Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Assessment for Differential Diagnosis of Learning Problems and Intervention Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D. St. John’s University Yale Child Study Center, School.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Assessment for Differential Diagnosis of Learning Problems and Intervention Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D. St. John’s University Yale Child Study Center, School."— Presentation transcript:

1 Assessment for Differential Diagnosis of Learning Problems and Intervention Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D. St. John’s University Yale Child Study Center, School of Medicine

2

3 See McGrew and Wendling (2010) for an extension of this work

4  Gf – Induction (I) and general sequential reasoning (RG) play a moderate role in reading comprehension  Gc – Language development (LD, lexical knowledge (VL), and listing ability (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with age  Gsm – Memory span (MS) is important, especially when evaluated within the context of working memory  Gv – Orthographic processing

5  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.

6  Gf – Induction (I) and general sequential reasoning (RG) play a moderate role in reading comprehension  Gc – Language development (LD, lexical knowledge (VL), and listing ability (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with age  Gsm – Memory span (MS) is important, especially when evaluated within the context of working memory  Gv – Orthographic processing

7  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.

8  McGrew and Wendling (2010)  Need to move from general to specific  Reading -> basic reading skills; reading comprehension  Math -> basic math skills; math application  Need to systematically take into account developmental level  Ages 6-8 years  Ages 9-13 years  Ages years  Need to control for specification error  Seems necessary primarily if interested in percentage of variance accounted for in academic outcome  May pose more of a limitation (e.g., Flanagan et al. had over 100 studies in their review; McGrew and Wendling had less than 20)

9 Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (2011). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

10 Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (2011). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

11 Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds.) (2011). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

12  Attention  Processing Speed  Short-term Memory (particularly Working Memory)  Word Retrieval ( Glr )

13 Basic Reading Skills – ages 6 to 8 – WISC-IV Slide Adapted from Kevin S. McGrew Broad Domain Markers Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Ga Auditory Processing Gs Processing Speed Glr Long-Term Retrieval Snd. Aware (PC/MW) Snd. Blending (PC) Vis.-Aud.-Lrng. (MA) Rapid. Pic. Nam. (NA) Retrieval Fluency (FI) (NA) Narrow Domain Markers Work Mem (MW) Lang. Dev. (LD) Listen. Ability (LS) Gen. Info. (K0) Lex. Know. (VL) Phonetic Coding (PC) Perc. Speed (P) Assoc. Mem. (MA) Naming Fac. (NA) Relevant WISC-IV tests XBA Supplemental Tests from WJ III Digit Span (MS/MW) Letter-Number Seq. (MW) Coding (P/R9) Symbol Search (P) Cancellation (P) Vocabulary (VL) Similarities (LD/VL) Comprehension (LD) Information (K0) Word Reasoning (LD/VL)

14  Cross-Battery Assessment Approach  Classification system  Joint or CB-FAs  Content Validity/Expert Consensus  Facilitated the use of a common nomenclature  Beginning to link CHC and neuropsychological theory and research

15

16  Identify targets for remediation and determine what the student needs to improve academically

17 RTI at Tiers I and II Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)  Tier I Screening  At-risk in Reading  Decoding  Fluency  Comprehension  Tier II Treatment Protocol  Reading Recovery Students Amy Belinda Carl

18  Amy, Belinda, and Carl are making some gains in Reading Recovery  No appreciable change in reading performance  Tier II “nonresponders”  CHOICE  move to Tier III or  conduct a “diagnostic assessment” Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)

19 One Size Does Not Fit All

20 Different Cognitive Ability Profiles Suggest Different Interventions

21  Amy’s cognitive testing shows a significant deficit in phonetic coding – she doesn’t know how to translate symbols into sounds  Ga deficit impacts her fluency – labored reading  Lack of decoding and fluency impacts comprehension  Intervention should focus on Phonemic Awareness – Remediate Ga Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)

22  Gc deficit – speech-language impairment?  Comprehension is poor b/c of low Gc  Poor vocabulary – needs to re-read to gain meaning, which impacts fluency  Intervention should focus on vocabulary development – Build Gc-VL, KO – and building fluency  Accommodation of extended time may be warranted due to a Gs deficit Mascolo and Flanagan (2010) Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions

23  Gsm deficit – memory span and working memory are deficient; visual memory ok  Decoding is poor – he cannot hold the complete phonemic string in mind long enough to say the word  Comprehension is poor because he needs to allocate all memory space decoding words and therefore cannot focus on meaning  Fluency is impaired because he must re-read the text to gain meaning  Intervention should focus on developing a sight word vocabulary  Carl 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) Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions

24  All had same academic deficits (decoding, comprehension, fluency)  All made slow gains with Reading Recovery  All had different patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses  Reading Recovery – allocating time to areas that do not need to be trained  Not enough explicit instruction in main problem area because the intervention was not tailored Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)

25  No need to focus on comprehension and fluency  Amy needs phonemic awareness training Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)

26

27  When selecting a program or a technique to intervene with a student with a Ga deficit, consider one that  Teaches students to manipulate sounds by using letters (i.e., phoneme-grapheme correspondence)  Uses individual or small group format  Focuses on reading and spelling development (again, the phoneme-grapheme connection)  Explicitly teaches student how to blend sounds

28

29  Provides 44 lesson plans that include games to encourage phonemic awareness. The games are  Say-It-and-Move-It —the child learns to recognize phonemes by moving a disk for every phoneme heard  Letter Name and Sound Instruction —the child learns the name of the letter that produces the phoneme heard and what the letter looks like  Phonological Awareness Practice —the child participates in a range of simple phonological awareness tasks.

30  No need to focus on decoding  Belinda needs to focus on building her vocabulary  She will also benefit from interventions designed to build fluency Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)

31  Work on vocabulary building  Teach morphology  Activities to build listening skills  Explicitly teach listening strategies  Use text talks

32

33

34  Choral Repeated Reading  Students 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 minutes  Text can be higher than students’ instructional level  Comprehension activities can be added  Feedback and assistance can be provided

35  No need to focus on comprehension or fluency  Carl needs sight word reading and memory strategies Mascolo and Flanagan (2010)

36 Go to: Print Flash Cards Use folding-in technique (builds confidence)

37

38

39

40 Manifestations 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 (3 rd 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.

41

42 Student: Willie Age: 11 Grade: 3 Retained: 1 st and 3 rd grades 20 Pages of RTI Data 2 Pages of History/Background

43 GradeRLILNFISFPSFNWFDORFMISC KG (05-06)S19 AA0 Age 6S13 MR18 iii18 HR14 MR02 S29 MR4 HR15 MR PPVT85 1 st (06-07)ii43 LR53 AA28 LR0 Age 7iii76 AA25 HR2 ii68 AA40 MR10 HR PPVT92 Stanford-1015% 1 st (07-08)ii68 AA39 LR29 LR6 MR Age 8S36 LR42 MR17 MR iii30 MR25 HR18 HR PPVT89 Stanford-1020% 2 nd (08-09)iii19 HR21 HR Age 9iii22 HR36 HR iii26 HR46 HR PPVT94 Stanford-108% Student : Willie; Course of Action : “Tier 1 and Tier 2 Student Who is on his way to Tier 3”

44

45  Process of going from explicit to implicit memory  Efficient way of managing overwhelming amounts of information  Implicit memory-laying down of skills and habits that, once learned, do not have to be consciously thought about – eating, talking, walking, reading Information on this slide was presented by Elaine Fletcher-Janzen at the 3 rd annual assessment conference, Fordham University. New York, NY (May, 2011).

46  Pathology  Labored reading  Tires easily  Faltering at math facts and subsequent math problems  Does Willie demonstrate any of these characteristics?  Wellness  Quick reader with prosody  Instant math facts  Takes to new math problems consistently Information on this slide was presented by Elaine Fletcher-Janzen at the 3 rd annual assessment conference, Fordham University. New York, NY (May, 2011).

47  Check to see if skill deficit is more of a lack of automaticity than ability  This distinction is not clear based on the information provided for Willie  Break down content and slowly build up to complex skills  Move from one level to another after mastery is fluid and automatic  Keep instruction simple and rote  Stay at learning level until mastery Information on this slide was presented by Elaine Fletcher-Janzen at the 3 rd annual assessment conference, Fordham University. New York, NY (May, 2011).

48 Assessment Grade 3: Reading Comprehension FACT Success ProbabilityMazeWord Analysis %5%2% 2 23%1% 35%1%2% %15%22% DateOral Reading Fluency - WCPM Average WCPM113 3 rd Grade OPM – at benchmark for early 3 rd grade Did Willie Stay at Learning Level Until Mastery? OPM within and across grades often yield inconsistent results; difficult to interpret

49  RTI data not explained; not placed in context  RTI 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

50  Alan; 3 rd grade; repeated 1 st grade; age 10  From 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 KNOW  When intervention began  Type of intervention  Who delivered intervention  Attendance during intervention  Integrity of intervention delivery  Whether or not the intervention was matched to child’s instructional level  Whether or not the intervention was selected based on student’s demonstrated deficits in academic areas (vs. standard treatment protocol)

51  Progress monitoring data not reported/explained in psychological report  Inconsistencies in progress monitoring data not explained  Progress monitoring data not integrated with other data sources  See case of Johnny

52 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

53  KTEA-II Letter & Word Recognition  Recognizes all letters  Demonstrated in K that he can say the letters quickly  KS LNF score is not indicative of true performance

54 Letter Sound Fluency – OK Phoneme 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)

55  KTEA-II Nonsense Word Decoding performance is consistent with 1F NWF  Both performances call into question the KS NWF performance

56  Assessed Johnny’s accuracy and speed of reading grade level text  Was 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”.

57

58  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-Alphabetic  Understand that there is a relationship between letters and sounds  Rely on beginning and ending sounds so they continue to make errors in reading words (e.g., reading “bank” as “book” or “bake” or “belt”)

59  Fully Alphabetic Phase – students are able to sound out words successfully  They 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.

60  Johnny was observed in his first grade classroom by the Speech Language Pathologist  During 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.

61  Fan, dog, he, book  Can Johnny work in his journal independently?  Johnny doesn’t have the skills to write in a journal

62  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.

63  He is at this level  “I Miss Home”

64  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?

65  Recommendation in report:  “Johnny should work on improving his reading accuracy and reading speed”

66

67

68 Go to: Print Flash Cards

69  Have Johnny tell you what he wants to write about  Provide 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.

70 Subject Kindergarten (age 6) 1 st (age 7) 1 st (Retained) 2 nd (age 9) 3 rd (age 10) 3 rd (age 11) LangDevlpNFCFDD ReadingNFCCDC HandwrtnN MathNFBCFC ScienceSDBBCC Social StsNDBCCD ArtSAAABB MusicSAAABB Phys EdSAAAAA FCAT Reading20%8% FCAT Math17%4% Student : Willie; Course of Action : “Tier 1 and Tier 2 Student Who is on his way to Tier 3”

71

72  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

73  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

74  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

75 Multiple Reading Interventions tried with Willie Willie Remains Moderate to High Risk After Several Years of Intervention PM data alone will lead to SLD by default What about other causal factors, such as: Other disabilities (e.g., intellectual disability) Cultural or language difference Psychological factors Poor treatment fidelity Inappropriate intervention based on child’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses Significant behavioral or social-emotional issues Progress Monitoring data alone do not answer the question of why the child is significantly behind same age and grade peers

76  Differential diagnosis  Psychological health of the student  Expectations  Treatment/Intervention

77 FACILITATORS TO LEARNINGINHIBITORS TO LEARNING He is praised, encouraged, and rewarded for good behavior at home He 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 divorced Good attendance Not toilet trained (cannot control his bowels; has accidents); Encopresis Family 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 fighting Delayed Language (first words at age 2; first phrases in 1 st grade) Serious family illness (Grandmother very sick and is bed bound) Parents have H.S. education or less (mother completed 11 th grade; father graduated from H.S.) Has poor self-esteem Information About Willie Collected via Parent Interview

78

79 “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) Are We On The Right Track With RTI? Stanovich, K. E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research Quarterly, 21,

80  There are many approaches and methods that aid in understanding, identifying, and treating SLD  RTI  Ability-Achievement Discrepancy  Third Method Approaches (“Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses”)  Demand Analysis/Process Approach - School Neuropsychololgy  There 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)

81

82 COGNITIVE STRENGTH/INTEGRITY Average or higher abilities and processes; May also include strengths in academic skills ACADEMIC WEAKNESS/FAILUR E Academic Skills/Knowledge Deficits COGNITIVE WEAKNESS/DEFICI T Cognitive Ability or Processing Disorder Statistically 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 average No Statistically significant Performance Difference (constructs are related empirically ) Statistically significant difference between cognitive integrities and academic skill deficit(s) Academic deficit(s) is unexpected, not expected, because overall cognitive ability is at least average Consistent/Concordant Discrepant/Discordant 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) Common Elements of “PSW Component” of Third Method Approaches to SLD Identification

83 Better Title: On the RELEVANCE of Intelligence……

84 “Historical Perspective” Slides from Nancy Mather

85 Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data with WJ III as Supplement Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod( ) Phonol. Awareness_( ) WJ III Auditory Atten.(___) Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite( ) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _) Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ ( ) Number Recall_ ( ) WJ III Working Mem. (__) Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __( ) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________( ) Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ ( ) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ ( ) Glr-MA Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___) Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___) Glr/Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc. Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) WJ III Gs Cluster__ (___) Pattern of empirically or logically related cognitive and academic deficits establishes basis for satisfying criterion of “below average aptitude- achievement consistency” Pattern of generally average cognitive abilities and processes establishes basis for satisfying criterion of “an otherwise normal ability profile” Gc Broad/Narrow Cluster Expressive Vocab. ( ) Verbal Knowledge ( ) _______________( ) Historical Concept of Intra- Individual Discrepancies Domain-Specific Unexpected Underachievement

86

87 “Historical Perspective” Slides from Nancy Mather

88

89

90

91  Clinical Judgment  SLD 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 referral  Math achievement (average or better) > reading achievement  Informal observations and assessments, teacher report  CONVERGENCE OF INDICATORS

92

93  Bob  Gc = 109  Glr = 83  Gv = 100  Ga = 78  Gf = 112  Gs = 98  Gsm = 82  Bill  Gc = 86  Glr = 80  Gv = 100  Ga = 78  Gf = 88  Gs = 87  Gsm = 79 g value =

94  Bob  Gc = 109  Glr = 83  Gv = 100  Ga = 78  Gf = 112  Gs = 98  Gsm = 82  Bill  Gc = 86  Glr = 80  Gv = 100  Ga = 78  Gf = 88  Gs = 87  Gsm = 79 g value =

95  g values close to 1 (e.g.,.97,.98,.99) or higher  Suggest 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 student  Deficient areas may be readily accommodated or compensated  The 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 deficits  Low average functioning in many cognitive and academic areas – general learning difficulty (horizontal), not SLD  Intellectual Disability  Differential diagnosis requires consideration of data from multiple methods and sources

96 Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite( ) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _) Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __( ) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________( ) Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ ( ) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ ( ) Glr-MA Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___) Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___) Gc Broad/Narrow Cluster Expressive Vocab. ( ) Verbal Knowledge ( ) _______________( ) GENERAL Learning Difficulty DOMAIN-GENERAL EXPECTED Underachievement (aka “Slow Learner”) Glr/Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc. Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) WJ III Gs Cluster__ (___) Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ ( ) Number Recall_ ( ) WJ III Working Mem. (__) Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data with WJ III as Supplement Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod( ) Phonol. Awareness_( ) WJ III Auditory Atten.(___)

97

98 A 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)

99 On 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 classification Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)

100 The 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)

101 The 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 education Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)

102

103 as syndromes/disorders become more discretely defined, there may be a greater correspondence between diagnoses and treatment Kratochwill and McGivern's ( 1996 ; p. 351 )

104  Dysphonetic Dyslexia – difficulty sounding out words in a phonological manner  Surface Dyslexia – difficulty with the rapid and automatic recognition of words in print  Mixed 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.

105 GfGc VL Gv VM Glr NA Gsm MW Gaetc OrthP Gs Criterion DVs I,RG LD,MY VL VM NA MW PC EF, AC OrthP PC Dysphonetic Dyslexia Surface Dyslexia Mixed Dyslexia Comprehension Deficits = most likely a strong predictor = most likely a moderate predictor = most likely non-significant Note : four subtypes from Feifer (2011); identification of IVs from Flanagan; Figure adapted from McGrew (2010)

106 as syndromes/disorders become more discretely defined, there may be a greater correspondence between diagnoses and treatment Kratochwill and McGivern's ( 1996 ; p. 351 )

107 Measures and Processes involved suggested by Flanagan

108

109 Nudging the Field….

110


Download ppt "Assessment for Differential Diagnosis of Learning Problems and Intervention Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D. St. John’s University Yale Child Study Center, School."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google