1. Core-Selective Process: Using the WJ-IV to Efficiently and Comprehensively Diagnose Specific Learning Disabilities (Ala-CASE)
Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D.
Midwestern State University
Tammy Stephens, Ph. D.
Consultant
2017

2. Presenter Intro and Disclosures
Dr. Edward Schultz and Dr. Tammy Stephens
Activity 1 (Who is here)
Activity 2 (Alabama PSW discussion )

3. Description
Texas Educational Diagnosticians have been using CHC theory- based assessment as one of the methods since the movement away from the discrepancy models. Advances in both CHC Theory and in test design, has led to greater efficiency in the testing process as well as improved diagnostic precision. This session will demonstrate how to a identify PSW using the core-selective approach, yielding diagnostically useful information in less time.

4. Objectives: The Participant will be able to:
Understand and Apply the lessons from the last decade regarding SLD identification
Identify SLD using single-batteries, specifically the WJ-IV and WISC-V
Interpret test data using a variety of statistically sound techniques.
Increase diagnostic precision using a core-selective approach
Complete Evaluations in a legal defensible manner
DNQs, Increase Professional Judgement, and PSWs

5. Random Thoughts No magic number-silver bullet
“just tell me what to do”
Educational Detectives
Debate

6. Debate: “What's the best way to identify SLD?”
None of the SLD identification models in practice have a research base which allows then to be considered the “gold standard” method of identification
The primary reason being is SLDs involve a complex set of interacting variables including biology, genetics, development, quality of teaching, curriculum demands, state and local policy (see Cottrell & Barrett, 2016), cognition, language, social competence, academic behavior, co-morbid disorders (i.e., ADHD), families educational history, etc. and any method which purports to be the most accurate arguably over-simplifies the construct.

7. Issues Concerning the PSW Debate
The professional literature discussion regarding SLD-PSW models has been narrowly focused on the cognitive aspects of SLD and formula based methods.
The PSW debate has been primarily viewed from “psychological” perspective (e.g., use psychometrics, cognitive processing, role of school psychologist, etc.) with a focus on the cognitive- achievement aspects of the federal SLD definition

8. Issues Concerning the PSW Debate
Less attention to the other salient features of the definition, specifically “in using language” and the “imperfect ability to listen, speak, and think.”
The use of integrating other data sources to support decisions are often mentioned, however rarely discussed in much detail. These data sources are underused in both theory and practice (Kwiatek & Schultz, 2014)

9. Before
Anticipation Guide  
After /During
Alabama Law states that academic achievement MUST be assessed using a norm-referenced test such as the KABC, WIAT, WJIV, etc.
Tests that measure one trait (e.g., memory span) are superior to tests that measure two or more traits.
Policy Decisions (such as RTI/XBA) are based on Research and Practice (ask Questions/List methods)
A Review of Existing Evaluation Data (REED) can be conducted for initial evaluations.
Despite changes in policy and procedures in SLD identification, SLD rates have stayed relatively stayed the same in Alabama
Measures that have an increase in cognitive complexity have a decrease in ecological validity
CHC Theory and PASS Theory have more similarities than differences.
We must ensure that evaluation materials are administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments.

10. Current Practice
The Texas regulations allow several options to school districts to develop local policy in order to identify SLD including IQ/Achievement approaches, RTI, cross battery approaches (XBA), processing approaches, and integrated models such as RTI/XBA. (“third method-PSW”
Each of these methods have features that help answer complex referral questions, however each of these methods have disadvantages related to comprehensiveness, efficiency, and precision.
RTI discussion

11. What is PSW model Process
(a) multiple sources of data collected over time using a variety of assessment tools and strategies, (b) data analysis grounded in pattern seeking techniques, (c) predictive and treatment validity, and (d) evidence-based and logical decision making
Additionally “over time” is emphasized as the majority of students referred for testing have a years’ worth of data identifying patterns and trends in academic behavior resulting in the referral question
Time is key variable-Patterns vs Profile

12. PSW
“over time” is emphasized as the majority of students referred for testing have a years’ worth of data identifying patterns and trends in academic behavior resulting in the referral question.
data collected “prior to and as part of” the referral allows the interpretation of similar data under different conditions over time.
Context-Instruction

13. SLD Models in Use RTI-CHT (RTI-Cognitive Hypothesis testing C/DM)
Robust RTI
Cog processes and Achievement are linked
Learning profiles must be evaluated on the context of
Direct Assessment
Ecological and Treatment Validity (RTI)
Triangle Discrepancies
DAS (9), WJ-Ach-3 (3),Celf -4(6); Boston Naming test (2); Controlled Oral Word Association test (2), WJ-Cog 3 (5), NEPSY (1); 5 more batteries (8)

14. Cognitive Hypothesis Testing Model CHT

15. Concordance/Discordance Model of SLD Diagnosis

16. C/DM or Dual Discrepancy

17. Dehn’s Model
Uses a cross-battery test selection (6 –year old-24 Cog.tests, and analysis approach
profile analysis of the psychological processes is conducted vs. a particular discrepancy cut-off. Requires statistically significant intra-individual weakness with at least one cognitive process in the average range.
language, memory, and attention play a more prominent role in the assessment.
processing deficits must be related to deficit academic skills
Requires Transferring Score into Software

18. Discrepancy Approaches (Pros)
Easy to apply and arguably efficient
Administratively/Legally Appealing due to quantifiable scores and cuts

19. Discrepancy Approaches (Cons)
IQ/Achievement discrepancy lacks comprehensiveness and precision.
Overreliance on the standard scores, assessment does not inform intervention, and under- identifies students with low- average IQs and over-identifies students with high Iqs.
Potential for rigid adherence to cut-scores.

20. Cross-Battery Approaches (Pros)p. 351
Useful when using single batteries that do not sufficiently measure theory-based constructs (i.e, CHC factors)
Inform intervention.
Comprehensive and flexible
Useful for ELLs and identify students with low or lower IQs.
Theory-Driven

21. Cross-Battery Approaches (Cons)
Use of norm samples (precise)-pg. 360
Deviations from Test Publisher (p. 143 WJ Tech manual; p. 378) (show in sample)
Complicated-time consuming pg. 361 (XBASS) (29 Case Study)
Transferring scores from single-batteries such as the WJ IV to XBA software which impacts precision by replacing actual norms with contrived norms.
necessity and efficiency of inputting scores in two different places is in question (potential for error)

22. Cross-Battery Approaches (Cons)
Misinterpretation/disregarding of scores (divergent scores). P (show sample)
Global ability is now “relevant” for Dual-Discrepancy PSW Analysis –subject to misuse to get 3 “yes’s (see sample)
Over-emphasis on mathematical formulas using standard scores and less on clinical judgment.

23. Case Study
Will (10) was evaluated throughout 5 sessions-first four sessions lasted approx. 2 to 2.5 hours-last session lasted an hour
Reading/Writing-17 Cog.,4 math tests 13-achievement
BASC was admin-

24. “Hybrid Approach”
Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes (2007) propose an SLD identification model that is a “hybrid” approach markedly different from PSW-COG.
This model relies on RTI, low achievement, and intra-individual difference models for the identification of SLD

25. “Hybrid Approach”
Cognitive testing and neuropsychological test can be administered in this model in a limited fashion, the authors cite the lack of evidence that extensive assessments of cognitive, neuropsychological, or intellectual skills contribute to intervention or distinguish SLD from low achievers (Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005).
“inadequate response” to RTI using curriculum-based measurements (CBM) is a necessary component for SLD identification and arguably the “heart” of the comprehensive assessment when using this method.

26. Purposeful Assessment
The Great Donna Smith
Selective-Theory Based
Assessment plan is “focused and deep”

27. Famous Story

28. Norm-Referenced Testing (SLD)
The use of individual norm-referenced testing has been questioned at the policy level as well. The IDEA regulations’ commentary states “the Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or cognitive processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD” (2006, p ) and “In many cases, though, assessments of cognitive processes simply add to the testing burden and do not contribute to interventions” (IDEA Regulations’ Commentary, 2006, p ).

29. Issues Over-Reliance on Standard Scores
Formulas-require a certain number of tests
Dichotomous classifications-continuous, interacting variables.
Only able to generalize to the task (explain)

30. Core-Selective
The core-selective approach to identify specific learning disabilities (SLD) is an efficiently focused, data-driven professional judgment process rooted in contemporary CHC theory. Specifically, using a single-battery (cognitive, achievement and oral language) as a foundation of the evaluation, integrated with current policy and practice, the most salient features of SLD are assessed in order to comprehensively and efficiently describe an individual’s unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW).

31. PSW-Core-Selective (pros)
Efficient (power to accomplish something)-more cognitively complex measures makes testing more efficient and practical.
Comprehensive-measures the most salient features of SLD (language)
Precise-use of actual norms, the ability to go into greater depth. New narrow-beyond CHC

32. PSW-Core-Selective (pros)
One-step scoring –no transferring
Beyond Standard Scores-RPI
PSW analysis using actual norms, GIA
OL as a predictor
SAPT Cluster (WJ-IV)
GC-GF
Oral Expression, Listening Comp are directly measured.
See Handout-distinguishing Features

33. Procedures Specific Learning Disability:
…Means a DISORDER in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations….

34. Regulations
Guidance l
Summary.aspx?FID=143&DT=G&LID=en
Sec (b)(1), consistent with section 614(b)(2)(A) of the Act, the evaluation must use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant information about the child. (Strategy: a plan of action or policy designed to achieve a major or overall aim)

35. C-SEP Step-By-Step

36. Step 1: Measure Psychological Processes
Administer the WJ IV/WISC-V Cognitive Core and analyze the student’s performance.
If one of the G’s is not average or above average, further exploration IS warranted through the utilization of selective testing procedures.
Deficits must be identified using a cluster score.

37. Step 2: Measure Language (Core 4)
….. or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, and which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak…. (core)
Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc)
Picture Vocabulary and Oral Comprehension (primarily)
Auditory Processing (Ga)
Segmentation
Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) and (Gltr)
Rapid Picture Naming

38. Step 3: Measure Academics
Getting a focused referral question
Core or Selective
Cautions concerning Ach. Tests
Curriculum differences
Standard Scores can be misleading
Limited number of item (ave. 3 per grade)

39. Step 4: Use Integrated Data Analysis Procedures to identify PSW (handout p. 5-6)
Regulations and Research, 2
Pattern Analysis
Profile Analysis
Multiple lenses

40. Decision Time
When applying the pattern of strengths and weaknesses model, finding that the child meets the ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA for an SLD must include a determination that:
The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in:
Performance; Yes or no?
Achievement; or Yes or No?
Both; Yes or No?

41. Decision Time The pattern is relative to:
Age; (how does the student compare to same age peers-both classroom and norm-referenced?)
State-approved grade-level standards; or (how far from grade standards)
Intellectual development (how does this compare with each other? Intra-individual)

42. Decision Time
The pattern is evident as indicated by significant variance:
What is statistically significant? Generally accepted is 1SD.
Significant
sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy.
having a particular meaning; indicative of something.
Variance the state, quality, or fact of being variable, divergent, different, or anomalous.
2.an instance of varying; difference; discrepancy.

43. Decision Time
The pattern is evident as indicated by significant variance:
Among specific areas of cognitive function such as working memory and verbal comprehension; or (yes or no and which ones?)
Between specific areas of cognitive function and academic achievement; and (yes or no and which ones?)
The pattern is relevant to the identification of an SLD using appropriate assessments. (Next Slide)

44. Decision Time
The pattern is relevant to the identification of an SLD using appropriate assessments.
From Guidance Document
In evaluating specific areas of cognitive functioning to determine a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, schools should take into consideration the federal definition of SLD as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language” (CFR §300.8(c)(10)). An identified pattern of strengths and weaknesses should be linked to the failure to achieve adequately as described above when used as a determination of SLD. Students whose classroom achievement indicates a pervasive weakness that does not constitute a pattern of strengths and weaknesses should not be determined to have a SLD. Students who meet the criteria as having mental retardation should not be determined to have a SLD.

45. More Thoughts
Decisions that are logically, empirically, and statistically related are the strongest. (Down and Across)
Logical-Task Demands
Empirically-Research
Statistically-using valid and reliable methods
Adhering to policy and publisher provide legal defense to your findings

46. FAQs and Distinguishing Features
See handout
Why are scores so low on the WJIV?
Why are RPI’s and SS not congruent.
Who says anything about using 1 test?