The ability to understand spoken language — deriving meaning from oral input. It requires vocabulary, background knowledge, linguistic processing, and the ability to hold and integrate information across connected discourse.
LC is the receptive half of oral language. A student with LC difficulty may miss orally-delivered instruction, struggle with multi-step verbal directions, lose the thread in extended classroom discussion, or perform poorly on any task where understanding speech is the prerequisite.
The ability to express ideas, information, and reasoning through spoken language. It requires word retrieval, syntactic formulation, narrative organization, and expressive vocabulary.
OE is the expressive half. A student with OE difficulty may understand what is said but struggle to formulate responses, use words imprecisely, speak in fragmented sentences, or produce oral narratives that lack cohesion despite good comprehension.
Under IDEA and TAC §89.1040, SLD-Listening Comprehension or SLD-Oral Expression requires:
- Below-average performance in the domain (LC or OE composite/cluster typically ≤ 85, or meaningfully below ability).
- Unexpected relative to ability — the deficit is not fully explained by cognitive ability, sensory impairment, or lack of instruction.
- Adverse educational impact — the student needs specially designed instruction to access the general curriculum because of the oral language deficit.
- Exclusionary factors ruled out — for EB students especially: is this a language difference (normal second-language acquisition) or a disorder present in both languages?
Anchor the LC/OE finding with a composite where possible. Use individual subtests to explain the profile.
WJ-V ACH OL cluster is the strongest normed composite for LC/OE eligibility findings. Oral Language Samples (spontaneous production) and Oral Comprehension are the two most direct subtest anchors.
Use the WJ-IV OL battery when oral language is the primary area of concern and you want composites dedicated to LC vs. OE separately. Understanding Directions is particularly sensitive to LC deficits in classroom-analogous tasks.
WIAT-IV LC and OE are composite scores — use them as the eligibility anchor. Expressive Vocabulary and Oral Word Fluency are the expressive subtests; Sentence Repetition taps verbal working memory and syntactic processing.
KTEA-3 provides separate LC and OE composites. Oral Fluency (naming fluency/word retrieval speed) is useful for word-finding concerns within OE.
VCI reflects crystallized language ability (Gc). Low VCI + low OL achievement scores = convergent evidence of language-based weakness. High VCI + low OL achievement = unexpected finding worth investigating (possible EB language difference, or domain-specific processing issue).
Gc (Comprehension-Knowledge) is the crystallized language substrate. When Gc is also low, it supports a language-based cognitive profile. When Gc is average but OL achievement is low, investigate language difference vs. disorder more closely.
This is the highest-stakes differential for EB students — and the most common area where SLD-OL eligibility is inappropriately assigned or inappropriately denied.
- Language Difference: Reduced English proficiency that reflects normal second-language acquisition. The student's home language is intact and age-appropriate. English weaknesses are expected given their exposure and opportunity to learn.
- Developmental Language Disorder (DLD): A persistent, unexpected deficit in language processing that is present in both languages and is not explained by second-language acquisition. DLD is not an IDEA eligibility — but it maps onto SI (if SLP-identified) or SLD-OL (if academically impactful and requiring SDI).
The Stanley framework uses cross-linguistic evidence as its core organizing principle: whether deficits appear in the student's dominant/home language, whether they are unexpected given language exposure and opportunity, and whether DLD hallmarks are present across both languages. The weight of evidence across all three dimensions — not any single indicator — drives the determination.
For the full indicator set and decision framework, see the Language Difference vs. Disorder Reference ↗ (Stanley, TEDA 2026).
For EB students: TELPAS composite and domain ratings, home language sample data, and parent/teacher input in both languages are essential data sources. A bilingual SLP or bilingual assessment data (Batería IV OL, WMLS-R, BESA) strengthens the differential.
Reading comprehension is the ability to derive meaning from written text. It is the product of two components (Simple View of Reading): word recognition (decoding, fluency) × language comprehension (vocabulary, background knowledge, inference, text structure).
A student can fail at reading comprehension through two completely different pathways — and the eligibility framing and instructional response differ completely depending on which it is.
- Decoding-driven RC failure: The student cannot read the words accurately or fluently enough to direct cognitive resources to comprehension. Fix word recognition → comprehension improves. This is a Basic Reading Skills / Reading Fluency profile first.
- Language-driven RC failure: The student can decode the words but cannot construct meaning from them. Vocabulary, inference, and text-structure processing are the limiting factors. This is the true SLD-Reading Comprehension profile — it may co-occur with dyslexia or exist independently.
RC = Word Recognition × Language Comprehension
This formula drives your eligibility logic:
- Low WR, adequate LC: → Dyslexia / Basic Reading profile. RC is low because words are not read accurately. LC is the preserved strength. Address decoding; comprehension may follow.
- Adequate WR, low LC: → True SLD-Reading Comprehension. The student reads words but cannot make meaning. Language is the substrate. This often overlaps with oral language deficits (low OL = low LC = low RC).
- Low WR, low LC: → Both pathways involved. May qualify under multiple SLD domains. Instruction must address both strands.
SLD-Reading Comprehension eligibility is most defensible when:
- Reading Comprehension composite is below average (typically SS ≤ 85, or meaningfully below ability/other scores).
- The deficit is not fully explained by decoding failure — i.e., Basic Reading Skills are at least low average, or you can demonstrate the student can read the words but not understand them.
- Listening comprehension (oral) is similarly impaired, supporting a language-base explanation — or LC (oral) is adequate, supporting a text-specific processing deficit.
- Adverse educational impact is documented: the student cannot access grade-level texts, fails comprehension-based assessments, or cannot demonstrate content knowledge in reading-dependent formats.
Passage Comprehension (cloze format) and Paragraph Reading Comprehension (extended text) are the two anchors. Academic Vocabulary adds vocabulary-comprehension link evidence.
WIAT-IV RC is the primary composite. Compare to Oral Reading Fluency — if ORF is low, decodingfluency is limiting comprehension access.
KTEA-3 RC is a strong anchor. Silent Reading Fluency helps separate speed-limited from comprehension-limited profiles.
VCI and Gc are the language-comprehension cognitive anchors. If these are also low, the RC deficit has a language-cognitive substrate. If VCI/Gc are average and RC is still low, investigate text-specific processing (inference, text structure, vocabulary depth).
| Feature | SLD–Basic Reading Skills (Dyslexia) | SLD–Reading Comprehension |
|---|---|---|
| Word reading | Low — decoding fails | Adequate or average |
| Reading fluency | Low — slow, labored | May be average or mildly reduced |
| RC score | Low — secondary to decoding failure | Low — primary deficit |
| Oral LC (listening) | Usually intact — can understand when read to | Often also low — language-based |
| Phonological processing | Low PA, PM, and/or RAN | Usually intact |
| Vocabulary | Usually intact | May be low — drives comprehension failure |
| FIE emphasis | Phonological mechanism → decoding → RC secondary | Language comprehension mechanism → text processing → RC primary |
| Instructional direction | Structured literacy / decoding intervention | Vocabulary, text structure, inference instruction; read-alouds do not resolve |
Written expression is the highest-order writing skill — the ability to communicate ideas in writing at the composition level. It includes sentence formulation, organizational structure, idea development, vocabulary use, and the ability to translate thinking into written text.
SLD-Written Expression is often confused with dysgraphia (a named pattern), but they are not the same:
- Dysgraphia affects the transcription mechanics — handwriting (graphomotor) and/or spelling (orthographic). The breakdown is at the physical and encoding level.
- SLD-Written Expression (without dysgraphia) is a composition-level deficit — the student can form letters and spell adequately but cannot organize, formulate, and produce coherent written text. This may reflect language, executive function, or working memory demands specific to written output.
- Pathway 1 — Transcription-based (Dysgraphia): Handwriting and/or spelling are the bottleneck. Composition is limited because encoding demands consume working memory. Addressed in the Dysgraphia Reference.
- Pathway 2 — Language-based (oral language substrate): The student's oral language is also limited. Their writing mirrors their speaking — reduced vocabulary, short sentences, poor cohesion. This is an oral language deficit manifesting in writing. May qualify under both SLD-OE and SLD-WE.
- Pathway 3 — EF/WM composition deficit: Oral language is adequate, transcription is adequate, but written composition is significantly reduced. The student can discuss a topic well but cannot translate that thinking to the page. Executive function — planning, organization, sustained effort across a composition — is the limiting factor. This is often the most overlooked pathway.
SLD-Written Expression eligibility requires:
- Written Expression composite below average (SS ≤ 85, or meaningfully below ability) — specifically the composition-level measure, not just spelling.
- Adverse impact on academic functioning — cannot produce written work at grade level despite adequate instruction.
- Pathway identified: The FIE should name which pathway drives the deficit. If dysgraphia is also present, document both (transcription + composition) but keep them mechanistically distinct.
Essay Composition is the purest composition measure. Sentence Composition tests sentence-level formulation. AWF and OF are transcription/graphomotor — anchor those to the dysgraphia pathway, not composition.
WJ-V ACH Oral Language Samples is a key differentiator — if oral production is also limited, the WE deficit has a language substrate. Written Expression cluster anchors the eligibility composite.
Working memory (WMI) is the key cognitive anchor for the EF/WM composition pathway. Low WMI + adequate oral language + low written composition = strong EF/WM argument. Low VCI + low oral language + low WE = language-substrate argument.
Math problem solving (applied math reasoning) is the ability to apply mathematical knowledge to real-world and multi-step problems. It is language-mediated math — it requires reading comprehension, vocabulary, inference, and the ability to decode what a word problem is asking before any math is done.
This domain is frequently misattributed. A student who scores low on Applied Problems or Math Problem Solving subtests is not necessarily dyscalculic — they may have a reading comprehension, oral language, or working memory deficit that makes the language demands of word problems the limiting factor.
- Pathway 1 — True dyscalculia: Math calculation, math fact automaticity, and number sense are ALL also low. Math Problem Solving is low because the foundational number understanding isn't there. This is covered in the Dyscalculia Reference. The dyscalculia pattern requires automaticity + number sense deficits — MPS alone does not establish it.
- Pathway 2 — Language/reading mediated: Math calculation and number facts are adequate or average, but MPS is disproportionately low. The student can do the math — they cannot access the problem. Reading comprehension, vocabulary, and/or oral language are typically also low. This qualifies under SLD-Math Problem Solving with a language-based mechanism explanation.
- Pathway 3 — Working memory / executive function: Multi-step problem solving requires holding information in mind, planning steps, and monitoring. A student with low WM and/or processing speed may fail MPS tasks even with adequate math knowledge and adequate reading. The mechanism here overlaps with OHI/ADHD; document cognitive data carefully.
SLD-Math Problem Solving eligibility is most defensible when:
- Math Problem Solving composite is below average (SS ≤ 85, or meaningfully below ability).
- A pathway is identified — why problem solving is low matters for the eligibility narrative.
- If the mechanism is language-based: document low RC and/or OL alongside low MPS and name the language mediation explicitly.
- If the mechanism is WM/EF: document WMI, processing speed, and multi-step task performance; consider whether OHI/ADHD co-eligibility is appropriate.
- If dyscalculia is also suspected: both MPS and Calculation / Math Fluency must be below average — MPS alone does not establish a dyscalculia pattern.
Applied Problems is the primary anchor — real-world word problems. Math Problem Identification (identifying the relevant operation) can help isolate whether the student understands the math structure once the language barrier is removed.
Compare MPS to Numerical Operations directly. If NO is average and MPS is low, that split is your language-mediation evidence — the student can do untimed calculation but cannot navigate word problem language.
Arithmetic (WISC-V) is a mental math / working memory subtest — low Arithmetic with average Matrix Reasoning supports WM as the limiting factor in MPS, not reasoning. Low VCI alongside low MPS supports language mediation. Low FRI alongside low MPS supports reasoning deficit (true math reasoning weakness).
Always compare MPS to both RC (does the reading barrier explain it?) and Math Calculation (is the math knowledge there?). MPS lower than both RC and Math Calc suggests WM/EF as the specific bottleneck.
| Feature | Language/Reading Mediated MPS | WM/EF Mediated MPS | Dyscalculia (MPS + Calculation) |
|---|---|---|---|
| MPS score | Low | Low | Low |
| Math Calculation | Average | Average to Low Avg | Low — required for dyscalculia pattern |
| Math Fluency | Average | May be low (timed WM demand) | Low — a core indicator |
| Reading Comprehension | Low — language is the substrate | Average to low average | Varies; may be low if co-occurring RC deficit |
| Oral Language (LC/OE) | Low — convergent evidence | Usually adequate | Varies |
| WM (WMI / Digit Span) | May be average | Low — primary cognitive anchor | Often low (shared substrate) |
| Number sense / magnitude | Usually intact | Usually intact | Low — required for dyscalculia |
| Eligibility anchor | SLD-Math Problem Solving (language mechanism) | SLD-Math Problem Solving (EF/WM) ± OHI/ADHD | SLD-Math Calculation + SLD-Math Problem Solving |
| FIE narrative emphasis | Language comprehension demands of word problems | Multi-step planning and WM load in problem solving | Number sense and automaticity deficits driving both domains |
These four domains are fully supported by your existing clinical references. The named-pattern references (dyslexia, dysgraphia, dyscalculia) are the deep clinical resources for these areas. This tab provides orientation and cross-links.
Basic Reading Skills covers word reading accuracy and decoding — the ability to identify printed words using phonological decoding and sight word recognition. When this domain is the primary SLD area, the clinical picture is almost always dyslexia. The phonological mechanism (PA, PM, RAN) drives the deficit.
Key subtests: WJ-V ACH Basic Reading Skills cluster · WIAT-IV Basic Reading composite · KTEA-3 · CTOPP-2 Phonological Awareness/Memory Composites · TAPS-4
Reading Fluency covers the speed and accuracy with which a student reads connected text. Fluency deficits almost always co-occur with Basic Reading Skills deficits in dyslexia, but can persist even when decoding improves — particularly with RAN deficits. A student with strong decoding accuracy but very slow reading rate may qualify under Reading Fluency independently.
Key subtests: WJ-V ACH Reading Fluency cluster · WIAT-IV Oral Reading Fluency · KTEA-3 Silent Reading Fluency · WJ-V ACH Oral Reading
Math Calculation covers the ability to perform written computation — math fact retrieval, procedural algorithms, and numerical operations under untimed and timed conditions. When Math Calculation is the primary deficit alongside math fluency and number sense weaknesses, the dyscalculia clinical framework applies.
Key subtests: WJ-V ACH Math Facts Fluency · WIAT-IV Numerical Operations + Math Fluency composites · KTEA-3 · KeyMath-3 · WISC-V Arithmetic
When Written Expression eligibility is driven by spelling and handwriting deficits (transcription pathway), the dysgraphia clinical framework applies. This is distinct from the composition-level Written Expression deficit covered in the Written Expression tab of this page. The transcription pathway involves graphomotor and/or orthographic processing mechanisms.
Key subtests: WIAT-IV Spelling, Alphabet Writing Fluency, Orthographic Fluency · WJ-V ACH Spelling Skills cluster · TOC composites · KTEA-3 Spelling