Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

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:

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

2 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 SPs and SLPs 2

3 (Perlman, 1958) 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. 3

4 (Reynolds, 2009) What are we doing? THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE MALPRACTICE OF TOMORROW 4

5 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 dont have. 5

6 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 6

7 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) 7

8 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 8

9 9 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.

10 10 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 dont 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.

11 Presidents 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). Presidents Message. NASP Communique, 33, – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.

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

13 13 School Psychologist and Speech Language Pathologists Speech Language Pathologist SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGIST Turfdom Lack of coordination Redundancy

14 14 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.

15 15 Shared Office, Separate lives SLPs and SPs 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.

16 16 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)

17 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) 17Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)

18 Traditional System Issues CASE 1: THIRD GRADER READING DIFFICULTY WISC WIAT 18

19 Traditional System Issues CASE 2: SEVENTH GRADER WRITING DIFFICULTY WISC WIAT 19

20 Traditional System Issues CASE 3: FIRST GRADER MATH DIFFICULTY WISC WIAT 20

21 21 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!) IEPs 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 childs 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.

22 Traditional Systems Issue THIRD GRADE REFERRAL 22

23 23 BREAKING NEWS THE EARLIER THE INTERVENTION THE LOWER THE RISK OF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTY IN THE FUTURE

24 24 Related to Traditional Assessment? Inconsistencies in Identification % of identified children in Utah were ED, the ED rate in CA was 2.5 % of identified children Forness & Kavale, 1990 Huge Increases in Identification From 1976 to 2002 the classification of children with specific learning disabilities increased 300% Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education July 1, 2002

25 25 Related to the Traditional Model? Reading Failure 80% of of those with SLD (40-53% of all Sp Ed students) are there because they havent learned how to read 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)

26 26 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)

27 27 Over thirty years of research has provided support for the termination of discrepancy as a way of identifying learning disabilities

28 28 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).

29 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 29

30 IDEIA What are some of the details of the Federal Law? 30

31 RTI may be used AS A PART of the evaluation… but not as sole method IQ achievement discrepancy no longer required 31

32 use a variety of assessment tools not use any single procedure assess cognitive factors 32

33 non discriminatory assessments valid and reliable assessment 33

34 IDEIA 2004 Law Definition of SLD remains the same 34

35 New Yorks Response 35

36 36 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**]

37 ALRIGHT ALREADY! TALK ABOUT CHC! 37

38 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? Its the parts that make the whole Its the parts that will identify the strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning 38

39 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. 39

40 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. 40

41 Flanagan, D.P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley & Sons. 41

42 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. 42

43 The breadth and depth of knowledge of a culture The ability to communicate ones 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. GcComprehension-Knowledge 43

44 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) Gf Fluid Reasoning 44

45 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. Glr Long-term (Storage &) Retrieval 45

46 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 Ga Auditory Processing 46

47 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) 47

48 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. Gsm Short-term Memory 48

49 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 Gs Processing Speed 49

50 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 minds eye Not to be confused with a visual learner or how well does someone see. Can be visually impaired and still have good Gv Gv Visual-Spatial Thinking 50

51 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) 51

52 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 Its the parts that make the whole Its the parts that will identify the strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning 52

53 THE WISC AND CHC

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

55 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 Dont 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! 55

56 Cross Battery is THEORY/RESEARCH focused NOT KIT FOCUSED REMEMBER: USE THEORY AND RESEARCH TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY. 56

57 Lets go through the steps! 57

58 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). 58

59 STEP 1: REASON FOR REFERRAL Individualize your assessment batteries. – Dont 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 59

60 60 Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006) see also Kevin McGrews website:

61 Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD Patterns: Ages 6-8 Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Ga Auditory Processing Glr Long-Term Retrieval Basic Reading Skills Reading Comp Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Ga Auditory Processing Glr Long-Term Retrieval Gf Fluid Intelligence Gc Crystallized Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Math Reasoning Basic Math Skills Gf Fluid Intelligence Gsm Short-Term Memory Gs Processing Speed Glr Long-Term Retrieval 61

62 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. 62

63 BroadWISC-IVKABC-IIWJ III COG GfPicture 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) GcSimilarities (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-IIIncomplete Words (PC:A) Sound Blend. (PC:S) Auditory Att. (US/U3, UR) GvBlock 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) GsmDigit 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) GsCoding (R9) Symbol Search (P & R9) Cancellation (P & R9) See KTEA-II Fluency testsVisual Matching (P & R9) Decision Speed (R4) GqArithmetic (A3)See KTEA-II Evaluation of Cognitive Abilities Mascolo (2004). Published in Flanagan & Kaufman (2004) Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment. Wiley 63

64 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 64

65 Guiding Principles Broad or Narrow test interpretation? Inductive Reas. Deduct. Reas. Inductive Reas. Gf IRGI Gf Battery A contains two qualitatively different indicators that can be combined to represent a broad ability cluster Battery B contains two qualitatively similar indicators that can be combined to represent a narrow ability cluster Broad Narrow 65

66 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 66

67 This is where SP and SLP can get together and see what should be done next. How can we supplement rather than duplicate 67

68 CHC Abilities Related to Basic Reading Skills and Reading Comprehension in Children Ages 6-8 Years Gc Ga Gs Gsm Glr Important Broad CHC Abilities LDVLPCUSP MWMANA Important Narrow CHC Abilities Riddles Verbal Know. KABC-II KTEA-II Non. Wrd Dcd Phon. Aware. Timed NWDWord Order Atlantis RAN Timed Wrd Rec WJ III WM Cluster Co-normed Fluency Rebus Supplemental CTOPP WJ III Aud. Attent. = Strongest and most consistent significant relation = Consistent significant relation WJ III Gs Cluster 68

69 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. 69

70 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 Its time to be detectives. Follow the clues/data Confirmatory data should support any conclusions. 70

71 Look at CONSISTENCY Not DISCREPANCY 71

72 Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002) -1 SEM 68 % +1 SEM Subtests = + 7 Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5 Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data Glr Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___) Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___) Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ ( ) Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___) Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __( ) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________( ) Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ ( ) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ ( ) Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod( ) Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___) Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite( ) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _) Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc. Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) _________________(___) 72

73 Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002) -1 SEM 68 % +1 SEM Subtests = + 7 Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5 Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data Glr Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___) Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___) Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ ( ) Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___) Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __( ) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________( ) Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ ( ) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ ( ) Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod( ) Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___) Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite( ) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _) Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc. Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) _________________(___) 73

74 Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002) -1 SEM 68 % +1 SEM Subtests = + 7 Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5 Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data Glr Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___) Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___) Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ ( ) Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___) Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __( ) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________( ) Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ ( ) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ ( ) Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod( ) Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___) Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite( ) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _) Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc. Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) _________________(___) 74

75 Phonological Deficit Rapid Naming Deficit Lexical Deficit 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 Subtype PA Only Subtype PA & RN Subtype PA & RN, Lex Global Language Subtype RN Only CHC domain Ga Glr/Gs Gc Gsm 75

76 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 Flanagan & Ortiz (2001) 76

77 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 LOW MODERATEHIGH LOW PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED INCREASING EFFECT OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE MODERATE HIGH INCREASING EFFECT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCE PERFORMANCE MOST AFFECTED (COMBINED EFFECT OF CULTURAL & LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING 77

78 DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND D E G R E E O F C U L T U RA L L O A D I N G LOWMODERATEHIGH LOWLOW 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 MODERATEMODERATE Arithmetic Picture Concepts Word Order Conceptual Thinking HIGHHIGH Picture Completion Gestalt Closure Information Similarities Vocabulary Comprehension Word Reasoning Story Completion Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Verbal Knowledge *The culture-language classifications for the WISC-IV and KABC-II are preliminary. Expert consensus studies are underway. Culture and Language Matrix developed by Flanagan and Ortiz (2001) and found in Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment. Wiley 78

79 CHC Culture-Language Matrix Worksheet (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001) Name of Examinee: _________________________ Age: _______ Grade: _______ Date: _____________ DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOWMODERATEHIGH LOWLOW Test Name: Score: ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ Test Name: Score: ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ Test Name: Score: __________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ MODERATEMODERATE Test Name: Score: ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ Test Name: Score: ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ Test Name: Score: __________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ H I G H Test Name: Score: ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ Test Name: Score:___________________________(______)___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ Test Name: Score: __________________________(______) Cell Average = ______ 79

80 Lets talk about how to talk to our speech language colleagues

81 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 –Dont repeat testing Share different expertise and perspective on data. –Accuracy of diagnosis –Accuracy of intervention/intervention development

82 Saving Time Reduce number of subtests administered –Based on referral –Based on research Report Writing –No more staple – Comprehensive Report –Combine results and perspectives –Parents dont have to mix and match Feedback or IEP meetings –Stop saying the same thing in different languages

83 LETS TALK ABOUT Speech and Language Batteries

84 Test of Language Development- Primary & Intermediate Versions: Fourth Edition (TOLD-4) designed specifically to assess childrens receptive and expressive spoken language competences Published in 2008 Ages 4-0 through 8-11; 8-0 through 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

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

86 TOLD-P:4 subtest organization Linguistic Systems Linguistic Features Listening (receptive) Organizing (integrating- mediating) Speaking (expressive) SemanticsPicture Vocabulary Relational Vocabulary Oral Vocabulary SyntaxSyntactic Understanding Sentence Imitation Morphological Completion PhonologyWord Discrimination Phonemic Analysis Word Articulation

87 TOLD-I:4 subtest organization Linguistic Systems Linguistic Features Listening (receptive) Organizing (integrating- mediating) Speaking (expressive) SemanticsPicture Vocabulary Relational Vocabulary Multiple Meanings GrammarMorphological Comprehension Word OrderingSentence Combining

88 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)

89 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)

90 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)

91 Redundancy WJ-III WISC-IV/WIATIII TOLD-P:4Time to Administer Picture Vocabulary 5 min. VocabularyOral Vocabulary10 min. Receptive Voc (WIAT III) Syntactic Understanding connected Sentence Mem (wiat iii) Sentence Imitation5 min. Auditory AttentionWord Discrimination10 min. Sound AwarenessPhonemic Analysis10 min. Word Articulation SimilaritiesRelational Vocabulary10 min. Morphological Completion

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

93 Rationale 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

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

95 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

96 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

97 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

98 Redundancy WJ-III/WISC-IVTAPS-3Time to Administer Sound BlendingPhonological Blending10 min. Auditory AttentionWord Discrimination10 min. Numbers ReversedNumber Memory Reversed 5 min. Memory for WordsWord Memory5 min. Sound AwarenessPhonological Segmentation 10 min. Sentence Mem (WIAT III) Sentence Memory5 min. Auditory Comprehension Auditory Reasoning Digit SpanNumbers Forward5 min.

99 Redundancy for CELF-4 WJ/WISC/WIAT CELF -4Time to Administer Understanding Directions Concepts/Following Directions 10 min. Sentence recallRecalling Sentence5 min. SimilaritiesWord Classes10 min. Picture VocabExpressive Voc5 min. VocabularyWord Definitions10 min. Story RecallUnderstanding Spoken Paragraph 10 min. Sound AwarenessPhonological Awareness 10 min. Retrieval FluencyWord Associations5 min. Digit SpanNumber Rep 1 & 25 min.

100 BroadCELF – 4TOLD 4 Primary and Intermediate TAPS 3 GfWord Classes Semantic Relationships GcSentence 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) GaPhonological Awareness (PC:S)Phonemic Awareness (PC:A) Word Discrimination (BR) Phonological Blending (PC:A) Word Discrimination (BR) Gv GsmFamiliar 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) GlrWord Associations (MA) Rapid Automatic Naming (NA) Gs MAJOR SPEECH LANGUAGE BATTERIES

101 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 Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF) Picture Vocab (TOLD) Auditory Comprehension (TAPS)

102 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 Sentence Memory (TAPS) Recalling Sentences (CELF ) Word Associations (CELF)

103 LETS LOOK AT A REPORT

104 Conclusions CHC and RtI should be used in concert SLPs and SPs use similar measures SLPs 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

105 References Cross Battery Assessment –http://www.crossbattery.com/http://www.crossbattery.com/ Dumont and Willis - ATDR –http://alpha.fdu.edu/~dumont/psychology/ATDR.htmhttp://alpha.fdu.edu/~dumont/psychology/ATDR.htm Kevin McGrews Intelligence Corner –http://www.iqscorner.com/http://www.iqscorner.com/ Andrew Shanock, Ph. D., NCSP


Download ppt "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


Ads by Google