AN INTEGRATED MODEL - WordPress.com · DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL Emerging legal ... Exceptional Children, 77 (3), 335-350. ... dyslexia, and developmental aphasia

NASP 2013 Seattle ‐ Justin Potts & Karen Apgar 2/12/2013

NASP Session MS013 1

Eugene 4J SDEugene, OR

Justin Potts, MS, NCSPKaren Apgar, MA/CAGS NCSP

AN INTEGRATED MODELTHE “CUTTING EDGE” OF SLD

IDENTIFICATION

pswpro.wordpress.com

For more information, please visit:

WHAT ARE PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT?

59

47

39

36

34

27

24

22

22

19

How to define weaknesses and strengths in cognitive...

School Psychologist salary/extended days

RTI VS. Testing for IDing SLD

Communique: Phonological Awareness Testing

need a teaching certificate to be a school psychologist?

What I wish private practitioners knew about schools...

skipping a grade

Dyslexia - IEP or 504 in high school?

Processing and SLD

school psychologist use of title

NASP Member Exchange - 1 Year Top 10 RepliesNumber of Replies



NASP 2012 SURVEY RESULTS

NASP 2012 SURVEY RESULTS

“At the preschool level for our students moving to elementary school we used a modified discrepancy model, where we look for patterns of strengths/challenges in our functional assessments as well as in our standardized test results.”

“I use PSW, my colleague uses discrepancy”

“My county utilizes interventions and progress monitoring, but we are not using any formal assessment of progress (i.e. easyCBM)”

“Any of the three”

“We are working toward RTI”

“RTI as pre-referral; discrepancy model for eligibility”

“Inconsistent RTI/PSW assessment.”



A WORD ON DISCREPANCY…

“The questionable reliability associated with some tests used in determining discrepancy almost ensures the presence of regression effects (Coles, 1978; Thurlow & Ysseldyke, 1979). “

The test validity question is captured in what Kelley (1927) long ago labeled the “jingle and jangle” fallacy—the assumption that tests with the same names measure similar functions, or that tests with different names measure different functions.”

“The many associated problems made the expectancy approach a less than optimal means of determining and interpreting a “significant” discrepancy (Davis & Shepard, 1983).”

“L. R. Wilson, Cone, Busch, and Allee (1983) discussed the incorrect assumption thatachievement follows a linear growth pattern which results in an inherent bias when discrepancy is defined as a fraction of some expected achievement value because of different slopes in the patterns.”

“Finally, O’Donnell (1980) found that a discrepancy derived from an expectancy formula was not a distinctive characteristic of LD and was equally likely to be found among other students with disabilities.”

Kavale, K.A. (2001) Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disabilities. Executive summary. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit (Washington, DC, Aug 27-28, 2001)

“In actuality, the resulting prevalence rates ranged from 1% to 37% (Sinclair, Guthrie, & Forness, 1984). Confounding this variability was the additional finding that in a sample of students deemed eligible for LD programs, 64% were not identified by any expectancy formula (Sinclair & Alexson, 1986).”

OSEP Letter to Zirkel, 2008

DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL

Emerging legal opinions in

favor of integrated model of

evaluation

Difficulty in establishing

and maintaining fidelity when using RtI only

for SLD identification

True to intent of adequate

differentiation of a unique

population of students with

SLD

Minimize any delays in providing support to

students who need it

Ensure a comprehensive look at student needs has been

conducted to support

instructional planning



What informat ion would you l ike to rev iew the most?

CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE

SLD Identification

RTI Procedures

BasicPsychologicalProcesses

Integrating Data for PSW

Using principles of convergent validity (triangulation) to identify and intervene for SLD

INTEGRATING DATA FOR PSW



Nothing in the Eugene model prec ludes s tudents f rom get t ing ass is tanceIn fact , many cont inue to get T ier I I and I I I leve l ass is tance, even i f they may not qual i fy under SLD.

“Certainly help kids that need help. If RTI leads to this, then who can argue its value. But this approach will not put us closer to understanding learning disabilities.”

RTI—As a General Education Tool

Useful in integrating General Ed and Special Ed

A product and example of Data Based Decision Making

RTI: As an SLD assessment procedure

An alternative to the ability-achievement discrepancy model (Which is not research based, but pre-2004 IDEA regulation based)

If the student responds to intervention…the student is probably not SLD Gerber, M. M. (2003,

December). Teachers Are Still the Test: Limitations of Response to Instruction Strategies for Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

WHY IS THIS DIFFICULT?

“In Jenkins et al.’s survey of RTI-implementing teachers and administrators in 62 schools across 17 states, 12 separate approaches were described for serving students.”“Moreover, because of its relative newness, there are serious inefficiencies in its application.”

Fuchs (2012) “Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention”



OREGON IMPLEMENTATIONS

QUICK QUIZ

The IDEA requires the use of RTI for eligibility under Specific Learning Disability. T/F

What are the primary components of RTI?

What are the TIERS of RTI? What happens at each TIER?

IDEA describes what an appropriate RTI process or model should have. T/F

What method are you using in your district?



QUICK QUIZ - ANSWERS

IDEA describes what an appropriate RTI process or model should have.

Answer: False…but

In January, 2011, the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provided a memorandum in response to issues of delay/deny evaluations for Special Education. Thismemo was important in clarifying the “core characteristics that underpin all RTI models:”

1) Students receive high-quality research-based instruction in their general education setting;2) Continuous monitoring of student performance; 3) All students are screened for academic and behavioral problems; and,4) Multiple levels (tiers) of instruction that are progressively more intense, based on thestudent’s response to instruction.

(OSEP, Letter to State Directors of Special Education, 1-21-2011)

RTI COMPONENTSAnd add:

• High quality general education instruction with common core curriculum

• Implement research-based interventions directly tied to instructional needs



UNIVERSAL SCREENING

3 Tiers

Risk Pool

GOLD STANDARD SCREENING

From Compton, D., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. & Bryant, J. (2006) Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Presented at NASP, NRCLD

“So, combination of 1st

grade screening battery of phonemic awareness, rapid naming, oral language, initial WIF [Word Identification Fluency], and 5-week WIF slope, with decision rules based on classification tree analysis, may have the potential to push RD risk designation to a level of accuracy sufficient for RTI.”



GOLD STANDARD RISK POOL

Vanderheyden, A.M. (2011) Technical adequacy of response to intervention decisions. Exceptional Children, 77 (3), 335-350.

“…there are messages that school psychologists can take f rom the current f ind ings.

F i r s t , use of a s ing le measure i s not prudent for sc reening dec is ions . ”

SCREENING

Hosp (2011) “Potential Bias in Predictive Validity of Universal Screening Measures Across Disaggregation Subgroups”



Vellutino, et al. (2007) “Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a convergent skills model of reading development.”

3 Tiers

100% receive high quality instructionAt least 80% benefit fully

20% receive something more, something different based on universal screening

5%-10% receive targeted individualized instruction based on diagnostics

“RTI is implemented in numerous ways. It can include one tier or as many as six or seven tiers. Tiers designated by the same number may represent different services in different schools.” (Fuchs, 2012)



See review of this book featuring the Eugene 4J model in NASP CommuniqueJanuary/February 2013

MULTI-TIERED INTERVENTION

Core + Instructional + TargetedAdditional 60 min/week minimum

Instructional intervention based on diagnosticsUse of targeted instructional materials

Core + Instructional LevelSame 90 min/day

Use of supplemental materials to core (instructional level) Progress monitoring

CoreReading 90 min/day

Benchmark Screening min 3x/year

Decision rule:

<20th Percentile on screening assessments

Decision rule:

6 weeks/3 data points

Trendline/Aimline analysis

Decision rule:

12 weeks/6 data points

Trendline/Aimline analysis

Change targeted &/or Referral for Evaluation



PROGRESS MONITORING

Benchmarks and progress monitoring

Intervention

Key indicators of lack of progress

Slope < aimline (aimline at 30%ile by end of year)

Performance below 30%ile

Sec. 300.309(b) requires that the evaluation team consider data that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of the referral process, the child received appropriate instruction in regular education settings and that data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement during instruction was provided to the child's parents. (IDEA)

“Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress that is directly linked to instruction.” (OAR 581-015-2170 & 34 CFR 300.304)

Interventions and progress monitoring

Problem area was targeted reasonably?

Interventions for minimum

amount of time?

Confirmed rate of growth and

relative position to

peers?



CONVERGENT VALIDITY

SLD

Basic Psychological

Processes

Formative and Summative

Assessments

Responsiveness to instructional

changes

34CFR300.7 (Federal Register)(10) Specific learning disability is defined as follows:

General. The term means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.



DATA ANALYSIS/EVALUATION REPORT

Basic Psychological

Process

Weakness in related process?

Consistent with observations

and other data?

Strengths found?

Impact on Skills

development

Confirmed by progress

monitoring data?

Measured by standardized assessment?

Strengths found?

Interventions and progress monitoring

Problem area was targeted reasonably?

Interventions for minimum

amount of time?

Confirmed rate of growth and relative position

to peers?

COMPARISONS

Achievement

Achievement

Basic Process

Basic Process

Ach Cog



Cut-off Scores and Decision Rules

• Cut-off scores are not “set in stone”, but differences found should:– Not occur by chance (statistically unusual)– Be unusual in the population (normative weakness)

• Decision rules are based on:– 3 points of evidence for performance/achievement strength– 3 points of evidence for performance/achievement weaknesses– Weakness in related psychological process(es)– Strength in unrelated psychological process(es)

• Should confirm or refute the working hypothesis

EXAMPLE CASE 1

2nd grade

Basic Reading Skills

Has been progress monitored

More than one intervention

0 4 512 10 11 14 15 18

12 15 18

0

50

100

150

200

Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring

1 1 1 2 2 2_1 2_2 2_3 2_4 2_5 2_6 2 3 3 3

Passage Reading Fluency (1-8)

Other Probe easyCBM off-grade District 10%ile District 20%ile

District 50%ile District 75%ile District 90%ile Trendline

Progress Monitoring



EXAMPLE CASE 1

Evaluation Planning

EXAMPLE CASE 1

Reading Also Math, Writing, Language, (any other area of potential strength)

Memory, Auditory, Processing, and Language use Also Visual, Sensori-motor, Mental Control, (any other area of

strength)

Always gather enough information to attempt to find a strength and a weakness.



CASE 1 RESULTS

CASE 1 RESULTS

ScaleStandard

ScorePercentile

Rank

95% Confidence

IntervalQualitativeDescription

Sequential (Gsm) 71 3 63-83 Below AverageSimultaneous (Gv)* 111 77 100-120 AverageLearning (Glr) 89 23 81-97 AveragePlanning (Gf) 111 77 99-121 AverageKnowledge (Gc) 92 30 84-100 AverageFluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) 92 30 86-98 AverageMental Processing Index (MPI) 93 32 87-99 AverageNonverbal Index (NVI) 111 77 104-118 Average

Scale

StandardScore

PercentileRank

95% Confidence

IntervalQualitativeDescription

Normative & Personal Weakness

Normative & Personal

Strength

Infrequent (occurs rarely)

Sequential (Gsm) 71 3 63-83 Below Average

<5%

Simultaneous (Gv)* 111 77 100-120 Average

Learning (Glr) 89 23 81-97 Average

Planning (Gf) 111 77 99-121 Average <10%

Knowledge (Gc) 92 30 84-100 Average

Scale Index Scores Summary*Note: the Simultaneous Index had significant subtest variation within the index and may not be a unitary measure of this construct.



CASE 1 RESULTS

7682

106

80

100

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

PhonologicalAwareness

PhonologicalMemory

Rapid Naming AlternatePhonologicalAwareness

AlternateRapid Naming

CTOPP Results

Standard Scores

Conclusions? Low phonological awareness (blending, Elision) and phonological memory (digits, nonword repetition)

CASE 1 ANALYSIS

Evaluation Type Results

KTEA – Decoding <10th %ile

KTEA – Reading Composite < 10th %ile

easyCBM Reading Fluency <10th %ile

Phonics for Reading Interv. Weakness


KTEA – Math Composite >25th %ile

easyCBM Math >30th %ile

Classroom math Strength



CASE 1 ANALYSIS


KABC - Sequential <10th %ile

CTOPP – Phon Aware < 10th %ile

CTOPP – Phon Memory <10th %ile

Observations in class Weakness


KABC – Simultaneous (Gv) >25th %ile

KABC – Planning (Gf) >25th %ile

Observations in class Strength



EXAMPLE CASE 2

Student growth rate (winter 1-winter3) = +0.47 cwpm per week of instruction

Average student end-of-year 3rd grade growth = +0.88 cwpm per week of instruction

EXAMPLE CASE 2



EXAMPLE CASE 2



GENERATE A HYPOTHESIS

Hypothesized Indicator descriptions (check to right if description applies) CheckDifficulty understanding oral directions at an age/grade appropriate levelUses imprecise vocabularyTrouble remembering what was read √Difficulty retelling a story Problems defining vocabularyTrouble recalling relevant detail from a passageDifficulty retelling a sequence of consecutive actions √Problems drawing an accurate picture from an age appropriate orally presented storyProblems with cloze or maze reading tasks √Difficulty providing possible outcomes in a given unfinished storyProblems identifying inconsistencies in a contrived storyProblems sorting and sequencing randomized sentences from the same story (story anagram)Difficulty with inference tasks (providing missing elements, elaboration on detail, etc.)

Reading Comp

Hypothesized Indicator descriptions (check to right if description applies) CheckDifficulty in single-word decoding √Problems with letter sound correspondenceProblem naming all the letters of the alphabetProblems blending two or more soundsDifficulty identifying that two words rhymeFrequent mispronunciation of age-appropriate wordsFailure to identify the starting letters of own nameFailure to identify the initial phoneme of own nameFrequent long pauses between words √Makes wild guesses at unfamiliar words without sounding √Avoidance or behavior problems when asked to read √Spelling that demonstrates pre-phonetic relationships or no phonetic relationship √Higher skill development in areas that are not dependent on reading √

Basic Reading

GATHER STRENGTHS/EXCLUSIONS

Academic Strengths:

Very good at art; likes to drawUnderstands very well when things are read to herBetter at math

Cognitive/Psychological Strengths

Loves to learn, eager to come to schoolLikes to talk and always engages the teacher in conversation (related or not)

Exclusionary Considerations:

One parent’s L1 is not English, but English spoken primarily at homeProblems with attention in the classroomMedical issue (heart problem) and missed about 9% of days in 1st grade



PREDICTIONS?

• Weak phonological awareness and/or auditory short-term memory• Weak speed of processing or rapid naming ability• Poor language development

• Good visual processing or visual memory• Good mental control or executive functions• Good problem-solving or abstract reasoning skills

Developmental History

Classroom Observation



INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS

• Short-term auditory memory problem vs. Phonological awareness problem• Rapid automatic naming problem vs. Language development problem• Processing speed (decision speed) problem vs. Attention problem• Executive function (inhibit) problem vs. Short-term auditory memory

These students may all look exactly the same on RTI deficit-based measurements.

And therefore the goal is not just to train against their weakness, but to recognize and utilize their strengths.

Determination: Eligible under SLD



CASE 2 - HOW’S SHE DOING?

0

15

0

11 11 10 1216

29

0

2026

17 15

35

20 18

26

1512

28 27 26

36 35

48 48

34

52

6662

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100nter

2_1

ring

Fall

2_2

2_3

2_4

nter

2_5

2_6

2_7

2_8

2_9

2_10

2_11

2_12

ring

2_13

2_14

Fall

3_1

3_2

3_3

nter

ring

Fall

4_1

4_2

4_3

4_4

nter

C

W

P

M

Accuracy

Grade _ Probe #

Passage Reading Fluency CWPM & Accuracy

Accuracy

CWPM

Poly. (CWPM)

Goal (30th Percentile)

CASE 2 - HOW’S SHE DOING?

2

4

2

4

7

12

8

11

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring

2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 8 8 8

Multiple-Choice Reading Comprehension (2-8)

easyCBM off-grade prog District 10%ile District 20%ile

District 50%ile District 75%ile District 90%ile Trend Line



CHILD FIND HYPOTHETICAL

The parent requests an evaluation but the school does not suspect a disability and suggests implementing RTI first.

Problems?

Solutions?

EXAMPLE CASE 3



EXAMPLE CASE 3

WORKING HYPOTHESIS

Deficit in basic reading

skills

Exclusionary factors?

YES

NOIdentify suspected

related and unrelated processes/skills

The working hypothesis is that the student has a pattern that shows a consistent weakness in a process related to the achievement delay, and a relative strength in a process unrelated to the achievement delay.

HOWEVERWe test the NULL. That is, that there is no pattern. A student who does not exhibit weaknesses in the underlying constructs most associated with the achievement delay may still have a learning problem, but not SLD.

Choose a core (and/or supplemental) battery

for processes/ achievements

Evaluate both strengths and weaknesses

Analyze the data and evaluation results



Aca

dem

ic R

eadi

ng A

chie

vem

ent Empirically-derived Criterion Assessments Criteria Administered Value

Phoneme Segmentation Probe <20th %ile Repeated Phoneme Segmentation Probes <20th %ile or slope<aimline Letter/Word ID Probe <20th %ile Repeated Letter/Word ID Probes (min 5) <20th %ile or slope<aimline

Norm Referenced Assessments Criteria Administered ValueYCAT Reading (ages 4 to7-11 only) <10th %ile; SS≤80 GORT-IV Accuracy <10th %ile; SS≤80 WJ-III Basic Reading Skills Cluster (LWID + WA) <10th %ile; SS≤80 WJ-III Phoneme/Grapheme Cluster (WA + SoS) <10th %ile; SS≤80 KTEA-II Sound Symbol (PA + NWD) <10th %ile; SS≤80 KTEA-II Decoding (LWR + NWD) <10th %ile; SS≤80 WIAT-II Word Reading &/or Pseudoword Decoding <10th %ile; SS≤80 WRMT-R/NU Basic Skills Cluster (LWID + WA) <10th %ile; SS≤80

Curriculum/Grade Leveled Assessments Criteria Administered ValueOregon Assmt Know. & Skills (OAKS) – Reading Not Met Teacher-scored reading/vocab from curriculum Not passing or <60% Graded Reading Activity from Curriculum Not passing or <60% Strong Measure Moderate Measure

3 full for points of evidence

Bas

ic P

sych

olog

ical

Pro

cess

es

Memory Auditory Processing Language UseWJ-III Working Memory WJ-III Auditory Processing WJ-III Processing Speed WJ-III Verbal CompWJ-III Short-Term Memory WJ-III Phonemic

AwarenessWJ-III Cognitive Fluency

WISC-IV/WAIS-IV Working Memory WISC-IV/WAIS-IV Processing Speed

WISC-IV/WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension

CAS Successive CAS Planning³KABC-II Sequential or Learning KABC-II Planning³ KABC-II Knowledge

DAS-II Memory or Retrieval DAS-II Auditory Processing (subtest)

DAS-II Processing Speed DAS-II Verbal Ability

CELF-4 Working Memory CELF-4 Phonological Awareness (subtest)

CELF-4 Expressive Lang

CTOPP Phonological Memory CTOPP Phonological Awareness

CTOPP Rapid Naming

EXAMPLE CASE 3



EXAMPLE CASE 3

EXAMPLE CASE 3



EXAMPLE CASE 3

Utilize full evaluation timeline in order to evaluate progress

What would you decide?

EXAMPLE CASE 3 - OUTCOME



EXAMPLE ELL

SPANISH LANGUAGE EVAL

9

11 1110 10

1312

910

456789

101112131415

Scaled Score

Scaled Score



Nonverbal processes

CULTURAL/LINGUISTIC “LOADING”

Ortiz 2008http://www.nasponline.org/resources/culturalcompetence/cultcomppractice.aspx



CULTURE/LANGUAGE MATRIX

LANGUAGE AND EXPECTED PROGRESS



HOW’S HE DOING NOW?

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

11 11 1013

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

winter 1

1_1

1_2

1_3

1_5

1_4

1_6

Spring 1

Fall 2

1_7

1_8

1_9

Winter 2

1_10

1_11

C

W

P

M

Accuracy

Grade _ Probe #

Passage Reading Fluency CWPM & Accuracy

Accuracy

CWPM

IEP Goal

Poly. (CWPM)

Goal (30th Percentile)

Documents

AN INTEGRATED MODEL - WordPress.com · DEVELOPMENT OF A MODEL Emerging legal ... Exceptional Children, 77 (3), 335-350. ... dyslexia, and developmental aphasia