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., NCSPJacquelyn O’Connor, MAJacqueline Butera, MACollege of Saint Rose, Albany NY
2 Goals of Presentation Change how we approach assessment Review the Federal LawDefine CHC and Cultural Linguistic DemandsHow to assemble a Cross Battery AssessmentHow it impacts recommendations and interventionsShow how we do the same or nearly the same testsWriting a Comprehensive SLP SP reportOpen up communication between SP’s and SLP’s
3 What are we doing?After you've done a thing the same way for two years, look it over carefully. After five years, look at it with suspicion. And after ten years, throw it away and start all over.(Perlman, 1958)
4 THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE MALPRACTICE OF TOMORROW What are we doing?THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE MALPRACTICE OF TOMORROW(Reynolds, 2009)
5 We like RtI Terrific Model for Early Intervention/Prevention No more Wait to FailEarly intervention lowers the risk of academic difficulty in the futureHelps identify those who suffer from dispedagogia rather than a possible learning disabilityGeneral Education movementBreak down the walls between Spec Ed and Gen Ed.Teach everyone not just the middleFocus on the resources we have, not what we don’t have.
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 academicsPushes school psychologists to understand what is reading, writing, math, etc.We can actually use our consultation skills
7 Questions RtI still needs to answer How long for interventionsHow many interventionsDifferences between schools (even within districts)Reliability and ValidityRtI only answers WHAT is happening, not WHY (especially at Tier III)
8 Comprehensive Assessment Can give us a better sense of the WHY?CHC, PASS, CHT, etc.Is NOT Discrepancy AnalysisIt is invasiveIs no longer trying to find ‘g’Should be based on research and confirmatory data.Based on contemporary research
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 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 continuumTry not to blame psychological tests, but rather the people who use them inappropriatelyUnderstand that you must do what your state requires for SLD identification but you can add to those requirements in a manner that approaches best practices (Zirkel, 2008)Understand that neither RTI nor any other approach to SLD identification is a panacea – so don’t endorse any approach as a cure-allEntertain the idea that a balanced approach may be the best approach at this time– Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.
11 President’s Message“I would hope that the goal here is to expand the methods of assessment available to the practitioner and not to limit them. It seems possible that these two very valuable approaches can be utilized along a continuum of collecting information about a child that would culminate in a very clear and comprehensive evaluation that would be of value to all.”Huff, L. (2005, February). President’s Message. NASP Communique, 33, 2-3.– Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.
12 The American Educational System Structure Gen. Ed.TurfdomConflicting ProgramsLack of coordinationbureaucracy for sake of bureaucracyStudent grouping not instructionally basedRigidity, rulesRedundancySPEDGiftedTitle IMigrantAt-RiskESLK-12 Education
13 School Psychologist and Speech Language Pathologists TurfdomLack of coordinationRedundancySpeech Language PathologistSCHOOLPSYCHOLOGIST
14 Shared office, separate lives For many initial evaluations, the school psychologist and the speech language pathologist are asked to do an assessmentThe assessments often happen in isolation of one anotherLittle to no discussion about what abilities are to be tappedEvery kid, no matter what the issue, gets the same battery of testsThe SP and SLP share results at CSE as separate voices rather than one.
15 Shared Office, Separate lives SLP’s and SP’s will do the same tests without knowing itWe report on the same issues without reading each others reportExpect parents and teachers to consolidate our findingsReports are filled with numbers and not informationMultiple reports connected by a staple.
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)Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)
18 Traditional System Issues CASE 1:THIRD GRADERREADING DIFFICULTYWISCWIAT
19 Traditional System Issues CASE 2:SEVENTH GRADERWRITING DIFFICULTYWISCWIAT
20 Traditional System Issues CASE 3:FIRST GRADERMATH DIFFICULTYWISCWIAT
21 Traditional System issues Little emphasis on early intervention and preventionFalse Positives and False NegativesIQ-Achievement Discrepancy – BAD(Identifying CHC Abilities, using consistency GOOD!)IEP’s did not implement scientifically based instructionStart program in September, find out if effective in MayOverrepresentation of cultural/linguistic minorities in special educationStop Retention and Social PromotionMore concern about being in compliance than child’s educational success – THE FORGOTTEN GOALWithin Student vs. Within SystemDarn those lazy kids. I sat them in the room for a half hour and nothing happened.
23 THE EARLIER THE INTERVENTION OF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTY BREAKING NEWSTHE EARLIER THE INTERVENTIONTHE LOWER THE RISKOF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTYIN THE FUTURE
24 Related to Traditional Assessment? Huge Increases in IdentificationFrom 1976 to 2002 the classification of children with specific learning disabilities increased 300%President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education July 1, 2002Inconsistencies in Identification% of identified children in Utah were ED,the ED rate in CA was 2.5 % of identified childrenForness & Kavale, 1990
25 Related to the Traditional Model? Cultural BiasAfrican American students are twice as likely as whites to be labeled MR and 50% more likely to be designated as emotionally disturbed(A New Era 2002, Gresham, 2002)Reading Failure80% of of those with SLD (40-53% of all Sp Ed students) are there because they haven’t learned how to read
26 Related to the Traditional Model? 6 million children currently in special educationFederal funding is 8.5 billion dollarsPlacement in special education programs most often result in little gain or negative outcomes(A New Era 2002)
27 Over thirty years of research has provided support for the termination of discrepancy as a way of identifying learning disabilities
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 ModelDefinitional ConcernsDiscrepancy based modelsWait to failDisconnection of assessmentsModel of the FuturePreventative approachValidated ModelsResponse to InterventionCHC XBA (putting the why in RTI)Comprehensive Evaluations
30 What are some of the details of the Federal Law? IDEIAWhat are some of the details of the Federal Law?
31 IQ achievement discrepancy no longer required RTI may be used AS A PART of the evaluation… but not as sole method
32 “use a variety of assessment tools” “not use any single procedure”“assess cognitive factors”
33 non discriminatory assessments valid and reliable assessment
34 Definition of SLD remains the same IDEIA 2004 Law34
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**]36
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?It’s the parts that make the wholeIt’s the parts that will identify the strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning
39 Breaking up is not so hard to do It is using research can we identify the parts of ‘g’ that impact learningThrough 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.
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.
41 Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S. O. (2001) Flanagan, D.P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley &Sons.
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.
43 Comprehension-Knowledge GcComprehension-KnowledgeThe breadth and depth of knowledge of a cultureThe ability to communicate one’s knowledge (especially verbally)The ability to reason using previously learned knowledge or proceduresOriginally described as “crystallized intelligence”“Jeopardy” players have waaaay too much Gc.Includes Listening Skills and Oral Communication.
44 GfFluid ReasoningNovel reasoning and problem solving that depend minimally on learning and acculturationAbility to reason, form concepts, and solve problems that often include novel information or proceduresInduction & deduction are hallmarks of GfImpacts math reasoning, reading comprehension, higher level thinkingThe first few times you do Soduku, you are using your Fluid Reasoning. After you learn the trick, it becomes crystallized knowledge (Gc)
45 Long-term (Storage &) Retrieval GlrLong-term (Storage &) RetrievalAbility to store information and fluently retrieve it laterAbility to retrieve from file cabinetNot 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 memoryIncludes Rapid Naming, Meaningful Memory, Associative memoryAll contestants on Jeopardy have good Gc, but those who are more effective at retrieving the info do better.
46 Ga Auditory Processing Ability to analyze, synthesize, & discriminate auditory stimuliAbility to perceive and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditionsNot to be confused with an “auditory learner” or how well someone hears. Can be hearing impaired and still have good GaIncludes Phonemic Awareness
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)
48 GsmShort-term MemoryAbility to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds7 chunks of information (+ /– 3)Working Memory and Memory SpanWorking Memory is key in most academic areas.
49 GsProcessing SpeedAbility to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attentionAttentive speedinessUsually measured by tasks that require rapid cognitive processing but little thinkingCard sorting, game of Perfection
50 Visual-Spatial Thinking GvVisual-Spatial ThinkingAbility to perceive, analyze, synthesize and think with visual patternsAbility to store and recall visual representationsFluent thinking with stimuli that are visual in the “mind’s eye”Not to be confused with a “visual learner” or how well does someone see. Can be visually impaired and still have good Gv
51 Supporting Evidence for CHC theory Structural – Evidence from over 50 years of factor analytic studiesOutcome 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 functioningHeritability – 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)
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 FSIQIt’s the parts that make the wholeIt’s the parts that will identify the strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning
54 Working Memory Index WMI Processing Speed Index WISC-IV Composition INDEX SUBTESTS CHCVerbalComprehensionIndexVCISimilaritiesGcVocabularyGcFULLSCALEIQ(FSIQ)ComprehensionGcWord ReasoningGcInformationGcPerceptualReasoningIndexPRIBlock DesignGvPicture ConceptsGc/GfMatricesGfPicture CompletionGv/GcLetter Number SequencingGsmWorking Memory Index WMIDigit SpanGsmArithmeticGqCodingGsProcessing Speed IndexPSISymbol SearchGsCancellationGs
55 SO WHY DO A CHC EVALAlmost all new versions of cognitive batteries are based in CHCStunning since CHC came out only 10 years agoDon’t waste time with unnecessary tests between our two evals and within our individual evals.Shooting with the LIGHTS ONLegally defensible. Less lawsuits.Parents and educators actually understand our reports and appreciate knowing why the child is struggling. Empowering for everyone!
56 Cross Battery is THEORY/RESEARCH focused NOTKIT FOCUSEDREMEMBER: USE THEORY AND RESEARCH TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY.
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).Determination as to whether or not this hypothesis is supported involves comparing an examinee’s performance to the WJ III norm sample.5858
59 STEP 1: REASON FOR REFERRAL Individualize your assessment batteries.Don’t give WISC/WIAT/TOLD to every single kid who is referred.Know what cognitive/language abilities impact the specific academic concernRule out exclusionary factors
60 Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006) see also Kevin McGrew’s website:
61 Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD Patterns: Ages 6-8 GcCrystallizedIntelligenceGsmShort-TermMemoryGsProcessingSpeedGaAuditoryGlrLong-TermRetrievalBasicReading SkillsReadingCompGcCrystallizedIntelligenceGsmShort-TermMemoryGsProcessingSpeedGaAuditoryGlrLong-TermRetrievalBasicMath SkillsGfFluidIntelligenceGsmShort-TermMemoryGsProcessingSpeedGlrLong-TermRetrievalGfFluidIntelligenceGcCrystallizedGsmShort-TermMemoryGsProcessingSpeedMathReasoning
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.
64 The Step-by-Step CB Approach Identify the CHC abilities that are represented adequately on the core batteryReview the CHC Cross-Battery WorksheetsIdentify 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
65 Guiding Principles Gf Gf Inductive Reas. Deduct. Reas. Inductive Reas. Broad or Narrow test interpretation?Guiding PrinciplesGfGfBroadBattery A contains twoqualitatively differentindicators that can becombined to represent abroad ability clusterIRGINarrowBattery B contains twoqualitatively similarindicators that can becombined to represent anarrow ability clusterInductive Reas.Deduct. Reas.Inductive Reas.Inductive Reas.
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 testskeep the number of batteries to a minimum (preferably two)Use confidence bands to identify what has been measured
67 This is where SP and SLP can get together and see what should be done next. How can we supplement rather than duplicate
68 CHC Abilities Related to Basic Reading Skills and Reading Comprehension in Children Ages 6-8 Years GaGsGsmGlrImportant BroadCHC AbilitiesImportant NarrowCHC AbilitiesLDVLPCUSPMWMANACo-normedKABC-IINon. Wrd DcdVerbal Know.Phon. Aware.Timed Wrd RecTimed NWDWord OrderFluencyKTEA-IIRiddlesAtlantisRebusRANSupplementalWJ III Aud. Attent.WJ III Gs ClusterWJ III WM ClusterCTOPP= Strongest and most consistent significant relation= Consistent significant relation
69 STEP 4: MAKE SCORES COMMUNICATE Convert Scaled Scores into Standard ScoresSee handoutIf crossing batteries, find Cluster Average.Need to understand Confidence IntervalsIf the Cluster score on one battery adequately measures a Broad Ability, use that score rather than averaging.
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 DIRECTIt’s time to be detectives.Follow the clues/dataConfirmatory data should support any conclusions.
75 CHC domain Lexical Gc Deficit Gsm Glr/Gs Rapid Naming Deficit Ga Fletcher et al., (2002).Subtypes of reading disability based on phonological awareness (PA), rapid naming (RN), and vocabulary skills.Working memory is not depicted, but would also be a subtyping dimensionCHC domainLexicalDeficitGcGsmGlr/GsRapid Naming DeficitPhonological DeficitGaSubtypePA OnlyPA & RNPA & RN,Lex GlobalLanguageRN Only
76 Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand Flanagan & Ortiz (2001)Assessment of Diverse Children: Dimensions of Standardized Tests Related to BiasTests 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. cultureTests 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 performanceTests vary on both dimensions:Tests vary significantly with respect to the degree that they are culturally loaded as well as the degree of language requiredCultural Loading and Linguistic DemandLowModerateHigh
77 PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED PERFORMANCE MOST AFFECTED Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Bias in Test Validity and Interpretation (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001)Pattern of Expected Performance of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse ChildrenDEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMANDDEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADINGLOWMODERATEHIGHLOWINCREASING EFFECT OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCEPERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTEDMODERATEPERFORMANCE MOST AFFECTEDINCREASING EFFECT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCEHIGH(COMBINED EFFECT OF CULTURAL & LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES)
78 Letter-Number Sequencing DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMANDCulture and Language Matrix developed by Flanagan and Ortiz (2001) and found in Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment. WileyLOWMODERATEHIGHMatrix ReasoningCancellationHand MovementsFace RecognitionPattern ReasoningTrianglesAtlantisAtlantis – DelayedRebus - DelayedBlock DesignSymbol SearchDigit SpanCodingBlock CountingRoverNumber RecallRebusLetter-Number SequencingArithmeticPicture ConceptsWord OrderConceptual ThinkingHIGHPicture CompletionGestalt ClosureInformationSimilaritiesVocabularyComprehensionWord ReasoningStory CompletionExpressive VocabularyRiddlesVerbal KnowledgeDEGREEOFCULTURALOADING*The culture-language classifications for the WISC-IV and KABC-II are preliminary. Expert consensus studies are underway.
79 CHC Culture-Language Matrix Worksheet (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001) Name of Examinee: _________________________ Age: _______ Grade: _______ Date: _____________LOWMODERATEHIGHTest Name: Score:___________________________(______)Cell Average = ______Cell Average = ________________________________(______)HIGH___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)Cell Average = ______DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMANDDEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING
80 Let’s 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 forwardMakes sense as the Broad Abilities impact learningDon’t repeat testingShare different expertise and perspective on data.Accuracy of diagnosisAccuracy of intervention/intervention development
82 Saving Time Reduce number of subtests administered Report Writing Based on referralBased on researchReport WritingNo more staple – Comprehensive ReportCombine results and perspectivesParents don’t have to mix and matchFeedback or IEP meetingsStop saying the same thing in different languages
84 Test of Language Development- Primary & Intermediate Versions: Fourth Edition (TOLD-4) designed specifically to assess children’s receptive and expressive spoken language competencesPublished in 2008Ages 4-0 through 8-11; 8-0 through 17-116 core subtests, 3 supplemental (Primary Version)35 minutes to 50 minutes administration timenormative sample characteristics based on sample conformed to U.S school-age population census data
85 Rationaleassess children’s expressive and receptive competencies in the major components of linguisticsidentify children who are significantly below their peers in language proficiencydetermine children’s specific strengths and weaknesses in language skills (composite indexes are Listening, Organizing, Speaking, Grammar, Semantics, and Spoken Language)document children’s progress in language as a consequence of special intervention programs
86 TOLD-P:4 subtest organization Linguistic SystemsLinguisticFeaturesListening(receptive)Organizing (integrating-mediating)Speaking(expressive)SemanticsPictureVocabularyRelationalOralSyntaxSyntacticUnderstandingSentenceImitationMorphologicalCompletionPhonologyWordDiscriminationPhonemic AnalysisArticulation
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:4 Time to Administer Picture Vocabulary5 min.VocabularyOral Vocabulary10 min.Receptive Voc (WIAT III)SyntacticUnderstandingconnectedSentence Mem (wiat iii)Sentence ImitationAuditory AttentionWord DiscriminationSound AwarenessPhonemic AnalysisWord ArticulationSimilaritiesRelational VocabularyMorphological Completion
92 Test of Auditory Processing Skills – 3rd Edition (TAPS-3) Published in 2005Ages 4-189 subtests; 1-hour administrationNormed on 2,000+ studentsIndividual subtest scores & cluster scores
93 Rationale Ability to comprehend auditory information Provide the information necessary to assess the auditory processing related to cognitive and communicative aspects of languageAssess the auditory skills necessary for the development, use, & understanding of languageAbility to comprehend auditory information
94 Three Major Indices Basic Phonemic Skills (3 subtests) Assessment of basic phonological abilitiesAuditory Memory (4 subtests)Measures basic memory processesIII. 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-IV TAPS-3 Time to Administer Sound Blending Phonological Blending10 min.Auditory AttentionWord DiscriminationNumbers ReversedNumber Memory Reversed5 min.Memory for WordsWord MemorySound AwarenessPhonological SegmentationSentence Mem (WIAT III)Sentence MemoryAuditory ComprehensionAuditory ReasoningDigit SpanNumbers Forward
99 Redundancy for CELF-4 CELF -4 Time to Administer WJ/WISC/WIAT Understanding DirectionsConcepts/Following Directions10 min.Sentence recallRecalling Sentence5 min.SimilaritiesWord ClassesPicture VocabExpressive VocVocabularyWord DefinitionsStory RecallUnderstanding Spoken ParagraphSound AwarenessPhonological AwarenessRetrieval FluencyWord AssociationsDigit SpanNumber Rep 1 & 2
101 WIAT-III Listening Comprehension Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse.Two testlets make up whole Standard ScoreReceptive Vocabulary: Identify picture corresponding to a spoken wordOral Discourse Comprehension: Listen to narrative & answer questionPicture Vocab (TOLD)RV: Student must identify a picture that corresponds to a spoken word (e.g. “Point to….) Parallels Picture Vocabulary on TOLD, where the is asked to point to one of four pictures that best represents the meaning of a word read by the examiner.ODC: Student listens to a brief narrative from a recording and answers a question. Parallels Understanding Spoken Paragraphs on CELF, where the student is read a brief passage (which cannot be repeated) and is then asked a question, which can be repeated once, about main idea, detail, sequence, inference and prediction; Auditory Comprehension on TAPS (although here the passage is read by the examiner, not a recording)Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF)Auditory Comprehension (TAPS)
102 WIAT III: Oral Expression Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse.Three testlets make up whole Standard ScoreExpressive Vocabulary (Gc): Provide a definition -Oral Word Fluency (Glr): Name words in a specific categorySentence Repetition (Gsm): Repeat a sentence verbatimEV: Student is provided with definition and asked to provide a one-word answer (e.g. “Tell me the word that means a tool used to look in someone’s ear.”) Parallels ?????OWF: Student is asked to name as many words as they can in a specific category in 1 minute (e.g. Name as many Speech & Language Batteries that you can). Parallels Word Associations on CELF, Retrieval Fluency on WJ-COG,SR: Student is read a sentence and asked to repeat it verbatim (e.g. The speech-pathologist is nice.) Parallels Recalling Sentences on CELF; on Sentence Memory on the TAPSWord Associations (CELF)Recalling Sentences (CELF)Sentence Memory (TAPS)
104 Conclusions CHC and RtI should be used in concert SLP’s and SPs use similar measuresSLP’s and SPs can combine knowledge and experience to better interpret data, allowing for more specific diagnosis and recommendations.End the worry about getting an overall ‘g’Be theory/research based, not kit based
105 References Cross Battery Assessment Dumont and Willis - ATDR Dumont and Willis - ATDRKevin McGrew’s Intelligence CornerAndrew Shanock, Ph. D., NCSP