New Developments in LD TCASE Handout July2015c.ymcdn.com/.../Interactive_2015/New_Developments_in_LD_-_Bla.pdf• Identify how new developments in test ... • Linked statistically

!!Interactive*Convention*2015!!Learning(Labs!!!!

!

New!Developments!in!LD!Assessment!Using!the!Cross6Battery!Approach!

Donna!Black!and!Anise!Flowers,!Pearson!Clinical!Assessment!Gail!Cheramie,!Univ.!of!Houston!Clear!Lake!

!

New Developments in LD Assessment Using the Cross-Battery Approach

July 2015

Copyright © 2015 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1

New Developments in LD Assessment using the Cross‐Battery Approach

TCASE Great Ideas ConferenceJuly 15, 2015

Presented by

Gail Cheramie, PhD, LSSP, NCSPDonna Black, LSSPAnise Flowers, PhD

Anticipated Outcomes

• Identify how new developments in test instruments and cross‐battery assessment will impact trends in LD Assessment

• Expand knowledge of viable options for LD assessment

New Developments in SLD Assessment

1. Revisions to major test batteries– WISC‐V– WJ‐IV– KTEA‐3– CELF‐5– CTOPP‐2– CAS2

2. Revision of assessment software program– Cross Battery Assessment Software System

(X‐BASS)


July 2015


Revisions to Major Test Batteries

• Reflective of current structural models– Intelligence – Cognitive neuroscience– Neurodevelopmental research

• Supported by evidence of predictive ability– Adaptive functioning– Academic achievement– Behavioral performance

• Increasing role of neuropsychological constructs in tests of intelligence and cognitive abilities

• New terminology reflecting neuropsychological constructs– Facilitating Cognitive Processes– Inhibiting Cognitive Processes

One need only look at recent publications to see how research has influenced changes…

5

Influence of Research on Major Test Revisions

6


July 2015


Other Influential Factors in SLD Assessment

An increasing emphasis/focus on • Adequate and sufficient instruction• Evidence of supplemental intervention efforts

• Consideration of exclusionary factors

7

Revision of Assessment Software Program: X‐BASS

• Integrates 4 components– Cross‐Battery Assessment Data Management – Interpretive Assistant– Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Analyzer– Culture‐Language Interpretive Matrix

• Covers latest revisions of major test batteries

• Based on Dual/Discrepancy Consistency Model (D/DC)

“We are the most important element in evaluation…not the tests.”

Alan S. Kaufman

9


July 2015


Case Study: EllaDOB: 7/15/2005DOT: 12/5/2014

Grade: 4th; 9 years, 4 months

Background Information

•Student has been in the same district throughout her educational history

•She struggled in 2nd grade and did receive some supplemental intervention in the spring semester of grade 2 which consisted of meeting with the teacher for an extra 20 minutes of reading comprehension instruction in a small group 3 times per week [no actual data was available other than classroom progress which was reported as low]


•Ella did not meet the minimum expectation on the STAAR test in 3rd grade and there was discussion regarding retention, but the parents were against it [Ella was performing adequately in other subjects, had a group of friends in her grade, was popular among the students, and her parents would provide tutoring]

•The committee decided to continue supplemental intervention in 4th grade and refer for testing if progress remained limited


July 2015



• Intervention program in fall of 4th grade consisted of meeting in a small group of 3 students with the reading specialist on campus and working on vocabulary and text comprehension using 3rd and 4th grade level texts

•Progress was monitored in the Intervention by the STAR assessment system, and the scores on the next page show that Ella did not make adequate progress; Trend line decreased

•She was referred for evaluation in November, 2014•Testing was done in late November and December of 2014

Progress Monitoring

DateScaled Score

GradeEquivalent

Percentile Rank

9/1 – 9/30/2014 308 2.7 17

10/1 – 10/31/2014 332 2.9 20

11/1 – 11/30/2014 224 2.2 5

12/1‐ 12/31/2014 244 2.3 6

Case Example: Selection of Instruments

• WISC‐V• KTEA‐3• CTOPP‐2• CELF‐5


July 2015


Case Example: Rationale for WISC‐V

• Broader coverage of cognitive processes (“G’s”) with the new 5‐factor structure

• Decreased testing time • Standardized on large and representative population of children & included special education groups

• No “weighting” of subtests for ability composites (i.e., no double‐weighting)

• Linked statistically to KTEA‐3

WISC‐V Sensitivity to Language Demands

• WISC‐V has reduced language demands

• Verbatim subtest instructions have been simplified (verbatim instructions were timed and the number of words were counted during revision process)

• Instructions were tested with younger children (4:6‐5:11) and those with mild intellectual disability

Cultural Fairness of WISC‐V

• National Tryout– Included a stratified sample of 356 children representative of the US populationo Oversample of 54 African American children and 54 Hispanic children to examine item functioning across ethnic groups

• Bias items eliminated– All items reviewed statistically & by experts


July 2015


WISC‐V:

Broad coverage of

G’s

Case Example: Rationale for Other Measures

KTEA‐3• Achievement measure that is statistically linked to WISC‐V

• Includes error analysis capability• Provides Intervention Guide for LD subtypes

CTOPP‐2• Additional measure of phonological processing

CELF‐5• Additional measure to establish verbal reasoning as specific deficit

20

Cross‐Battery Assessment


July 2015


Let’s continue our case study on Ella…

22

KTEA‐3•Math Concepts and Applications=87•Math Computation=94

•Written Expression=99•Spelling=102•Writing Fluency=92•Math and Written Expression scores were consistent with teacher reports. Teachers did indicate that math reasoning for word problems was being problematic due to comprehension, and that science and social studies were also being affected.

KTEA‐3

•Phonological Processing=102•Letter and Word Recognition=97•Nonsense Word Decoding=104•Reading Comprehension Cluster=79•Reading Vocabulary=83•Listening Comprehension=80


July 2015


Reading Comprehension

•Specific LD in reading comprehension assumes decoding is intact/accurate

•Expect: low vocabulary, morphology, syntax, listening comprehension, working memory, and inferencing

•Expect: adequate phonological processing, word identification, and fluency

Test Scores

•Verbal Comprehension Index=84•Similarities=5, Vocabulary=9 (not cohesive and both VL)

•Administered Information=10•Administered CELF‐5 Word Classes Express=6

•Visual Spatial Index=97•BD=10, VP=9 (both are Vz) •Administered Rover on KABC‐II=8

Gc


July 2015


Gv

Test Scores

•Fluid Reasoning Index=91 (Gf)•MR=9, FW=8 Cluster cohesive; 2 different narrows

•Processing Speed Index=103 (Gs)•Coding=10, Symbol Search=11 Cluster cohesive,

•Long‐Term Storage and Retrieval=94 •Naming Speed Literacy=92• Immediate Symbol Translation=98

Gf


July 2015


Gs

Glr

Test Scores

•Working Memory Index=85•Digit Span=7, Picture Span=8•Administered Letter‐Number Sequencing to create the Auditory Working Memory Index=81 (Dspan=7, LNS=6)

•Auditory Processing Ga=97•KTEA3 Phonological Processing=102•CTOPP2 Blending = 10; Elision=8


July 2015


Gwm

Ga

Data Organizer


July 2015


S & W Indicator

PSW‐A Data Summary

PSW Analyzer


July 2015


Example Conclusions

•The Dual Discrepancy/Consistency (DD/C) Model of LD was applied to Ella’s data. The DD/C Model is a scientific, research‐based approach to the determination of LD based on a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) approach. The resulting analysis indicates that Ella displays a pattern of strengths and weaknesses consistent with the presence of a learning disability in the area of reading comprehension. Ella meets the following criteria:

Example Conclusions•Presence of a normative academic deficit: Ella’s academic deficit is in reading comprehension. This is supported by various converging data sources. Ella’s teacher reports difficulty in this area despite adequate basic reading ability. Ella has had intervention to address this difficulty and has not made progress commensurate with age, grade level and supplemental intervention. Her reading comprehension is approximately 2 grade levels below her current placement. She has not been able to pass the state assessment (STAAR) in reading. Norm‐referenced data indicates a score of 79 in reading comprehension which falls at the 8th%ile and is 1.4 standard deviations below the mean.

Example Conclusions

•Presence of a cognitive processing deficit: Ella has two cognitive processing deficits ‐ verbal reasoning and auditory working memory. These deficits are combined to create the Inhibitory Cognitive Composite (aggregate of the cognitive weaknesses in the profile). Given that both verbal reasoning and auditory working memory are related to deficits in reading comprehension, the ICC is the best representation of the underlying causes of Ella’s LD.


July 2015


Example Conclusions•An empirical relationship between the academic and processing deficits: The verbal reasoning deficit affects Ella’s ability to understand relationships between words, engage in comparison and contrast and classify words to form concept categories and semantic networks. Ella understands the meanings of individual words, but she has difficulty understanding the logical basis for word associations. Therefore, this will adversely affect her reading comprehension. In addition, her poor working memory, especially for auditory input, affects the degree to which she can retain information in a short‐term memory process and actively manipulate that information. Thus, as she reads a passage she is likely to have difficulty processing all the information at one time and reorganizing the information as she reads.

Example Conclusions•Overall cognitive functioning within normal limits: Visual Processing, Fluid Reasoning, Long‐Term Storage and Retrieval, Processing Speed and Phonological Awareness skills fall within the average range and are intact abilities that assist Ella in learning. [These skills are related to her average academic achievement in reading decoding, spelling, math and writing.] These processing abilities are used to generate the Facilitating Cognitive Composite (an aggregate calculated based on intact abilities). The FCC is an indicator of general ability without the attenuation of cognitive deficits. For Ella, the FCC is 95; thus her overall cognitive functioning is average.

Example Conclusions

•A domain‐specific cognitive deficit: Based on Ella’s overall level of cognitive functioning, the deficits in verbal reasoning and auditory working memory are significantly below what would be predicted. Thus, the ICC represents a domain‐specific cognitive deficit.

•An unexpected academic deficit: The deficit in reading comprehension is significantly below what would be expected based on Ella’s overall level of cognitive functioning.

•Given the data presented, Ella meets the criteria for the educational disability condition of LD in Reading Comprehension.


July 2015


Recommendations for Intervention

Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes

• Evaluates patterns of performance that are consistent with research‐supported LD subtypes

• Summarizes how a child fits each subtype• Provides a description of intervention characteristics & recommendations of research‐supported instructional programs

How does it work?

• Organizes data by hypothesized LD subtypes • Determines if data is sufficient and consistent with one of the hypothesized subtypes


July 2015


How does it differ from Error Analysis?

• Error analysis tells which sub‐skills to teach• Intervention Guide suggests ways of teaching those sub‐skills

• Need both to facilitate the assessment to intervention path


7 reading‐related subtypes• Phonological• Orthographic• Mixed Phonological‐Orthographic• Language (OWL‐LD, SLI, LLD)• Comprehension• Fluency/Naming speed• Global


Phonological processingNon‐word readingWord recognitionReading comprehensionReading fluency

Cognitive abilityRANOrthographic codingSpellingListening comprehension

10 hallmark indicators: skills/abilities that define or differentiate between subtypes


July 2015



Auditory verbal WMProcessing speed

Perceptual reasoning

Handwriting legibility & speed {dysgraphia}

Verbal comprehension & reasoning

5 ancillary indicators: skills/abilities that are used to tailor recommendations.


Select the area(s) of intervention for the student:

Reading SpellingWritten expression (not yet available)Math (not yet available)

✓

Step 1

✓


Step 2Determine the relative skills & abilities for each of the hallmark and ancillary indicators• Indicate if the skill is a weakness or a strength• Consider 2 or more sources of information when

rating each skill/ability• Enter additional data in the open fields


July 2015



Step 3: Generate Report

OrthographicReport components:Description of subtypePattern of Strengths and WeaknessesSuggestions for InterventionGeneral ApproachNaming Speed {if RAN is a weakness, discuss as double‐deficit}Language Processing: Phonological Processing, VocabularyBasic ReadingReading Comprehension Reading FluencySpellingHandwriting {if handwriting legibility/speed is a weakness}Examples of Evidence‐Based Programs

SAMPLE INTERVENTION REPORT


Essentials to remember

OrthographicDifferential diagnosis is critical to developing effective interventions, but every child is ultimately a single case study. Don’t attempt to make children fit the category to which they should belong. Each one is an individual with unique strengths and needs.

Hale & Fiorello (2004, p.184 paraphrased)Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner's handbook. Guilford Press.


July 2015


Questions?

Thank you for attending!

Contact Information

[email protected]

[email protected]

[email protected]

60

Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Report Name: Ella TuckerExaminee ID: Not SpecifiedBirth Date: 07/15/2005Current Grade (or HighestGrade Completed): 4

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this Intervention Guide Report are for informational purposes only. TheIntervention Guide Report is not intended to be a diagnosis or to substitute for professional advice or treatment.Always seek the advice of a qualified professional with any questions you have regarding any test results orrecommended intervention(s). Reliance of the information contained in the Intervention Guide Report is solely atyour own risk.

Copyright © 2014 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.Pearson, the PSI logo, and PyschCorp are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).

TRADE SECRET INFORMATIONNot for release under HIPAA or other data disclosure laws that exempt trade secrets from disclosure.

[ 1.1 / RE1 / QG1 ]

Intervention ReportCONTENTSDescription of Subtype: ComprehensionPattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

Relative StrengthsWeaknesses

Suggestions for InterventionGeneral ApproachVocabularyLanguage Comprehension

Examples of Evidence-Based ProgramsReferences DESCRIPTION OF SUBTYPE: COMPREHENSIONElla's pattern of performance across key cognitive, language, and academic domains is similar to that of students with aspecific comprehension deficit, sometimes referred to as hyperlexia.64 Hyperlexia has been used to refer to students whoexhibit poor language comprehension skills and precocious and exceptional word recognition and decoding skills,36,80 as wellas students with poor language comprehension and relatively good basic reading skills.27,42

Students with a specific comprehension deficit have difficulty with listening comprehension and reading comprehension;they read accurately and fluently, but fail to grasp the meaning of what they read. Specific difficulties include makinginferences, monitoring understanding, using strategies to resolve ambiguity, and inhibiting irrelevant information. Relativestrengths are observed in phonological processing and naming speed.24,48,83

This report lists intervention suggestions for Ella that may be appropriate for this subtype of learning disability. TheIntervention Guide is not intended to identify or diagnose a specific learning disability. PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSESElla's performance suggests the following pattern of strengths and weaknesses. Relative Strengths

General or nonverbal cognitive functioning (typically average or above average)Word recognition accuracyReading fluencyPhonological processingDecoding/Nonsense word readingNaming speedPerceptual reasoningSpellingProcessing speed

WeaknessesListening comprehensionReading comprehension

LD Subtypes Intervention ReportPage 2 Ella Tucker

Copyright © 2014 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

DISCLAIMER: The contents of this Intervention Guide Report are for informational purposes only. The Intervention Guide Report is notintended to be a diagnosis or to substitute for professional advice or treatment. Always seek the advice of a qualified professional with anyquestions you have regarding any test results or recommended intervention(s). Reliance of the information contained in the Intervention GuideReport is solely at your own risk.

Auditory-verbal working memory

SUGGESTIONS FOR INTERVENTIONGeneral ApproachConsider the following recommendations for planning the scope and overall approach to intervention for Ella. Determine the specific subskills that need to be taughtGather data from error analysis results, curriculum-based measures, and other sources to help evaluate the specific skillswithin each content area that need to be taught. Test-teach-retestInstruction that follows frequent test-teach-retest cycles is responsive, customized to the student's needs, and allowscontinuous evaluation and modification of the instruction based on the student's performance.54,57

Before teaching a particular skill, assess what Ella already knows and needs to be taught; plan targeted instruction thatbegins with what she knows and works toward the unknown; assess whether the instruction was effective; and modifyaccordingly.

Utilize areas of strength when addressing areas of weaknessAn intervention plan that focuses only on deficits is potentially damaging to a student's self-esteem and doing so may reducethe effectiveness of the intervention.46,74 A "strength model" that seeks to remediate weaknesses through strategies andmethods that utilize a student's cognitive processing strengths is preferred.53,74 Examples of how to utilize Ella's strengths toremediate weaknesses include the following.

When selecting contextual reading materials to use during instruction, build upon Ella's knowledge, curiosity, andintellect by selecting a wide variety of texts that cover many different subject areas. Encourage reading for differentpurposes such as learning, entertainment, and communication with others. Similarly, plan writing assignments with avariety of different purposes and audiences in mind. Utilize Ella's strong processing speed to enhance the rate at which she can take in and learn new information. Adjust thepace of instruction and alternate a variety of different activities to keep Ella motivated and engaged. Utilize strong perceptual reasoning skills by incorporating visual, nonverbal stimuli into instruction, such as usinggraphic organizers and story maps to arrange information that was presented in a lecture or passage.38 Track academicprogress on simple line graphs or charts. Assessing Ella's performance in key areas of cognitive processing, including verbal comprehension and reasoning, canprovide information that is useful for further customizing Ella's intervention plan.

Increase motivation to read82

Make available a wide variety of reading materials that are appropriate for Ella's age, reading-level, and interests, andthat can be read for different purposes (e.g., pleasure or information). Allowing Ella some degree of choice within the instruction can be an excellent motivator. For example, allow Ella tochoose one of three passages to read on a particular topic, or allow her to choose the number or format of comprehensionquestions to ask/answer. Help Ella relate to texts that she is not particularly interested in by helping her connect readings to everyday life,personal experiences, goals or future plans, or texts read previously.




Select reading material carefullyStudents with specific comprehension deficits can progress rapidly through a series of books if successful reading dependson word recognition and decoding; however, the comprehension level of the texts may be too difficult, which may lead tofrustration. Select reading material that uses a clear and supportive text structure and ensure that the vocabulary is at anappropriate instructional level.29

Vary instruction to avoid habituationWhen tasks become lengthy or repetitive, students have a tendency to tune out. To avoid habituation, vary the nature andlength of instructional activities to continually redirect Ella to new tasks.15

Account for difficulty remembering aural informationGiven Ella's weakness in auditory-verbal working memory, consider shortening the amount of spoken information given atone time and supplement aural information with visual reminders.

Avoid providing multiple verbal directions all at once. Give one direction at a time, and provide the next one after Ellahas finished the previous step. For example, instead of "Open your book to page 12 and find exercise 3," say, "Open yourbook to page 12"; make sure Ella has followed the direction before giving the next direction, "Now find exercise 3." When explaining a pattern or rule, or giving multiple examples to Ella, provide her with a written list or other visual cuefor use as a reference. Enunciate and emphasize key words.60

Minimize distractions during learning activities, and consider preferential seating arrangements close to the teacher andaway from auditory distractions (e.g., doors opening and closing, air conditioning units).60

VocabularyVocabulary is a link between oral language, reading, and written language. Deficits in vocabulary contribute directly toreading and writing difficulties,66 so vocabulary needs to be emphasized as a part of reading and spelling instruction. Consider the following recommendations for strengthening Ella's vocabulary knowledge. Assess vocabulary knowledge

When teaching vocabulary, it is important to consider the different layers of vocabulary proficiency (breadth, depth, andflexibility).

❏ Breadth is knowing many words;❏ depth is knowing the meanings and use of words; and❏ flexibility is the ability to choose or adapt the meaning of the word to suit the context.

Evaluate Ella's knowledge of words on a scale from unknown to acquainted to highly familiar. Teaching differentcomponents of a word's meaning and how meaning changes in different contexts will help establish highly familiar wordknowledge.9

Teach layers of vocabulary knowledge

Teach Ella that words represent concepts, and concepts have multiple layers of meaning (i.e., vocabulary is more thanjust learning definitions). To do this, teach words with multiple meanings and nuances11 and the ways in which a word'smeaning changes in different contexts.9




Teach Ella to improve her understanding and use of a variety of different words by teaching the meaning and use ofcompound words, synonyms-antonyms, homonyms, and idioms. Teach the semantic relationships between words (taxonomy, part/whole, function/use, and modification/description).For example, consider the word apple; the following relationships can assist in developing a better, more well-roundedunderstanding of the concept of an apple:

An apple is a type of fruit (taxonomy).An apple has a stem, a core, seeds, and skin (part/whole).An apple is something that you can eat (function/use).An apple can be red, green, or yellow; it can taste sweet or sour; the skin of an apple feels smooth(modification/description).

Teach Tier 2 words.8,65 Tier 2 words are less common labels for common concepts, such as saunter instead of walk anddejected instead of sad. Tier 2 words are used by articulate speakers and writers. Tier 1 consists of common words thatdo not require instruction for native speakers (e.g., here, now, sad). Tier 3 consists of rare words that aredomain-specific, such as scientific words like mitosis.

Teach vocabulary in contextDevote some instructional time to word study, including vocabulary and usage in context,66,79 when teaching Ella to readand spell new words. Teach word meaning, word structure, and grammatical usage in context using both reading andlistening tasks. Tasks might also include sorting words into different semantic categories (e.g., positive, negative,neutral) and linguistic categories (e.g., adjectives, nouns).82

Ask Ella to read or reread a passage and circle five words that she would like to study or learn more about. Considerhaving Ella keep a vocabulary journal that includes word webs and allows her to practice writing new words in context.82

Language ComprehensionConsider the following recommendations for improving Ella's language comprehension skills. Simplify the language of instructionElla may benefit most from instruction that is delivered using simple, precise, and transparent language.

Avoid excessive elaboration or wordy instructions, and avoid covert meaning or coded imperatives.

Rather than saying, "Would you like to bring your pencil?" or "We are going to write a story," it would be moreprecise to say, "Please bring your pencil" and "I'd like you to write a story." Repeat key instruction words. When switching topics or tasks, use overt language to indicate the transition.

Teach vocabulary explicitly in every subject area.

Use visual supportsTeach Ella to organize information in graphic organizers to support vocabulary knowledge, comprehension, and inferentialknowledge.32 Provide texts and organizers for different text structures, including problem-solution, comparison-contrast,cause-effect, and timeline/sequence. Work on both listening and reading comprehension




Research suggests that interventions conducted with spoken language, as opposed to written texts, produce the mostsignificant and lasting gains among students with comprehension deficits.29 However, comprehension strategies are notapplied in exactly the same way across listening and reading tasks, so instruction that incorporates both listening andreading tasks is recommended. Explicitly teach strategies and model their use. Demonstrate using a think-aloud approach while reading a passage, andthen provide opportunities for Ella to demonstrate those strategies.82

Work on silent and oral reading comprehension

Encourage both oral and silent reading. Incorporate silent comprehension tasks such as following a set of writtendirections and answering true/false questions. Use repeated silent reading,34 which would involve Ella rereading a passage silently for a new purpose each time, suchas preparing a summary, filling in a graphic organizer, or clarifying understanding as part of a comprehensiondiscussion.

Study transition wordsProvide passages that highlight the proper use of transition words and phrases, and ask Ella to identify the transition wordsand then categorize them. Write the words under headings such as "to summarize" "to contrast" or "to show order."82

Examples of transition words/phrases include first, second, next, then; also, in addition, for example, further; insummary, therefore, as a result; similarly, likewise, on the contrary, nevertheless; in spite of, besides, however; before,earlier, previously, after, later, finally.

Prepare to listen or to readGive text previews.38 Provide Ella with an overview of the content, text structure, and any unfamiliar vocabulary wordsthat will be introduced in a passage or message.

When giving sequential information, tell her how many steps or events to listen or look for. Start with a few steps orevents in order. Move on to more steps or events only after Ella is able to recall all requested information related tothe most recent set of steps or events. To avoid overwhelming Ella with a long list of words, vocabulary preparation should focus only on words related tothe major concepts in the text. Make vocabulary instructions explicit and give Ella definitions or other attributes ofwords to be learned. If there are many words in the text that are beyond Ella's knowledge, consider substitutingsome of the most difficult words with easier synonyms.66,79

Prime background knowledge of the subject area and encourage Ella to connect the topic with previously learnedinformation. Ask Ella for predictions about what will be presented and then later confirm or refute those predictions.82

For listening, provide Ella with visual supports to help prepare her for the sort of information that will be heard.

For expository information, provide a graphic organizer with the exact number of steps or events in the passage. For a narrative, encourage Ella to take notes about the story's structure on a worksheet listing "beginning,""middle," and "end" or about the story's main characters on a worksheet that provides space to record the name, keytraits, and major events related to a specific number of main characters.




Highlight important information that Ella needs to remember or attend to through instructional direction (e.g., pausing,saying "remember" or "attention") and repetition to call Ella's attention to key ideas.85

Encourage repeated listening so that Ella can gather layers of information.

The first opportunity could allow her to get a sense of the passage and to clarify vocabulary; the second could focuson the main idea or theme; and the third could focus on three pieces of information to support that idea or theme.

For reading, provide Ella with visual supports to help prepare her for the sort of information that will be read.

For expository information, provide a graphic organizer with the exact number of steps or events in the passage. For a narrative, provide a printed worksheet with Wh- questions about the plot and major characters to helpcomprehension. Organize the questions so that they are in the same sequence to ease processing. For example, if thesetting was offered first in the narrative, the first question would ask "where" the story takes place.

Provide mental imagery trainingConsider creating a representational drawing to accompany the overall text (such as cartoon sequences or pictures tocapture the main idea), and then asking Ella to imagine similar pictures. Next, consider creating and imagining images ofkey details from the text.68,77

Use a graphic organizer that provides a concrete image for what was heard or read. For example, give Ella a blankoutline of a person and ask her to artistically represent or write about the main character's physical features, personaltraits, and significant events on the most relevant part of the outlined person.

Use reciprocal teaching71,72

Teach Ella the four strategies of summarizing, questioning, predicting, and clarifying.71,72 Model how to use these strategies,and provide guided practice, and independent practice. Create a small reading group and assign each student a role:summarizer, questioner, clarifier, or predictor. Each student alternates assuming the role of teacher and leading a dialogueabout what is read. Teach fix-up strategiesTeach strategies for improving comprehension ("fix-up" strategies).

During a reading task, fix-up strategies may include rereading (perhaps reading it aloud or more slowly), reading on, orseeking help. During a listening task, fix-up strategies may include asking for repetition or clarification, or asking what an unfamiliarword means. Be sure to role-play such scenarios and provide feedback to support appropriate social interactions.

Teach self-monitoringSelf-monitoring strategies may include summarizing or paraphrasing, identifying main ideas and details,predicting/confirming or asking/answering questions, and teaching/explaining what was learned to someone else. To improve self-monitoring of comprehension, consider the "Click or Clunk?" technique.5,6

Teach Ella to read a sentence or paragraph, or listen to a message, and then ask, "Did I understand that?" If yes, say,"Click." If no, say, "Clunk" and then use one of the fix-up strategies, which may be provided in list form or withvisual cues. After a paragraph or page, or at the end of the message, Ella should ask, "What do I remember?" and try




to summarize what was read.

Summarize, question, and predictSummarize or paraphrase what was heard or read. Identify the main idea and key details. When reading, ask Ella to jot down a key word/phrase in the margin tosummarize the main idea of each paragraph, or take notes by writing one sentence to summarize each paragraph.82

Teach Ella to ask questions and make/confirm predictions.90 Teach Ella to ask Wh- questions and to use strategies forfinding the answers to those questions.

Provide inference awareness trainingAsk Ella to describe the meanings of key words within the context of what was read or heard90

Awareness of multiple meaning words and the ability to use context to determine intended meaning is important tocomprehension. Explain to Ella that words often have different meanings depending on the context in which they areused. Give examples along with the definitions of words that have two different meanings (e.g., fly, batter, bank,chest, train). Have Ella brainstorm other words with multiple meanings and contexts in which those meanings mightvary. Teach Ella a clear understanding of figurative language, which may allow her to further comprehend texts thatcontain metaphorical meanings beyond the literal meanings. Introduce and define figurative language such as "a bedof roses," "barking up the wrong tree," "on pins and needles," and "really out on a limb."

Ask Ella to read a text that requires a high degree of inferential comprehension, and ask a series of inferentialcomprehension questions. Provide instructions about how to look for clues in the text. Using a sample, explain how theclue leads to the answer (consider using a think-aloud approach). Then provide Ella with the opportunity to use cluesindependently to make inferences.89

For example, a clue that it is cold in a story that never mentions the temperature is that the narrator describes seeingbreath, shivering, or teeth chattering.

EXAMPLES OF EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMSIf supportive instructional materials are required, consult the examples of evidence-based products and programs listedbelow. These programs were selected based on Ella's grade level and specific strengths and weaknesses. When implementingany evidence-based intervention program, it is important to consider the following general guidelines.

Even programs that are evidence-based may not be effective for a particular student because every individual'sbackground and learning profile is unique and the reasons for learning difficulty are varied and complex.1 It is unlikelythat there is a single commercially available program that will be effective for all students with learning disabilities ordifficulties.16

Expect some trial-and-error when finding the most effective instructional approach for Ella, and consider whether acombination of approaches or programs might be appropriate. Be flexible and creative in the implementation of instruction; always monitor and adjust the instruction in response toElla's specific strengths and weaknesses and her level of skill proficiency and engagement.63




The effectiveness of a program for Ella may be impacted by several factors, including the level of training required toimplement the program; the frequency and duration of instruction; the cross-environment application of the program(e.g., at school and at home, across multiple-class settings); and the degree to which instruction is individualized ortailored to the student's needs.

CORRECTIVE READING (SRA)44,84

Publisher: SRA/McGraw-HillCategory: Phonological Processing, Decoding, Vocabulary, Comprehension, FluencyAge Range: 8-17+Grade Range: 3-12+ EMPOWERTM READING: COMPREHENSION AND FLUENCY58,59

Author: Lovett, M. W. & Lacerenza, L.Publisher: The Hospital for Sick ChildrenCategory: Vocabulary, Comprehension, FluencyAge Range: 7-17+Grade Range: 2-12+ PROJECT READ® COMPREHENSION23,56

Author: Greene, V. E.Publisher: Language Circle EnterprisesCategory: ComprehensionAge Range: 7-17+Grade Range: 2-12+ READ 180®47,49

Author: Hasselbring, T., Goin, L., Kinsella, K., & Feldman, K.Publisher: ScholasticCategory: Phonological Processing, Decoding, Vocabulary, Comprehension, Fluency, SpellingAge Range: 9-17+Grade Range: 4-12+ READING MASTERY (SRA)31,69

Author: Engelmann, S., & Bruner, E.Publisher: SRA/McGraw-HillCategory: Phonological Processing, Decoding, Vocabulary, Word Recognition, Reading Comprehension, Fluency, SpellingAge Range: 4-11Grade Range: PK-5 READ NATURALLY®28,30

Author: Ihnot, C.Publisher: Read Naturally, Inc.Category: Decoding, Vocabulary, Comprehension, FluencyAge Range: 5-17+Grade Range: K-12+ SOAR TO SUCCESS: READING52

Publisher: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt




Category: ComprehensionAge Range: 8-14Grade Range: 3-8 REFERENCES1. Access Center, The. (2005). Considerations when selecting a reading program. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/4181/2. Allor, J. H., Champlin, T. M., Gifford, D. B., & Mathes, P. G. (2010). Methods for increasing the intensity of reading instruction for students with

intellectual disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45 (4), 500-511.3. Allor, J. H., Mathes, P. G., Roberts, J. K., Cheatham, J. P., & Otaiba, S. A. (2014). Is scientifically based reading instruction effective for students with

below-average IQs? Exceptional Children, 80 (3), 287-306. doi:10.1177/00144029145222084. Anderson, H. (2010, August). The effect of explicit instruction on second-grade students' transcriptional automaticity, text generation, and related

processes: Is handwriting instruction important (Master thesis). Bethel University, St. Paul, MN. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ezwriteonline.com/Portals/0/Documents/RtI_10WeekResults_2ndGrade.pdf

5. Anderson, T. H. (1980). Study strategies and adjunct aids. In R. J. Spiro, B. C. Bruce, & W. F. Brewer (Eds.) Theoretical Issues in ReadingComprehension (pp.483-502). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

6. Babbs, P. J. (1984). Monitoring cards help improve comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 38 (2), 200-204.7. Bain, A. M., Bailet, L. L., & Moats, L. C. (2001). Written language disorders: Theory into practice (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.8. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York, NY: Guilford Press.9. Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 74 (4), 506-521. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.74.4.50610. Benbow, M. D. (1999). Loops and other groups: A kinesthetic writing system. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.11. Berninger, V. (1998). Process assessment of the learner (PAL). Guides for intervention in reading and writing. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological

Corporation.12. Berninger, V. (2012, January). Evidence-based, developmentally appropriate writing skills K-5: Teaching the orthographic loop of working memory to

write letters so developing writers can spell words and express ideas. Paper presented at the Handwriting in the 21st Century?: An Educational Summit,Washington, DC.

13. Berninger, V. W. (2007). Process assessment of the learner II user's guide [CD]. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.14. Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24 (2), 69-80.

doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2009.00281.x15. Berninger, V. W. (2011). Evidence-based differential diagnosis and treatment of reading disabilities with and without comorbidities in oral language,

writing, and math: Prevention, problem-solving consultation, and specialized instruction. In Flanagan, D. P. and Alfonso, V. C. (Eds.), Essentials ofSpecific Learning Disability Identification (pp. 203-232). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

16. Berninger, V. W. (2013, May). Assessment instruction links within interdisciplinary frameworks. Keynote presentation at the 5th Annual Betty FinnPsychoeducational Assessment Conference, New York, NY.

17. Berninger, V. W., Abbott, R. D., Whitaker, D., Sylvester, L., & Nolen, S. B. (1995). Integrating low- and high-level skills in instructional protocols forwriting disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18 (4), 293-309.

18. Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2008). Why spelling is important and how to teach it effectively. Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development(pp. 1-13). London, ON: Canadian Language and Literacy Research Network.

19. Berninger, V. W., Nielsen, K. H., Abbott, R. D., Wijsman, E., & Raskind, W. (2008) Writing problems in developmental dyslexia: Under-recognizedand under-treated. Journal of School Psychology, 46(1), 1-21. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.008

20. Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K. B., Abbott, R. D., Abbott, S. P., Rogan, L. W., Brooks, A., . . . Graham, S. (1997). Treatment of handwriting problems inbeginning writers: Transfer from handwriting to composition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89 (4), 652-66.

21. Bowers, P. G., & Wolf, M. (1993). Theoretical links among naming speed, precise timing mechanisms and orthographic skill in dyslexia. Reading andWriting, 5 (1), 69-85. doi:10.1007/BF01026919

22. Brice, R. G. (2004). Connecting oral and written language through applied writing strategies. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40 (1), 38-47.doi:10.1177/10534512040400010301

23. Bussjaeger, J. J. (1993). The effectiveness of Project Read on the reading achievement of students with learning disabilities (Master's thesis, CaliforniaState University, Fullerton, 1993). Masters Abstracts International, 31 (04), 54-1480.

24. Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2007). Reading comprehension difficulties: Correlates, causes, and consequences. In K. Cain & J. Oakhill, (Eds.), Children'scomprehension problems in oral and written language: A cognitive perspective (pp. 41-75). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

25. Caldwell, J., & Leslie, L. (2009). Intervention strategies to follow informal reading inventory assessment: So what do I do now? (2nd ed.). Boston, MA:Pearson Education, Inc.

26. Case-Smith, J. (2002). Effectiveness of school-based occupational therapy intervention on handwriting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 56 (1), 17-25. http://ajot.aotapress.net/cgi/doi/10.5014/ajot.56.1.17

27. Catts, H. W., Hogan, T., & Fey, M. E. (2010). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related abilities. Journal ofLearning Disabilities, 36 (2), 151-164.

28. Chenault, B., Thomson, J., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. (2006). Effects of prior attention training on child dyslexics' response to compositioninstruction. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29 (1), 243-260. doi:10.1207/s15326942dn2901_12

29. Clarke, P. J., Henderson, L. M., Truelove, E. (2010). The poor comprehender profile: Understanding and supporting individuals who have difficultiesextracting meaning from text. Advances in Child Development and Behavior, 39, 79-129.


