C-SEP Powerpoint TEDA KeynoteV2¢ According to a the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-3rd Edition (WIAT-3) technical manual, when referring to student with a possible math disability

10/8/17

1

The C-SEP Method of Evaluation

Dr. Tammy Stephens-Pisecco & Dr. Edward K. Schultz TEDA 2017 KeyNote Arlington, TX

C-SEP AUTHORS

.

Tammy L. Stephens-Pisecco, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH [email protected]

Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Midwestern State University [email protected]

PRESENTER INTRO AND DISCLOSURES

¢ Tammy L. Stephens-Pisecco, Ph.D., co-author of C-SEP; HMH Employee

¢ Edward Schultz, Ph.D., co-author of C-SEP; Per Diem trainer for HMH

¢ Activity 1 (Who is here?) ¢ Special thanks to the GREAT Georgene Moon for

sharing her knowledge and case study with us & to Linda Solomon and Harrian Stern who provided information around the history and evolution of the diagnostician.

OBJECTIVES v History/Evolution of the Educational

Diagnostician v Identification of SLD: A Trip Down

Memory Lane v Test Instrument Improvement & a Shift

in Evaluation Practices v Definition & Development of the C-SEP

Model v Using C-SEP with Different Instruments v Case Studies v Implications for Evaluators

10/8/17

2

THE PARTICIPANT WILL BE ABLE TO: ¢  Increase the understanding of the history and evolution of the educational diagnostician

profession.

¢  Understand the changes/improvements made in test instruments & the impact on evaluation procedures.

¢  Increase understanding of the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP).

¢  Understand the importance of using multiple data sources when identifying Specific Learning Disability (SLD).

¢  Understand the steps and decision points of the C-SEP model.

¢  Increase diagnostic precision using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP)

¢  Understand the difference between profile and “pattern of strengths and weaknesses”

¢  Understand the role professional judgment plays in data interpretation and in determining whether an SLD exists.

¢  Identify SLD using single-batteries by interpreting results and analyzing for a pattern of strengths and weaknesses

WHAT IS AN EDUCATIONAL DIAGNOSTICIAN???

History and Evolution of the Great Profession

THE MANY HATS OF THE DIAGNOSTICIAN

¢ Disability Expert ¢ Legal Expert ¢ Learning Specialist ¢ Assessment Specialist ¢ Counselor ¢ Advisor ¢ Ethics Expert ¢ Researcher/Investigator ¢ Curriculum Expert

¢ Collaborator/Relationship Builder

¢ Teacher ¢ Language Specialist ¢ Diversity Expert ¢ Mentor ¢ Writer/Storyteller ¢  Intervention Specialist ¢ Clerk/Secretary

HISTORY & EVOLUTION OF THE DIAGNOSTICIAN

¢  Late 1960’s The Mallas Report Conducted �  81 Special Educators were interviewed �  Major feedback said psychological reports gave labels but

no instructional strategies. So the Educational Diagnostician position was created as Part of Plan A.

¢  1970 First Diagnostician in Dallas ¢  1973 Texas Association of Educational Diagnosticians

(TAED) was founded.. Later changed to TEDA ¢  Originally required to have at least 3-years of

teaching experience… then 2-years… back to 3-years in 2018.

¢  Similar coursework required ¢  More emphasis placed on CHC theory over the past

10 years ¢  Movement away from using publisher’s scoring

platform

10/8/17

3

TEXAS DIAGNOSTICIANS

¢ Texas Diagnosticians have expertise in : �  Teaching and Learning �  Curriculum �  School Systems (context) �  Theory and Testing �  Certified

¢ CSEP was developed through both an educational (teaching and learning) and psychological (theory and testing) lens.

A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE

Early identification of SLD in Texas § Method 1: If a student had 16 points or greater difference between their IQ and achievement scores they were SLD. § Method 2: If a discrepancy of 16 points or more did not exist, but documentation of continued failure could be linked to previous performance and a specific pattern of strengths & weaknesses, they were SLD.

THE CONCEPTION OF C-SEP ¢ CSEP was conceptualized following the release of

major revisions and improvements of individualized norm-referenced cognitive, language, and achievement tests. With the release of the new versions of test batteries, a decade of change of SLD identification, and feedback from the field, using CSEP to identify SLD represents an approach that is efficient, precise, and comprehensive. This process was developed after a critical analysis of all published “third method” PSW approaches and incorporated the strengths of all SLD identification models and addressed the limitations of current approaches.

Development of the Core Selective

Evaluation Process (C-SEP)

§  Published in Fall 2015 in the DiaLog §  Answers referral questions in a comprehensive,

time efficient, precise, & legally defensible manner

§  Uses multiple sources of data for decision making

§  Can be used with different instruments

10/8/17

4

DEVELOPMENT, CONT.

¢  The Core-Selective Evaluation Approach (C-SEP) was first introduced in the DiaLog, Vol.44, No.2 Fall 2015.

¢  The C-SEP approach integrates multiple forms of data with individualized norm referenced test instruments by using cognitive, achievement, and oral language measures;

¢  Sound data analysis techniques are utilized within C-SEP to identify a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) in order to determine if a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) exists.

C-SEP APPROACH

§  Comprehensive-Reviews multiple data sources: Ø  Response to interventions-progress monitoring Ø  Statewide & Districtwide assessments Ø  Parent & Teacher information Ø  Health, sociological, language, & behavior Ø  Environment & educational opportunity Ø  Formal evaluation scores (IQ & achievement)

C-SEP APPROACH, CONT.

§  Efficient-New test instruments are more cognitively robust & complex. Designed around a core of tests that is more efficient.

§  Precise-Use actual test norms & not a program that interprets for you.

§  Diagnostic-Able to use scores to determine if a pattern of strengths and weaknesses exists to support referral question.

THOUGHTS

§  No magic number-”smoking gun” §  “just tell me what to do” §  Educational Detectives §  Debate

10/8/17

5

TESTING HAS EVOLVED

NORM-REFERENCED TESTS: A SHIFT IN THINKING FOR C-SEP

¢ Role of attention and executive functioning ¢ Academic Behavior Samples: Cognition,

Language tests, and Achievement Tests-all measure mental constructs and are interdependent.

¢ Role of norm-referenced testing is to understand the underlying psychological processes (including language) and the relationship with the referral question.


¢ According to a the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-3rd Edition (WIAT-3) technical manual, when referring to student with a possible math disability

…an overall subtest or composite score may overestimate or underestimate his or her math ability. For this reason, performing a skill analysis is particularly important for evaluating a student’s profile of strengths and weaknesses (p.8).”

NORM-REFERENCED TESTS: A SHIFT IN THINKING FOR CSEP

¢ Norm-referenced standard scores, show a person’s “place in line” (Sattler, 2009) and not “functioning”

¢ Proficiency scores, such as the ones reported on the WJ-IV (Relative Proficiency Index) and KTEA-3 (Error Analysis Procedure) are criterion referenced scores

10/8/17

6


¢ This can result in a phenomenon in which a student may show an average standard score on a particular construct (>90), but their proficiency score may indicate weaknesses.

¢ When using a PSW approach such as C-SEP, proficiency scores are better able to establish an individual’s learning profile than simply using standard score discrepancy analysis.


¢ Over-reliance on standard scores ¢ Lack of item density ¢ Content/Curriculum Validly Concerns ¢ Representative or Actual?

Distinguishing Features of Core-Selective

¢ Expressive (Oral Expression) and Receptive

Language (Listening Comprehension) are formally tested and considered with every evaluation.

¢ Statistical analysis is conducted using actual norms and software/tables from the publisher. Data collected from other batteries are included in the assessment using integrated data analysis.

¢ Statistical analysis informs decision-making and professional judgment instead of being the primary vehicle of the eligibility decision.


¢ All tests administered including the core should

be administered in a purposeful and deliberate manner

¢ Testing should only occur to provide new or previously unknown information. Examiner time is dedicated to interpretation and integrating data instead of test administration.

¢ Academic underachievement is determined using multiple sources.

10/8/17

7


¢ Standard scores obtained from norm-referenced

testing are used to understand the relationship between cognitive and language constructs.

¢ Standard scores are never used the sole determinate of a discrepancy or variance with a cognitive or language measure.

¢ The C-SEP model requires professional judgment be utilized when making eligibility decision. Discrepancy analysis is used to show variance and to identify and support patterns that emerged from the data.


¢ Special education policy and assurances are strictly adhered to in order to provide the most comprehensive and appropriate evaluation and outcome.

¢ The imperfect ability to listen, think, speak are salient features of the SLD definition and are critical assessment areas when identifying a PSW and instructional implications.

Current Practice

§  The Texas regulations allow several options to school districts to develop local policy in order to identify SLD including RTI, IQ/Achievement approaches, such as cross battery approaches, processing approaches, and integrated models (“third method-PSW”).

Legal Framework 89.1040 (c)(9)(B)(ii)(I) & 89.1040 (c)(9)(B)(ii)(II) §  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 – What is your district using? Do you think placement based on RTI only is sound?

DEFINITION

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….

10/8/17

8

C-SEP ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK

In broad terms and directly related to the C-SEP, these four conditions must be satisfied in order to meet SLD eligibility requirements: (actually for all models)

1. Data collected in order to show appropriate instruction prior to referral. This may be accomplished through response-to-intervention (RTI) systems or some other type of supplemental instruction. 2. The student does not achieve adequately for the child's age or meet state-approved grade-level standards (IDEA, 2004). This requires the use of multiple measures in order to determine if student is achieving adequately (e.g., Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA), state testing, grades, work samples etc.).

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK

3. The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with Sec. Sec. 300.304 and 300.305;

Such patterns are identified using norm-referenced tests of cognition, language, and achievement along with the integration of all other data sources

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK 4. The evaluation of specific learning disability (SLD) requires an assessment and consideration of factors processes that may be the primary cause of a student’s academic skill weaknesses and learning difficulties. These factors include vision/ hearing, or motor disabilities, intellectual disability (ID), social/emotional or psychological disturbance, environmental or economic disadvantage, cultural and linguistic factors (e.g., limited English proficiency).The assessment team must rule out any of these factors as being the primary cause of a student’s academic and learning difficulties, however the degree of influence or contributions to the learning problems must be also be addressed.

WHAT IS THE 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 year’s worth of data identifying patterns and trends in academic behavior resulting in the referral question. Time is key variable-Patterns vs Profile

10/8/17

9

PSW, CONT.

§  data collected “prior to and as part of” the referral allows the interpretation of similar data under different conditions over time.

§  Context-Instruction-Appropriate or not? Consider all factors and student needs?

PSW-TX POLICY

¢  “the pattern is evident as indicated by significant variance 89.1040(c)(9)(B)(ii)(II) “

¢ Among specific areas of cognitive function such as working memory and verbal comprehension;

¢ Between specific areas of cognitive function and academic achievement; and

¢  89.1040(c)(9)(B)(ii)(II)

CHARACTERISTICS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PSW (CSEP)MODEL

§  Average Performance Indicated; Normal Curve (tests vary in performance ratings)

§  Cognitive, Linguistic, & Academic Profile is composed of Relative Strengths & Weaknesses

§  Cognitive, Linguistic, & Academic Profile is composed of Normative Strengths & Weaknesses

§  Statistically Significant strengths & weaknesses §  Clinically Meaningful link between the cognitive

weakness and academic weakness

Components of PSW

Evaluation of the child’s strengths and weaknesses in: §  performance §  achievement Relative to: §  age (norms) §  state-approved grade level standards

(TEKS or benchmarks), §  intellectual development (intra-cognitive

performance).

10/8/17

10

Debate: “What's the best way to identify SLD?”

§  None of the SLD identification models in practice have a research base which allows them to be considered the “gold standard” method of identification

§  The primary reason being that diagnosing SLDs involves 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.

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

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)

“TOOLS AND STRATEGIES” (PROS AND CONS)

¢ RTI Only ¢ Discrepancy Approaches ¢ XBA ¢ Processing Models ¢ Concordance/Discordance

10/8/17

11

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).

COMPREHENSIVE

“By using selective testing procedures in a deliberate, purposeful manner an evaluator can administer a comprehensive and individually tailored set of tests that will yield the most important information for decision making and instructional planning purposes in the least amount of testing time. (Schrank, Stephens-Pisecco, & Schultz, 2017)

COMPREHENSIVE, CONT.

§  WJ IV - Core set of tests have been updated and these tests were designed to be more cognitively complex and measure a broader set of cognitive abilities

§  WISC-V- The first 7 subtests yield abundance of data that can be used to determine selective testing needed. Supplement with Naming Speed Literacy from the WISC-V (Glr) & Phonological Processing from the KTEA 3 (Ga).

TIME EFFICIENT TESTING & PRECISE

Example of typical test administration: § Will (10) was evaluated throughout 5 sessions-first four sessions lasted approx. 2 to 2.5 hours-last session lasted an hour § 17 cognitive tests &16 achievement tests § BASC was administered to student, parent, & teacher How efficient & precise was this? Did Will really want to see you again and did he really try his best on day 5??? Is this typical when using your current evaluation practices?

10/8/17

12

TIME EFFICIENT TESTING & PRECISE, CONT.

WJ IV & C-SEP MODEL-CORE TESTS

§ Cognitive Tests 1-7 (GIA) § Achievement Tests 1-6 § Oral Language Tests 1-4 v Most cognitively complex and ecologically valid tests in each battery v Increases ease and flexibility of use

Time Efficient Testing & Precise, Cont.

WISC-V/WIAT & C-SEP MODEL-CORE TESTS §  Cognitive Tests 1-7 (FSIQ), Naming Speed

Literacy (Glr) & KTEA3-Phonological Processing (Ga)

§  Achievement Tests 6 subtests- Word Reading, Reading Comprehension, Numerical Operations, Math Problem Solving, Sentence Composition, Spelling

§  Oral Language-2 subtests: v Listening Comprehension-Receptive Expression

& Oral Disclosure v Oral Expression-Expressive Vocabulary, Oral

Word Fluency, Sentence Repetition

LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE, CONT.

Texas Regulations state that a student with SLD: Exhibits a pattern of strengths & weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both related to age or grade level standards, or intellectual ability as it relates to significant variance in specific areas of cognitive functioning or between cognitive functioning and achievement.


In Section 33.304 of federal regulations identification of SLD requires: Use of a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather information relevant to functional development and academic development. In addition, assessment tools used must be reliable and valid and must be administered in accordance with instructions provided by the assessment producer.

10/8/17

13


The federal definition of SLD states that it is a “disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language” (CFR 300.849(c)(10). An identified pattern of strengths and weaknesses should also be linked to a pattern of failure to achieve adequately to determine if an SLD exists.

LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE (SIDE BY SIDE)

¢  (1)Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent, that may assist in determining--

CSEP is a strategic approach that helps collect, organize, and integrate a variety of data sources in order to determine if a child meets the state requirements to determine if SLD is present.


¢  (2) Not use any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and

¢ CSEP uses multiple measures and integrated data analysis in order to ensure that a child is identified with a SLD based on multiple criterion.


¢  (3) Use technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavioral factors, in addition to physical or developmental factors.

¢ CSEP procedures rely on the technical specifications of the test publisher for norm-reference tests and ensure reliability and validity by integrating multiple sources of data

10/8/17

14


¢  (iii) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;

¢ CSEP procedures require adherence to the publisher’s administration and interpretive guidelines. In addition, publisher software and/or tables are used for score calculations.


¢  (v) Administered in accordance with any instructions provided by the producer of the assessments;

¢ CSEP procedures require adherence to the publisher’s administration and interpretive guidelines. In addition, publisher software and/or tables are used for score calculations.


¢  (2) Assessments and other evaluation materials include those tailored to assess specific areas of educational need and not merely those that are designed to provide a single general intelligence quotient.

¢ CSEP procedures emphasize diagnostic precision which resulting in a deeper analysis of “specific areas of educational need.”


¢  (4) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities;

¢ CSEP is comprehensive in scope as it requires the integration of formal assessments with all other data sources in all areas related to the suspected disability.

10/8/17

15


¢  (6) In evaluating each child with a disability under Sec. Sec. 300.304 through 300.306, the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified.

¢  CSEP is comprehensive in scope as it requires the integration of formal assessments with all other data sources in all areas related to the suspected disability. In addition, CSEP assesses a broad set of abilities (i.e., language, “listen think, speak…”) to better identify all special education and related service needs.


¢ Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information that directly assists persons in determining the educational needs of the child are provided; and

¢ CSEP uses data integration techniques that incorporates authentic assessment strategies (observation, work samples, curriculum based assessments) that directly assists determining educational needs.

MULTIPLE SOURCES OF DATA

§  Response to interventions-progress monitoring §  Statewide & Districtwide assessments §  Parent & Teacher information §  Health, sociological, language, & behavior §  Environment & educational opportunity §  Formal evaluation scores (IQ & achievement) §  Exclusionary Factors

EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS

10/8/17

16

PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS

§  Primary use of Exclusionary Factors Checklist should be during pre-referral process v  RTI/SST Committee should consider these factors

before referral occurs

§  Secondary use of Exclusionary Factors Checklist should be used by the ARD committee after testing has occurred but before eligibility is determined v  ARD Committee legally required to consider

Exclusionary Factors again, before determining eligibility

PURPOSE OF EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS

Assessment personnel and ARD committee members must assure that a student is not identified as SLD because: v  The student had no opportunity to learn. v  The student was affected by circumstances that were clearly not a disabling condition.

RULING OUT EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS USING THE RTI MODEL

§  Most districts use an RTI model prior to referral for Special Education. One of the things that should be considered is use of an exclusionary checklist during this pre-referral process.

§  By using the Exclusionary Factors Checklist

(Stephens & Moon, 2014), the referral team can determine what outside problems may have caused a child's learning problems in school. Also, it provides a school the necessary documentation that exclusionary factors were considered.

CURRENT LEGAL REQUIREMENTS FOR EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS RELATING TO SLD

§300.309 Determining the existence of a Specific Learning Disability �  (3) The group determines that its findings

under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section are not primarily the result of-- (i) A visual, hearing, or motor disability; (ii) Intellectual Disability; (iii) Emotional Disturbance; (iv) Cultural factors; (v) Environmental or economic disadvantage; or (vi) Limited English proficiency.

10/8/17

17

ISSUES OF OVERREPRESENTATION & UNDERREPRESENTATION

§  The lack of focus on exclusionary factors has resulted in the overrepresentation of minorities and students from low socioeconomic status within special education and under-representation of the same students in gifted programs.

§  Continued overrepresentation has been the

driving force behind the implementation of Response-to-Intervention and the diminished use of intelligence testing.

BICS & CALP: DR. JIM CUMMINS

§  BICS- Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (Playground Language) v  Surface skills of listening & speaking a new language v  2-3 years for development

§  CALP- Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency v  Using language in an academic setting-speaking,

reading & writing v  5-7 years for development

LACK OF APPROPRIATE INSTRUCTION IN READING AND MATH

§  Research-Based Instructional Practices §  Data-Based Decision Making

v  “Schools should strive to avoid being data rich and information poor!”

§  Response-to-Intervention (RTI)- Open Discussion

§  Highly Qualified Teachers

What is “Appropriate” Instruction?

Whether a child has received “appropriate instruction” is appropriately left to State and local officials to determine. Schools have current, data-based evidence to indicate whether a child responds to appropriate instruction before determining that a child has a disability. Children should not be identified as having a disability before concluding that their performance deficits are not the result of a lack of appropriate instruction (71 Fed. Reg. at 46656)

10/8/17

18

DOCUMENTING EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS

§  Schools must consciously consider and rule out each of the exclusionary factors PRIOR to labeling the student with SLD

§  BEST PRACTICES… document exclusionary factors

ETHICAL IMPLICATIONS OF DISREGARDING EXCLUSIONARY FACTORS

§  Negative effects of being labeled as having a disability when one does not actually exist

§  Lowered expectations §  Watered-down curriculum §  Inappropriate allocation of resources §  Many more!

PURPOSEFUL ASSESSMENT

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

FAMOUS STORY

10/8/17

19

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. 46651) 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. 46651).

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)

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).

PSW-CORE-SELECTIVE (PROS)

§  Efficient (power to accomplish something)-more cognitively complex measures make 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.

10/8/17

20

PSW-Core-Selective

§  One-step scoring –no transferring §  Beyond Standard Scores-RPI on WJ IV §  PSW analysis using actual norms §  OL as a predictor §  SAPT Cluster (WJ-IV) & GC-GF (WJ IV) §  WISC-V-8 subtests +1 From KTEA3 yield an

abundance of data to support a PSW §  Oral Expression, Listening Comp are directly

measured.

PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT


¢ Clinical Expertise ¢ Professional Wisdom ¢ Clinical Decision making ¢ Clinical Judgment ¢ Clinical Reasoning


¢ The application of relevant training, knowledge, and experience, within the context of educational and evaluation standards, in making informed decisions.

¢  Judgment that is informed by professional knowledge of curriculum expectations, context, evidence of learning, methods of instruction and assessment and the criteria and standards that indicate success in student learning.

10/8/17

21

PROFESSIONAL/CLINICAL JUDGMENT

¢ Clinical Judgment emerges from the clinicians �  Specialized training and experience �  Knowledge of the person and or his/her environment �  Extensive data �  Use of critical thinking skills

Cheramie & Zwolinski (SWEP 2017)

C-SEP ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK

In broad terms and directly related to the C-SEP, these four conditions must be satisfied in order to meet SLD eligibility requirements: 1. Data collected in order to show appropriate instruction prior to referral. This may be accomplished through response-to-intervention (RTI) systems or some other type of supplemental instruction. 2. The student does not achieve adequately for the child's age or meet state-approved grade-level standards (IDEA, 2004). This requires the use of multiple measures in order to determine if student is achieving adequately (e.g., Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM), Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA), state testing, grades, work samples etc.).

ORGANIZATIONAL FRAMEWORK, CONT.

3. The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with Sec. Sec. 300.304 and 300.305; Such patterns are identified using norm-referenced tests of cognition, language, and achievement along with the integration of all other data sources. (Vary from state to state.)

Organizational Framework, CONT.

4. The evaluation of specific learning disability (SLD) requires an assessment and consideration of exclusionary factors that may be the primary cause of a student’s academic skill weaknesses and learning difficulties. These factors include vision/ hearing, or motor disabilities, intellectual disability (ID), social/emotional or psychological disturbance, environmental or economic disadvantage, cultural and linguistic factors (e.g., limited English proficiency), lack of educational opportunity. The assessment team must rule out any of these factors as being the primary cause of a student’s academic and learning difficulties, however the degree of influence or contributions to the learning problems must be also be addressed.

10/8/17

22

C-SEP STEP-BY-STEP

1.  Review 2.  Plan 3.  Assess

C-SEP STEP-BY-STEP (REVIEW)

1.  Review Referral Concerns 2.  Review Educational Records 3.  Review progress in response to scientific, research-based

intervention in the area(s) of suspected disability . 4.  Establish failure to meet age- or grade-level state

standards in one of eight areas when provided appropriate instruction.

5.  Review research related to referral concerns and review data collected

“The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development,”

C-SEP STEP-BY-STEP (PLAN)

1.  Organize and analyze informal data collected 2.  Develop a working hypothesis of the referral

concern. 3.  Determine what additional data is needed to

answer referral question. Plan: The planning stage involves creating an

assessment plan that includes a hypothesis based on previously collected data, the referral question, what is known about the construct (Basic Reading, Written Expression, etc.), and the individual student.

C-SEP STEP-BY-STEP (ASSESS)

1.  Measure Psychological Processes 2.  Measure Language 3.  Measure Achievement 4.  Analyze norm-referenced data 5.  Administer Additional tests if needed

10/8/17

23

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/composite score.

STEP 2: MEASURE LANGUAGE

….. 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)v PictureVocabularyandOralComprehension(primarily)

§ AuditoryProcessing(Ga)v Segmenta?on

§ Cogni?veProcessingSpeed(Gs)and(Gltr)v RapidPictureNaming

STEP 3: MEASURE ACADEMICS

§  Getting a focused referral question §  Core or Selective §  Cautions concerning Ach. Tests

v Curriculum differences v Standard Scores can be misleading v Limited number of items (avg. 3 per grade)

MORE THOUGHTS

§  Decisions that are logically, empirically, and statistically related are the strongest. (Down and Across) v Policy Supported v Logical-Task Demands v Empirical-Research v Statistical-using valid and reliable methods

§  Adhering to policy and test publisher provides legal defense to your findings

10/8/17

24

TRIANGULATION OF DATA

§  Reason for Referral: Struggles in Reading

§  History of struggles in reading (Parent information, teacher information, student information, test scores, report card grades, etc.

§  RTI Data: Reading interventions and CBM data collected and show non-responsiveness

§  Ruled out Exclusionary Factors

§  Formal and Informal testing results: Both support weakness in Reading.

§  Investigate and Consider all data collected to determine a pattern of Strengths and weaknesses.

§  Are the weaknesses significant?

§  Are the weaknesses clinically meaningful?

§  Can you make a direct link between Cognitive, OL, and Achievement strengths and weaknesses?

Investigate and Consider all data collected to determine a pattern of strengths and weaknesses.

SCORE PROFILE VS. A PATTERN They Are Not the Same

PROFILE VS PATTERN

¢  Profile �  A representation of

something in outline �  A set of data portraying

the significant features of something ¢  A group of scores

obtained on a norm-referenced test

�  A snapshot in time

¢  Pattern �  A set of data that builds

and establishes unique behavior and interrelationships

�  Multiple data sources converge to establish a pattern ¢  A pattern of weakness in

reading fluency was established by collecting & analyzing performance on ORF CBMs, district benchmarks, DRAs, classroom readings, norm-referenced testing, and RTI data.

�  A pattern is established over time

PATTERN SEEKING: CHAIN OF EVIDENCE

¢ Examination of informal assessment data �  Attendance records, home language survey,

developmental history, school health files, previous test scores, grades, grade history, classroom observation, work samples, parent, teacher, and student interviews.

¢ Examination of non-standardized testing data �  Benchmark testing for grade level curriculum,

district CBAs, end of unit tests, CBM data.

¢ Examination of standardized testing data �  Standardized norm-referenced testing results

10/8/17

25

ALL THREE LINKS TO THE CHAIN ARE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH A PATTERN

Informal Assessment Data

Non-Standardized Data

Standardized Data

PATTERN SEEKING TECHNIQUES

¢ The first step in the pattern matching process is to examine the trustworthiness (validity) of the data.

¢ The next step in the process of pattern analysis is triangulation (Leech & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; McMillan and Schumacher, 2010).

¢ The third step in the pattern seeking process is to examine the exclusionary factors that must be ruled out when determining the presence of a learning disability.

PATTERN SEEKING TECHNIQUES

¢  After testing and observations are completed and extant information is gathered, evaluation personnel will need to analyze the data for a pattern of strengths and weaknesses to determine the presence of SLD.

¢  After ordering and sorting data*, assessment personnel can then graph the results. Data can be organized in multiple ways (see below) in order to better understand the nature of the problem. This process of sorting, ordering, and creating a visual representation represents sound data analysis principles (Johnson & Onwuegbuzie, 2007; McMillian & Shumacher, 2010) *a) By construct (e.g., Gc, Gs) b) Conditional Analysis.

¢  The final step in the process is to conduct a logical cross analysis (McMillan and Schumacher, 2010; Onwuegbuzie & Leech, 2006) of the pattern of strengths and weaknesses based on visual inspection of the graphed data.

C-SEP STEP-BY-STEP (DECISION TIME)

1.  Organize, sort, and make visual representation of data 2.  Apply Data to PSW policy to answer these questions

§  The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in: v  Performance; Yes or No? v  Achievement; or Yes or No? v  Both; Yes or No?

§  The pattern is relative to: v  Age; (how does the student compare to same age peers-both

classroom and norm-referenced?) v  State-approved grade-level standards; or (how far from grade

standards)

§  Intellectual development (how does this compare with each other? Intra-individual)

§  The pattern is relevant to the identification of an SLD using appropriate assessments.

10/8/17

26

DECISION TIME

§  The pattern is evident as indicated by significant variance: v  What is statistically significant? Generally accepted is

1SD. Significant

1. sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention; noteworthy. 2. having a particular meaning; indicative of something.

Variance 1. the state, quality, or fact of being variable, divergent, different, or anomalous.

2.an instance of varying; difference; discrepancy.

DECISION TIME §  The pattern is evident as indicated by significant

variance: v Among specific areas of cognitive function such

as working memory and verbal comprehension; or

v Between specific areas of cognitive function and academic achievement; and

§  The pattern is relevant to the identification of an SLD using appropriate assessments. (Next Slide)

DECISION TIME

§  From Guidance Document v  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.

Step 4: Use Integrated Data Analysis Procedures to identify PSW

§  Regulations and §  Pattern Analysis §  Profile Analysis §  Multiple lenses

10/8/17

27

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: v Performance; Yes or no? v Achievement; or Yes or No? v Both; Yes or No?

CASE STUDIES

C-SEP CASE STUDY 1

ANDRE-4TH GRADER

10/8/17

28

ANDRE-PARENT INFORMATION

• Andre’s parents completed a questionnaire regarding his development and functioning:

v Andre lives with both of his parents and his brother, aged 7.

v No significant changes in his family life recently. v Andre is in good health and is physically fit. v Vision & hearing are within normal limits. v Andre’s father struggled with reading and

spelling throughout school. v Normal development of motor skills v He started speaking earlier and is very verbal. v No formal preschool but attended an in-home

childcare center.

ANDRE-PARENT INFORMATION

¢ Andre seemed to learn things later, or with more difficulty than his peers.

¢ He loves superheroes; likes to pretend to be Batman.

¢ He’s very good at solving matrix puzzles and building elaborate structures with Legos.

¢ He has showed very little interest in reading. ¢ He struggled learning letters and sounds and

developing early reading skills. ¢ Homework that involves reading is always a

cause of frustration for him.

ANDRE- TEACHER INFORMATION

¢ Mr. Zuma, Andre’s teacher responded to a checklist:

v Described Andre as intelligent and serious. v He needs more one-on-one attention and

completes less schoolwork than peers. v He usually maintains attention. v He has strong verbal skills. v He often neglects to turn in homework. v Social interaction is appropriate.

ANDRE-TEACHER INFORMATION

¢ According to Andre’s teacher: v Oral language and math reasoning are in the

advanced range. v Listening Comprehension, math calculation,

and basic writing skills are rated as average. v Basic reading, reading comprehension and

reading fluency were rated as low.

10/8/17

29

Andre – Evaluation Data/Tests Administered o  RTI data (Reading & Writing CBM: Progress Monitoring

Charts) o  District Benchmarks (Reading, Writing, Math) o  Direct Reading Assessment o  Review of Records o  Vision & Hearing Screener - Nurse o  Parent & Teacher Information o  Observations o  Grades o  Work Samples o  Woodcock-Johnson IV COG

o  Woodcock-Johnson IV OL

o  Woodcock-Johnson IV ACH

Andre – Test Session Observation ¢  Andre came willingly into the testing situation with great

enthusiasm and interest. ¢  Rapport was established easily. ¢  Andre’s conversational proficiency seemed very advanced

for his age. He engaged in appropriate conversation with the examiner around his favorite topic, Superheroes.

¢  He was cooperative throughout the examination; his activity level seemed typical for his age. He appeared confident, self-assured, and unusually absorbed by the tasks throughout the examination.

¢  He responded promptly, but carefully to test questions, generally persisting with difficult tasks but at times appearing tense and worried (especially during reading and writing testing). When asked to list his favorite academic subjects, he quickly named math. Andre reported that reading and writing are his least favorite subjects.

Andre – Classroom Observations ¢  Andre was observed during reading class. ¢  The class was engaged in the Peer-Assisted Learning Strategy

(PALS) with each student paired with a classmate for a series of reading activities that included basic reading, fluency, & comprehension practice.

¢  Andre & his partner were situated in the back corner of the room. They took turns reading passages & answering questions verbally. When Andre was observed reading aloud, his reading was slow and often laborious. He often stopped to sound out longer words. Many times the sounds he associated with the letters were incorrect (e.g., he used a short ‘a’ sound when sounding out “plate.”)

¢  When his partner asked comprehension questions about the passage he read, Andre was observably uncomfortable. Often, he would sit for seconds with a blank stare. He would also flip around his paper containing the reading passage & appeared to be searching for the answer. On the day of the observation, he correctly answered 5 out of the 10 comprehension questions. It was apparent that Andre struggled with basic reading skills, reading fluency, & reading comprehension.

C-SEP Step 1: Measure and Analyze Psychological (Cognitive Processes)

Administer WJ IV Cognitive Core 7 Tests

10/8/17

30

Andre – WJ IV Cognitive Core 7 Tests ANDRE - WJ IV COG CORE 7 ANALYSIS & DESCRIPTIONS

ANDRE- WJ IV COG CORE 7 ANALYSIS & DESCRIPTIONS

C-SEP Step 1.5: Administer & Analyze Selective COG Tests

10/8/17

31

Andre – WJ IV Selective COG Testing Andre – WJ IV Selective COG Testing

Andre – WJ IV Selective COG Testing Andre – WJ IV Selective COG Testing

10/8/17

32

ANALYSIS OF THE GIA AND THE GF-GC COMPOSITE GIA = SS 99 Low scores in Letter-Pattern Matching, Phonological Processing, and Story Recall impacted Andre’s GIA.

C-SEP Step 2: Measure and Analyze Oral Language Abilities Administer WJ IV Oral Language CORE 4 Tests

WJ IV ORAL LANGUAGE: CORE 4 Andre – WJ IV Oral Language CORE 4 Tests

Part A2: Analysis of the WJ IV OL Additional Tests After administering the 4 core oral language tests, the examiner had to review the scores that were below average and administer the additional tests. Andre’s standard scores that were below average were Segmentation and Rapid Picture Naming. The results also further support the findings obtained on the WJ IV COG for Processing Speed and Auditory Processing. Further, CBM and background information supports deficits in these areas. The results of the additional oral language tests are below in the table and discussed under each relevant ability cluster.

10/8/17

33

Andre – WJ IV Oral Language Selective Tests

Andre – WJ IV Oral Language Selective Tests

C-SEP Step 3: Measure and Analyze Academic Performance

Administer WJ IV Achievement Core 6 Tests

Andre – WJ IV Achievement Core 6 Tests

10/8/17

34

C-SEP Step 2.5: Administer & Analyze Selective Achievement Tests

Andre – WJ IV ACH Selective Tests

Andre – WJ IV ACH Selective Tests Andre – WJ IV ACH Selective Tests

10/8/17

35

Andre – Broad Academic Skills

C-SEP Step 4: Consider Exclusionary Factors

Andre – Exclusionary Factors

C-SEP Step 5: Integrated Interpretation Established Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses

10/8/17

36

Andre – Pattern of Strengths Andre – Pattern of Weaknesses

MULTIPLE SOURCES CHECKLIST Student: Andre Noonan DOB: 4-01-2007 Grade: 4

Retained: Y/NRequired Documents/Data Sources

Score/Grade Progress: Y/N S/W

CBM-Rdg Fluency Fall/Winter

50 wpm/52 wpm N W

CBM-Writing Fall/Winter %ile

55%/68% Y ----

CBM-Math Fall/ Winter %ile

65%/80% Y S

Benchmarks-Reading Comp F/W

16%/16% N W

Benchmarks-Math 63%/78% Y SState Test-Reading 3rd 1262 (1345 pass) State Test-Math 3rd 1340 (1360 pass) State Test-Writing N/A Report Card-Current Grades: Reading/ELA Math

70 Fall 4th 92 Fall 4th

N W Y S

Report Card-Previous Year Reading/ELA Math

76 Sp, 3rd 94 Sp. 3rd

N W Y S

Health: Vision Hearing

P/F P/F

Teacher Information Reading Math

75(4th 6 wks) 4th 98(4th 6 wks) 4th

Y/N W Y/N S

MULTIPLE SOURCES CHECKLIST Cognitive Testing-Cognitive Processing (area)

Link (Y/N) S/W

Crystallized Intelligence Gc

133 S

Fluid Reasoning Gf 105 ----Short-Term Working Memory Gwm

112 S

Processing Speed Gs ** 78 Y WAuditory Processing Ga **

68 Y W

Long-Term Working Memory Glr **

75 Y W

Visualization Gv 106 ----Basic Reading ** 71 Y WReading Comprehension 88 ----Reading Fluency ** 65 Y WMath Calculation 109 SMath Problem Solving 112 SWritten Expression 104 SListening Comp.-Oral Comp.

104 ----

Oral Expression-Picture Voc.

119 S

** Composite Scores Georgene Moon 7-2017

10/8/17

37

INTEGRATION OF MULTIPLE DATA SOURCES

Andre – Integration of Multiple Data Sources

Andre – Integration of Multiple Data Sources SUMMARY

10/8/17

38

RECOMMENDATIONS C-SEP CASE STUDY 2

C-SEP Using the WISC-V & WIAT-III SUSIE Q-4TH GRADE

REASON FOR REFERRAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Susie is a 4th grade Hispanic student at Anywhere Charter. She enrolled there in Kindergarten & in first grade moved to the Dual Language program. Mrs. Q referred Susie for testing because she says she doesn’t read as well as her 2 older sisters & is concerned about her comprehension as well. While English & Spanish are spoken in the home, Susie’s primary language & language of choice is English. Susie is passing all her academic classes with B’s & C’s but teachers report she is beginning to have trouble with her reading. Susie is very well behaved & gets along with other students. She did not pass the State Assessment last year & Benchmark scores in Reading & Math were lower in January than in September. She is attending after school tutoring 2 days a week for reading & is also attending tutoring 2 days a week for the State Assessment.

SUSIE Q-PARENT INFORMATION

¢  Susie’s parents completed a questionnaire regarding her development and functioning:

v Susie lives with both of her parents and two older sisters, ages 13 and 15.

v No significant changes in her family life recently. v Susie is in good health and is physically fit. v Vision & hearing are within normal limits. v Susie’s father struggled with reading and spelling

throughout school. v Normal development of motor skills v She started speaking earlier and is very verbal. v Enrolled since Kindergarten

10/8/17

39

SUSIE-TEACHER INFORMATION

¢ Mr. Moreno, Susie’s Reading teacher responded to a checklist:

v Described Susie as intelligent, quiet, and serious.

v She does not ask for help, but seems to struggle as reading difficulty increases.

v She usually maintains attention. v She has strong verbal skills. v She turns in homework. v Social interaction is appropriate.

Susie – Evaluation Data/Tests Administered

o  RTI data (Reading & Writing CBM: Progress Monitoring Charts)

o  District Benchmarks (Reading, Writing, Math) o  Direct Reading Assessment o  Review of Records o  Vision & Hearing Screener - Nurse o  Parent & Teacher Information o  Observations o  Grades o  Work Samples o  WISC-V

o  WIAT-III

o  KTEA-3

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

Although Susie’s Home Language Survey reported English as her first language and her language of choice, Spanish is also spoken in the home and she was enrolled in Dual Language classes in 1st grade. To ensure that language is not the cause of Susie’s suspected difficulties, the Woodcock Munoz was administered and results follow.

WOODCOCK-MUNOZ RESULTS

English Clusters

Standard Score

SS Classification

RPI

Proficiency

ORAL LANGUAGE

106 (102-109) Average 88/90 Fluent

Reading-Writing

90(88-94) Average 78/90 Limited

Broad English Abilities

96(94-99) Average 88/90 Fluent

Writing 88(85-92) Average 71/90 Limited

10/8/17

40

Woodcock-Munoz Results, cont.

Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey-English Tests

Standard Score

SS Classification

RPI

Proficiency

Picture Vocabulary

103(98-108) Average 88/90 Fluent

Verbal Analogies

90(85-94) Average 78/90 Limited

Letter-Word Identification

81(77-85) Low Average 46/90 Limited

Dictation 88(85-92) Average 61/90 Limited

WOODCOCK-MUNOZ INTERPRETATION

Results indicate that Susie has average language skills. Her CALP score of 4 indicates that she should continue her instruction in oral language. Results also indicate that Susie has some difficulty with Letter-Word Identification and Dictation/Spelling. She expresses herself best orally and her language scores indicate she has overall fluent English proficiency, her conversational English was fluent and she did not struggle with vocabulary. In addition, review of Susie’s scores on the Logramos indicated that she scored in the low average range for writing, social studies, and vocabulary. On the TELPAS, her scores indicated mixed abilities. Her reading and writing scores were at the beginning level in the Spring of 2016; however her Listening and Speaking scores were at the advanced level. A review of Susie’s language proficiency, based on multiple instruments, indicated that her listening and speaking skills are higher in English and therefore, testing was conducted in English.

Susie Q. ORAL LANGUAGE CORE Oral Language Composites & Tests

Standard Score

SS Classification

PR

ORAL LANGUAGE 101 (92-110) Average 53

Listening Comprehension

110 (98-122) Average 75

Receptive Vocabulary

106 Average 66

Oral Disclosure Comprehension

110 Average 75

Oral Expression 93 (82-104) Average 32

Expressive Vocabulary

95 Average 37

Oral Word Fluency 108 Average 70

Sentence Repetition 80 Below Average 9

Susie Q’s Cognitive CORE

Ability Tests

Standard/ Scaled Score

SS Classification

PR

FULL SCALE IQ 98 Average 45

Similarities (Gc) 10 Average 50

Vocabulary (Gc) 9 Average 37

Block Design (Gv) 12 High Average 75

Matrix Reasoning (Gf) 8 Average 25

Figure Weights (Gf) 9 Average 37

Digit Span (Gwm) 7 Low Average 16

Coding (Gs) 11 Average 63

Supplemental Tests

Phonological Processing (Ga)-KTEA 3

90 Average 25

Naming Speed Literacy (Glr)

90 Average 25

10/8/17

41

DISCUSSION & QUESTIONS?

Best Practice needs to be considered when looking at Digit Span Scaled Score of 7. When converted to a Standard Score of 85 we need to look at additional testing to determine if Susie has a cognitive weakness in Working Memory. THOUGHTS?

SUSIE’S COGNITIVE SELECTIVE

Ability Composites and Tests

Scaled Score

SS Classification

PR

Working Memory (Gwm)

82 Below Average 12

Digit Span 7 Low Average 16

Picture Span 6 Below Average 9

SUSIE’S COGNITIVE SELECTIVE

Overall results of additional testing in Working Memory indicate that Susie is below average when compared to her peers. Deficits in Short- Term Working Memory link directly to academic difficulty in Basic Reading, which was the area of suspected difficulty in the referral.

SUSIE Q. ACHIEVEMENT CORE

Achievement Tests

Standard Score

SS Classification

PR

Word Reading 79 (75-83) Below Average 8

Reading Comprehension

97 (84-110) Average 42

Numerical Operations 102 (93-111) Average 55

Math Problem Solving 93 (82-104) Average 32

Sentence Composition 95 (85-105) Average 37

Spelling 85 (78-92) Average 16

10/8/17

42

SUSIE’S ACHIEVEMENT SELECTIVE

Achievement Composite & Tests

Standard Score

SS Classification

PR

Basic Reading Skills

81 (78-84) Below Average 10

Word Reading 79 (75-83) Below Average 8

Pseudoword Decoding

82 (78-86) Below Average 12

SUSIE’S ACHIEVEMENT SELECTIVE

Results of additional testing in the area of Basic Reading Skills do support an academic deficit in word identification and in decoding skills. Overall Susie’s Basic Reading abilities are below expected levels and these difficulties can be linked to her deficits in Short-Term Working Memory.

RESOURCES AVAILABLE

¢ Professional Webinars on the HMH website ¢ ASB highlighting C-SEP with the WJ IV

(downloadable from the WJ IV online scoring platform)

¢ ASB C-SEP Case Studies (in development) ¢ C-SEP presentation accepted for NASP 2018 with

Dr. Fred Schrank

SUMMARY

§  Achievement tests are academic behavior samples of underlying language and cognition

§  Several limitations of achievement tests (main 3) §  Scores (including standard) obtained from norm-referenced

tests are used to understand relationships between Cog, language, and Academics.

§  Attention is paid to entire definition of SLD §  Task Demands analysis and conditional analysis can be

used to classify and sort data and understand patterns and relationships.

§  PSW models are best used when data is collected over time, given equal/appropriate weight, and viewed with multiple lenses.

10/8/17

43

REFERENCES v  Cottrell, J.M., &Barrett, A.M. (2016). Defining the undefinable:

Operationalization of methods to identify specific learning disabilities among practicing school psychologists. Psychology in the Schools. 53(2), 143-157.

v  Cummins, J. (1979). BICS and CALP: Clarifying the distinction. Retrieved from http://www.iteachilearn.org

v  Flanagan, D., Ortiz, S., & Alfonso, V. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. John Wiley & Sons: New Jersey.

v  Fletcher, J.M.,& Reschly, D.J. (2005) Changing procedures for identifying learning disabilities: The danger of perpetuation old ideas. The School Psychologist, 15, 10-15.

v  Kwiatek, R., & Schultz, E.K. (2014). Using informal assessment data to support the diagnosis of a specific learning disability. The DiaLog, 43(1), 12-15.

v  Schultz, E. K., Simpson, C., Lynch, S. (2012). Specific learning disability: What constitutes a pattern of strengths and weaknesses. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18(2), 87-97.

References v  Stephens, T., Dykes, F., Proctor, C., Moon, G., Gardner, R., Pethick, L.

(2013). Ruling out exclusionary factors through the utilization of a response-to-intervention (RTI) model. The DiaLog,Vol. 42, (1), 5-14.

v  Stephens, T., Dykes, F., Proctor, C., Moon, G., Gardner, R., Pethick, L. (2013). Ruling out exclusionary factors through the utilization of a response-to-intervention (RTI) model. The DiaLog,Vol. 42, (1), 5-14.

v  Schultz, E.K., Stephens, T.L. (2015). Core-selective evaluation process: An efficient & comprehensive approach to identify students with SLD using the WJ IV. The DiaLog, 44(2),5-12.

v  Schultz, E.K., Stephens, T.L. (2017). Using the core-selective evaluation process (C-SEP) to identify a pattern of strengths and weaknesses. The DiaLog, 46(1), 9-15.

v  Williams, D.R. & Collins, C. (2001) Racial residential segregation: A fundamental cause of racial disparities in health. Public Health Reports, 116 (1), 404-416.