Transcript The Diagnostic Frame of Reference for School Use of Data

Teaching to the Test
:
The Road to Effective Intervention and
Classroom Instruction
Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D., Professor of Special Education,
George Washington University
1
Teaching is a function of attitudinal set and perceptual style.
Teaching is a function of raising self-concepts.
What a teacher is is more important than what a teacher teaches.
From the dicta of Rita Klein Ives
The presenting self is but the self that most protects us from fear and hurt.
Look for the child underneath.
Erving Goffman,
The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life
There are four ingredients in a teacher:
the learner
the teacher
the content (the ‘to be learned…’)
the strategies for teaching the content
How do we know where to begin?
2
The Diagnostic Frame of Reference
for School Use of Data
Cognitive Assessment
• W-J Cognitive
• TONI
• WISC-IV
Achievement Testing
• Gray Oral
• TOWL
• W-J III
Reading,
Math,
Written Language
• WIAT
• Woodcock
Reading Mastery
• Key Math
Skills Testing
• Beery Test of
Visual Perception
• Goldman Fristoe
• Bender – Gestalt
• Non-Motor Test
of Visual Perception
Memory
The Whole Child
• WRAML-2
• Subtests of W-J III Cognitive
• Subtests of WISC IV
• California Verbal Learning Test
(Additional tests given by a
neuropsychologist may be included.)
Fluency/Processing Speed
• Academic Fluency of W-J III
(Reading, Math, Written Language)
• Oral Language Fluency
• WJ-III Tests of Cognitive Ability,
Retrieval Fluency subtest
• CELF IV, subtest of Word Associations
• Controlled Oral Word Association Test
Language Tests
• CTOPP
• CELF - IV
• PPVT IV
• LAC III
• Test of Word Retrieval
3
The Need to Utilize Diagnostic Data
 Our job is to integrate patterns and processes that become clear as we study the evaluation.
 A comprehensive battery offers expansive clues to lead us to best practices for the child.
Cognitive Tests
• Memory, short-term and long-term
- memory for detail
- memory for meaningful information
- memory for nonessentional detail
- auditory memory
- visual memory
- working memory
• Language
- vocabulary knowledge
- word retrieval
- oral expression
• Concept formation
- reasoning, visual and auditory
- ability to synthesize
- ability to analyze
• Attention
- auditory and visual
- sustaining focus over time
- insight into cueing need
4
Achievement Tests
Achievement Tests
• core academic skills
• sight word reading (revised and III)
• decoding/word attack (revised and III)
• passage comprehension – cloze (revised and III) and reading vocab
(rev. and III)
• written language at the sentence level
• calculation (revised and III)
• math problem solving (revised and III)
• spelling, punctuation, capitalization (combined on revised, separated on III)
• editing (revised and III)
• oral language knowledge subtests (III)
• story recall and following directions (III)
• reading rate
• reading accuracy
• reading comprehension for passages longer than those in WJRach or WJ-III
• reading comprehension skills like main idea, details and inferences
• written language mechanics
• spontaneous paragraph writing
• spelling in written expression (loosely)
• listening comprehension
5
Skills Tests
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
visual-motor integration
non-motor visual perception
auditory perception
auditory discrimination
visual and auditory closure
pencil grip
fine motor/gross motor efficiency
speed
attention to detail
6
Language Tests
• receptive vocabulary
• flexibility of word knowledge
• immediate auditory memory
• auditory working memory
• verbal reasoning
• listening skills at the paragraph level for main idea, inferences, details
• following oral directions
• language organization
• knowledge of inflectional endings
• phoneme discrimination, phoneme counting, phoneme manipulation
• expressive vocabulary/language
7
Fluency Tests
Fluency is defined as the speed with which one can perform a task.
Fluency tests are a timed administration.
Achievement fluency must be compared to the Processing Speed
and Working Memory clusters of the WISC-IV.
Examples: Test of Written Language – Story
Woodcock-Johnson III Academic Tests – Reading, Math,
Written Language Fluency
Gray Oral – rate score
8
Tests of Memory
• Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning – 2 (9+ age)
Verbal Scale
Sentence Memory
Story Memory
Visual Scale
Design Memory
Picture Memory
Learning Scale
Composites of Verbal,
Visual, Sound-Symbol
•
Subtests of WISC-IV
•
Subtests of Woodcock-Johnson III Cognitive
•
California Verbal Learning Test
9
Cognitive Assessment
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition
WISC-IV
WISC-IV Profile: Barrett
10
The WISC-IV is an individually administered test for assessing the intelligence of children ages 6.0
to 16.11. It has ten core subtests and five supplemental subtests. It provides scores that represent
intellectual functioning in specified domains.
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition
Verbal Comprehension Index
Similarities
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Information
Word Reasoning
Working Memory Index
Digit Span
Letter-Number Sequencing
Arithmetic
Perceptual Reasoning Index
Block Design
Picture Concepts
Matrix Reasoning
Picture Completion
Processing Speed
Coding
Symbol Search
Cancellation
(Note: Supplemental subtests are in italics and are not included in the index scores.)
11
Cognitive, Language, and Academic Evaluation
Name: Barrett Smith
Date of Birth: 12/9/2000
Evaluation dates: August/September, 2014
Chronological Age: 13.8
Grade: 8.0
School: Westwood School
Examiner: Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D.
Tests administered:
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV)
Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement, Third Edition, Form A (WJ-III)
Gray Silent Reading Test (GSRT), Fifth Edition, Form A
Gray Oral Reading Test, 5th Edition, (GORT-5), Form A
Test of Visual-Perception (non-motor), Third Edition (TVP-III)
Test of Written Language, Fourth Edition (TOWL-4)
12
Background and Reason for Referral:
Barrett Smith was referred for testing by his parents. He is completing the eighth grade at
the Westwood School and his parents requested a cognitive and academic evaluation to
assist in the evaluation of his current performance and assist in the selection of a high
school program.
Barrett was evaluated by Jane Jones, Ph.D. of the Antonelli Group at age 7.1 in February,
2008. Dr. Jones obtained WISC-IV scores of 102 Verbal, 119 Perceptual Reasoning, 77
Working Memory, and 94 Processing Speed, and a Full Scale score of 101 at the 53 rd
percentile. Dr. Jones’s work resulted in diagnoses of: a Language Disorder (articulation,
expression, retrieval, and phonological processing), language-based Learning Disabilities in
reading, writing, and mathematics, and an Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
(predominantly inattentive type). Achievement test scores in reading, math, and written
language from the WJ-III were in the Deficiency range with almost all of them below the
10th percentile level. Dorothy Evans completed an academic update in 2011 when he was
10 years, 4 months and obtained achievement scores from the 1st through beginning third
grade level. A subsequent evaluation in 2012 when Barrett was 11.3 yield slightly higher
math scores but similarly low reading scores, mostly at the first and second grade level.
His parents requested an updated evaluation to address specific areas of concern: basic
writing skills, issues related decoding and reading abilities, and broader issues related to
academic planning and organization, short-term memory, and processing speed. Barrett
was seen in two diagnostic sessions for three and one-half hours with a follow-up session of
thirty additional minutes. All of the necessary test work was completed.
13
Behavior During Testing:
Barrett entered the testing setting cautiously. He was sincere in attempting to do everything he
was asked to do. On tasks with which he had particular difficulty, e.g. memory work, language
expressions tasks, etc., he persevered in a very mature way. There were times when errors were
more accurately situations where he did not comprehend the direction or the stimulus word or
words correctly. At times it was permissible to repeat directions and in those instances he
improved his performance significantly. On other tasks, particularly on memory testing, such
repetitions were not permissible, resulting in lower scores that were not weaknesses of memory
per se as much as a difficulty with auditory discrimination. Because of the uniqueness of his
learning profile, these scores should be taken as estimations of his abilities as opposed to finite
measurements of his skill sets.
14
Interpretation of Cognitive Test Scores:
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition(WISC-IV):
The WISC-IV was administered to Barrett in an effort to establish his level of mental functioning. The
Wechsler Scales are comprised of ten mandatory and five optional subtests. Each subtest measures a
unique aspect of mental ability. The tests are divided into four categories: Verbal Comprehension,
Perceptual Reasoning, Working Memory, and Processing Speed. The Verbal Comprehension subtests
require verbal answers to auditory stimuli; the Perceptual Reasoning subtests require a visual/fine-motor
response to visual material in a timed format; Working Memory requires short-term recall of verbally
presented information; and processing Speed requires a visual-motor (paper and pencil) response in a
timed format. The Full Scale score is the total of the ten required subtests.
Thirteen of the fifteen subtests were administered to Barrett. His Full Scale Score placed him at the 4th
percentile, the Significantly Below Average range, when compared to other children his age in the
standardization group. His score on the Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) of the WISC-IV was at the
4th percentile, the Significantly Below Average range; his score on the Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)
placed him at the 34th percentile, the Average range; his Working Memory Index (WMI) score places him
at the 0.3 percentile, the Deficiency range; and his Processing Speed Index (PSI) score places him at the
16th percentile, the Below Average range.
15
This performance profile is consistent with the February, 2008 WISC-IV (VCI=102, 55%; PRI=119,
90%; WMI=77, 6%; PSI=94, 34%, Full Scale Score-101, 53%). Aptitude scores are considered to be
consistent over time. What is revealed in the scoring profile of both administrations of the test are
elevated abilities in most areas of Verbal and Visual Reasoning but weaker abilities on Working
Memory and Processing Speed tasks. Further, his score on the Working Memory section, 74 of the test
is statistically different from the test mean, 108, or Full Scale Score, a difference of more than two
Standard Deviations (M=100, 1 SD=+/-15). While his performance is generally consistent with the
2008 scores, it is notable that the discrepancy between his Full Scale Score and Working Memory
Index Score is actually greater (2008=24, 2014=34). While his capacity as compared to his peer group
has improved in the areas of Verbal and Perceptual Reasoning and is identical to the earlier score in the
area of Perceptual Reasoning, his Working Memory score is actually lower. This is an cognitive ability
area that will continue to require monitoring and he will continue to need compensatory academic
strategies.
Barrett’s current WISC profile does not to justice to the complexities of his aptitude profile. Therefore,
individual subtests will be interpreted for a deeper understanding of Barrett’s unique pattern of
strengths, weaknesses and his overall learning style as measured on the WISC-IV.
16
Subtest
Scaled Score
Verbal Comprehension:
Similarities
13*
Vocabulary
14
Comprehension
13
(Information)
11**
Perceptual Reasoning:
Block Design
17
Picture Concepts
13
Matrix Reasoning
12
(Picture Completion) 10
Functioning Level
Percentile
Above Average
Superior
Above Average
Below Average
84%
92%
84%
63%
Very Superior
Above Average
Above Average
Average
99%
84%
75%
50%
Working Memory:
Digit Span
Letter-Number
Sequencing
(Arithmetic)
7
Deficiency
16%
4
10
Deficiency
Average
4%
50%
Processing Speed:
Coding
Symbol Search
5
13
Deficiency
Above Average
5%
84%
Verbal Comprehension
119***
Perceptual Organization 125
Working Memory
74
Processing Speed
94
Full Scale Score
108****
Very High Average
Superior
Deficiency
Average
Average
90%
95%
4%
34%
70%
*(Individual subtests are reported in Scaled Scores with a Mean =10 and a Standard Deviation of
*(Individual
subtests are reported in Scaled Scores with a Mean =10 and a Standard Deviation of +/-3)
+/-3)
**(Subtests
in parentheses
are considered
supplementary
subtests and
are not
included
the Index
Score
summaries)
**(Subtests
in parentheses
are considered
supplementary
subtests
and
are not in
included
in the
Index
***(IndexScore
scoressummaries)
are presented as Standard Scores with a Mean=100 and a Standard Deviation of +/-15)
****(The***(Index
Full Scale scores
Score is
aggregate
the ten Scores
required
subtests)
arethe
presented
as of
Standard
with
a Mean=100 and a Standard Deviation of
+/-15)
****(The Full Scale Score is the aggregate of the ten required subtests)
17
Verbal Comprehension Index:
The Verbal Comprehension section is composed of four subtests: Similarities, Vocabulary and
Comprehension (which comprise the VC Cluster Scores) and the supplemental subtest Information.
On the VCI section of the WISC-IV Barrett earned one score in the Superior range (Vocabulary, 91%), and
two scores in the Above Average range (Similarities, 84%; Comprehension, 84%). He also scored in the
Average range, the 63rd percentile, on Information, a supplementary subtest not included in the VCI score.
Barrett's strength was on the Vocabulary subtest which measures word meanings. On Vocabulary he was
consistent on all of the basic and mid-level items and, on subsequent items, his point total varied
depending on the precision of his responses. Prompts are permitted on this subtest but Barrett did not
benefit from the opportunity to expand his original response. On Comprehension and Similarities, which
measures social intelligence or social reasoning and word comparisons, he scored at the 84 th percentile, the
Above Average range. His work was similarly performed on both subtests: rapid performance and
success on the basic and mid-level items, then a slower work rate and less precision on higher-level items.
Comprehension asked increasingly complex questions and required precision and detail in his responses.
On the final items he needed to have the original inquiry several times and it was unclear as to whether he
understood the exact nature of the question. His responses were correct on the most basic items of both of
the subtests. On Similarities, where he was given two words and asked to describe how the words were
alike, he was successful on all but the final subtest items before obtaining his test ceiling. He appeared to
lose confidence in his ability to perform on this subtest and responded ‘I don’t know’ for the final items.
18
Verbal Comprehension Index cont’d:
On the supplemental subtest, Information, a measure of recall of what he has learned in
school, was at the 63rd percentile, the Average range. He was successful on twenty-two of the
thirty items of the subtest before obtaining his subtest ceiling. The subtest measures the
ability to remember and respond to questions in science, history, and social science content
areas. At the upper-level of the subtest there was more variability in responses, with more
success on history and social science items than in the area of science. His work on these four
verbal reasoning subtests suggests both the level of ability as well as indications of how weak
some of his language reasoning abilities are and how dependent he is on the exact nature of
the language demand on a verbal reasoning task.
Perceptual Reasoning
On the Perceptual Reasoning section of the WISC-IV the tasks differ from those of the verbal
reasoning section in that the subject is dealing with visual material. The subject performs a task
and some tasks are timed. The PRI tasks measure one’s ability to organize data quickly and to deal
with various aspects of visual reasoning, visual discrimination, and visual-motor integration.
On the three required subtests of the PRI section, Barrett earned one score in the Very Superior
range (Block Design, 99%), two scores in the Above Average range (Matrix Reasoning, 75%;
Picture Concepts, 84%). On the supplemental subtest, Picture Completion, which is not included
in the PRI score, he earned a score in the Average range, the 50th percentile. His performance on
these subtests is at a similar level but with more variability when compared with his Verbal
Comprehension Index work.
19
Perceptual Reasoning cont’d:
His strongest performance was on Block Design, a subtest measuring visual-perceptual-motor
abilities in a timed format. He worked in a very focused manner but he was quite cautious in
the manipulation of the blocks on the initial, untimed items, but appeared to gain confidence on
subsequent items. He was successful at advanced levels for performance rate on all fourteen
items of the subtest. His work rate varied only on the next-to-last problem where he initially
completed the item, then commented ‘Whoa, okay, that’s not right’ and then completed the task
very quickly and precisely. With that one exception his performance rate was consistently at
the upper levels.
On Picture Concepts and Matrix Reasoning he was successful on the basic items but there was
greater inconsistency in his work from the mid-level of the subtests through the higher-level
items. While he was successful at the very highest level on some items, this inconsistency had
less to do with the nature of visual processing task than with his ability to maintain his attention
and focus on the task. On Picture Concepts his first error was on item eleven. He was correct on
the subsequent ten items and then on four of the final eight most difficult items, including the very
last item. His response pattern suggested that his difficulty was not in the conceptual nature of the
visual association task but in the careful attention to visual detail. Similarly, on Matrix Reasoning
his scores were slightly lower but with the very same pattern: success on the first seventeen items
and then wide scatter in the remaining eighteen items, again with success on the third most
difficult item on the subtest. The pattern that emerges from his work on these two subtests
substantiates his talent in the skill area but also his lack of consistency and careful attention to
task.
20
Perceptual Reasoning cont’d:
He performed at a lower level on the supplemental subtest, Picture Completion, at the 50 th
percentile. Picture Completion measures visual attention to detail and visual closure. On this
subtest there was even greater variability in his work related to time and overall level of accuracy.
He attempted all thirty-eight items of the subtest and was successful on twenty-seven. All of his
errors occurred within the final seventeen items of the subtest. This variability on a very basic task
of visual closure suggests that, while his visual processing abilities are among his stronger skills,
they are not his most dependable skills. Further, he does not always know whether he is correct or
not on a task. His scores on visual reasoning tasks suggest a high level of visual reasoning
capacity but only a basic level of competency as the work task approaches his age level. His
responses also suggest that his work may be quite variable depending on the exact nature of the
visual demand and/or the restrictions of time permitted to complete the visual task. But there is no
doubt that his visual processing weaknesses have the potential to impact his academic work in all
areas.
21
Working Memory
There was a statistically significant discrepancy in Barrett’s work on this section of the
WISC-IV as compared with his work on the other Indexes. His WMI score was at the
4th percentile, the Deficiency range. Barrett received one score in the Below Average
range (Digit Span, 16%) and one score in the Deficiency range (Letter-Number
Sequencing, 4%). He scored in the Average range on the supplementary subtest,
Arithmetic, at the 50th percentile.
On the Digits Forward and Backward sections of Digit Span he was successful only on
very basic items of Digits Forward, with difficulty beginning on items with four digits.
He was successful on one of two passes with four, five, and six digits before obtaining
his subtest ceiling. He listened carefully to the directions for Digits Backward and
successfully completed the first two-digit items but missed the second one; however, he
was successful with three and four digits on two passes before obtaining his test ceiling.
His errors included number sequencing omissions and insertions.
22
Working Memory cont’d:
He had even greater difficulties understanding the directions on Letter-Number Sequencing,
which measures the ability to recall and organize letter-number data. After listening to the
directions of this subtest he was able to complete only three sets of two and three letter/numbers.
This subtest required that he listen to a letter-number sequence and reorganize the information in
his response, the numbers first, in order, the letters next, in alphabetical order. He confused the
sequence, forgot letter/numbers and inserted other letter/numbers. His work on this subtest
revealed how dependent he is on instructional tasks where there is no visual or language
support.
On the timed supplementary subtest, Arithmetic, where the problems were read to him and he
had to solve the problem with mental calculation, he was successful on twenty-five items before
obtaining his subtest ceiling, scoring at the 50th percentile, the Average range. His work rate was
quite slow though within the time constraints of the subtest and he needed to have six of the
final problems repeated before he could begin work. It is clear from his work on these three
subtests that there is wide variability in his working memory abilities and that his short-term
recall is among his weakest skills and will require significant academic support.
23
Processing Speed:
Barrett’s work on the two subtests of Processing Speed was at the 34th
percentile but this score is complicated by the divergent nature of his work on
the two subtests: e.g. a score at the Deficiency range (Coding, 5%) and then a
score in the Above Average range (Symbol Search, 84%). With such
discrepant scores the 34th percentile PSI score is virtually meaningless.
On Coding, where he had to copy visual designs from a pattern presented at
the top of the page, his work was very slowly and carefully performed. He
was successful on all but four of the final five items he attempted. He had to
work very slowly in order to perform with accuracy and even this tactic failed
him at the end of the subtest. On Symbol Search, a paper/pencil subtest of
visual matching, he had no errors. The paper/pencil demand on Symbol
Search is very basic, marking a box ‘Yes’ or ‘No’, and he was quite focused on
the task. The difference in his performance on the two subtests suggests that
Barrett is highly dependent on the exact nature of a timed visual-motor
processing speed task in terms of the success or rate at which he can perform
24
Summary of Cognitive Assessment:
The profile that emerges from the WISC-IV is one in which there is a higher level of performance
on Verbal Comprehension and Visual Reasoning tasks and greater inconsistency on Working
Memory and timed visual processing work. His performance on memory tasks was a significant
weakness in comparison with his work on the other indexes. His work on simple visual-motor
speed tasks was in the Average range but his more complex visual-motor work was in the
Deficiency range, the 5th percentile. The Full Scale score, at the 70th percentile, the Average
range, does not reflect the significant complexity of Barrett’s cognitive learning profile.
There is remarkable consistency with Barrett’s learning profile at 13 and the profile he presented
with Dr. Jones at seven. While tests of aptitude like the WISC and the Stanford-Binet have
proven that cognitive profiles are constant over time, the similarity in Barrett’s diagnostic profile
is more than striking in the consistency of his patterns of strengths and weaknesses. With such
consistency in his cognitive profile it would be expected that his academic profile would also be
similarly affected since his particular pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses would
continue to impact academic performance, particularly in areas of skills weaknesses, e.g. visual
closure, memory from a verbal stimulus, and timed visual-motor performance. To study these
patterns further a complete set of educational assessments were administered.
25
Barrett was administered four subtests of the WJ-III to assess his level of reading abilities. His
score on Letter-Word Identification, a measure of letter recognition, sight vocabulary, and/or
phonetic word analysis abilities, was at the 2.9 grade level, the 1 st percentile, the Deficiency
range. His work was inconsistently performed and his work was characterized by significant
hesitations in his reading work, suggesting that he does not ‘own’ sight vocabulary information.
His reading pattern was to look at a word and offer his nearest approximation of pronunciation,
e.g., scientist-since, distance/distant, usually-usual, bounties-bounty. His errors were often
visual-perceptual in nature, e.g., adding or omitting syllables or endings. This subtest requires
that you ‘read’ the word so words he ‘decoded’ or ‘sounded out’ were counted as errors. His
errors included letter and syllable insertions and omissions. On multi-syllable words it appeared,
from an analysis of his reading errors, that he employed visual skills, e.g., a sight vocabulary
approach, rather than any familiarity or willingness to decode with phonetic analysis skills.
26
Academic Testing Results cont’d:
His work on the Word Attack subtest was at the 2.7 grade level, the <1st percentile. Word
Attack required him to read nonsense words to assess his decoding skills. His work included
errors even on the most basic subtest items. On subsequent items he attempted he turned
nonsense words into real words and evidenced confusion with medial and/or final sounds.
On the passages measuring his reading comprehension abilities, Barrett scored at the 4.3 grade
level, the 14th percentile. His work on Passage Comprehension was quite consistent, e.g.,
success through the end of third grade level but few correct responses on subsequent items.
This subtest employs the ‘cloze’ technique where he had to read a passage with a missing word
and, based upon his understanding of the meaning of the passage, supply a word to complete
the sentence. Some of his responses were somewhat removed from the narrative which he
chose; at least partially, to read aloud. Listening to Barrett read aloud, by his choice, it was
evident that he can accurately read some words in a passage and still not have understood
exactly what the passage is about. He can also misread one word and totally lose the meaning
of the passage. When he doesn’t know, he truly does not know; further, he appears unsure what
to do in order to find out the answer (e.g., re-read the passage, decode difficult words more
carefully, etc.). It is evident from observing him that having his passage comprehension work
scrutinized so carefully was difficult for him.
27
Academic Testing Results cont’d:
On the timed Reading Fluency subtest he scored at the 5th percentile, the
Deficiency range. This subtest required him to read simple, basic sentences and
indicate whether they were ‘True’ or ‘False’. He was successful on all of the
thirty items he attempted and his score is a measure of his reading rate as opposed
to his reading accuracy. The subtest reveals that independent reading rate at
which he can perform and do so successfully.
These scores present a consistently very below average skill set in reading; at the
same time, they do not reflect the actual difficulty Barrett had in assessing and
completing the various reading tasks. In other words, Barrett can read some
words and yet fail to remember what he has read. He can read some items at a
slightly higher level while misreading items at a much more basic level. These
gaps in his reading abilities are highly significant and are likely to impact him in
all instructional areas
28
To assess his reading abilities further Barrett was administered the GSRT, a series of
graded reading passages with comprehension questions following each passage. Barrett
read silently and then answered five multiple-choice questions. He was able to read three
of the graded passages successfully with no errors on the primary level, but had errors on
the second and third grade levels. He scored at the minimum level on two more passages
before obtaining his test ceiling at the 3.8 grade level. A silent reading test, with multiple
choice items, is likely to be Barrett’s least likely task to do. When he read aloud, as on
the previous reading test, he self-corrected. Based on an analysis of his responses, he lost
the meaning of the narrative or misread the multiple-choice questions beginning at the
second grade level. His performance suggested that it would be almost impossible for
him to navigate text without content support before and during a reading task and still
obtain meaning even as basic grade levels
29
The GORT-5 was administered to measure Barrett’s oral reading and reading comprehension
abilities. He was asked to read graded passages orally and then asked questions about what
he had read. His reading rate and accuracy were both in the Deficiency range, the 4 th and 5th
percentiles. He was successful on the very most basic passages of the test but had four errors
on the third passage. He was also successful on all of the content questions. On higher level
passages his work rate decreased and his errors increased but his passage comprehension, e.g.
his answers to the content questions, were correct. By the sixth and seventh passages, the 5.6
grade levels, his reading errors were so numerous that he began to lose the meaning of the
passages and could not respond to the inquiries correctly. It is notable that Barrett can read
passages with a significant number of errors and still acquire the information presented in the
narrative. At the same time, watching him struggle with oral reading tasks revealed just how
challenging reading work with no support is for him.
30
To assess his visual processing abilities he was administered the TVP-NM, a non-motor test of visual perception.
His work was highly variable on this visual test with no memory or writing component. While much of his work
was in the Average range, the inconsistency of his performance even in areas of strength suggested that he might
not be able to count on his visual processing abilities on any particular school task. On three specific visual tasks
he had significant difficulty or very broad inconsistency of performance: Visual Memory, Visual Sequential
Memory, and Visual Form Constancy, all critical skill areas, were at the bottom of the Average range or below.
On Visual Memory, his lowest score, he was correct on the first eight items and then obtained his subtest ceiling.
His score indicates very basic short-term memory for visually presented information. On Visual SequentialMemory he scored at a higher level, the 25th percentile, but his work was inconsistently performed beginning
with the middle of the subtest though with a success on the next-to-last item. Inconsistent performance over a
broad range meant that Barrett could not depend on this skill set.
He performed similarly on Visual Form Constancy, where he had to recognize draws presented in different
positions-in-space. He was successful only on the first two items before obtaining his first error; subsequently,
he was successful on eight of the final fifteen items. This visual processing weakness over a broad skill range
meant that Barrett could not be confident that what he ‘saw’ was accurate. Since visual-perceptual processing
skills are critical for accurate performance in reading and mathematics, such weak skills hamper his ability
31 to
present a more meaningful presentation of his skills on tasks with high visual, low language support.
To assess his mathematical abilities Barrett was administered the untimed written math subtests Calculation and
the timed Math Fluency of the WJ-III. He scored at the 32nd percentile, the Average range, on Calculation but he
only attempted two-digit addition and subtraction problems when strongly encouraged to do so. He avoided
division problems and evidenced confusion on all of the problems with fractions that he attempted. His work
was consistently performed in that he only attempted problems on which he was successful, e.g. basic addition
problems and some subtraction problems. He carefully used marks that corresponded to the numbers, then
counted up the total number of marks he had made on the paper. His work suggested that he understands basic
addition but that he has no memory of basic number operations and his work displayed no math automaticity.
Barrett’s ability to solve simple addition, subtraction, and multiplication problems quickly was measured using
the Math Fluency subtest of the WJ-III. He completed thirty four single-digit addition or subtraction problems
in the three minute trial. He had one error (4-4=4), omitted one problem, erased and corrected four problems.
His work rate as well as his poor retention of math facts places him at the 2nd percentile for his age.
On the Applied Problems subtest problems were read to him while he read along from the test. He was also
allowed to use paper and pencil to solve the problems. He needed almost forty minutes to complete twentysix basic word problems and obtained a grade level score of 3.6. He worked very slowly and often worked
for several minutes and asked to have a problem repeated for the second or third time. In problem solving he
avoided multiplication, preferring to add a number multiple times, requiring extensive time. While he gave
evidence of understanding math concepts, his lack of basic math computational facts for basic use made
32all
math work laborious and fatiguing.
Barrett’s spelling work was at a very basic level. He had difficulty on basic two-syllable words (tabletadl, cooked-cuct, floor-flore, second-secnd, early-ely, rewards-rewords) and missed one item because
he did not listen carefully to the stimulus sentence (plain-plane). Some of his errors indicated that he
either did not hear the word correctly or did not remember it as presented.
On the Writing Fluency subtest he was given three stimulus words and was required to use them in a
sentence in a timed subtest lasting seven minutes. He completed eighteen basic sentences successfully
of the twenty-four he attempted, resulting in a score at the fifth-grade level. He was required to have a
complete sentence and spelling and punctuation were not a factor in his score. On one item (milk-likecold) he wrote ‘milk like the cold’. On a subsequent item (happy-rabbit-boy) he wrote boy a rabbit of
his birthday happy birthday. It’s possible to infer that he intended to write ‘The boy got a rabbit for his
birthday. Happy birthday! On another item (cat-plays-with) he apparently forgot what he was doing
and wrote ‘cat plays with’. On another with the stimulus words a-jumping-boy he wrote ‘The boy is
jumping’. These errors yield a score at the 18th percentile, the 5.2 grade level but these are not actually
‘writing’ errors. The pattern of his responses suggested that a precise memory of the task requirement
and visual-perceptual-motor processing weaknesses impacted his performance.
33
The TOWL-4 presented Barrett with a visual drawing and asked that he write a short story about what
was happening in the drawing. It was suggested that he spend five minutes thinking about and
planning his story and ten minutes writing it. Barrett looked at the picture and began writing. He
wrote twelve declarative sentences in a single paragraph without indentation or any other textual
conventions (paragraphs, questions, labeling, etc) and obtained a contextual conventions score at the
9th percentile, the Below Average range On the Story Construction component, while he wrote a very
basic, descriptive narrative, there was sufficient use of language, expression, description, and detail to
merit a score at the 25th percentile, the Low Average range. Spelling was not a consideration in scoring
although it is probable that Barrett has many words in his oral vocabulary that he would not choose to
use in a paragraph because he cannot spell them. In discussing the drawing and the incident depicted
his oral language was much more precise and detailed than anything he wrote down on paper.
He read his story aloud with some difficulty but was pleased with what he had produced. It was very
evident that he would need extended time to complete writing assignments in school and would
probably need technology support until his work rate could be improved.
34
Conclusions
Barrett Smith has been administered the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition to
assess his level of aptitude. Results indicate that his total test performance level is in the Below Average
and Deficiency range but with variability both between sections of the test as well as within specific
subtests. Overall, he revealed stronger visual-perceptual reasoning abilities, though with some scatter
in his performance. While some visual reasoning abilities were strong, his time on tasks varied
significantly and much of his work was very inconsistently performed. He was less strong on his
Working Memory work and highly variable on the Processing Speed subtests. These scores are well
below the DAS II scores from 2008 but that is not surprising since there is current research that suggest
that the DAS II is a less rigorous measure of broad cognitive skills that the WISC-IV.
His academic test performance suggests that Barrett is frequently not able to benefit from learning
situations due to inconsistencies in his performance capabilities. He revealed inconsistencies in his
reading work, in the Below Average/Deficiency ranges; depending on how a task is presented, he can
also demonstrate significant weaknesses on reading comprehension. These weaknesses and
inconsistencies are likely to cause Barrett significant difficulty since they are necessary to understand the
nature of nearly every academic task. Despite indications of aptitude, Barrett's weaknesses in critical
skill areas, e.g. visual-perceptual reasoning, working memory tasks, etc., continue to make him look less
competent in an academic setting. Skill assessments suggest that he is inconsistent in reviewing visually
presented information to scan, edit, or correct information. This makes schooling frustrating for Barrett
in that his skills are at a far more basic level than some of his intellectual reasoning abilities. It also
means that his skills are significantly below the mean of his peer group, suggesting that, while he has
continued in mainstream and supported classroom instruction, he has not progressed academically. This
is strikingly evident in his phonological skills where he continues to have difficulty decoding CVC
nonsense words, a task that is routinely mastered in kindergarten and first grade.
35
The profile that emerges is of a complex young learner with significant memory weaknesses but with
many basic skills and abilities at lower levels. This profile is consistent with the diagnosis of a Mixed
Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder ((DSM-IV 315.31), weaknesses of memory and written
expression weaknesses, DSM-IV, 315.2). There is also evidence to support the previous diagnosis of
Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (DSM-IV 314.00, Inattentive).
Considering Barrett’s schooling history and current skill levels in content areas it is evident that he will
not find success in a mainstream classroom. He requires a small group instructional program, carefully
monitored for developing executive functioning and self-management skills. He will require specific
study and task analysis strategies for instructing in reading and mathematics since he ‘owns’ few
compensatory strategies. He will require technological aides (Bookshare, Books-on-Tape, etc.) for
reading and mathematics until he can build his sight vocabulary and his automaticity with sight words as
well as math facts. Currently these are among his weakest skills and they impact both reading and higher
mathematical understandings.
Given his language deficits he will need the services of a highly enriched oral language support program,
both individually and within the classroom, in order to benefit from classroom instruction. While
extreme, it is necessary in his present circumstances as he is so far behind in terms of skills that he
cannot access content that he has the cognitive abilities to access. He should be in such classrooms for
all core academic classes.
36
He will require small-group or individualized reading instruction in a structured reading program that
could enable him to make progress. He needs to make significant gains both because he doubts his own
learning capabilities but also because he is critically behind his peer group. He needs a research-based
program that has proven successful with learners who have not found success in other reading
programs. Supplementing reading instruction he would also need significant vocabulary and word
recognition development as well as support with reading comprehension and fluency. The complexity
of his learning profile, particularly his slow word-rate on written tasks, are such that he will require
note-taking services so that he can concentrate on the oral presentation of a lecture.
It is important to remember that he has made many gains in his last years of schooling despite the low
level of some of his basic skills. It will continue to require intense skill-based schooling for him to find
success in learning and begin to believe that he is capable of success in school. Despite the basic levels
of some of his academic skills Barratt continues to work diligently in school. To find success he will
continue to require significant and intense remediation.
37
It goes without saying that all technological resources should be utilized to speed his skill
acquisition, from computer-based instruction to assistive technological resources in reading. He
would benefit from a separate evaluation of his readiness for accessing tech services. This is a
significantly complex set of recommendations but Barrett’s current status demands a serious and
concentrated response. Half-way through his public schooling career he is currently functioning at a
very basic level despite evident of average or above capabilities. To summarize, as a result of these
diagnoses, Barrett could benefit from:
- extended time to complete written tasks
- additional wait time when required to give oral responses
- structured reading instruction to improve decoding skills
- visual clues, graphic organizers, outlines to increase retention of facts and vocabulary
- reading comprehension strategies to self-monitor understanding of text
- study strategies to remember information (i.e. visualization, mnemonic devices,
associations, note taking skills)
38
As noted at the beginning of this report, it will be important to remember the difficulty
Barrett has in ‘processing’ information in terms of evaluating his performance and
understanding the scores presented in this report. In the opinion of this examiner, there is no
doubt that this work constitutes a lowered estimation of his true abilities. It would be
expected that, as he grows and develops, and with appropriate school support, he will
continue to improve in areas that are now scored as deficit areas.
Lastly, it is important to remember how Barrett handles himself in difficult learning
situations. Despite difficulties with language expression and auditory processing, he
remained engaged throughout the testing sessions, displaying a maturity and perseverance
that was remarkable given the level of difficulty he had for almost every single task.
Nothing was easy for Barrett, not listening, writing, spelling, reading, nothing. At all times
he presented as a young man of considerable substance, no matter how difficult the task
facing him, no matter how perplexed he might be initially in terms of understanding what
was being requested of him. These are, it must be said, highly admirable qualities in one so
young and one with such academic needs.
39
Recommendations:
In addition to the information presented above, the following recommendations are made for
Barrett’s academic support:
1. Barrett's processing difficulties require that modifications and adjustments be considered that
will allow him to access information in a different manner when possible (i.e. use of tape
recorders, note-takers, multi-sensory instruction, pre-learning language explanations of the
learning task, etc.); further, that he continue to develop his keyboarding and computer-based
learning skills.
2. That whenever possible, visual clues be presented with any auditory information to increase
the likelihood that Barrett will process and record the information correctly.
3. That Barrett repeat directions for a task to himself and that he use a timer to heighten his
awareness of the amount of time he has to complete a task. This increases the likelihood of his
attention to the information presented.
4. That Barrett receive extended time (.50) on classroom and standardized tests, that he have a
reader during tests to ensure that he understands test instructions and content, and that he be
allowed untimed testing on written tasks or be permitted a reader who can record his oral
dictation. His teachers should be aware of his slow writing abilities and permit oral responses
whenever possible.
40
5. That close contact be maintained between Barrett’s family and the school to support his
performance. Close monitoring is helpful in monitoring the requirements of his courses and helping
him meet the specific demands of each assignment (i.e. completing individual units each week, etc.).
6. That on homework tasks Barrett place himself in a structured independent work routine with a
specified time for work and then a review of the material completed. A timer is a useful tool to help
pace and structure work periods. The timer is set for a task; after that time, Barrett checks his work
and resets the timer for a second or third period if necessary. This encourages him to remain focused
during the specified time and allows him to take short breaks in between periods.
7. That Barrett's family purchase his textbooks to enable him to underline, highlight, and make notes
in the margin when studying and for test review.
8. That Barrett learn a system of making notes in the margins of his books as he reads to help him
remain focused on the critical information presented.
41
9. That Barrett "overlearn" material that will be covered in any type of testing situation. This will
enable him to retrieve information more quickly regardless of the test format.
10. That Barrett use an iPad or a tape recorder or other memory device as a study tool for reading,
e.g. recording verbal comments on the narrative, content notes re the plot, etc., as well as taping
discussions on a topic in class. This encourages him to attend to the information as well as providing
auditory feedback as he reviews the material from the tape.
11. That computer assisted instruction be employed in both his school and home-schooling
program to aid attention to tasks as well as provide drill and practice with skill-building in
mathematics, developing sight vocabulary skills, and continue to develop his phonological processing
capabilities.
12. That Barrett’s parents consider a medical consultation to review supports for his attentionconcentration and memory/processing difficulties.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
“Neurons that fire together, survive
together, and wire together”
(D. Siegel, The Developing Mind, 2000)
62
Contact Information
Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D.
Professor, The George Washington University,
Washington, D.C.
[email protected]
63
References
Adams, Marilyn, Foorman, Barbara, Lundeberg, Ingram and Beeler, Terri . 1988.
Phonemic Awareness in Young Children. Baltimore, MD. Paul R. Brookes Publishing.
Alloway, T.P., Gathercole, S.E., & Pickering, S.J. (2006). Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working
memory in children: Are they separable? Child Development, 77(6), 1698-1716.
Archibald, L.M.D., & Gathercole, S.E. (2006). Visuospatial immediate memory in specific language
impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 265-277.
Baddeley, A. (2003). Working memory and language: An overview. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 36, 189-208.
Baddeley, A., & Hitch, G.J. (2000). Development of working memory: Should the Pascual-Leone and the
Baddeley and Hitch models be merged? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 128-137.
Birsh, Judith. 2005. Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills, Second Edition. Baltimore, MD.
Paul R. Brookes Publishing.
Carreker and Birsh. 2005. The Multisensory Teaching of Basic Language Skills Activity Book. Baltimore,
MD. Paul R. Brookes Publishing.
64
References
Cowan N. (1996). Short-term memory, working memory, and their importance in language processing.
Topics in Language Disorders, 17(1),, 1-18.
Cowan, N., & Kail, R. (1996). Covert processes and their development in short-term memory. In S.E.
Gathercole (Ed.) Models of short-term memory. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, pp. 29-50.
Ewers, C.A., & Brownson, S.M. (1999). Kindergarteners’ vocabulary acquisition as a function of active
vs. passive storybook reading, prior vocabulary, and working memory. Journal of Reading
Psychology, 20, 11-20.
Garnett, Kaye. 1998. LD Online: Math Learning Disabilities.
Gathercole, S.E. (1998). The development of memory. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 39,
3-27.
Gathercole, S.E. (2004). Working memory and learning during the school years. Proceedings of the
British Academy, 125, 365-380.
Gathercole, S.E., & Allowy, T.P. (2006). Practitioner review: Short-term and working memory
impairments in neurodevelopmental disorders: Diagnosis and remedial support. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 4-15.
65
References
Gathercole, S.E., Alloway, T.P., Willis, C., & Adams, A.M. (2006). Working memory in children with
reading disabilities. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 265-281.
Gathercole, S.E., & Hitch, G.J. (1993). Developmental changes in short-term meory: A revised working
memory perspective. In A. Collins, S.E. Gathercole, M.A. Conway, & P.E. Morris (Eds.), Theories of
memory. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press, pp. 73-100.
Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S.J., Ambridge, B., & Wearing, H. (3004). The structure of working memory
from 4 to 15 years of age. Developmental Psychology, 40(2), 177-190.
Gathercole, S.E., Pickering, S.J., Knight, C., & Stegmann, Z. (2004). Working memory skills and
educational attainment: Evidence from national curriculum assessments at 7 and 14 years of age.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18, 1-16.
Gibson, Ken. 2007. Unlock the Einstein Inside: Applying New Brain Science to Wake Up the Smart in
Your Child.
Gillam, R.B. (1998). Memory and language impairment in children and adults. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen
Publication.
66
References
Hebb,D.O. (1949). The organization of behavior. New York: Wiley.
Hitch, J.G., Halliday, M.S., Schaafstal, A.M., & Schragen, J.M.C. (1988). Visual working memory in
young children. Memory and Cognition, 16, 120-132.
Hulme, C., Muir, C., Thompson, N., & Lawrence, A. (1984). Speech rate and the development of shortterm memory span. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 241-253.
Kail,R., & Park, Y.-S. (1994). Processing time, articulation time, and memory span. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 57, 281-291.
Kail, R.V., & Salthouse, S. (1994). Processing time, articulation, SSSSS Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, XXXX
Karatekin, C. (2004). A test of the integrity of the components of Baddeley’s model of working memory
in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
45(5), 912-926.
Klingberg, Torkel. 2006. Interview Cogmed Working Memory Training and Robo Memo. Cogmed.com
67
References
Leonard, L., Weismer, S.E., Miller, C.A., Francis, D.J., Tomblin, J.B., Kail, R.V. (2007). Speed of
processing, working memory and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 50, 408-428.
Levine, M.D. 2002. Educational Care: A System for Understanding and Helping Children with Learning
Differences at Home and in School, 2nd Ed. Educators Publishing Service. Cambridge, MA.
Leonard, L.B., Weismer, S.E>, Miller, C.A., Francis, D.J., Tomblin, J.B., & Kail, R.V. (2007). Speed of
processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research 50, 408-424>
Levine, M.D. (1993). Developmental variation and learning disorders. Cambridge, MA: Educators
Publishing Service, Inc.
Luciana, M., Conglin, H.M., Hooper, C.J., & Yarger, R.S. (2005). The development of nonverbal working
memory and executive control processes in adolescents. Child Development, 76(3), 697-712.
Lyon, G.R., & Krasnegor, N.A. (1996). Attention, Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Moats, Louisa. 2000. Speech to Print. Paul R. Brookes Publishing. Baltimore, MD.
68
References
Montgomery, J.W., & Windsor, J. (2007). Examining the language performances of children with and
without specific language impairment: Contributions of phonological short-term memory and speed
of processing. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 778-797.
Pascual-Leone,J., & Baillargeon, (1994). Developmental measure of mental attention. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 17, 161-200.
Pickering, S.J., & Gathercole, S.E. (2004). Distinctive working memory profiles in children with special
educational needs. Educational Psychology, 24(3), 393-408.
Reeves, D., & Wedding, D. (1994). The clinical assessment of memory. New York: Springer Publishing
Company.
Richards, Regina. 2003. The Source for Learning and Memory Strategies. Lingusystems. East Moline, IL.
Shaywitz, Sally. 2003. Overcoming Dyslexia. Alfred A. Knopf. New York, New York.
Siegel, D. 2000. The Developing Mind. Speech given at the Learning Brain Expo. San Diego, CA.
Squire, L.R. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University Press.
69
References
Stuss, D.T., & Knight, R.T. (2002). Principals of frontal lobe function. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Torgesen, J.K. (1996). A model of memory from an information processing perspective. In G.R. Lyon
and N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention, Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD: Paul H.
Brookes Publishing Company. 157-186l
Tulving, E. (2002). Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1), 1-25.
Wagner, R.K. (1996). From simple structure to complex function: Major trends in the development of
theories, models, and measurements of memory. In G.R. Lyon and N.A. Krasnegor (Eds.), Attention,
Memory, and Executive Function. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company. 139-156.
Weismer, S.E., Evans, J., & Hesketh, L. J. (1999). An examination of verbal working memory capacity in
chidlren with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Reseearch,
42, 1249-1260.
70
References
Programs:
Read Naturally www.ReadNaturally.com
Braingym. www.braingym.com
Cogmed. www.cogmed.com
Interactive Metronome. www.interactivemetronome.com
71
References
• The WISC-IV Companion: a Guide to Interpretation and Educational Intervention,
by Stephen Truch (ISBN 1416400664)
• WISC-IV Clinical Use and Interpretation: Scientist-Practitioner Perspectives
by Aurelio Prifitera and Donald Saklofske, Editors (ISBN: 0125649312)
• Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment, Dana Flanagan, Alan Kaufman (ISBN 0471476919)
Michael S. Castleberry, Ed.D., Professor of Special Education,
George Washington University
Dr. Joan A. Mele-McCarthy, Head of School
The Summit School, Edgewater, MD
72
Memory Assessment Instruments
Bibliography
BRIEF (Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function), (Working Memory Index),
Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.,16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida, 33549
California Verbal Learning Test-Children’s Version, (Free and Cued Recall subtests),
Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.,16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida, 33549
Children’s Memory Scale, Harcourt Assessment, Inc, 19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, Texas
78259
Test of Visual-Perceptual Skills, Revised, (Visual Memory and Visual Sequential Memory
subtests), Academic Therapy Publications, 20 Commercial Boulevard, Novato, CA 94949-6191
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition, Psychological Corporation, Harcourt
Assessment, Inc, 19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, Texas 78259
73
Memory Assessment Instruments
Bibliography
Weshcler Memory Scale, Third Edition, Psychological Corporation, Harcourt
Assessment, Inc,
19500 Bulverde Road, San Antonio, Texas 78259
Woodcock-Robbyson Achievement Battery, Third Edition, (selected subtests:
Story Recall, Story Recall Delayed,
Understanding Directions), Riverside Publishing, 3800 Golf Road, Rolling
Meadows, IL 60008
Woodcock-Robbyson Cognitive Battery, Third Edition, (selected subtests: VisualAuditory Learning, V-A Learning
Delayed, Retrieval Fluency, Memory for Names, Memory for Names Delayed,
Numbers Reversed, Auditory Working
Memory, Memory for Words, Memory for Sentences), Riverside Publishing,
3800 Golf Road, Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
74
Memory Assessment Instruments
Bibliography
Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests, Revised, (Visual-Auditory Learning subtest),
NCSC Pearson Inc., PO Box 1416,
Minneapolis, MN, 55440
Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning, Second Edition,
Psychological Assessment Resources,
Inc.,16204 North Florida Avenue, Lutz, Florida, 33549
75