Average Students Don’t Need Learning Disability Diagnoses

The importance of up-to-date clinical practices

I just read a neuropsych report diagnosing a student with a specific learning disorder in math because her math scores, while in the 53rd percentile (solidly average), were considered low in comparison to her above-average verbal IQ. The evaluator argued that this gap between the student’s intellectual potential and academic performance was evidence of a learning disability.

The evaluator’s reasoning is based on the discrepancy model of learning disabilities, which suggests that a significant difference between IQ and academic achievement indicates a disorder. On the surface, this model makes sense: cognitive and intellectual abilities often cluster together, so if a student has a high IQ, you'd expect similarly strong academic skills. When there’s a gap, it seems logical to assume something is wrong with the learning process. Right?

Wrong. 

Over the past couple of decades, research on learning disorders has largely debunked the discrepancy model. For one, most students with large IQ-achievement discrepancies also have below-average academic performance for their age. Moreover, students across the IQ spectrum— low, average, and high—can acquire academic skills. So the growing consensus in the field is that what defines a learning disorder is academic skills significantly below those of your same-age peers, not significantly below your own intellectual potential. 

The field’s movement away from the discrepancy model is so strong, in fact, that the 2013 revision of the DSM eliminated an IQ/academic discrepancy as a diagnostic criterion. Now, the only requirement is that academic skills are below average, aligning more closely with legal definitions of disability, which require functional limitations that impede access to education. This definition ensures that students who are truly failing to develop their academic skills are the ones who receive supports and services.

So you might be asking, why would a clinician, like the one I described earlier, still use the discrepancy model to diagnose students with average academic skills?

The unfortunate answer is that many clinicians simply don’t know better. They rely on outdated information like the discrepancy model because continuing education in psychology is woefully inadequate. Credits are often provided by for-profit companies with varying levels of quality. And, in some cases, clinicians may not be doing any continuing education at all. For instance, in New York, continuing education has only been required since 2021, and even now, it operates on an honor system.

So what does this mean for consumers?

You need to do your due diligence. Check if the psychologist has an academic affiliation or if they’ve recently been involved in research. Do they regularly attend a journal club or supervision group? What about professional conferences and meetings? While it may seem strange and uncomfortable to ask these questions, making sure your clinician’s practice is current is essential for receiving proper care.

***

Was debating whether I’d post this version or the Anna Kendrick one. (Iykyk!)