropic medications (Singh, Epstein, Stout, Luebke,
& Ellis, 1994). Also integrated in this catch-all category are
opinions about the characteristics of EBD, LD, and MID by
preservice teachers (Rizzo & Kirkendall, 1995), school psy-
chologists and social workers (Ysseldyke & Algozzine, 1981),
and general and special educators (Boucher & Deno, 1979),
and research addressing bias based on socioeconomic status
(SES) and ethnicity.

In a comparison of locus of control (Morgan, 1986), stu-
dents with LD gave themselves more credit for success in
areas of intellectual, social, and physical abilities than did
students with EBD. Students with EBD attributed their suc-
cess to either fate or chance and showed a substantially exter-
nal locus of control.

101R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

When parents of students with EBD, LD, and MID were
questioned about the number of services and modifications
they wanted in planning for the success of their children in
inclusion classes (Simpson & Myles, 1989), no significant
difference was found among the groups. Moreover, in another
study (Algozzine, Morsink, & Algozzine, 1998), significant
difference was not shown in most of the instructional strate-
gies and techniques used by 40 self-contained classroom
teachers in classrooms with students with EBD, LD, and
MID. Only one discrepancy was observed among the three
sets of teachers: Those who taught students with MID modi-
fied their instruction about half as frequently as teachers of
students with EBD or LD.

Six studies considered questions of bias in the identifi-
cation of a high-incidence disability based on race or socio-
economic factors. Three of these studies found that being
classified as having MID or LD was positively related with
ethnicity or SES (Barona, Santos de Barona, & Faykus, 1993;
Gelb & Mizokawa, 1986; MacMillan, Gresham, & Bocian,
1998). Gelb and Mizokawa, for example, in examining rec-
ords of school-age students in the United States, found that
MID were correlated with low SES and students of African
American and Latino descent, whereas LD were associated
with high SES and a European American heritage. Neither
connection was found for students with EBD, however. The
remaining studies (Bernard & Clarizio, 1981; Elliott & Boeve,
1987) found no ethnic or SES bias in identification practices
involving high-incidence disabilities.

Stern et al. (1991) explored the hypothesis that students
with EBD were more likely to have parents with alcohol
addiction than students with LD or without a disability. To
test this theory, 30 first- to fifth-grade students in each of 3
groups—EBD, LD, and no disabilities—were randomly
selected to take the Children of Alcoholics Screening Test, a
measure of their attitudes and perceptions about their parents’
drinking habits. Statistically significant differences were not
found among the students’ ratings; however, the disparity
among groups was noteworthy. An immediate family member
with chemical dependency was reported by 47% of students
with EBD, by 15% of those with LD, and by 20% of students
without disabilities.

DISCUSSION
Hallahan and Kauffman (1976, 1977) asserted that the dis-
similarity in the characteristics of students with high-
incidence disabilities was negligible, even though they noted
deficits of slightly differing degrees in IQ, academic achieve-
ment, and personality and social adjustment across the three
groups. They called for a discontinuation of homogeneous
grouping by administrative category and proposed instead to
implement a task-centered model that would remediate stu-
dents’ specific academic and behavioral deficits, no matter

what their special education label. Our intent in this review
was not to debunk or criticize the conclusions of Hallahan
and Kauffman from the late 1970s. Nevertheless, some of the
results we found differ from those of Hallahan and Kauffman.

Limitations
Before summarizing the results of our review, a few limita-
tions of our methodology are worthy of discussion. We ini-
tially eliminated single-subject studies and reports without
recorded statistical significance in our attempt to draw mean-
ingful conclusions and implications from this review. How-
ever, knowing that statistical significance is partly a function
of sample size, we proceeded with caution. Kavale (2001)
warned of the vagaries associated with using a “box score”
approach in the type of analysis used herein. Simply record-
ing a yes or a no for the statistical significance of each study,
tallying the totals, and proclaiming a “winner” does not suf-
ficiently address the subtleties of individual results. We found
this to be true in the domain of behavior. Students with EBD
were found unequivocally to exhibit more maladaptive
behaviors than did students with LD, but on closer examina-
tion, the studies confirmed that students with LD also had
difficulty with social relationships, hyperactivity, and inatten-
tion.

An additional shortcoming of our review concerns the
operational parameters of a descriptive review compared to a
meta-analysis. A true strength of the meta-analytic technique
is its ability to assist in removing bias in the interpretation of
findings (Kavale, 2001; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001; Wang &
Bushman, 1999). This trait of meta-analysis, unfortunately,
is lost in a descriptive review of the research literature. By
combining our descriptive review with the available meta-
analysis, however, we attempted to provide a comprehensive
addition to the extant discourse concerning students with
high-incidence disabilities.

Group Differences and Similarities
Despite its limitations, our present compilation helps com-
plete the review of research since the late 1970s. The com-
parison of students with EBD and those with MID showed
that 80% of the studies we included here indicated a signifi-
cant difference in IQ, academic skills, and behavior prob-
lems. The meta-analysis of Sabornie et al. (2005) also dem-
onstrated a strong disparity between these two groups in IQ
(ES = −2.20), academic achievement (ES = −0.70), and
behavior problems (ES = 0.73). In other words, students with
EBD, when compared to those with MID, have higher IQs,
superior academic skills, and more behavioral problems. The
research seems to support that when students with EBD and
MID are compared side by side, they are not so similar on
these important constructs for special education identification
and instruction. Key questions related to these differences are
whether the disparity is worthy of educating students in these

102 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

two groups apart from each other, and whether such separa-
tion is cost effective and instructionally efficacious.

Sabornie et al. (2005) found very strong to moderate ESs
between students with MID and those with LD in the
domains of IQ (ES = 2.36) and academic achievement (ES =
0.42). These ES estimates favored students with LD in each
domain, meaning that such students were more skilled than
their peers with MID. Within our descriptive review, as
expected, the greatest differentiation between these groups
was in the IQ domain. Examination across the other domains
showed that 67% of the studies indicated significant differ-
ences between students with LD and MID. These data were
examined further to discern nuances in differences and simi-
larities. In the academic domain, 50% of the studies showed
no difference (in spelling and story recall); one study favored
students with MID (in reading), and one study favored stu-
dents with LD (in time spent on academic tasks). Therefore,
in our contrast between students with LD and MID, with the
exception of IQ, the differences appear to be far from remark-
able.

Our results also suggest specific problem areas for stu-
dents in each of the disability groups. In addition to IQ
deficits, students with MID made fewer gains with academic
tasks, were given less teacher attention, and rated themselves
as having low postschool status. Strengths were noted when
students with MID were compared to those with LD (in read-
ing) and EBD (in social skill and behavior). Thus, in a rela-
tive sense, students with MID have positive qualities. This
conclusion fits with the recent emphasis and movement
toward strength-based assessment for students with high-
incidence disabilities (see Epstein & Sharma, 1998; Reid,
Epstein, Pastor, & Ryser, 2000).

In comparing the strengths and needs of students with
EBD and LD, we found that although their IQ scores were
comparable, students with LD had greater deficits in reading
comprehension and general academic competency. Similari-
ties were seen in verbal skills, creative thinking, and time
spent on academics. Behavior problems and lack of social
skills were demonstrated by both groups of students, al-
though youngsters with EBD experienced significantly more
problems in these domains.

One question emerges when examining our results: How
many studies have to show verifiable differences among the
present comparison groups before one can say that the differ-
ences are convincing? What is needed is a descriptive review
interpretation rubric similar to what has been developed for
meta-analysis (see Cohen, 1988; Forness, Kavale, Blum, &
Lloyd, 1997). Although the cutoff points are somewhat arbi-
trary, Forness et al. and Cohen suggested that ES estimates of
a certain magnitude indicate weak, moderate, and strong dif-
ferences. Given that the published research literature favors
the reporting of statistically significant differences between
comparison groups, a strength rubric would assist those con-
ducting descriptive reviews of the literature. If a certain per-
centage of studies showing significant differences between

groups could be similarly labeled with magnitude, this rubric
could reduce some of the interpretation bias in descriptive
reviews of the literature such as the present one.

Practical and Educational Implications

The results of this descriptive review lead to another impor-
tant question: Are these findings educationally relevant? One
could argue that the most basic information that teachers need
to have is the who found in special education—one of the per-
petual issues facing the field (Bateman, 1994; Kauffman &
Landrum, 2006). Teachers must know what to expect con-
cerning students in different categories of exceptionality, so
that these students’ needs can be met. We believe that the
present results support differentiated curricular and instruc-
tional approaches by category of high-incidence disability,
but not at the level of any one student. Instead, the present
results may have more implications for teacher preparation
and university program planning. It appears that preservice
and inservice teachers need to know that students with EBD
need more behavioral support than do their peers with LD or
MID, and students with MID need more assistance concern-
ing the cognitive and academic domains in comparison to stu-
dents with EBD or LD. Teachers in training should be made
aware of the categorical differences shown herein long before
accepting employment in schools.

When we examine the results of our review using the
original framework of Hallahan and Kauffman in the 1970s,
we conclude that students with EBD, LD, and MID do not
differ patently in social adjustment, but do display substan-
tially different IQ and behavioral characteristics. That IQ
separated the comparison groups is no surprise, given the def-
inition of intellectual disability. Students with EBD and MID
seemed to be the most different when all the comparisons and
variables of interest are considered in totality. The recom-
mendation of Hallahan and Kauffman for task-centered in-
struction based on behavioral characteristics continues to be
an appropriate view for educating students. Individualized,
appropriate assessment and effective instruction regardless
of the disability category are still best practice for students
with high-incidence disabilities in special and general educa-
tion.�

EDWARD J. SABORNIE, PhD, is professor in the Department of Cur-
riculum and Instruction at North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North
Carolina. His research interests include similarities and differences across
students with high-incidence disabilities, social skills, and secondary-level
instructional issues in special education. CHAN EVANS, PhD, is an assis-
tant professor of special education at Augusta State University, Augusta,
Georgia. Her research interests include characteristics of and interventions
for young students with emotional–behavioral disorders. DOUGLAS CUL-
LINAN, EdD, is professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction
at North Carolina State University. His research interests include the nature
of and intervention for emotional and behavior disorders of students.
Address: Edward J. Sabornie, North Carolina State University, College of
Education, Campus Box 7801, Poe Hall, Suite 602, Raleigh, NC 27695-
7801.

103R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

REFERENCES

*Study included in the descriptive review.

*Affleck, J. Q., Edgar, E., Levine, P., & Kortering, L. (1990). Postschool sta-
tus of students classified as mildly mentally retarded, learning disabled,
or nonhandicapped: Does it get better with time? Education and Train-
ing of the Mentally Retarded, 25, 315–324.

*Algozzine, B., Morsink, C. V., & Algozzine, K. M. (1998). What’s happen-
ing in self-contained special education classrooms? Exceptional Chil-
dren, 55, 259–265.

Balthazar, E. E., & Stevens, H. A. (1975). The emotionally disturbed, men-
tally retarded. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

*Barona, A., Santos de Barona, M., & Faykus, S. P. (1993). The simultane-
ous effects of sociocultural variables and WISC-R factors on MR, LD,
and nonplacement of ethnic minorities of special education. Education
and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 28, 66–74.

Bateman, B. D. (1994). Who, how, and where: Special education’s issues in
perpetuity. The Journal of Special Education, 27, 509–520.

Beirne-Smith, M., Ittenbach, R. F., & Patton, J. R. (2006). Mental retarda-
tion (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

*Bernard, R., & Clarizio, H. (1981). Socioeconomic bias in special educa-
tion placement decisions. Psychology in the Schools, 18, 178–183.

*Botuck, S., Levy, J. M., & Rimmerman, A. (1996). Gender-related differ-
ences in placements rates of young adults with mental retardation and
severe learning disabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation
Research. Internationale Zeitschrift fur Rehabilitationsforschung. Revue
Internationale de Recherches de Readaptation, 19, 259–263.

*Boucher, C. R., & Deno, S. L. (1979). Learning disabled and emotionally
disturbed: Will the labels affect teacher planning? Psychology in the
Schools, 16, 395–402.

*Clarizio, H., & Bernard, R. (1981). Recategorized WISC-R scores of learn-
ing disabled children and differential diagnosis. Psychology in the
Schools, 18, 5–12.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Denning, C. B., Chamberlain, J. A., & Polloway, E. A. (2000). An evaluation
of state guidelines for mental retardation: Focus on definition and clas-
sification practices. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities, 35, 226–232.

*Downing, J. A., Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. S. (1990). Regular and spe-
cial educator perceptions of nonacademic skills needed by main-
streamed students with behavioral disorders and learning disabilities.
Behavioral Disorders, 15, 217–226.

*Elliott, S. N., & Boeve, K. (1987). Stability of WISC-R: An investigation of
ethnic differences overtime. Educational and Psychological Measure-
ment, 47, 461–465.

*Elmquist, D. L., Morgan, D. P., & Bolds, P. K. (1992). Alcohol and other
drug use among adolescents with disabilities. The International Journal
of the Addictions, 27, 1475–1483.

Epstein, M. H., & Sharma, J. (1998). Behavioral and emotional ratings
scale: A strength-based approach to assessment. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Forness, S. R., Kavale, K. A., Blum, I. M., & Lloyd, J. W. (1997). Mega-
analysis of meta-analyses: What works in special education and related
services. Teaching Exceptional Children, 30(4), 4–9.

*Gadow, K. D., Sprafkin, J., & Grayson, P. (1990). The help–hurt game as a
measure of aggression in children with leaning and behavior disorders.
Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 337–351.

Gajar, A. H. (1980). Characteristics across exceptional categories: EMR, LD,
and ED. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 165-173.

*Gelb, S. A., & Mizokawa, D. T. (1986). Special education and social struc-
ture: The commonality of “exceptionality.” American Educational
Research Journal, 23, 543–557.

Greenbaum, B. E., Dedrick, R. F., Friedman, R. M., Kutash, K., Brown, E.
C., Lardieri, S. P., et al. (1996). National adolescent and child treatment
study (NACTS): Outcomes for children with serious emotional and

behavioral disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders,
4, 130–146.

Gresham, F. M., Elliot, S. N., & Black, F. L. (1987). Factor structure repli-
cation and bias investigation of the teacher rating of social skills. Jour-
nal of School Psychology, 17, 82–91.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1976). Introduction to learning disabil-
ities: A psycho-behavioral approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Hallahan, D. P., & Kauffman, J. M. (1977). Labels, categories, behaviors:
ED, LD, and EMR reconsidered. The Journal of Special Education, 11,
139–149.

*Handwerk, M. L., & Marshall, R. M. (1998). Behavioral and emotional
problems of students with learning disabilities, serious emotional distur-
bance, or both conditions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 327–
338.

*Jaben, T. H. (1986). Impact of instruction on behavior disordered and learn-
ing disabled students’ creative behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 23,
401–405.

Kauffman, J. M. (2005). Characteristics of emotional and behavioral disor-
ders of children and youth (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.

Kauffman, J. M., & Landrum, T. J. (2006). Children and youth with emo-
tional and behavioral disorders: A history of their education. Austin,
TX: PRO-ED.

Kavale, K. A. (2001). Meta-analysis: A primer. Exceptionality, 9, 175–184.
*Leigh, J. E., Huntze, S. L., & Lamorey, S. (1995). Topical issues education:

Teaching controversial or sensitive topics to students with learning dis-
abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 353–363.

*Levy, J. M., Murphy, B. S., Levy, P. H., Kramer, M. E., Rimmerman, A., &
Botuck, S. (1993). Monitoring process and employment outcomes over
time: The YAI Employment Project. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 5, 167–179.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Luckasson, R., Coulter, D. L., Polloway, E. A., Reiss, S., Schalock, R. L.,
Snell, M. E., et al. (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classification,
and systems of supports. Washington, DC: American Association on
Mental Retardation.

*MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., & Bocian, K. M. (1998). Curing men-
tal retardation and causing learning disabilities: Consequences of using
various WISC-III tests to estimate aptitude of Hispanic students. Jour-
nal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 16, 36–54.

*Margalit, M. (1989). Academic competence and social adjustment of boys
with learning disabilities and boys with behavior disorders. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 22, 41–50.

*Margalit, M. (1995). Social skills learning for students with learning dis-
abilities and students with behavior disorders. Educational Psychology,
15, 445–456.

*Margalit, M., & Roth, Y. B. (1989). Strategic keyboard training and spelling
improvement among children with learning disabilities and mental retar-
dation. Educational Psychology, 9, 321–329.

*McConaughy, S. H., Mattison, R. E., & Peterson, R. L. (1994). Behavioral/
emotional problems of children with serious emotional disturbances and
learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 23, 81–98.

*Morgan, S. R. (1986). Locus of control in children labeled learning dis-
abled, behaviorally disordered, and learning disabled/behaviorally dis-
ordered. Learning Disabilities Research, 2, 10–13.

*Moore, S. R., & Simpson, R. L. (1983). Teacher–pupil and peer verbal
interactions of learning disabled, behavior-disordered, and nonhandi-
capped students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 273–282.

O’Sullivan, P. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L.
(1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students’ opportunity to learn
during reading instruction in mainstream and special education settings.
Reading Research Quarterly, 25, 131–146.

Oswald, D. P., & Coutinho, M. J. (1996). Leaving school: The impact of state
economic and demographic factors for students with serious emotional

disturbance. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 114–
125.

*Petersen, C. R., & Hart, D. H. (1978). Use of multiple discriminant func-
tion analysis in evaluation of a state-wide system for identification of
educationally handicapped children. Psychological Reports, 43, 743–755.

*Potter, M. L., Ysseldyke, J. E., Reagan, R. R., & Algozzine, B. (1983).
Eligibility and classification decisions in educational settings: Issuing
“passports” in a state of confusion. Contemporary Educational Psychol-
ogy, 8, 146–157.

Reid, R., Epstein, M. H., Pastor, D. A., & Ryser, G. R. (2000). Strengths-
based assessment differences across students with LD and EBD. Reme-
dial and Special Education, 21, 346–355.

Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. (Eds.). (1999). Special education in
transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming.
Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

*Rimmerman, A., Botuck, S., & Levy, J. M. (1995). Job placement for indi-
viduals with psychiatric disabilities in supported employment. Psychi-
atric Rehabilitation Journal, 19, 37–43.

*Rizzo, T. L., & Kirkendall, D. R. (1995). Teaching students with mild dis-
abilities: What affects attitudes of future physical educators? Adapted
Physical Activity Quarterly, 12, 205–216.

Sabornie, E. J., Cullinan, D., Osborne, S. S., & Brock, L. M. (2005). Intel-
lectual, academic, and behavioral functioning of students with high-
incidence disabilities: A cross-categorical meta-analysis. Exceptional
Children, 72, 47-63.

*Simpson, R. L., & Myles, B. (1989). Parents’ mainstreaming modification
preferences for children with educable mental handicaps, behavior dis-
orders, and learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 26, 292–301.

*Singh, N. N., Epstein, M. H., Stout, C., Luebke, J., & Ellis, C. R. (1994).
Psychopharmacological intervention III: A comparison of teacher per-
ceptions of psychotropic medication for students with learning disabili-
ties or serious emotional disturbance. Journal of Developmental and
Physical Disabilities, 6, 101–113.

*Sindelar, P. T., King, M. C., Cartland, D., Wilson, R. J., & Meisel, C. J.

(1985). Deviant behavior in learning disabled and behaviorally disor-
dered students as a function of level and placement. Behavioral Disor-
ders, 10, 105–112.

*Slate, J. R. (1995). Discrepancies between IQ and index scores for a clini-
cal sample of students: Useful diagnostic indicators? Psychology in the
Schools, 32, 103–108.

*Stern, R., Kendall, A., & Eberhard, P. (1991). Children of alcoholics in the
schools: Where are they? Their representation in special education. Psy-
chology in the Schools, 28, 116–123.

Wagner, M. (1995). Outcomes for youths with serious emotional disturbance
in secondary school and early adulthood. The Future of Children: Crit-
ical Issues for Children and Youths, 5, 90–112.

Wang, M. C., & Bushman, B. J. (1999). Integrating results through meta-
analytic review using SAS software. Cary, NC: SAS Institute.

Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San
Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Wortman, P. M. (1994). Judging research quality. In H. Cooper & L. V.
Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 97–110). New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.

*Ysseldyke, J. E., & Algozzine, B. (1981). Diagnostic classification deci-
sions as a function of referral information. The Journal of Special Edu-
cation, 15, 429–435.

*Ysseldyke, J. E., Thurlow, M. L., Christenson, S. L., & Muyskens, P.
(1991). Classroom and home learning differences between students
labeled as educable mentally retarded and their peers. Education and
Training of the Mentally Retarded, 26, 3–17.

Zigler, E. (1975). Cognitive–developmental and personality factors in behav-
ior. In J. M. Kauffman & J. S. Payne (Eds.), Mental retardation: Intro-
duction and personal perspectives. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Received: 3/29/2002
Initial acceptance: 6/10/2002
Revision received: 8/10/2005
Final acceptance: 8/29/2005

104 R E M E D I A L A N D S P E C I A L E D U C A T I O N
Volume 27, Number 2, March/April 2006

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTS
CAREER DEVELOPMENT FOR
EXCEPTIONAL INDIVIDUALS
Official journal for
the Division on Career Development and Transition – CEC

Now published by PRO-ED
Articles for CDEI are accepted for review on a continual basis. The editors welcome
articles in the areas of secondary education, transition, and career development of
persons with disabilities and special needs. Articles published in CDEI include original
quantitative and qualitative research, scholarly reviews, and program descriptions and
evaluations.

Complete author guidelines may be obtained from the online submission site:
https://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/proed/cdei
Go to the grey Resources box and select the Instructions & Forms link.

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (Dot Gain 10%) /CalRGBProfile (Apple RGB) /CalCMYKProfile (U.S. Sheetfed Coated v2) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Default /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /LeaveColorUnchanged /DoThumbnails false /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /SyntheticBoldness 1.00 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 1048576 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize false /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts true /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Remove /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile (None) /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages false /ColorImageDownsampleType /Average /ColorImageResolution 300 /ColorImageDepth 8 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/DownsampleGrayImages false
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Average
/GrayImageResolution 300
/GrayImageDepth 8
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /FlateEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages false
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/DownsampleMonoImages false
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Average
/MonoImageResolution 1200
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict << /K -1 >>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox false
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (U.S. Web Coated \050SWOP\051 v2)
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org)
/PDFXTrapped /Unknown
/Description << /FRA
/JPN
/DEU
/PTB
/DAN
/NLD
/ESP
/SUO
/ITA
/NOR
/SVE
/ENU
>>
>> setdistillerparams
<< /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [603.000 783.000] >> setpagedevice