Because current assessment methods were receiving criticism, the study finally sought to identify alternatives to the current identification methods.
The conflict arose because while the IDEA prior to 2004 had identified several methods to identify the students who had learning disabilities in need of special services, there was no uniform measure by which the states were guided in assessing the severity of the disability. Accordingly, the article found, that there was a severe lack of continuity within the states. For the most part, the states had a common definition for the term SLD.
Thus the resulting problem was that in addition to there not being a contiguous method of identifying SLD, the parameters that did exist were arbitrarily ignored. Moreover, it was determined that there was an unacceptable amount of time between identification of the problem and treatment plan for assistance. The author found that the majority polled found that the most favored method of identifying a learning disability was the "response-to-treatment" or "response-to-intervention". This approach begins with teaching and a level of teaching intensity is increased according to the needs of the child.