Purpose: This checklist helps TVIs and educational teams identify the most likely root cause of reading difficulty for a student who is blind or has low vision. There are three possible causes — and they are not mutually exclusive. A student may have concerns in more than one area.
How to use: Check all indicators that apply to this student based on your observation, assessment data, and instructional history. Use the notes fields to record supporting evidence. Review the summary and interpretation section at the bottom to guide the team's next steps.
Important: This checklist does not replace a Functional Vision Evaluation, Learning Media Assessment, or formal evaluation for a specific learning disability. It is a clinical observation and team discussion tool.
Student Information
Section 1: Visual Access Indicators
Check all indicators that apply. Multiple checks suggest that visual access — not instruction or disability — may be the primary driver of reading difficulty. If visual access concerns are present, these must be addressed before drawing conclusions about instruction or disability.
Print Size and Characters Per Line
Reading Rate and Fluency
Tools and Access
Stamina and Fatigue
Section 2: Inadequate Instruction Indicators
Check all indicators that apply. Multiple checks suggest that the student's reading difficulty may be primarily the result of insufficient, inconsistent, or non-systematic literacy instruction rather than a disability. Instructional gaps can be addressed through evidence-based intervention and do not require a special education eligibility determination.
Instructional History
Response to Instruction
Incidental Learning and Opportunity
Section 3: Learning Disability Indicators
Check all indicators that apply. Multiple checks — particularly in phonological processing, unexpected difficulty relative to cognitive ability, and poor response to quality instruction — suggest that a formal evaluation for a specific learning disability may be warranted. These indicators should only be interpreted after visual access needs have been addressed and the student has received quality, explicit literacy instruction.
Phonological Processing
Reading Comprehension and Language
Response to Instruction
Indicator Summary
How to Interpret the Results
High Visual Access score (4 or more): Visual access needs are likely a primary contributor to reading difficulty. Conduct or update the Functional Vision Evaluation and Learning Media Assessment before drawing any conclusions about instruction quality or disability. Address visual access first — reading difficulty caused by access problems will mimic both instructional gaps and learning disabilities.
High Instructional Gap score (4 or more): The student's reading difficulty may be primarily the result of insufficient or non-systematic instruction. Implement explicit, systematic, structured literacy instruction in the student's primary reading medium before pursuing a special education evaluation. Use an RTI framework to document instructional response over time (Kamei-Hannan et al., 2012).
High Learning Disability score (4 or more), after visual access and instruction have been addressed: A formal evaluation for a specific learning disability may be warranted. Refer to a psychologist or educational diagnostician with experience in visual impairment. Phonological awareness, listening comprehension, and oral language assessments should be central to the evaluation (Lee, 2020; Fletcher et al., 2007).
High scores in multiple sections: These causes are not mutually exclusive. A student can have inadequate visual access, an instructional gap, and a learning disability simultaneously. Address visual access first, then instruction, then pursue evaluation as needed. Co-occurrence is possible and should not be ruled out (American Academy of Ophthalmology, 2014).
Team Recommendation and Next Steps
References
- American Academy of Ophthalmology. (2014). Joint statement: Learning disabilities, dyslexia, and vision (reaffirmed 2014). https://www.aao.org/education/clinical-statement/joint-statement-learning-disabilities-dyslexia-vis
- Brawand, A., & Johnson, N. (2016). Providing appropriate literacy instruction to students with visual impairments and additional disabilities. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 110(3), 155–166.
- D'Andrea, F. M., & Farrenkopf, C. (Eds.). (2000). Looking to learn: Promoting literacy for students with low vision. AFB Press.
- Farmer, J., & Morse, S. E. (2007). Project Magnify: Increasing reading skills in students with low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 101(12), 763–768.
- Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. Guilford Press.
- Ferrell, K. A., Young, J., & Cooney, J. (2006). Research on reading and braille: What do we know? University of Northern Colorado.
- Gillon, G. T., & Young, A. A. (2002). The phonological-awareness skills of children who are blind. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 96(1), 38–49.
- Hicks, M. A. C. (2025). Assessing and building literacy for students who are blind or visually impaired in the general education setting. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599251381793
- Kamei-Hannan, C., Holbrook, M. C., & Ricci, L. A. (2012). Applying a response-to-intervention model to literacy instruction for students who are blind or have low vision. Journal of Visual Impairment & Blindness, 106(2), 69–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145482X1210600202
- Koenig, A. J., & Holbrook, M. C. (1995). Learning media assessment of students with visual impairments: A resource guide for teachers (2nd ed.). Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired.
- Lee, C. C. (2020). Specific learning disabilities. TX SenseAbilities. Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. https://www.tsbvi.edu/tx-senseabilities/issues/tx-senseabilities-spring-2020/specific-learning-disabilities
- Legge, G. E. (2007). Psychophysics of reading in normal and low vision. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
- Legge, G. E., Kwon, M., & Boccardo, L. (2020). Reconciling print-size and display-size constraints on reading. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(49), 30973–30982. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2010240117
- Legge, G. E., Pelli, D. G., Rubin, G. S., & Schleske, M. M. (1985). Psychophysics of reading — I. Normal vision. Vision Research, 25(2), 239–252.
- Lovie-Kitchin, J., Feigl, B., & Faulkner, A. (2005). Investigation into font characteristics for optimum reading fluency in readers with sight problems. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 88(6), 369–375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2005.tb05090.x
- National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
- Perkins School for the Blind. (2022). Bigger is not always better: Understanding magnification. https://www.perkins.org/resource/bigger-not-always-better-understanding-magnification/
- Prakosha, D., Salim, A., & Sunardi, S. (2018). Decoding ability of students with visual impairment under systematic and explicit phonics instruction. Journal of ICSAR, 2(1), 57–61.
- Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21(4), 360–407. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.21.4.1
- Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired. (n.d.). What is dyslexia? https://www.tsbvi.edu/statewide-resources/engagement/family/dyslexia
- Veispak, A., Boets, B., & Ghesquière, P. (2013). Parallel versus sequential processing in print and braille reading. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 34(1), dual-route processing.