Transcript The Reading Difference Profile Ages 6-8

Oklahoma School Psychologists Association
Fall Conference 2008
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
In SLD Evaluations:
What’s It All About?
Jim Hanson, M.Ed.
Oregon School Psychologists Association (OSPA)
[email protected]
Thjs powerpoint uses materials from former presentations by Suzy Harris,
Attorney at Law, David Guardino, Oregon Department of Education (ODE),
and Betsy Ramsey, Oregon Parent Training Initiative (ORPTI)
1
Objectives
Review requirements for SLD eligibility,
including changes in IDEA 2004 & OARs
Review two types of SLD evaluation –
– Response to Intervention (RTI)
– Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)
English Language Learners
Step by Step Implementation Process
2
Changes to SLD Eligibility
Requirements
34 CFR 300.307 - 311 & OAR 581-015-2170
Changed from “severe discrepancy” to
“pattern of strengths and weaknesses”
Added option of RTI (OAR - based on district
model)
Added progress monitoring component for
both RTI and PSW evaluations
Observation – before or during
Exclusionary factors remain
3
SLD Evaluation Components –
Both (if needed)
Developmental history
Assessment of cognition, fine motor,
perceptual motor, communication, socialemotional, memory (if student exhibits
impairment in one or more of these areas)
Medical statement
Impact of disability on educational
performance
4
Oregon Department of Education
Like any other disability determination under IDEA, SLD can’t be
based on any single criterion – meaning a single test,
assessment, observation, or report.
An evaluation of a student suspected of having SLD must
include a variety of assessment tools and strategies.
Evaluation must include input from student’s parents and an
observation of the student’s academic performance and behavior
in the general education classroom.
5
Eligibility Team
OAR 581-015-2170(2)
Group of qualified professionals
Parents
Regular classroom teacher
Person qualified to conduct individual
diagnostic evaluations using
instruments that meet OAR
requirements (school psychologist,
speech pathologist, etc.)
6
Qualified evaluators
OAR 581-015-2110(4)(a)(D)&(E)
Assessments and other evaluation
materials must be:
“administered by trained and
knowledgeable personnel” and
“administered in accordance with any
instructions provided by the producer of
the assessments.”
7
Federal Definition Unchanged
“A disorder in one or more of the basic
psychological processes involved in
understanding or using language, spoken or
written, which manifests itself in the imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell,
or do mathematical calculations. Such terms
include such conditions as perceptual
disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
aphasia”
8
Order of the Presentation
Not the IQ/Achievement
Discrepancy
Response to
Intervention
Pattern of Strengths &
Weaknesses
Complimentary, not
exclusive approaches
for SLD
Other disabilities?
9
Professional Position Statements: No
Discrepancy, Yes to RTI & PSW
National Association of School Psychologists
2007
Oregon School Psychologists Association
2006
Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia
Association 2007
National Joint Commission on Learning
Disabilities 2005
U.S. Department of Education Office of
Special Education Programs (OSEP) 2007
10
President’s Message
“I would hope that the goal
here is to expand the methods
of assessment available to the
practitioner and not to limit
them. It seems possible that
these two very valuable
approaches can be utilized
along a continuum of collecting
information about a child that
would culminate in a very clear
and comprehensive evaluation
that would be of value to all.”
Huff, L. (2005, February).
President’s Message. NASP
Communique, 33, 2-3.
11
WE CAN ALL GET ALONG
12
Weaknesses of the Old
IQ/Achievement Discrepancy Model
Does not address the federal definition of SLD
Does not discriminate between disabled and nondisabled readers, or among children who were found
to be easy or difficult to remediate (Vellutino et al.
2000 p. 235)
Results in a “Wait to Fail” model: not identified early
Failure to rule out lack of instruction or lack of
effective curriculum as a causal factor for
underachievement
Not consistently applied
Does not explain why a student is struggling to read
or provide research-based interventions
13
Why Not Full Scale IQ?-Prediction
–Full Scale IQ explains only 1020% of specific areas of
achievement
–Specific cognitive abilities explain
50-70% of specific areas of
achievement
– (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonzo, 2007)
14
What is Response to
Intervention?
Tier 1: Researched-based general education
reading curriculum with universal screening
(for all students) on Big Ideas of reading
(phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
fluency, comprehension)
Tier 2: Small group interventions based on
students’ needs with lowest 20%, monitor
progress to determine if they respond. If
they don’t respond:
Tier 3: Comprehensive special education
assessment, small group or individualized 15
instruction based on results
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
16
ASHA Guidance for SLP at All Tiers
http://www.asha.org/members/slp/schools/pro
f-consult/NewRolesSLP.htm
New Roles:
Program Design (selecting reading curricula)
Collaboration (universal screening, interpreting
screenings, language base of literacy)
Serving Individual Students (sound error
screening, cut points, norm-referenced
assessment, evidence-based practices for
speech and language services in RTI or
17
PSW)
Speech Pathologists at Tier 1
Phoneme Segmentation Fluency (DIBELS)
Phonological Awareness K-1
Hear and manipulate sounds in spoken words
Benchmark Fall First Grade 35 and above
.68 Spring K with Spring 1st WJ III ACH Total
Reading
Word Use Fluency (DIBELS)
Vocabulary and Oral Language K-3
Use target word in sentence
Currently no benchmark goal
.44-.48 with TOLD-3
18
Efficacy and Effectiveness
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCT) means
treatments effective under specific conditions for
specific populations when delivered with fidelity: in
standardized, replicable fashion
Progress Monitoring: Serial Independent Assessment
of Achievement Skills (Fletcher, 2005) means
measuring the same academic skills over time with
tests not directly aligned with the curriculum (to
reduce contextual variables in determining RTI)
PM Effectiveness does not mean just looking at
chapter tests scores that measure different skills
19
Rousseau, the READ dog
Reading Education
Assistance Dogs
Effective based on
single case studies
(Progress
Monitoring)
Efficaciousness with
RCTs not
established
20
Tier Two CBM Basics
Identify skills in the year-long curriculum
Determine weight of skills in the curriculum
Create multiple alternate test forms
– each test samples the entire year’s curriculum
– each test contains the same types of problems
Give tests frequently (weekly/monthly)
Review results
Modify instruction as appropriate
21
Different PM devices
Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early
Literacy Skills (DIBELS)
Aimsweb reading, writing and math
probes
EasyCBM
Home-made Curriculum-Based
Measures
New idea for supplementing CBM: IRT
22
Advantages of commercial products
K-1 screenings predictive
of success on state
reading assessments at
third grade
Universal screener tied to
progress monitor
Computer format is
friendly for schoolbased teams and for
parent communication
Avoids “circularity” in
intervention and
diagnosis (Suhr, 2008)
23
Progress Monitoring
24
Research findings
CBM with “goal raising rule” for students responding well:
effect size .52 SD moderate
CBM with “change the program rule” for students not
responding well:
effect size .72 SD moderate (.80 = large)
Results in teachers planning more comprehensive reading
programs
Fletcher, et.al. 2007
25
MLC example
Kindergarten Phoneme Segmentation
Fluency (DIBELS) information along with
teacher nomination
Twelve week PS intervention group led by
Speech Pathologist
Progress Monitoring by Educational Assistant
trained in DIBELS administration and
interpretation
Team determination of student progress and
referral for comprehensive evaluation
26
Technically adequate measures
SEM on reading fluency measures can vary
by up to fifteen correct words per minute
based on grade and testing conditions (Christ
& Silberglitt, 2007)
Issues in determining “gain scores” under RTI
potentially more complex than under severe
discrepancy models (Reynolds, 2008)
Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing (1999)
27
CBM and W: Meets ODE
requirement for RTI with PM
Using CBM scores coupled with:
Equal interval scores from standardized tests in a test-retest
format (e.g., WJ-III “W score”)
Form A for pre-test, then Form B for post-test for children in
intervention group
W score provides basis for (a) comparison to performance from
national sample of peer-compares child to “normal”
development of skills; (Decker, S. L., 2008, p 7-8)
and (b) is age appropriate to the child’s age and grade
placement (ODE sample forms for SLD, p. 8)
W based on Item Response Theory (IRT) and theta parameters,
not home-made CBM based only on scope, or on CBM with
technical dubiousness
W score could be integrated into CBM for RTI and for RTI after
eligibility (e.g., IEP evaluation procedures) (Weiss, 2008)
28
RTI Benefits
(Feifer & Della Toffalo, 2007)
Ecological validity
Quicker and cheaper
Does not rely on teacher nomination
Linked to curricular decision-making
Encourages scientific interventions
Gets kids help earlier
De-emphasizes labels
Reduces “curriculum casualties”
Pro-active, not reactive
29
RTI Concerns
Does not address the federal definition of a learning
disability
Does not answer why a student is not responding to
intervention
Lack of technically adequate measures
Lack of evidence-based third-tier interventions
One-size fits all approach to intervention: two
students can fail at the same task for very different
reasons
Misses the bright dyslexic kids
Potential to miss co-morbid conditions
30
The use of RTI-only models
…not only reasonable but a desirable and
expected outcome of RTI that a child
would be considered learning disabled
in one teacher’s classroom but not in a
different classroom where the general
achievement level and progress rate of
other students was different (Reschley,
2005)
31
RTI Issues
National Reading
Panel Report (2000)
teaching of phonics,
a best practice,
accounts for
approximately 10%
in the variance of
reading treatment
outcomes (Hammill
& Swanson, 2006)
32
Case Example
Student was identified by DIBELS and
teacher as lowest 20% in alphabet knowledge
(phonics not phonological)
Student did not respond to research-based
phonics interventions
Student evaluated by outside agency:
IQ/ACH discrepancy-not good enough for us
Student evaluated by school-based team:
SLD with a specific memory deficit (MA)
Rule out ADHD and depression
Interventions prioritized
33
Oregon Experience
U of O, Bethel, Tigard-Tualatin, Oak Grove
Reading First - NCLB Funds, K-3 - High Poverty/Low Achieving
Schools, Cohort A - 33 schools in 14 districts - 3yrs,17 schools
Cohort B - 8 districts -1yr, Cohort C - 6 non RF schools matched
for comparison
Oregon RTI Initiative - IDEA Funds, district - wide reform, TTS
contract years/numbers of Schools, 5 districts – 1 yr, 9
additional districts 2006-2007, secondary preparation grants
Support for All Students Reading – SIG Funds, emphasis on
secondary – Bethel contract
Parent Education – SIG Funds ORPTI contract
34
From RtI
to PSW and Neurological
Theory
35
Oregon options (either or both)
Response to Intervention
 Research-based
general education
curriculum
 Curriculum-based
assessment of progress
 Tiered interventions
 Part of comprehensive
evaluation
Pattern of Strengths &
Weaknesses
 Norm-referenced
assessment based
– Academic
comparison
– Academic-cognitive
comparison
Part of comprehensive
evaluation
36
The definition of PSW (34 CFR
300.311(a)(5)), (34 CFR 300.309(a)(2(ii)).

Evaluation documentation must consider
whether the student exhibits a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses
 In performance, achievement or both
 Relative to age, State approved grade levels
standards, or intellectual development
 That is determined by the group to be
relevant to the identification of SLD using
appropriate instruments
37
A six-box interpretation
Age
State approved grade level
standards
Intellectual Development
Achievement
Standard score in one of the six
achievement areas (reading
comprehension, basic reading
skills, reading fluency, math
calculations, math reasoning,
written expression) that is <90
for K-3 students or <85 for 4-12
grade students
State Assessments
Strength: “Meets or Exceeds”
Weakness: “Does not meet”
More data required when student:
“Conditionally Meets”
At least one cognitive
weakness (<90 K-3 or <85
4-12) among critical
abilities* for reading or
math. At least three critical
or non-critical cognitive
abilities that are >92 and at
least 12 points higher than
the lowest weakness
Performance
Report Card
Strength: “Sometimes” meets
and above for K-8 or B and
above for 9-12; Weakness:
“Does not meet: for K-8 or D or
F for 9-12
Teams use a state standards rubric
to report all achievement results
from norm-referenced, CBM and
other measures; performance on
skills in rubric demonstrates
special instructional need in order
to make adequate progress
Observations, work
samples, dynamic
assessment, CBM etc.
should be used to confirm or
disconfirm hypotheses from
cognitive testing, but not in
place of testing
38
OSEP allows Teams to Choose

§300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits, but does not
require, consideration of a pattern of
strengths or weaknesses, or both, relative to
intellectual development, if the evaluation
group considers that information relevant to
an identification of SLD.
39
Main Idea of PSW






Many academic and cognitive abilities in the
average range
Specific academic weaknesses
Specific cognitive weaknesses
Research-based links between the academic
and cognitive weaknesses
Unrelated cognitive abilities are average or
above
Full Scale IQ is irrelevant, except for MR
40
Not Full Scale IQ
Explosive growth of scientific knowledge about true
“processes” that enable acquisition of reading, math
and writing
– Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory of Cognitive
Abilities: The Cognitive “Table of the Elements”
– PASS theory based on Luria
– All major tests revised to incorprate CHC, even
those based on Luria (KABC), except CAS
41
Four Major Research-Based Models


Cognitive – academic approaches:
• Flanagan, Oritz & Alfonso, 2007
• Naglieri, 1999
• Fiorello & Hale, 2004
Academics only approach
– Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes 2007
– Comments from Fuchs 2007: Academics-only approach
is based on studies that he conducted that he feels are
no longer valid. Therefore, the academics-only
approach is not recommended for Oregon
schoolchildren.
42
Academics Only Approach: Not Recommended






Word recognition & spelling <90 (phonological poor,
spatial & motor skills good)
Reading fluency <90, accuracy good (automaticity
problem: RAN poor)
Reading comprehension <90, 7 points below word
reading (vocabulary, working memory & attention
poor, phonics good)
Math computations <90, all reading good (executive
functioning, working memory & attention poor,
phonics and vocabulary good)
Spelling <90 (residuals of poor phonics, fluency often
impaired)
Word recognition, fluency, comprehension, spelling &
math <90 (language and working memory poor)
43
Empirical multivariate statistical
methods: Morris (1998)








Rate (affects fluency and
comprehension)
Rate & Phonology
Rate, Phonology, & VSTM
(big group)
Phonology, VSTM, & Spatial
Phonology, VSTM, & Lexical
Global & Language
Global
No longer valid categories
according to co-author
Fletcher, 2007
44
Consistency-Discrepancy (Naglieri)
Processing Strength to Academic
Strength (no significant difference)
 Processing Strength to Academic
Weakness (significant difference)
 Processing Weakness to Academic
Weakness (no significant difference)
 Processing Strength to Processing
Weakness (significant difference)

45
Concordance-Discordance (Hale &
Fiorello




Cognitive Hypothesis Testing
Examine results from cross battery assessment
If there are differences between scores on a similar
construct (e.g., working memory), use task demands
analysis, method of input and output of particular
tasks
Use other methods such as checklists, dynamic
assessment, observations to document strengths and
weaknesses for curricular planning
46
Hale and Fiorello (p. 135) write:
Using an intellectual/cognitive measure (e.g., the
Woodcock-Johnson III [WJ-III]), a fixed battery
(e.g., the Halstead-Reitan), and additional
hypothesis-testing measures (e.g., subtests from
the Comprehensive Test of Phonological
Processing [CTOPP]) might be the ultimate
approach for conducting CHT.
47
Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alonzo’s AptitudeAchievement Consistency (2007)







After RTI and/or documentation of instruction and progress
monitoring and rule out exclusionary factors
Documentation of underachievement-norm referenced
achievement test (Standard Score <85)
Measure all cognitive abilities that research shows support the
specific area of achievement at specific age of child
At least one of those abilities must be below 85 and have
documented ecological correlates
Cognitive abilities that don’t relate are average or above:
“otherwise normal ability profile”
Computer Program: “SLD Assistant”
The Essentials of Cross Battery Assessment: Second Edition
Wiley, New York.
48
What is CHC Intelligence
Theory?





Cattell, Horn and Carroll
7 Broad Categories of
Intelligence
Clean, Not Mixed
Factors (No Sharing)
Many Narrow
Categories of
Intelligence Underneath
Each Broad Factor
Less Emphasis on a
Full-Scale Score
49
50
http://www.slideshare.net/iapsych/chcintelligence-broad-ability-brief-review/
51
About Broad Cognitive Abilities
 Structural:
Fifty
years of factor
analytic research,
half a million
data sets of all
types of
intelligence tests
52
CHC Abilities
 Heritability:
Differential
heritability rates
for different CHC
abilities
 Developmental:
CHC abilities
show different
patterns of
growth and
decline across the
life span
53
Questions to ask your factors



How were you
derived? From 50
years of research on
500,000 data sets?
Structure, heritability,
development?
How strongly are you
related to specific
areas of academic
achievement?
54
Regression Coefficients

> .3
= strong relation

.1-.3
= moderate relation

<.1
= non-sign
55
Phonemic Awareness 3
Qu i c k T i m e ™ a n d a
Gra p h i c s d e c o m p re s s o r
a re n e e d e d t o s e e t h i s p i c tu re .
56
Comprehension-Knowledge
Qu i c k T i m e ™ a n d a
Gra p h i c s d e c o m p re s s o r
a re n e e d e d t o s e e t h i s p i c tu re .
57
Working Memory
58
Long-term Retrieval
59
Processing Speed
60
Fluid Reasoning
61
Visual-Spatial Thinking
62
Cognitive Abilities Related to
Reading:







Phonological Awareness
Verbal (Crystallized) Intelligence including
Vocabulary
Rapid Automatic Naming
Processing Speed
Working Memory
Associative Memory (Sound/Symbol)
Double, Triple, Quadruple Deficit
63
Speech Pathologist-Standardized

Gc-(Comprehension-Knowledge) Lexical
Knowledge tests (PPVT-IV, EVT, etc.)

Ga (Auditory Processing) Phonetic Coding:
Analysis and Synthesis tests (TAPS-3,
TOLD-4, CTOPP, CELF-4, TOPAS, etc.)
64
Just the sounds…







Auditory Discrimination in Depth (Lindamood)
Alphabet Phonics (Orton Gillingham)
Phonographics*
Project Read
Read Spell Pat
Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading (SRA)*
*Some research-based evidence
65
Phonics for PA3


Children who were weakest in phonological awareness
only performed best on basal curriculums that taught the
alphabetic principle explicitly
Fletcher et al. (2003)
66
Just the associations
PAL Alphabet Retrieval Games
 Rewards (Archer)
 Phonics for Reading (Archer)
 Corrective Reading (SRA)

67
Just the sights…eight weeks of
intervention in Georgetown







Visual imagery (SI) is being tested
Cocktail of Visual & Phonemic Awareness
(TAAS)
Better Non-word reading and PA3 (p<.05)
Reading accuracy improves; rate still poor
Real word reading and comprehension
improvements, but they are not significant.
Increases in left and right hemisphere functioning
Eden (2005)
68
Just the meaning…

Children with poor reading comprehension and
adequate decoding (who often demonstrate
problems with oral language, crystallized
intelligence and fluid reasoning) might profit from
training in meta-cognition, accessing visual-spatial
imagery skills, linking, and explicit teaching of
Theme Identification
Keene, E. & Zimmerman, S., (1997). The mosaic
of thought: Teaching comprehension in a readers’
workshop. Heineman: Portsmouth, NH.
69
More comprehension
Collaborative Strategic Reading (Vaughn)
 Reading in the Content Area (Kinsella)

70
Just…what was that?
 Multi-sensory
techniques may improve
reading in children with memory span
deficits (self-monitoring,
generalization, integration, feedback)
 Swanson, H. and Saez, L. (2003)
71
Just my speed…




For Processing Speed and RAN (affecting
fluency)
RAVE-O and PAL+Fluency Bowers, P. and Ishaik,
G. (2003).
Six Minute Solution (Hiebert)
Read Naturally (Imhott)
72
Just about everything.
 Students
with phonemic, RAN, and
memory span deficits had to learn sight
words first and then internal
phonological structure
 Fletcher et. al (2003)
73
When fluency training doesn’t
matter…
74
When Slingerland goes awry…
75
When even research-based phonemic
awareness instruction is ineffective…
76
Cognitive Skills related to Math
•
•
•
•
•
Fluid Intelligence (thinking about relationships among
concepts, deduction and induction, higher order algebra)
Comprehension/Knowledge-Verbal Reasoning (using
language to solve math problems)
Working Memory, Processing Speed, & Oral Language
(counting strategies and number sense)
RAN (fluent number identification)
Processing Speed (calculations)
Quantitative Reasoning? (magnitude comparison, our first task
as mammals)
77
Aptitude by Treatment Interaction
“We do not dispute the null results
for aptitude by treatment
interactions. However, it is
important to recognize that this is
an older literature where cognitive
models of the development of
reading and math skills were
seriously underdeveloped.
Moreover, rejection of interactions
of special education categories in
policy does not negate the
relevance of the underlying
dimensions themselves, just the
classification in federal regulation”
Fletcher et al. (2003)
78
Aptitude by Treatment Interactions



Assessment methods that reduce uncertainty in understanding the
problem and its causes and that lead to specific intervention more
efficiently than trial and error also should be incorporated in the
intervention validity appraisal (Decker, 2008 p. 2)
Real life ATIs are transactional, multivariate, and developmental. This
complexity needs to be reflected in our research before we can begin to
understand school failure. (Speece, 1990 p. 1146)
Cognitive abilities testing as part of the FBA for problem solving (e.g.,
as a part of “precipitating factors” before the target behavior of reading
below benchmarks)
79
Cross Battery Assessment using CHC









Use only relatively pure CHC indicators (e.g., NOT Picture
Arrangement).
Select tests from the smallest number of batteries to minimize the
effect of norming differences and ensure reliability.
Some neurologists and reading specialists use information from seven
different tests/norming populations to make deductions about one
student. This is bad practice.
To obtain a valid broad ability, chose two subtests that measure
different narrow abilities, or aspects of that broad ability
Compare broad ability scores to determine if g is valid
Compare narrow abilities to determine if broad ability is valid
If broad abilities are valid, use SLD Assistant to determine if child has
“an otherwise normal ability profile.”
If broad ability score is not valid, and information is needed, use tests
from another battery to obtain reliable narrow ability scores that can be
clinically meaningful.
Use two subtests to measure BRS, RC, MC, MR, LC, OE, and WE 80
Rasch Equal Interval Scoring &
The Relative Proficiency Index



In a perfectly distributed score population, the RPI
for SS=100 and PR=50 is 90/90.
An absolutely average student of that age/grade
would demonstrate 90% mastery level on that
material and get an RPI of 90/90.
Standard scores and percentiles are fine when the
distribution of scores on a certain (sub)test is a
perfect bell curve. In that case,
SS=85=PR=16=RPI=75 and
SS=115=PR=84=RPI=96. HOWEVER:
81
Narrow and Wide



If the distribution of scores is either narrow, wide or
skewed, then the standard score MOVES in relation to the
center. An Equal Interval, however, stays the same.
If kids are closer together in their skills, they are easier to
teach with only one curriculum. If kids are not equal in
their skills, they need differentiated instruction or
specialized instruction. (RPI 75/90-96/90)
Got a test with a wide distribution (like every first grade
reading skill)? Then the standard score of 85 moves farther
away from the center and thus, farther down the equal
interval (stationary) scale.
82
Wide Distribution, Big Difference


On a test or composite with a wide distribution of scores
(like Basic Reading Skills) a kid with a standard score of
85, rather than having an RPI of 75, now has an RPI of
about 25/90
How well is a kid doing in the classroom when she is only
demonstrating a 25% mastery level? She’s missing almost
75% of the stuff she’s supposed to get!
83
Kid’s reading or Psych’s math?
 Never
use a standard score to
determine if a first grade student has a
reading problem. Use the RPI; it more
closely reflects classroom performance
and you will not have to shrug your
shoulders and say to an unbelieving
teacher, “But she’s doing fine on my
test.”
84
How the Abilities Work Together
85
fMRIs or Brad Pit?
Which Shall We Choose?
86
Diffusion Tensor Imaging (DTI)





Processing efficiency,
not localization of
function
Axonal tract
illumination
Strength of the flow
from one area to
another during a task
Fletcher-Janzen 2008
PET in 3D and on acid87
Back to Brad Pitt


The Information Processing Model (WJ
COG p. 80) or
Brad Pitt : Gv, Angelina Jolie: RAN,
Jennifer Anniston: MA, Colin Farrell:
Gs, Robert DeNiro: Gf, Barbara
Streissand: Gc, Donald Trump:
Executive Control; Pamela Anderson:
Outputter, Tommy Lee: Sensory
Inputter, The Dalia Lama as Phonemic
Awareness, and Paris Hilton as MW, the
Phonological Loop.
88
89
Figure 2.
90
Why use this approach?




When we test students with poor reading or math achievement,
we expect to find that at least one of the cognitive abilities that
underlies achievement is compromised. If there is no cognitive
weakness, it’s probably not a neurological difference and
therefore, not a learning disability.
IQ/Achievement discrepancy with no impairments in any related
cognitive skill – may indicate false positives for SLD:
instructional casualties, ADHD, emotional problems, second
language issues, and/or environmental challenges.
Cognitive testing is a part of the problem solving process.
Case Example: the neurologically intact Kindergartener with
environmental challenges
91
Another Reason for PSW (Suhr, 2008)
Identification of (children’s)
overall pattern of cognitive
strengths and weaknesses is in
itself therapeutic, especially
when coupled with exploration
of their feelings about their
particular information
processing weaknesses… and in
my clinical experience has been
crucial to the academic and
psychological health of those
whom I have assessed.
92
Weaknesses/Strengths of PSW






Cognitive factors only
half the variance in
reading outcomes
Requires
knowledgeable
assessor and
interpreter
Time to train
Time to test
New research on
interventions










Answers the question why a student is
not responding
Addresses federal definition: says what
SLD is, not what SLD is not
Constructs research-based
Don’t have to buy new tests
Includes medical community, research
Starting at age five
Can be conducted at any time in the
process as requested by team or parent
Prioritizes interventions effectively
based on comprehensive assessment
Effective for future situations
Decreases differences among districts
Likely to hold up in court
93
World Health Organization
Model (Fletcher-Janzen 2008)







Health Condition (disorder
or disease)
Body functions/structures
Activities
Participation
Environmental Factors
Personal Factors



Transcends politics,
settings, and country
boundaries
Holistic understanding of
the elements of a disability
The right to receive a
comprehensive evaluation
Critical to mental as well
as educational health
94
Neurology and CHC converge
95
Neuropsychology and Schools





Handbook of Clinical Child
Neuropsychology, Third
Edition (2008)
Handbook of Learning
Disabilities (2006)
School Neuropsychology
(2004)
Data from many different
neuropsychological tests into a
cognitive science framework
useful for school-based teams
Essentials of Cross-Battery
Assessment-Second Edition
(2007)
96
Wolf’s Double Deficit Model
 Phonological
Processing
 Rapid
Automatized
Naming
97
Shaywitz, Fletcher, and McGrew
1.
2.
3.
Phonologic
Weakness
Memory
Rapid Word
Retrieval
1.
2.
3.
1.
Phonologic
Awareness
Working Memory 2.
Rapid Naming
3.
Phonological Awareness
(Ga, PC)
Working Memory (WM) &
Associative Memory (MA)
Processing Speed (Gs), &
Naming Facility (NA)
98
Dyscalculia: Arithmetic Disability







8% of children
Parents 10 times as likely to have
AD
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy overidentifies
Math tests aren’t sensitive to
subtypes or areas within subtypes
26% of AD are ADHD
17% of AD are RD
50% of AD have Spelling Problems
99
From Geary to McGrew
1.
2.
3.
Phonetic and semantic
memory systems
Understanding the
quantity associated
with words
Ability to represent or
retrieve information
1.
2.
3.
4.
Working Memory & GsProcessing Speed, & Oral
Language
Gq-Quantitative (Ability and
Knowledge)
Glr-Long Term Memory Storage
and Retrieval including RAN (&
perhaps Auditory Attention for
inhibiting competing stimuli?)
(Gf-Fluid Intelligence)
100
The first type of AD




Procedural
Uses developmentally
immature procedures
Execution errors
Poor concepts
Multiple Steps (e.g.,
misalignment,
carrying, borrowing)
101
The second type of AD



Semantic
Retrieving math facts/strategies
from long-term memory: wrong
and/or slow
High error rate
Associational errors:
not inhibiting irrelevant
associations (e.g., counting
string associations such as
2+7=8, 8 is closer)
102
The third type of AD


Visuospatial
Spatial representation
of numbers and
relationships
Misinterpretation of
graphic information
103
Arithmetic Disabilities (AD)
Arithmetic Disabilities
Procedural
Semantic
Visuospatial
(Quantitative)
Immaturity
Left Hemisphere
(Paretial, Temporal,Occipital)
Basal Left Ganglia
Prefrontal Cortex
Right Hemisphere
Parietal Cortex
Developmental
Gets Better
Heritable
Reading
Disabilities
ADHD Comorbitity
Common with
Genetic Disorders
Dynamic
Assessment of Strategies
Working Memory
Gq
Glr: Fluency (Rate and Accuracy)
Working Memory
Executive Functions
Controlling Irreleveant Associations
Estimation & W ord Problems
Gq & Working Memory
Stafnord Binet Nonverbal W M?
KABC-II Word Order?
104
Math StrategiesRtI & Dynamic Assessment
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Finger Counting: Counting All
Finger Counting: Counting On
Verbal Counting: Counting All
Verbal Counting: Counting On
Retrieval of a basic fact from long-term
memory
Decomposition: Retrieval of a partial sum
and counting on.
105
Don’t Wait for PSW, Use RTI:





Magnitude Comparison
Counting Strategies
Fluent Number
Identification
Working MemoryNumbers Reversed
Number Sense
Russell, G., Jordan,
N., and Flojo, R.,
(2005). Early
identification and
interventions for
students with
mathematics
difficulties. In Journal
of Learning
Disabilities 38 (4)
106
A six-box interpretation
Age
State approved grade level
standards
Intellectual Development
Achievement
Standard score in one of the six
achievement areas (reading
comprehension, basic reading
skills, reading fluency, math
calculations, math reasoning,
written expression) that is <90
for K-3 students or <85 for 4-12
grade students
State Assessments
Strength: “Meets or Exceeds”
Weakness: “Does not meet”
More data required when student:
“Conditionally Meets”
At least one cognitive
weakness (<90 K-3 or <85
4-12) among critical
abilities* for reading or
math. At least three critical
or non-critical cognitive
abilities that are >92 and at
least 12 points higher than
the lowest weakness
Performance
Report Card
Strength: “Sometimes” meets
and above for K-8 or B and
above for 9-12; Weakness:
“Does not meet: for K-8 or D or
F for 9-12
Teams use a state standards rubric
to report all achievement results
from norm-referenced, CBM and
other measures; performance on
skills in rubric demonstrates
special instructional need in order
to make adequate progress
Observations, work
samples, dynamic
assessment, CBM etc.
should be used to confirm or
disconfirm hypotheses from
cognitive testing, but not in
place of testing
107
The Integrated Report
108
Does Integrated Report Meet ODE Standards?
109
Implementation:
Step-by-Step process
Step 1:
– Determination of underachievement
Step 2:
– Determination of Response to Interventions or Pattern of
Strengths and Weaknesses (or both)
Step 3:
– Rule out lack of appropriate instruction as
determining factor
 Step 4:
– Rule out other factors as primary basis
110
Step 1: Determination of
Underachievement
 Does the student fail to achieve adequately for his age in one or
more of the following eight areas:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Basic reading skill
Reading fluency skills
Reading comprehension
Mathematics calculation
Mathematics problem solving
Written expression
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
 Consider student’s performance related to Oregon’s state’s
academic content standards in these areas.
111
Step 2: Determination of Response
to Interventions or a Pattern of
Strengths and Weaknesses (or Both)
RTI:
PSW:
Does the student fail to makeDo the results of the student’s
sufficient progress in
assessments and evaluations
achievement considered
show a pattern of strengths and
adequate for his age (or
weaknesses in academic
enrolled grade-level
performance, achievement (or
standards) when provided both), relative to age, Oregon
with a series of scientific, state grade level standards, or
research-based
intellectual development
interventions?
relevant to the identification of
a specific learning disability?
112
Example: what to write on the new state
forms
John's associative memory, working memory and
phonemic awareness (three important cognitive skills for
early reading) are below his other cognitive abilities,
which are within the average range. Impairments on these
skills have been documented in the classroom by
observation, work sample analysis, and teacher checklists
of executive functions. John's relatively lower memory
and phonemic awareness skills impair his ability to
remember sound/symbol associations, decode words,
read words and sentences fluently, and remember their
content. This pattern has been document on age-scored
standardized tests, state achievement tests, report cards
and work samples.
113
Step 3: Determination of
Appropriate Instruction
 Consider progress monitoring data to rule out lack of
appropriate instruction as basis for underachievement.
 Appropriate instruction in reading must include explicit
and systematic instruction in essential components of
reading including:
– phonemic awareness,
– phonics,
– vocabulary development,
– reading fluency, including oral reading skills, and
– reading comprehension strategies.
114
Step 3: Continued
 If the group charged with determining whether a
student has an SLD decides that this
documentation is not adequate, a decision may be
made to delay making a final determination and
continue to collect additional information about
the student.
 In order to extend the time by which the
evaluation will be completed, parents must
consent to the time extension.
115
Step 4: Rule out other factors as
primary basis for underachievement
 Students whose lack of achievement can be attributed primarily to
one of the following factors should not be determined to have an
SLD.
–
–
–
–
–
–
visual, hearing, or motor disability
mental retardation
emotional disturbance
cultural factors
environmental or economic disadvantage
limited English proficiency
 Such students may be served in other disability categories of IDEA
or through programs for at-risk or disadvantaged students, such as
Title I of the No Child Left Behind Act.
116
President’s Message
“I would hope that the goal here is
to expand the methods of
assessment available to the
practitioner and not to limit them.
It seems possible that these two
very valuable approaches can be
utilized along a continuum of
collecting information about a
child that would culminate in a
very clear and comprehensive
evaluation that would be of value
to all.” Huff, L. (2005, February).
President’s Message. NASP
Communique, 33, 2-3.
117
Resources (Citations upon Request)
 Oregon School Psychologists Association
(OSPA): www.ospaonline.com
 National Center on Student Progress Monitoring:
www.studentprogress.org/
 National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities: www.nrcld.org/index.shtml
 Center on Instruction:
www.centeroninstruction.org/
 ODE website & RTI initiative:
www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=315
 NASP Resources:
www.nasponline.org/resources/index.aspx
118