Presentation on theme: "Yale Child Study Center, School of Medicine"— Presentation transcript:
1Yale Child Study Center, School of Medicine Assessment for Differential Diagnosis of Learning Problems and InterventionDawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D.St. John’s UniversityYale Child Study Center, School of Medicine
2Relations between cognitive constructs and academic areas
3See McGrew and Wendling (2010) for an extension of this work Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Specific Areas of Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006)See McGrew and Wendling (2010) for an extension of this work
4Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Reading Achievement Gf – Induction (I) and general sequential reasoning (RG) play a moderate role in reading comprehensionGc – Language development (LD, lexical knowledge (VL), and listing ability (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with ageGsm – Memory span (MS) is important, especially when evaluated within the context of working memoryGv – Orthographic processing
5Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Reading Achievement Ga – Phonetic Coding (PC) or phonological awareness; phonological processing – very important during the elementary school years.Glr – Naming facility (NA) or “rapid automatic naming” is very important during the elementary school years. Associative memory (MA) may be important at early elementary school ages.Gs – Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important during all school years, particularly the elementary school years.
6Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Reading Achievement Gf – Induction (I) and general sequential reasoning (RG) play a moderate role in reading comprehensionGc – Language development (LD, lexical knowledge (VL), and listing ability (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with ageGsm – Memory span (MS) is important, especially when evaluated within the context of working memoryGv – Orthographic processing
7Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Reading Achievement Ga – Phonetic Coding (PC) or phonological awareness; phonological processing – very important during the elementary school years.Glr – Naming facility (NA) or “rapid automatic naming” is very important during the elementary school years. Associative memory (MA) may be important at early elementary school ages.Gs – Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important during all school years, particularly the elementary school years.
8Building on the work of Flanagan and Colleagues (2006) McGrew and Wendling (2010)Need to move from general to specificReading -> basic reading skills; reading comprehensionMath -> basic math skills; math applicationNeed to systematically take into account developmental levelAges 6-8 yearsAges 9-13 yearsAges yearsNeed to control for specification errorSeems necessary primarily if interested in percentage of variance accounted for in academic outcomeMay pose more of a limitation (e.g., Flanagan et al. had over 100 studies in their review; McGrew and Wendling had less than 20)
9Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (2011). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
10Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (2011). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds.) (2011). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
12Cognitive Correlates and Diagnostic Markers for SLD in Oral Language (Receptive and Expressive) AttentionProcessing SpeedShort-term Memory (particularly Working Memory)Word Retrieval (Glr)
14We Have Knowledge of What Our Tests Measure According to CHC Theory We Have Knowledge of What Cognitive Constructs are Most Closely Related to Academic AchievementCross-Battery Assessment ApproachClassification systemJoint or CB-FAsContent Validity/Expert ConsensusFacilitated the use of a common nomenclatureBeginning to link CHC and neuropsychological theory and research
16What is the School Psychologist’s Goal When Working With Students With Significant Learning Difficulties and Skill Deficiencies?Identify targets for remediation and determine what the student needs to improve academically
17RTI at Tiers I and II Students Amy Belinda Carl Tier I Screening At-risk in ReadingDecodingFluencyComprehensionTier II Treatment ProtocolReading RecoveryStudentsAmyBelindaCarlMascolo and Flanagan (2010)
18Reading Recovery Results Amy, Belinda, and Carl are making some gains in Reading RecoveryNo appreciable change in reading performanceTier II “nonresponders”CHOICEmove to Tier III orconduct a “diagnostic assessment”Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)
19Individual Differences Are Important One Size Does Not Fit All
20Different Cognitive Ability Profiles Suggest Different Interventions
21Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions Amy’s cognitive testing shows a significant deficit in phonetic coding – she doesn’t know how to translate symbols into soundsGa deficit impacts her fluency – labored readingLack of decoding and fluency impacts comprehensionIntervention should focus on Phonemic Awareness – Remediate GaMascolo and Flanagan (2010)
22Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions Gc deficit – speech-language impairment?Comprehension is poor b/c of low GcPoor vocabulary – needs to re-read to gain meaning, which impacts fluencyIntervention should focus on vocabulary development – Build Gc-VL, KO – and building fluencyAccommodation of extended time may be warranted due to a Gs deficitMascolo and Flanagan (2010)
23Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions Gsm deficit – memory span and working memory are deficient; visual memory okDecoding is poor – he cannot hold the complete phonemic string in mind long enough to say the wordComprehension is poor because he needs to allocate all memory space decoding words and therefore cannot focus on meaningFluency is impaired because he must re-read the text to gain meaningIntervention should focus on developing a sight word vocabularyCarl needs to be taught compensatory strategies to assist with poor Gsm (text previews; guided notes; one comprehension question at a time)Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)
24Different Cognitive Ability Profiles Suggest Different Interventions All had same academic deficits (decoding, comprehension, fluency)All made slow gains with Reading RecoveryAll had different patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknessesReading Recovery – allocating time to areas that do not need to be trainedNot enough explicit instruction in main problem area because the intervention was not tailoredMascolo and Flanagan (2010)
25Amy’s Intervention No need to focus on comprehension and fluency Amy needs phonemic awareness trainingMascolo and Flanagan (2010)
27Programs/Techniques for Ga-Phonetic Coding Deficits When selecting a program or a technique to intervene with a student with a Ga deficit, consider one thatTeaches students to manipulate sounds by using letters (i.e., phoneme-grapheme correspondence)Uses individual or small group formatFocuses on reading and spelling development (again, the phoneme-grapheme connection)Explicitly teaches student how to blend sounds
28Another Program for Ga-Phonetic Coding Deficit Phonemic awareness games
29Road to the CodeProvides 44 lesson plans that include games to encourage phonemic awareness. The games areSay-It-and-Move-It—the child learns to recognize phonemes by moving a disk for every phoneme heardLetter Name and Sound Instruction—the child learns the name of the letter that produces the phoneme heard and what the letter looks likePhonological Awareness Practice—the child participates in a range of simple phonological awareness tasks. Here are some games
30Belinda’s Intervention No need to focus on decodingBelinda needs to focus on building her vocabularyShe will also benefit from interventions designed to build fluencyMascolo and Flanagan (2010)
31Recommendations for Gc Deficit Work on vocabulary buildingTeach morphologyActivities to build listening skillsExplicitly teach listening strategiesUse text talksSemantic feature analysis/Semantic maps
33http://teacher. scholastic. com/products/texttalk/overview/readaloud This is an intervention program that involves read aloud, talking about text, direct instruction in reading, and teacher supports. Leveled learning, so good for differentiating instruction. Free trial of text-talk. You are trying to build vocabulary which will support comprehension (even though it is in the context of reading, growth in vocabulary supports writing, etc.).
34Choral Repeated Reading Belinda also has a Gs Deficit – Suggest Need to Work on Building FluencyChoral Repeated ReadingStudents listen to the text being read and follow along by reading aloud and looking at the text (using their fingers to keep pace)10 to 15 minutesText can be higher than students’ instructional levelComprehension activities can be addedFeedback and assistance can be provided
35Carl’s Intervention No need to focus on comprehension or fluency Carl needs sight word reading and memory strategiesMascolo and Flanagan (2010)
36Build Sight Words Print Flash Cards Use folding-in technique Go to:Print Flash CardsUse folding-in technique(builds confidence)
40Manifestations of Cognitive Weaknesses and Examples of Recommendations and Interventions (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2011, in press)Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., Sotelo-Dynega, M., & Mascolo, J. T. (in press). Use of Ability Tests in the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) within the context of an Operational Definition. In D.P. Flanagan & P.L. Harrison, Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd edition). New York: Guilford.Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2011). A CHC-based Operational Definition of SLD: Integrating Multiple Data Sources and Multiple Data Gathering Methods. In Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (Eds.), Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
41What Do You RECOMMEND When You Only Have Progress Monitoring Data?
42Student: WillieAge: 11Grade: 3Retained: 1st and 3rd grades20 Pages of RTI Data2 Pages of History/Background
43Student: Willie; Course of Action: “Tier 1 and Tier 2 Student Who is on his way to Tier 3” GradeRLILNFISFPSFNWFDORFMISCKG (05-06)S19 AAAge 613 MR18iii18 HR14 MR229 MR4 HR15 MRPPVT851st (06-07)ii43 LR53 AA28 LRAge 776 AA25 HR68 AA40 MR10 HR92Stanford-1015%1st (07-08)39 LR29 LR6 MRAge 836 LR42 MR17 MR30 MR8920%2nd (08-09)19 HR21 HRAge 922 HR36 HR26 HR46 HR948%
44Regardless of Treatment Protocol, You Must Stay at Learning Level Until Mastery
45Automaticity Process of going from explicit to implicit memory Efficient way of managing overwhelming amounts of informationImplicit memory-laying down of skills and habits that, once learned, do not have to be consciously thought about – eating, talking, walking, readingInformation on this slide was presented by Elaine Fletcher-Janzen at the 3rd annual assessment conference, Fordham University. New York, NY (May, 2011).
46What Does it Look Like? Pathology Labored readingTires easilyFaltering at math facts and subsequent math problemsDoes Willie demonstrate any of these characteristics?WellnessQuick reader with prosodyInstant math factsTakes to new math problems consistentlyInformation on this slide was presented by Elaine Fletcher-Janzen at the 3rd annual assessment conference, Fordham University. New York, NY (May, 2011).
47What do we Do?Check to see if skill deficit is more of a lack of automaticity than abilityThis distinction is not clear based on the information provided for WillieBreak down content and slowly build up to complex skillsMove from one level to another after mastery is fluid and automaticKeep instruction simple and roteStay at learning level until masteryInformation on this slide was presented by Elaine Fletcher-Janzen at the 3rd annual assessment conference, Fordham University. New York, NY (May, 2011).
48OPM – at benchmark for early 3rd grade Did Willie Stay at Learning Level Until Mastery?Assessment Grade 3:Reading ComprehensionFACT Success ProbabilityMazeWord Analysis12%5%223%1%34%15%22%OPM within and across grades often yield inconsistent results; difficult to interpret3rd GradeOPM – at benchmark for early 3rd gradeDateOral Reading Fluency - WCPM97129115Average WCPM113
49Willie: Problem with RTI Data Presentation RTI data not explained; not placed in contextRTI data not explained within the context of classroom performance, standardized test performance, etc.RTI/data collection continued for too long…several years before considering SLD (other conditions) and special education eligibility
50Example: Not Enough Data Reported from RTI Alan; 3rd grade; repeated 1st grade; age 10From Report: “Response to Intervention Data”“Alan has been receiving intensive Tier 3 interventions through the School-based Intervention Team since early Fall to address reading and communication concerns. Response to intervention data indicate that Alan has not shown adequate growth.”WHAT I DON’T KNOWWhen intervention beganType of interventionWho delivered interventionAttendance during interventionIntegrity of intervention deliveryWhether or not the intervention was matched to child’s instructional levelWhether or not the intervention was selected based on student’s demonstrated deficits in academic areas (vs. standard treatment protocol)
51Other Issues with RTI Data in Psych Reports Progress monitoring data not reported/explained in psychological reportInconsistencies in progress monitoring data not explainedProgress monitoring data not integrated with other data sourcesSee case of Johnny
52Progress Monitoring Results for Johnny Letter Naming Fluency – one minute probe; KS score likely spurious due to unreliability of the measure (or some other factor); he knows his letters (see KTEA-II Letter-Word Identification) and has demonstrated that he can name them quickly
53KTEA-II Letter & Word Recognition Recognizes all lettersDemonstrated in K that he can say the letters quicklyKS LNF score is not indicative of true performance
54Progress Monitoring Results Letter Sound Fluency – OKPhoneme Segmentation Fluency – OK (segment 3 to 4 phoneme words into individual phonemes in one minute)Nonsense Word Fluency – perhaps a different evaluator (at KS and 1F). KS performance is unlikely because Johnny cannot read (see Nonsense Word Decoding on KTEA-II)
55KTEA-II Nonsense Word Decoding performance is consistent with 1F NWF Both performances call into question the KS NWF performance
56Reading - CBMAssessed Johnny’s accuracy and speed of reading grade level textWas accuracy impacted by his articulation difficulties? He substitutes “d” for “g”, “w” for “l” (wov instead of love), “bw for bl”, “fw for fl”, “gw for gl” (gwass instead of glass), “pw for kl”, “pw for pi”, “sw for sl”, “f for th”, and “d for th”.
57Johnny’s R-CBM is consistent with his performance on the KTEA-II Letter & Word Recognition Test
58Ehri’s Phases of Word Reading Pre-Alphabetic (e.g., when a child says “that says stop!” when they see a red octagonal traffic sign, but cannot read the word “stop” in isolation)Partial-AlphabeticUnderstand that there is a relationship between letters and soundsRely on beginning and ending sounds so they continue to make errors in reading words (e.g., reading “bank” as “book” or “bake” or “belt”)
59Ehri’s Phases of Word Reading Fully Alphabetic Phase – students are able to sound out words successfullyThey know the sound-symbol connections and move from guessing a word from the first or last letter to complete word decoding sound by sound. (e.g., /b/ /a/ /n/ /k/)When they see the same word more than a few times, then that word becomes automatically recognized.As more and more words become “sight” words, students move into the consolidated alphabetic phase (e.g., /b/ /ank/)There is an assumption that Johnny is AT the fully alphabetic phase. He is not. Therefore, developing this phase of reading should be the immediate goal for reading intervention.
60Summary of Classroom Observation Johnny was observed in his first grade classroom by the Speech Language PathologistDuring the observation, students were working in their journals independently and participating in Calendar Math, weather review, and a movement/music activity.Johnny had a hard time getting started on his writing assignment independently. When his teacher prompted him, he said he didn’t know what to write about.
61Johnny “didn’t know what to write about” Fan, dog, he, bookCan Johnny work in his journal independently?Johnny doesn’t have the skills to write in a journal
62Summary of Classroom Observation The observer also prompted him by encouraging him to draw pictures about their upcoming field trip to a dairy farm and she gave him several examples of what he might draw. When she asked him what he was going to draw, he stated that he was going to draw a “monster truck” and “hot lava.” Johnny wrote several letters on his paper and began copying another student’s name from the wall.Summary of Classroom Observation
63Johnny wants to Write But he Doesn’t Have the Skills He is at this level“I Miss Home”
64Johnny wants to Write But he Doesn’t Have the Skills He is at the partial alphabetic stage and cannot write words or sentences…It is a good idea to ask the child what he/she wrote (random letters? Or does what he said he wrote make sense within the context of the tasks?
65Johnny wants to Write But he Doesn’t Have the Skills Recommendation in report:“Johnny should work on improving his reading accuracy and reading speed”
66Teach Phonological Awareness – Move from Partial Alphabetic Phase to Fully Alphabetic Phase
68Build Sight Words Print Flash Cards Go to:Print Flash Cards
69Adapt Writing Assignments Have Johnny tell you what he wants to write aboutProvide structure based on instructional level. For example,Johnny wants to write about monster trucks.__onster ___rucks are bi___. I have a re__Monste__ Truc__.Task: Fill in missing letters. Re-write first sentence.This will keep Johnny busy during journal time with a journal activity that is at his instructional level.
70Student: Willie; Course of Action: “Tier 1 and Tier 2 Student Who is on his way to Tier 3” Subject200620072008200920102011Kindergarten(age 6)1st(age 7)1st (Retained)2nd(age 9)3rd(age 10)(age 11)LangDevlpNFCDReadingHandwrtnMathBScienceSSocial StsArtAMusicPhys EdFCAT Reading20%8%FCAT Math17%4%
71A Major Inhibiting Factor to Learning and Achievement is Retention
72Retention: Just the Facts Academic achievement of kids who are retained is poorer than that of peers who are promoted.Achievement gains associated with retention fade within two to three years after the grade repeated.Kids who are identified as most behind are the ones "most likely harmed by retention."Retention often is associated with increased behavior problems.National Association of School Psychologists
73Retention: Just the Facts Grade retention has a negative impact on all areas of a child's achievement (reading, math, and language) and socio-emotional adjustment (peer relationships, self-esteem, problem behaviors and attendance).Students who are retained are more likely to drop out of school compared to students who were never retained. In fact, grade retention is one of the most powerful predictors of high school dropout.National Association of School Psychologists
74Retention: Just the Facts Retained students are more likely to have poorer educational and employment outcomes during late adolescence and early adulthood.Retention is more likely to have benign or positive impact when students are not simply held back, but receive specific remediation to address skill and/or behavioral problems and promote achievement and social skills.National Association of School Psychologists
75Progress Monitoring and SLD Identification (slide adapted from Dan Miller) Multiple Reading Interventions tried with WillieWillie Remains Moderate to High Risk After Several Years of InterventionPM data alone will lead to SLD by defaultWhat about other causal factors, such as:Other disabilities (e.g., intellectual disability)Cultural or language differencePsychological factorsPoor treatment fidelityInappropriate intervention based on child’s cognitive strengths and weaknessesSignificant behavioral or social-emotional issuesProgress Monitoring data alone do not answer the question of why the child is significantly behind same age and grade peers
76Why Is the “Why” in Cases of Suspected SLD Important? Differential diagnosisPsychological health of the studentExpectationsTreatment/Intervention
77Information About Willie Collected via Parent Interview FACILITATORS TO LEARNINGINHIBITORS TO LEARNINGHe is praised, encouraged, and rewarded for good behavior at homeHe is violent/aggressive (rolls up and down hall when things do not go his way; cannot control his temper; tried to kill a puppy)Mother came to the school and asked for help. She reported that “nothing seems to be working.”Parent Unemployed; Food Stamps; Low SES; parents divorcedGood attendanceNot toilet trained (cannot control his bowels; has accidents); EncopresisFamily history of Learning Disability (Grandmother, aunts, cousins, and sister have learning disabilities)Behavioral difficulties at home (parent cannot control his behavior; constantly fighting; lacks respect; curses at grandmother; fights with siblings)Poor peer relationships; always fightingDelayed Language (first words at age 2; first phrases in 1st grade)Serious family illness (Grandmother very sick and is bed bound)Parents have H.S. education or less (mother completed 11th grade; father graduated from H.S.)Has poor self-esteem
79Are We On The Right Track With RTI? “Slow reading acquisition has cognitive, behavioral, and motivational consequences that slow the development of other cognitive skills and inhibit performance on many academic tasks. For example, knowledge bases that are in reciprocal relationships with reading are inhibited from further development. The longer this developmental sequence is allowed to continue, the more generalized the deficits will become, seeping into more and more areas of cognition and behavior. Or to put it more simply and sadly—in the words of a tearful 9-year-old, already falling frustratingly behind his peers in reading progress, ‘Reading affects everything you do.’ ” (p. 390)Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,
80What We KnowThere are many approaches and methods that aid in understanding, identifying, and treating SLDRTIAbility-Achievement DiscrepancyThird Method Approaches (“Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses”)Demand Analysis/Process Approach - School NeuropsychololgyThere is no litmus test; the more well-versed you are in different approaches and methods, the more information you will gain about the child (including how to best help him or her)
81Third Method Approaches Multiple Methods/Multiple Data Sources for SLD Identification
82ACADEMIC WEAKNESS/FAILURE COGNITIVE WEAKNESS/DEFICIT Common Elements of “PSW Component” of Third Method Approaches to SLD IdentificationCOGNITIVE STRENGTH/INTEGRITY Average or higher abilities and processes; May also include strengths in academic skillsStatistically significant difference between cognitive integrities and academic skill deficit(s)Academic deficit(s) is unexpected, not expected, because overall cognitive ability is at least averageStatistically significant difference between cognitive integrities and circumscribed cognitive ability or processing deficit(s)Cognitive deficit(s) is specific, not general or pervasive, because overall cognitive ability is at least averageDiscrepant/DiscordantDiscrepant/DiscordantACADEMIC WEAKNESS/FAILUREAcademic Skills/Knowledge DeficitsCOGNITIVE WEAKNESS/DEFICITCognitive Ability or Processing DisorderConsistent/ConcordantNo Statistically significant Performance Difference (constructs are related empirically )Sotelo, Flanagan, and Alfonso (2011). Overview of SLD Identification. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso, Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Flanagan, Fiorello, and Ortiz (2010); Hale, Flanagan, and Naglieri (2008)
83Better Title: On the RELEVANCE of Intelligence…… Fuchs and Young (2006). On the irrelevance of intelligence in predicting responsiveness to reading instruction, 73(1), ppBetter Title: On the RELEVANCE of Intelligence……
84“Historical Perspective” Slides from Nancy Mather
85KABC-II and KTEA-II Data with WJ III as Supplement Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________KABC-II and KTEA-II Data with WJ III as SupplementGrw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( )Reading Fluency__(_ _)Pattern of empirically or logically related cognitive and academic deficits establishes basis for satisfying criterion of “below average aptitude-achievement consistency”Domain-SpecificGa Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( )WJ III Auditory Atten.(___)Glr/Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)WJ III Gs Cluster__ (___)Historical Concept of Intra-Individual DiscrepanciesGlr-MA Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( )WJ III Working Mem. (__)Pattern of generally average cognitive abilities and processes establishes basis for satisfying criterion of “an otherwise normal ability profile”Unexpected UnderachievementGf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )Gc Broad/Narrow ClusterExpressive Vocab. ( )Verbal Knowledge ( )_______________( )
86Is “Otherwise Average Overall Ability” Consistent with the SLD Construct?
87“Historical Perspective” Slides from Nancy Mather
88“Historical Perspective” Slides from Nancy Mather
89“Historical Perspective” Slides from Nancy Mather
90“Historical Perspective” Slides from Nancy Mather
91How Do You Determine an “Otherwise Normal Ability Profile” or Otherwise Average Ability Clinical JudgmentSLD Assistant (Flanagan, Ortiz & Alfonso, 2007)Instruments on which deficit areas do not contribute to g estimate (e.g., GAI from WISC-IV)GAI (average or better) > WMI and PSI in SLD (Prifitera, Soklofske, & Weiss, 2005)Pattern suggests Specific LD in Math (Geary et al., 2011)Academic areas not related to referralMath achievement (average or better) > reading achievementInformal observations and assessments, teacher reportCONVERGENCE OF INDICATORS
92CD Included with Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, 2nd Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007)
93Is performance in Broad Area WNL or Higher? BillGc = 86Glr = 80Gv = 100Ga = 78Gf = 88Gs = 87Gsm = 79BobGc = 109Glr = 83Gv = 100Ga = 78Gf = 112Gs = 98Gsm = 82g value =
94Is performance in Broad Area Average (> 90) or Better? BillGc = 86Glr = 80Gv = 100Ga = 78Gf = 88Gs = 87Gsm = 79BobGc = 109Glr = 83Gv = 100Ga = 78Gf = 112Gs = 98Gsm = 82g value =g value =
95Broad CHC Abilities and SLD Assistant g values close to 1 (e.g., .97, .98, .99) or higherSuggest that deficient areas are likely to be domain-specific or circumscribed (vertical)Deficient areas may be amenable to remediation, depending on the developmental level of the studentDeficient areas may be readily accommodated or compensatedThe greater the g value deviates from 1 in the negative direction, the more likely it is that the student’s learning and achievement will be constrained by ability deficitsLow average functioning in many cognitive and academic areas – general learning difficulty (horizontal), not SLDIntellectual DisabilityDifferential diagnosis requires consideration of data from multiple methods and sources
96GENERAL Learning Difficulty DOMAIN-GENERAL EXPECTED Underachievement Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________KABC-II and KTEA-II Data with WJ III as SupplementGrw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( )Reading Fluency__(_ _)Ga Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( )WJ III Auditory Atten.(___)Glr/Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)WJ III Gs Cluster__ (___)GENERAL Learning DifficultyDOMAIN-GENERALEXPECTED Underachievement(aka “Slow Learner”)Glr-MA Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( )WJ III Working Mem. (__)Gf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )Gc Broad/Narrow ClusterExpressive Vocab. ( )Verbal Knowledge ( )_______________( )
98A diagnosis identifies the nature of a specific learning disability and has implications for its probably etiology, instructional requirements, and prognosis. Ironically, in an era when educational practitioners are encouraged to use evidence-based instructional practices, they are not encouraged to use evidence-based differential diagnoses of specific learning disabilities.Virginia Berninger (2010)
99On the Flanagan et al. and Kavale and Forness Operational Definitions of SLD… These operational definitions provide an inherently practical method for SLD identification that carries the potential for increased agreement about the validity of SLD classificationKavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)
100The Importance of Assessing Cognitive Abilities and Processes and Academic Skills… By identifying specific targets for remediation, the possibilities for truly individualized intervention are increased significantly.Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)
101The Value of Assessing Cognitive Abilities and Processes… Even if a student never enters the special education system, the general education teacher, the student’s parents, and the student him- or herself would receive valuable information regarding why there was such a struggle in acquiring academic content, to the point of possibly needing special educationKavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)
103Correspondence Between Diagnosis and Treatment as syndromes/disorders become more discretely defined, there may be a greater correspondence between diagnoses and treatmentKratochwill and McGivern's (1996; p. 351)
104Subtypes of Reading Disability Dysphonetic Dyslexia – difficulty sounding out words in a phonological mannerSurface Dyslexia – difficulty with the rapid and automatic recognition of words in printMixed Dyslexia – multiple reading deficits characterized by impaired phonological and orthographic processing skills. It is probably the most severe form of dyslexia.Comprehension Deficits – the mechanical side of reading is fine but difficulty persists deriving meaning from print(Ga-Phonetic Coding; Gsm-Memory Span, Working Memory)(Glr-Naming Facility; Gv-Orthographic Processing; Gs-Perceptual Speed; Gc-Vocabulary Knowledge)(Multiple CHC abilities or processes involved; attention and executive functioning)(Gf-Induction, General Sequential Reasoning; Gc- Language Development; attention and executive functioning)Feifer, S. (2011). How SLD Manifests in Reading Achievement. In Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds), Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
105Predicting the 4 Subtypes of Reading Disability GfGcGvGaGsmGlrGsetcCriterion DVsDysphonetic DyslexiaPCMWSurfaceDyslexiaVLVMNAOrthPMixed DyslexiaVLVMPCMWNAOrthPComprehension DeficitsI,RGLD,MYVMMWEF, AC= most likely a strong predictor= most likely a moderate predictor= most likely non-significantNote: four subtypes from Feifer (2011); identification of IVs from Flanagan; Figure adapted from McGrew (2010)
106Correspondence Between Diagnosis and Treatment as syndromes/disorders become more discretely defined, there may be a greater correspondence between diagnoses and treatmentKratochwill and McGivern's (1996; p. 351)
107Measures and Processes involved suggested by Flanagan
108Measures and Processes involved suggested by Flanagan
109Includes contributions by many school neuropsychologists: Dan Miller, Brad Hale, Scott Decker, Cecil Reynolds, Cynthia Riccio, and moreNudging the Field….