Learning Disabilities Documentation Guidelines

Students seeking support from the Utah State University Disability Resource Center on the basis of diagnosed, specific learning disability are required to submit documentation to verify eligibility under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990.

In an effort to streamline the process and to ensure acceptable documentation, the Utah State University Disability Resource Center suggests that practitioners providing documentation of a learning disability following the guidelines listed in the publication Guidelines for documentation of a learning disability in adolescents and adults, (Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD), July, 1997). Copies of this publication may be obtained from AHEAD, P.O. Box 21192, Columbus, OH 43221-0192.

In addition to the above mentioned guidelines, and in conjunction with state and federal policies regarding the diagnosis and accommodation of learning disabilities, the Disability Resource Center has established the following criteria for acceptable documentation of a specific learning disability.

  1. Professionals who conduct assessments provide diagnosis(es), and make recommendations for appropriate accommodations must be qualified to do so. Qualified professionals include clinical or educational psychologists, medical doctors, and other professionals who have had comprehensive training, direct experience with an adult LD population, and are licensed by appropriate State agencies. Learning disability specialists and others may provide information on functional limitations.
  2. The neuro-psychological or psycho-educational evaluations for the diagnosis of a learning disorder must be submitted on the letterhead of the qualified professional and it must provide clear and specific evidence that a learning disorder does or does not exist. In addition, all reports must include the names and titles of the evaluators, as well as the date(s) of testing.
  3. Documentation should validate the need for service based on the individual's current level of functioning in the educational setting. A comprehensive assessment battery and the resulting diagnostic report should include:
    1. Diagnostic Interview which includes academic, developmental, medical, psychosocial, and employment histories.
    2. Assessment of Aptitude with sub-tests and standard scores reported (WAIS-III preferred,) IQ "screening" instruments are not accepted.
    3. Assessment of Academic Achievement utilizing a comprehensive assessment battery which includes, at a minimum, current levels of reading (decoding and comprehension), mathematics, and oral and written language, with all sub-tests and standard scores reported.
    4. Assessment of specific areas of Information Processing , e.g., short and long-term memory, auditory and visual perception/processing, processing speed, executive functioning, and motor ability.
    5. Evidence of a Significant Discrepancy between Aptitude and expected Achievement ( > 1 1/2 standard deviations).
  4. Documentation should include a specific learning disability. Individual "learning styles," "learning differences," "academic problems" and "test difficulty or anxiety" in and of themselves, do not constitute a learning disorder. Rule out alternative explanations such as emotional or motivational factors that may be impacting academic performance, but do not constitute a learning disability.
  5. Please use direct language in the diagnosis and documentation of a learning disability, and avoid the use of terms such as "suggests" or "is indicative of." If the presence of a learning disability is not supported by the test and interview data, please state that conclusion in the report.
  6. Documentation should include standard scores and percentiles for all normal measures, not merely grade-equivalents.
  7. Test findings should document the nature and severity, as well as the functional limitations associated with a particular learning disability (ies).
  8. Documentation should include a clinical summary that reflects the convergent nature of the evidence gathered by the comprehensive evaluation process, and should include:
    1. evidence that the evaluator has ruled out alternative explanations for academic problems, e.g., poor education, poor motivation and/or study skills, emotional problems etc.
    2. indication of how patterns in the student's cognitive ability, achievement, and information processing reflect the presence of a learning disorder.

    3. indication of the substantial limitation to learning presented by the learning disability and the degree to which it impacts the student in the learning context for which accommodations are being requested.
    4. indications as to why specific accommodations are needed and how the effects of the disability are accommodated.
    5. any record of prior accommodations or auxiliary aids.
  9. Diagnosis involving Attention-deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder should be based on the criteria outlined in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IVTM , pp 83-85), and should include appropriate diagnostic codes. The written report should include specifics of how the DSM-IVTM criteria have been met, in regard to current functioning.
  10. The diagnostic report should include specific recommendations for accommodations as well as an explanation as to why each accommodation is recommended. The evaluator should support recommendations with specific test results or clinical observations.

The Disability Resource Center hopes that these guidelines will help streamline the documentation process for those students requesting assessment and possible accommodations. If you have any questions regarding these guidelines/recommendations, please feel free to contact the Director, Diane Baum at (435) 797-2444.

If you have questions regarding this criteria, please contact: Diane Baum

Special Thanks to College of Eastern Utah for their assistance in the preparation of this document.