Qualified individuals with learning disabilities are protected from discrimination and are guaranteed equal access to programs and services under ADA and Section 504; thus, the qualifying documentation must show that the disability substantially limits a major life activity.

A "major life activity" includes functions such as walking, seeing, hearing, speaking, breathing, performing manual tasks, caring for one's self, interacting with others, learning, thinking, concentrating, reading, writing, calculating, and working.

A "substantial limitation" exists when one is unable to perform a major life activity that the average person can perform OR is significantly restricted as to the condition, manner or duration under which one can perform a particular major life activity as compared to the average person.

The following University of Memphis guidelines, adapted from those recently established by the Association on Higher Education and Disability, cover four important areas:

1. qualifications of the evaluator
2. recency of testing
3. clinical documentation necessary to substantiate a learning disability
4. evidence to support recommendations for accommodations

B. Assessment

The neuropsychological or psychoeducational evaluation for the diagnosis of a specific learning disability must provide clear and specific evidence that a learning disability does or does not exist. The evaluation of a learning disability should consist of a comprehensive assessment battery which does not rely on any one test or subtest. (Appendix A contains a list of commonly used assessment instruments.)

It is essential that evaluators demonstrate awareness of and sensitivity to cultural and linguistic differences in adolescents and adults during the assessment process.

Minimally, the domains to be addressed must include intelligence/cognitive ability, academic achievement, and information processing.

1. Intelligence/Cognitive Ability. A complete intellectual assessment should be included with all subtests of the standard battery and standard scores reported.

2. Academic Achievement. A comprehensive academic achievement battery is essential and should include as a minimum the following areas:
   1. reading (decoding and comprehension)
   2. mathematics (reasoning and calculation)
   3. written language (mechanics and expression)

   Standard scores and precentiles must be reported for all subtests of the standard battery.

3. Information Processing. Specific areas of information processing should be addressed, including short-term and long-term memory, sequential memory, auditory and visual perception/processing, processing speed, motor ability and executive functioning.

   Detailed history, observations, and informal assessment procedures may be helpful in determining performance across a variety of domains. When the standard battery and informal assessment are not sufficient to provide a complete picture of information processing skills, additional formal assessment measures may be necessary and should be integrated with other data.

Subtest scores, standard scores, and percentile ranks should be provided for all normed measures.

Tests used should be reliable, valid and standardized for use with an adolescent/adult population. Informal inventories, surveys and direct observation by a qualified professional may be used in tandem with formal tests to further develop a clinical hypothesis.

The test findings should document both the nature and severity of any learning disability. The data should reflect any substantial limitations to learning and should profile the student's strengths and weaknesses in relation to functional limitations that may necessitate accommodations in the higher education environment.

D. Clinical Summary

A clinical summary based on a comprehensive evaluation process is a necessary component of the report. In order to make a diagnosis, data from the assessment instruments must be integrated by the evaluator with background information, observations of the client during the testing situation, and the current context. It is essential, therefore, that professional judgment be utilized in the development of a clinical summary. The clinical summary should include:

1. demonstration that the evaluator has ruled out alternative explanations for academic problems such as emotional, physical or sensory deficits, attentional problems, motivational problems, inadequate or inappropriate education, inadequate attendance, poor study skills, and cultural or language differences;

2. indication of how patterns in the student's cognitive ability, achievement, and information processing reflect the presence of a learning disability;

3. indication of the substantial limitation to learning or other major life activity presented by the learning disability and the degree to which the limitation adversely affects the individual in the learning context.

E. Specific Diagnosis

Individual "learning styles," "learning differences," "academic problems," and "test difficulty or anxiety," in and of themselves, do not constitute a learning disability. If the assessment data supports the diagnosis of a learning disability, the diagnosis should be stated clearly and specifically in the report. If the data does not support a diagnosis, that conclusion should likewise be specifically reported.

A DSM-IV diagnosis should be included when applicable.

IV. Recommendations for Accommodations

The diagnostic report should include recommendations for accommodations, if indicated. Recommendations should relate specifically to the limitations described in the clinical summary and should be supported by specific test results, clinical observations and/or historical data documented in the report. (Appendix B contains examples of typical accommodations and aids that may be used by college students with learning disabilities.)

Because the need for academic accommodation can change with time, particularly with the transition to college, it is important to recognize that earlier diagnostic assessments may not always identify accommodation needs relevant to current educational demands. Similarly a prior history of accommodation, in and of itself, may not always warrant the provision of a comparable accommodation at the university level.

If accommodations are not clearly identified in a diagnostic report, the University disability service provider may seek clarification and, if necessary, more information. The final determination for providing specific accommodations rests with the University.

Examples of Tests for Assessing Adolescents and Adults

The evaluator's clinical judgment is important in selecting assessment instruments that are reliable, valid, standardized on the appropriate norm group and which adequately assess the individual. The following list is offered only as a resource of commonly used, generally acceptable tests and is not intended to be definitive or exhaustive.

Intelligence/Cognitive Ability

Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Third Edition (WAIS III)
Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG)
Kaufman Adolescent and Adult Intelligence Test
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-IV

The Slosson Intelligence Test - Revised, the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, and the Wide Range Intelligence Test are primarily screening devices and are not comprehensive enough for use in diagnosing learning disabilities.

Academic Achievement

Scholastic Abilities Test for Adults (SATA)
Stanford Test of Academic Skills
Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Acheivement (WJ III ACH)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT-II)

The Wide Range Achievement Test - 3 (WRAT-3) is not a comprehensive test and therefore is not useful as the sole measure of achievement.

Specific achievement tests, such as the following, are useful instruments when administered under standardized conditions and interpreted within the context of other, more comprehensive diagnostic information.

Nelson-Denny Reading Skills Test
Stanford Diagnostic Mathematics Test
Test of Written Language -3 (TOWL-3)
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests - Revised

Information Processing
Information processing abilities may be described using information derived from subtests on WAIS-III, Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG), as well as other relevant instruments such as the Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-3 (DTLA-3) and the Detroit Tests of Learning Aptitude-Adult (DTLA-A).

Typical Accommodations and Auxiliary Aids Beneficial to Students with Learning Disabilities

Accommodations and auxiliary aids should be individually prescribed and based on functional limitations evidenced by sound diagnostic measures. The following accommodations are representative of those commonly used in the higher education environment, however, no college student should need all of these.:

• reduced course load
• priority scheduling
• front row seating
• extended time for tests and in-class writing assignments*
• low stimulus test environment
• large print tests
• alternative to scantron or "bubble" type answer sheet
• reader
• books on tape
• reading machine
• scribe
• use of computer/word processor with spell check and grammar check
• electronic speller
• calculator
• tape recorded lectures
• notetaking assistance
• assistive technology aids, such as screen enlargement, screen reader, voice input, word acceleration and TextHelp for writing assignments
• substitution for non-essential course requirements**
• opportunity to clarify information and instructions with professors

* Unlimited time for tests is not allowed. Time and one half is generally considered standard for extended time unless extenuating circumstances justify additional time.

** College level course requirements are not waived. Curriculum modifications, such as substitution for the foreign language requirement, are considered on an individual basis and must go through an established approval process. Courses that are considered essential to one's educational program cannot be substituted.

Behavioral factors relating to Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder may be assessed by history, questionnaires, or checklists. Normed questionnaires and checklists should be validated for use with the population of interest and appropriate for the purpose of differential diagnosis of AD/HD.