How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists (or how to collaborate besides using a staple) Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP Jacquelyn.

How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists (or how to collaborate besides using a staple) Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP Jacquelyn O’Connor, MA Jacqueline Butera, MA College of Saint Rose, Albany NY

Goals of Presentation Change how we approach assessment
Review the Federal Law Define CHC and Cultural Linguistic Demands How to assemble a Cross Battery Assessment How it impacts recommendations and interventions Show how we do the same or nearly the same tests Writing a Comprehensive SLP SP report Open up communication between SP’s and SLP’s

What are we doing? After you've done a thing the same way for two years, look it over carefully. After five years, look at it with suspicion. And after ten years, throw it away and start all over. (Perlman, 1958)

THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE MALPRACTICE OF TOMORROW
What are we doing? THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE MALPRACTICE OF TOMORROW (Reynolds, 2009)

We like RtI Terrific Model for Early Intervention/Prevention
No more Wait to Fail Early intervention lowers the risk of academic difficulty in the future Helps identify those who suffer from dispedagogia rather than a possible learning disability General Education movement Break down the walls between Spec Ed and Gen Ed. Teach everyone not just the middle Focus on the resources we have, not what we don’t have.

YAY RtI Allow me to do more than just test!
We are not psychometricians, we are psychologists (no matter what APA may say) Gets me more involved in academics Pushes school psychologists to understand what is reading, writing, math, etc. We can actually use our consultation skills

Questions RtI still needs to answer
How long for interventions How many interventions Differences between schools (even within districts) Reliability and Validity RtI only answers WHAT is happening, not WHY (especially at Tier III)

Comprehensive Assessment
Can give us a better sense of the WHY? CHC, PASS, CHT, etc. Is NOT Discrepancy Analysis It is invasive Is no longer trying to find ‘g’ Should be based on research and confirmatory data. Based on contemporary research

Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a Single Approach, Consider an “Open Mind” Proposal
Understand the benefits and limitations of RTI (Special Issue of Learning and Individual Differences; Compton, 2008) Understand that the “promise of RTI swamps the evidence” for it at this time (Speece & Walker, 2007, p. 287) Understand the benefits and limitations of contemporary cognitive assessment (Flanagan, Kaufman, Kaufman, & Lichtenberger, 2008) Understand that Tier II nonresponders are not well understood in terms of a) how they differ from responders; and b) the types of treatments/interventions that may be more or less successful for them (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2008) Consider “third option” approaches to SLD Identification (Hale, Flanagan, & Naglieri, 2008; McCloskey, 2007) – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.

Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a Single Approach, Consider an “Open Mind” Proposal
Entertain the idea that RTI and cognitive assessment can occur on a continuum Try not to blame psychological tests, but rather the people who use them inappropriately Understand that you must do what your state requires for SLD identification but you can add to those requirements in a manner that approaches best practices (Zirkel, 2008) Understand that neither RTI nor any other approach to SLD identification is a panacea – so don’t endorse any approach as a cure-all Entertain the idea that a balanced approach may be the best approach at this time – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.

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. – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.

The American Educational System Structure
Gen. Ed. Turfdom Conflicting Programs Lack of coordination bureaucracy for sake of bureaucracy Student grouping not instructionally based Rigidity, rules Redundancy SPED Gifted Title I Migrant At-Risk ESL K-12 Education

School Psychologist and Speech Language Pathologists
Turfdom Lack of coordination Redundancy Speech Language Pathologist SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST

Shared office, separate lives
For many initial evaluations, the school psychologist and the speech language pathologist are asked to do an assessment The assessments often happen in isolation of one another Little to no discussion about what abilities are to be tapped Every kid, no matter what the issue, gets the same battery of tests The SP and SLP share results at CSE as separate voices rather than one.

Shared Office, Separate lives
SLP’s and SP’s will do the same tests without knowing it We report on the same issues without reading each others report Expect parents and teachers to consolidate our findings Reports are filled with numbers and not information Multiple reports connected by a staple.

ASHA Guidelines for Assessment and Evaluation
Assessment should be based on multiple sources of information to obtain a comprehensive picture of the child's functioning. (Division of Early Childhood, 2007) No single measure can provide sufficient information; therefore, assessment data should reflect multiple perspectives (ASHA, 2000) In addition to the use of various tools, assessment practices should include consultation with team members. (ASHA, 2005, 2008b) Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)

ASHA Guidelines for Assessment and Evaluation
Emphasize the importance of professionals working as a team for assessment and service provision (DEC, 2007) Assessment should provide information to inform program planning and intervention decisions. go beyond the determination of eligibility for services to include the gathering of information that will be useful in making decisions for effective intervention planning. (ASHA, 2005) Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)

Traditional System Issues
CASE 1: THIRD GRADER READING DIFFICULTY WISC WIAT

CASE 2: SEVENTH GRADER WRITING DIFFICULTY WISC WIAT

CASE 3: FIRST GRADER MATH DIFFICULTY WISC WIAT

Traditional System issues
Little emphasis on early intervention and prevention False Positives and False Negatives IQ-Achievement Discrepancy – BAD (Identifying CHC Abilities, using consistency GOOD!) IEP’s did not implement scientifically based instruction Start program in September, find out if effective in May Overrepresentation of cultural/linguistic minorities in special education Stop Retention and Social Promotion More concern about being in compliance than child’s educational success – THE FORGOTTEN GOAL Within Student vs. Within System Darn those lazy kids. I sat them in the room for a half hour and nothing happened.

Traditional Systems Issue
THIRD GRADE REFERRAL

THE EARLIER THE INTERVENTION OF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTY
BREAKING NEWS THE EARLIER THE INTERVENTION THE LOWER THE RISK OF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTY IN THE FUTURE

Related to Traditional Assessment?
Huge Increases in Identification From 1976 to 2002 the classification of children with specific learning disabilities increased 300% President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education July 1, 2002 Inconsistencies in Identification % of identified children in Utah were ED, the ED rate in CA was 2.5 % of identified children Forness & Kavale, 1990

Related to the Traditional Model?
Cultural Bias African American students are twice as likely as whites to be labeled MR and 50% more likely to be designated as emotionally disturbed (A New Era 2002, Gresham, 2002) Reading Failure 80% of of those with SLD (40-53% of all Sp Ed students) are there because they haven’t learned how to read

Related to the Traditional Model?
6 million children currently in special education Federal funding is 8.5 billion dollars Placement in special education programs most often result in little gain or negative outcomes (A New Era 2002)

Over thirty years of research has provided support for the termination of discrepancy as a way of identifying learning disabilities

Validity – If discrepancy is true then…..
Learning disability is result of unexpected low achievement. Also implies that children with unexpected low achievement (LD) are distinct from expected low achievement (i.e., low achievement and low intelligence).

Assessment: Past & Future
Traditional Model Definitional Concerns Discrepancy based models Wait to fail Disconnection of assessments Model of the Future Preventative approach Validated Models Response to Intervention CHC XBA (putting the why in RTI) Comprehensive Evaluations

What are some of the details of the Federal Law?
IDEIA What are some of the details of the Federal Law?

IQ achievement discrepancy no longer required
RTI may be used AS A PART of the evaluation… but not as sole method

“use a variety of assessment tools”
“not use any single procedure” “assess cognitive factors”

non discriminatory assessments
valid and reliable assessment

Definition of SLD remains the same
IDEIA 2004 Law 34

New York’s Response

NYS Learning Disability Definition Past and Present
A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifests itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected achievement and actual achievement determined on an individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning disability [**language repealed**] 36

ALRIGHT ALREADY! TALK ABOUT CHC!

Any Overall or Global Score
What is it? What is it made of? Does it really mean anything? Does it mean anything in relation to intervention? It’s the parts that make the whole It’s the parts that will identify the strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning

Breaking up is not so hard to do
It is using research can we identify the parts of ‘g’ that impact learning Through the CHC model we can identify the subtests that measure various parts of ‘g’ Through Cross Battery, we can create a full evaluation that connects the pieces which can describe the whole child.

The CHC Cross-Battery Approach
Definition: The CHC Cross-Battery Approach is a time-efficient method of intellectual assessment that allows practitioners to measure validly a wider range (or a more in-depth but selected range) of cognitive abilities than that represented by any one intelligence battery in a manner consistent with contemporary psychometric theory and research on the structure of intelligence.

Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S. O. (2001)
Flanagan, D.P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley & Sons.

One Battery Does Not Fit All
Given that no individual battery contains sufficient indicators of all of the major CHC abilities, a cross battery approach has been developed to bridge the gap between theory and practice. Do more than simply choose another battery and give the whole darn thing. Be specific.

Comprehension-Knowledge
Gc Comprehension-Knowledge The breadth and depth of knowledge of a culture The ability to communicate one’s knowledge (especially verbally) The ability to reason using previously learned knowledge or procedures Originally described as “crystallized intelligence” “Jeopardy” players have waaaay too much Gc. Includes Listening Skills and Oral Communication.

Gf Fluid Reasoning Novel reasoning and problem solving that depend minimally on learning and acculturation Ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems that often include novel information or procedures Induction & deduction are hallmarks of Gf Impacts math reasoning, reading comprehension, higher level thinking The first few times you do Soduku, you are using your Fluid Reasoning. After you learn the trick, it becomes crystallized knowledge (Gc)

Long-term (Storage &) Retrieval
Glr Long-term (Storage &) Retrieval Ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later Ability to retrieve from file cabinet Not to be confused with acquired stores of knowledge (Gc) There has to be an intervening event. Can mean retrieving information learned several seconds earlier. Not long term memory Includes Rapid Naming, Meaningful Memory, Associative memory All contestants on Jeopardy have good Gc, but those who are more effective at retrieving the info do better.

Ga Auditory Processing
Ability to analyze, synthesize, & discriminate auditory stimuli Ability to perceive and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions Not to be confused with an “auditory learner” or how well someone hears. Can be hearing impaired and still have good Ga Includes Phonemic Awareness

Is it All About Phonological Processing?
“In the area of reading, a model suggesting that phonological deficits fully account for reading problems in virtually all children is now being amended (Snowling, 2008)” “Today, we are witnessing many children whose phonological skills have been remediated, and remediated well, and who continue to struggle to read fluently and with comprehension (Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008)” From Shaywitz and Reynolds (2009)

Gsm Short-term Memory Ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds 7 chunks of information (+ /– 3) Working Memory and Memory Span Working Memory is key in most academic areas.

Gs Processing Speed Ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention Attentive speediness Usually measured by tasks that require rapid cognitive processing but little thinking Card sorting, game of Perfection

Visual-Spatial Thinking
Gv Visual-Spatial Thinking Ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize and think with visual patterns Ability to store and recall visual representations Fluent thinking with stimuli that are visual in the “mind’s eye” Not to be confused with a “visual learner” or how well does someone see. Can be visually impaired and still have good Gv

Supporting Evidence for CHC theory
Structural – Evidence from over 50 years of factor analytic studies Outcome Criterion – Evidence of differential relationships between diff. CHC abilities and external outcomes (i.e. reading, occupation, math, etc.) Neurocognitive – Links between CHC measures and neurological functioning Heritability – Differential heritability for different CHC abilities (i.e. Spatial relations vs. Visual Memory) Developmental – Different patterns of growth and decline across the life span (i.e. Gc vs. Gsm)

IQ – Not so smart What is it? What is it made of?
Does it really mean anything? Does it exist? Does it mean anything in relation to intervention? IQ can no longer mean Wechsler FSIQ It’s the parts that make the whole It’s the parts that will identify the strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning

THE WISC AND CHC

Working Memory Index WMI Processing Speed Index
WISC-IV Composition INDEX SUBTESTS CHC Verbal Comprehension Index VCI Similarities Gc Vocabulary Gc FULL SCALE IQ (FSIQ) Comprehension Gc Word Reasoning Gc Information Gc Perceptual Reasoning Index PRI Block Design Gv Picture Concepts Gc/Gf Matrices Gf Picture Completion Gv/Gc Letter Number Sequencing Gsm Working Memory Index WMI Digit Span Gsm Arithmetic Gq Coding Gs Processing Speed Index PSI Symbol Search Gs Cancellation Gs

SO WHY DO A CHC EVAL Almost all new versions of cognitive batteries are based in CHC Stunning since CHC came out only 10 years ago Don’t waste time with unnecessary tests between our two evals and within our individual evals. Shooting with the LIGHTS ON Legally defensible. Less lawsuits. Parents and educators actually understand our reports and appreciate knowing why the child is struggling. Empowering for everyone!

Cross Battery is THEORY/RESEARCH focused
NOT KIT FOCUSED REMEMBER: USE THEORY AND RESEARCH TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY.

Let’s go through the steps!

Presumption of Normalcy
Assessment should be driven by presumptions of normalcy rather than pre-conceptions of dysfunction. In the absence of any gross physiological trauma or developmental dysfunction, and given a history of appropriate and sufficient instruction and opportunity to learn, it is expected that an individual undergoing LD assessment will perform within normal limits on WJ III tests (i.e., standard scores of 90 to 110, inclusive). Determination as to whether or not this hypothesis is supported involves comparing an examinee’s performance to the WJ III norm sample. 58 58

STEP 1: REASON FOR REFERRAL
Individualize your assessment batteries. Don’t give WISC/WIAT/TOLD to every single kid who is referred. Know what cognitive/language abilities impact the specific academic concern Rule out exclusionary factors

Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006) see also Kevin McGrew’s website:

Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD Patterns: Ages 6-8
Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Ga Auditory Glr Long-Term Retrieval Basic Reading Skills Reading Comp Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Ga Auditory Glr Long-Term Retrieval Basic Math Skills Gf Fluid Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Glr Long-Term Retrieval Gf Fluid Intelligence Gc Crystallized Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Math Reasoning

STEP 2: CHOOSE A CORE BATTERY
If you need an overall g, you have to do all the core tests. If not, then you can just do the ones that are related to the reason for referral. Not all cognitive batteries address the same cognitive areas. Need to know what the tests are actually measuring.

Evaluation of Cognitive Abilities Mascolo (2004)
Evaluation of Cognitive Abilities Mascolo (2004). Published in Flanagan & Kaufman (2004) Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment. Wiley Broad WISC-IV KABC-II WJ III COG Gf Picture Concepts (I) Matrix Reasoning (I) Word Reasoning (I) Pattern Reasoning (I, Gv-Vz) Story Completion (I, RG, Gc-K0) Concept Formation (I) Analysis Synthesis (RG) Gc Similarities (LD & VL), Vocabulary (VL) Comp. (K0), Picture Concepts (K0) Picture Completion (K0) Information (K0), Word Reasoning (VL) Riddles (VL, LD, Gf-RG) Expressive Vocab. (VL) Verbal Know. (VL, K0) Verbal Comp. (VL & LD) General Info. (K0) Ga -- See KTEA-II Incomplete Words (PC:A) Sound Blend. (PC:S) Auditory Att. (US/U3, UR) Gv Block Design (SR) Picture Completion (CF) Conceptual Thinking (Vz, Gf-I) Block Counting (Vz, Gq-A3) Face Recog. (MV), Triangles (SR, Vz) Rover (SS, Gf-RG, Gq-A3) Gestalt Closure (CS) Spatial Relations (Vz & SR) Picture Recognition (MV) Gsm Digit Span (MS & MW) Letter-# Sequencing (MW) Word Order (MS, WM) Number Recall (MS) Hand Mvmts. (MS, Gv-MV) Memory for Words (MS) Numbers Rev. (MW) Auditory Work. Mem.(MW) Glr Atlantis (MA & L1) Rebus (MA) Atlantis Delayed (MA, L1) Rebus Delayed (MA, L1) Visual Aud. Learning (MA & MM) Vis.-Aud. Delayed (MA) Retrieval Fluency (FI & FA) Rapid Pic. Nam. (NA) Gs Coding (R9) Symbol Search (P & R9) Cancellation (P & R9) See KTEA-II Fluency tests Visual Matching (P & R9) Decision Speed (R4) Gq Arithmetic (A3)

The Step-by-Step CB Approach
Identify the CHC abilities that are represented adequately on the core battery Review the CHC Cross-Battery Worksheets Identify the CHC abilities that are not represented or are underrepresented on the core battery and select tests to approximate/ensure adequate representation of these abilities

Guiding Principles Gf Gf Inductive Reas. Deduct. Reas. Inductive Reas.
Broad or Narrow test interpretation? Guiding Principles Gf Gf Broad Battery A contains two qualitatively different indicators that can be combined to represent a broad ability cluster I RG I Narrow Battery B contains two qualitatively similar indicators that can be combined to represent a narrow ability cluster Inductive Reas. Deduct. Reas. Inductive Reas. Inductive Reas.

STEP 3: CHOOSE A SUPPLEMENTAL
Identify the Absence or Underrepresentation – Supplement your core with subtests from another battery (Hence the title CROSS BATTERY) Find Supplemental tests keep the number of batteries to a minimum (preferably two) Use confidence bands to identify what has been measured

This is where SP and SLP can get together and see what should be done next. How can we supplement rather than duplicate

CHC Abilities Related to Basic Reading Skills and Reading Comprehension in Children Ages 6-8 Years
Ga Gs Gsm Glr Important Broad CHC Abilities Important Narrow CHC Abilities LD VL PC US P MW MA NA Co-normed KABC-II Non. Wrd Dcd Verbal Know. Phon. Aware. Timed Wrd Rec Timed NWD Word Order Fluency KTEA-II Riddles Atlantis Rebus RAN Supplemental WJ III Aud. Attent. WJ III Gs Cluster WJ III WM Cluster CTOPP = Strongest and most consistent significant relation = Consistent significant relation

STEP 4: MAKE SCORES COMMUNICATE
Convert Scaled Scores into Standard Scores See handout If crossing batteries, find Cluster Average. Need to understand Confidence Intervals If the Cluster score on one battery adequately measures a Broad Ability, use that score rather than averaging.

STEP 5: INTERPRET TOGETHER
Combine our perspectives, knowledge, and clinical understandings to better understand the child. Are we talking a language deficit or a cognitive deficit or both? To heck with IEP DIRECT It’s time to be detectives. Follow the clues/data Confirmatory data should support any conclusions.

Look at CONSISTENCY Not DISCREPANCY

Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002)
Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data Subtests = + 7 Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5 -1 SEM 68 % +1 SEM Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite( ) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _) Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ ( ) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ ( ) Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __( ) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________( ) Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ ( ) Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___) Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod( ) Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___) Glr Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___) Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___) Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc. Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) _________________(___)

CHC domain Lexical Gc Deficit Gsm Glr/Gs Rapid Naming Deficit Ga
Fletcher et al., (2002). Subtypes of reading disability based on phonological awareness (PA), rapid naming (RN), and vocabulary skills. Working memory is not depicted, but would also be a subtyping dimension CHC domain Lexical Deficit Gc Gsm Glr/Gs Rapid Naming Deficit Phonological Deficit Ga Subtype PA Only PA & RN PA & RN, Lex Global Language RN Only

Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand
Flanagan & Ortiz (2001) Assessment of Diverse Children: Dimensions of Standardized Tests Related to Bias Tests are culturally loaded: the majority of tests used by psychologists were developed and normed in U.S. and inherently reflect native anthropological content as well as the culturally bound conceptualizations of the test developers themselves. Many tests require specific prior knowledge of and experience with mainstream U.S. culture Tests require language (communication): linguistic factors affect administration, comprehension, responses, and performance on virtually all tests. Even nonverbal tests that reduce oral language requirements continue to rely on effective communication between examiner and examinee in order to measure optimal performance Tests vary on both dimensions: Tests vary significantly with respect to the degree that they are culturally loaded as well as the degree of language required Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand Low Moderate High

PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED PERFORMANCE MOST AFFECTED
Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Bias in Test Validity and Interpretation (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001) Pattern of Expected Performance of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING LOW MODERATE HIGH LOW INCREASING EFFECT OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED MODERATE PERFORMANCE MOST AFFECTED INCREASING EFFECT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCE HIGH (COMBINED EFFECT OF CULTURAL & LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES)

Letter-Number Sequencing
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND Culture and Language Matrix developed by Flanagan and Ortiz (2001) and found in Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment. Wiley LOW MODERATE HIGH Matrix Reasoning Cancellation Hand Movements Face Recognition Pattern Reasoning Triangles Atlantis Atlantis – Delayed Rebus - Delayed Block Design Symbol Search Digit Span Coding Block Counting Rover Number Recall Rebus Letter-Number Sequencing Arithmetic Picture Concepts Word Order Conceptual Thinking H I GH Picture Completion Gestalt Closure Information Similarities Vocabulary Comprehension Word Reasoning Story Completion Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Verbal Knowledge DEGRE E OF CU L T URA LOAD I NG *The culture-language classifications for the WISC-IV and KABC-II are preliminary. Expert consensus studies are underway.

CHC Culture-Language Matrix Worksheet (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001)
Name of Examinee: _________________________ Age: _______ Grade: _______ Date: _____________ LOW MODERATE HIGH Test Name: Score: ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ Cell Average = ______ __________________________(______) H I GH ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING

Let’s talk about how to talk to our speech language colleagues

Why Combine SLPs measure many of the same abilities SPs do
eg. Short Term Memory - Digits forward Makes sense as the Broad Abilities impact learning Don’t repeat testing Share different expertise and perspective on data. Accuracy of diagnosis Accuracy of intervention/intervention development

Saving Time Reduce number of subtests administered Report Writing
Based on referral Based on research Report Writing No more staple – Comprehensive Report Combine results and perspectives Parents don’t have to mix and match Feedback or IEP meetings Stop saying the same thing in different languages

LET’S TALK ABOUT Speech and Language Batteries

Test of Language Development- Primary & Intermediate Versions: Fourth Edition (TOLD-4)
designed specifically to assess children’s receptive and expressive spoken language competences Published in 2008 Ages 4-0 through 8-11; 8-0 through 17-11 6 core subtests, 3 supplemental (Primary Version) 35 minutes to 50 minutes administration time normative sample characteristics based on sample conformed to U.S school-age population census data

Rationale assess children’s expressive and receptive competencies in the major components of linguistics identify children who are significantly below their peers in language proficiency determine children’s specific strengths and weaknesses in language skills (composite indexes are Listening, Organizing, Speaking, Grammar, Semantics, and Spoken Language) document children’s progress in language as a consequence of special intervention programs

TOLD-P:4 subtest organization
Linguistic Systems Linguistic Features Listening (receptive) Organizing (integrating-mediating) Speaking (expressive) Semantics Picture Vocabulary Relational Oral Syntax Syntactic Understanding Sentence Imitation Morphological Completion Phonology Word Discrimination Phonemic Analysis Articulation

TOLD-I:4 subtest organization
Linguistic Systems Linguistic Features Listening (receptive) Organizing (integrating-mediating) Speaking (expressive) Semantics Picture Vocabulary Relational Multiple Meanings Grammar Morphological Comprehension Word Ordering Sentence Combining

Semantic Subtests “…study of the meaning of language; relationship between language and thought.” (P/I) Picture Vocabulary (Gc-VL) (P/I) Relational Vocabulary (Gc-LD) (P) Oral Vocabulary (Gc-VL) (I) Multiple Meanings (Gc-VL/LD)

Syntactic/Grammar Subtests
“…the structure of the language (order and organization among words that determine the relationships between sound patterns and meaning through the formation of sentences). (P) Syntactic Understanding (Gc LS) (P) Sentence Imitation (Gsm MS) (I) Sentence Combining (Gc LD; Gsm MW) (I) Morphological Completion (Gc MY) (I) Morphological Comprehension (Gc MY) (I) Word Ordering (Gc LD)

Phonological Subtests
“…the sound system of language (most important component is phonemics, the study of significant speech sounds).” (P) Word Discrimination (Ga US/U3) (P) Phonemic Analysis (Ga PC:A) (P) Word Articulation (Ga PC:S)

Redundancy WJ-III WISC-IV/WIATIII TOLD-P:4 Time to Administer
Picture Vocabulary 5 min. Vocabulary Oral Vocabulary 10 min. Receptive Voc (WIAT III) Syntactic Understanding connected Sentence Mem (wiat iii) Sentence Imitation Auditory Attention Word Discrimination Sound Awareness Phonemic Analysis Word Articulation Similarities Relational Vocabulary Morphological Completion

Test of Auditory Processing Skills – 3rd Edition (TAPS-3)
Published in 2005 Ages 4-18 9 subtests; 1-hour administration Normed on 2,000+ students Individual subtest scores & cluster scores

Rationale Ability to comprehend auditory information
Provide the information necessary to assess the auditory processing related to cognitive and communicative aspects of language Assess the auditory skills necessary for the development, use, & understanding of language Ability to comprehend auditory information

Three Major Indices Basic Phonemic Skills (3 subtests)
Assessment of basic phonological abilities Auditory Memory (4 subtests) Measures basic memory processes III. Auditory Cohesion (2 subtests) Higher order skills

Basic Phonemic Skills “Provide quick assessments of very basic phonological abilities that allow one to discriminate between sounds within words, segment words into morphemes, and blend phonemes into words” Word Discrimination (Ga-US/U3) Phonological Segmentation (Ga-PC:A) Phonological Blending (Ga-PC:S) Overall, a strong measure of Ga

Auditory Memory “Measures basic memory processes,
including sequencing” Number Memory Forward (Gsm-MS) Number Memory Reversed (Gsm-MW) Word Memory (Gsm-MS) Sentence Memory (Gsm-MS) “Basic memory” is really Gsm, and primarily Memory Span

Auditory Cohesion “Higher order linguistic skill that requires the student not only to understand exactly what is said, but also to be able to use inferences, deductions, and abstractions to understand the meaning of a passage” Auditory Comprehension (Gc-LS) Auditory Reasoning (Gc-KO) Not so much “reasoning” as it is Gc

Redundancy WJ-III/WISC-IV TAPS-3 Time to Administer Sound Blending
Phonological Blending 10 min. Auditory Attention Word Discrimination Numbers Reversed Number Memory Reversed 5 min. Memory for Words Word Memory Sound Awareness Phonological Segmentation Sentence Mem (WIAT III) Sentence Memory Auditory Comprehension Auditory Reasoning Digit Span Numbers Forward

Redundancy for CELF-4 CELF -4 Time to Administer WJ/WISC/WIAT
Understanding Directions Concepts/Following Directions 10 min. Sentence recall Recalling Sentence 5 min. Similarities Word Classes Picture Vocab Expressive Voc Vocabulary Word Definitions Story Recall Understanding Spoken Paragraph Sound Awareness Phonological Awareness Retrieval Fluency Word Associations Digit Span Number Rep 1 & 2

Primary and Intermediate
MAJOR SPEECH LANGUAGE BATTERIES Broad CELF – 4 TOLD 4 Primary and Intermediate TAPS 3 Gf Word Classes Semantic Relationships Gc Sentence Assembly (LD, MY) Expressive Vocabualry (VL) Word Classes: Exp/Rec (VL, LD, Gf-I) Word Definitions (VL) Sentence Structure (LS) Word Structure (LS) Formulated Sentences (OP) Concepts/Follow Direction (LS, Gsm-MS) Semantic Relationship(LS, Gsm-MW, Gf-I,) Generals (LD) Picture Vocabulary (LD,VL) Sentence Combining (LD) Relational Vocabulary (LD) Oral Vocabulary (VL) Grammatical Understanding (LS, LD) Malapropisms (MY, VL) Grammatic Comprehension (MY) Grammatic Completion (MY) Auditory Reasoning (K0, LD) Ga Phonological Awareness (PC:S) Phonemic Awareness (PC:A) Word Discrimination (BR) Phonological Blending (PC:A) Gv Gsm Familiar Sequence (MS, MW) Number Repetition (MS) Recalling Sentences (MS, Gc-LD) Number Repetition Backward (MW) Word Ordering (MW, Gc-LS) Sentence Imitation (MS) Number memory Forward (MS) Sentence Memory (MS, Gc-LD) Word Memory (MS) Number Memory Reversed (MW) Glr Word Associations (MA) Rapid Automatic Naming (NA) Gs

WIAT-III Listening Comprehension
Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse. Two testlets make up whole Standard Score Receptive Vocabulary: Identify picture corresponding to a spoken word Oral Discourse Comprehension: Listen to narrative & answer question Picture Vocab (TOLD) RV: Student must identify a picture that corresponds to a spoken word (e.g. “Point to….) Parallels Picture Vocabulary on TOLD, where the is asked to point to one of four pictures that best represents the meaning of a word read by the examiner. ODC: Student listens to a brief narrative from a recording and answers a question. Parallels Understanding Spoken Paragraphs on CELF, where the student is read a brief passage (which cannot be repeated) and is then asked a question, which can be repeated once, about main idea, detail, sequence, inference and prediction; Auditory Comprehension on TAPS (although here the passage is read by the examiner, not a recording) Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF) Auditory Comprehension (TAPS)

WIAT III: Oral Expression
Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse. Three testlets make up whole Standard Score Expressive Vocabulary (Gc): Provide a definition - Oral Word Fluency (Glr): Name words in a specific category Sentence Repetition (Gsm): Repeat a sentence verbatim EV: Student is provided with definition and asked to provide a one-word answer (e.g. “Tell me the word that means a tool used to look in someone’s ear.”) Parallels ????? OWF: Student is asked to name as many words as they can in a specific category in 1 minute (e.g. Name as many Speech & Language Batteries that you can). Parallels Word Associations on CELF, Retrieval Fluency on WJ-COG, SR: Student is read a sentence and asked to repeat it verbatim (e.g. The speech-pathologist is nice.) Parallels Recalling Sentences on CELF; on Sentence Memory on the TAPS Word Associations (CELF) Recalling Sentences (CELF) Sentence Memory (TAPS)

LET’S LOOK AT A REPORT

Conclusions CHC and RtI should be used in concert
SLP’s and SPs use similar measures SLP’s and SPs can combine knowledge and experience to better interpret data, allowing for more specific diagnosis and recommendations. End the worry about getting an overall ‘g’ Be theory/research based, not kit based

References Cross Battery Assessment Dumont and Willis - ATDR
Dumont and Willis - ATDR Kevin McGrew’s Intelligence Corner Andrew Shanock, Ph. D., NCSP

How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists (or how to collaborate besides using a staple) Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP Jacquelyn.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists (or how to collaborate besides using a staple) Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP Jacquelyn."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists (or how to collaborate besides using a staple) Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP Jacquelyn.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists (or how to collaborate besides using a staple) Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP Jacquelyn."— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback