Oregon School Psychologists Association Fall Conference, Skamania Lodge October 12, 2005 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Oregon School Psychologists Association Fall Conference, Skamania Lodge October 12, 2005 PowerPoint presentation | free to view - id: 1b759-MmQ3N



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Oregon School Psychologists Association Fall Conference, Skamania Lodge October 12, 2005

Description:

... take the position that for LD, the two perspective are actually quite compatible' ... Other Cognitive Abilities are Relatively Better. Good Classroom Instruction ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:239
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 181
Provided by: it872
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Oregon School Psychologists Association Fall Conference, Skamania Lodge October 12, 2005


1
Oregon School Psychologists AssociationFall
Conference, Skamania LodgeOctober 12, 2005
  • Learning Disabilities Ages 6-8
  • Synthesizing Response to Intervention,
  • Neuropsychology, and
  • Cattell-Horn-Carroll Intelligence Theory
  • To Improve Students Educational Outcomes

Jim Hanson, M.Ed. Portland Public
Schools JaBrHanson_at_yahoo.com
2
Goals of the Presentation
  • Response to Intervention Intra-Individual
    Differences Models Terminology, Strengths,
    Weaknesses
  • Neurological Models an overview of Wolf,
    Fletcher, Shaywitz, Geary, etc.
  • CHC Theory Cross-Battery Rules
  • An Integrated Assessment and Report

3
The Guiding Light
  • I would hope that the goal here is to expand
    the methods of assessment available to the
    practitioner and not to limit them. It seems
    possible that these two very valuable approaches
    RtI and Intra-Individual Differences can be
    utilized along a continuum of collecting
    information about a child that would culminate in
    a very clear and comprehensive evaluation that
    would be of value to all. Huff, L. (2005,
    February). Presidents Message. NASP Communique,
    33, 2-3.

4
What Parents Want to Know
  • Why doesnt my child read well?
  • What can we do about it?

5
Group Agreements
  • Mammals learn best through play
  • Am I a rock star, a movie star, or just someone
    who drinks?
  • Movement is good take care of your needs
  • Everyone needs time for digestion.
  • This wont be elegant. Learning is messy.
  • Quack up with your questions.
  • One quacker at a time and set cell phones to
    vibrate
  • Aggregate later as a group to clarify and apply
    principles

6
Do you remember when?
  • Why did you want to learn to read?
  • Why do you read now?
  • Why do you care if children learn to read?

7
Teach a diphthong, change the world
  • The purpose of a liberal arts education is to
    give people an enhanced opportunity to decide how
    they should live their lives Edmunson (2004).
  • True liberal education requires that the
    students whole life be radically changed by it,
    that what he learns may affect his actions, his
    tastes, his choices, that no previous attachment
    be immune to examination and hence re-evaluation.
    Liberal education puts everything at risk and
    requires students who are able to risk
    everything Bloom (2002).
  • Hows that as an outcome criterion?

8
The Two Major Models
  • RTI-Response to Intervention/Problem Solving
  • Intra-Individual Differences/Cognitive Processing
    Model

9
Lets Be Perfectly Clear
  • Intra-Individual/
  • Cognitive Processing
  • Model
  • IS NOT
  • Ability/Achievement
  • Discrepancy Model

10
Lets be even clearer
  • Intra-Individual Differences/Cognitive Processing
    Model
  • DOES NOT HAVE AS ITS MAIN GOAL
  • Special education placement
  • Its goal is to help kids make progress faster by
    moving from professional judgment to data based
    decision making about what intervention has the
    best likelihood of accelerating a childs
    academic progress.

11
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Doesnt Discriminate
  • Disabled and non-disabled readers
  • Children who were found to be difficult (and
    easy) to remediate
  • Response to intervention
  • Vellutino et al. (2000) p. 235

12
So, Thor, do you still have to use a discrepancy
formula?
13
RtI IID Cant we all just get along?
  • Although it is common to cast these models as
    opposing views, we take the position that for LD,
    the two perspective are actually quite
    compatible
  • Fletcher, Morris, Lyon (2003)

14
Checks and Balances
  • Use the Strengths of Both Approaches to Overcome
    the Weaknesses of Both Approaches

15
Sharpening the Figure
  • Intra-individual model different abilities
    typically assessed at the same time
  • Problem-solving model assessment of the same
    abilities at different times

16
Difficulty Communicating?
  • Terminology
  • Ethics

17
Terminology
  • The perceived incompatibility of these two
    models ultimately reflects confusion about
    different levels of classification, the relation
    of classification and identification
  • Fletcher et al. (2003)

18
Terminology
  • Identification
  • Finding the students who require specially
    designed reading instruction
  • RTI strength
  • Classification
  • Correctly diagnosing a specific learning
    disability in reading
  • IID Strength

19
Terms-Possible Confusion
  • The Three Tiered Prevention Model
  • 1) Evidence-based school-wide reading programs
  • 2) Supplemental support when curriculum-based
    assessment of reading indicates need
  • 3) Very intense, individualized, specialized,
    consistent, closely monitored support for
    non-responders
  • NASP Multi-(Three-)Tiered Model for LD
    Identification
  • 1) High-quality, research-based instruction for
    all children
  • 2) Problem Solving-RTI
  • 3) Conduct a comprehensive evaluation for
    students who do not respond despite adequate
    intervention

20
Ethical Questions
  • If you only use Cognitive Processing
  • Is it ethical NOT to use available technology
    that better addresses instructional variables,
    results in earlier service delivery, and might
    improve outcomes for students?
  • If you only use RTI
  • Is it ethical to CLASSIFY a student as having a
    specific learning disability on the assumption
    or inference that a child has a within-child
    neurological difference?

21
More ethical questions
  • She who controls the curriculum defines deviance.
  • What would RtI look like in a society that valued
    only art or war? If you didnt paint well or kill
    well, you would need intervention.
  • CBM measures standing in an environment based on
    the assumption that the environment and the
    curriculum are healthy.
  • He who controls the culture defines IQ.
  • Who was the smartest person in Fairbanks, Alaska
    in 1890? Hint NOT the person with the highest
    WAIS score.
  • IQ is a creative adjustment to environment and
    reading is valued in this society at this time.
  • When working with a student with dyslexia, look
    for the genius not measured by testing.

22
CBM or IQ?
  • Kingdom of Bhutan
  • Gross National Happiness, not GNP
  • Official policy of the kingdom laws flow from
    this shared value
  • What do their childrens state achievement tests
    look like?

23
Chew on this do we makeartificial boundaries?
  • What is the difference between cognitive
    abilities and academic achievement?
  • What if an employer did not care how much you
    knew, just how well you solved novel problems?
    Would Concept Formation become the new
    achievement test?
  • Mutability, plasticity, and practice effects
  • The kid with environmental disadvantages and low
    working memory is LD right now. He might not be
    later.

24
Why the sacred cows?
  • Such a hoopla about when to test cognition.
  • Why? Misunderstanding what IQ is, its plasticity,
    and its worth in educational outcomes.
  • My opinion test Broad Abilities (and ignore g)
    at any point in the evaluation process when a
    team needs information about selecting students
    within academic intervention groups.
  • Use cognitive testing as a part of the
    problem-solving model.

25
Back to the issues two sides
26
Two Different Ethical Bases
  • Cognitive Processing
  • Do they have a disability?
  • RTI
  • Does having a disability result in real benefit?
    Heller (1982) as cited in Vaughn Fuchs (2003)

27
RTI Benefits
  • Risk rather than deficit model
  • Early identification and instruction
  • Building-wide screenings versus teacher referrals
  • Focus on student outcomes
  • Vaughn Fuchs (2003)

28
More CBM! What we need
  • Curriculum-based oral reading fluency measures
    for all children
  • English Language Learners by Ortiz Ochoa
    language and acculturation level
  • Aggregated by O/O classification as well as by
    disability
  • Remember CALP 5

29
Fuchs Criticism of RTI
  • No description of cognitive deficits
  • Is inadequate response to instruction a
    defensible endpoint in the identification
    process?
  • Cautions Intervention Models, Instructional
    Validity, Intensiveness, Due Process, and
    Personnel

30
RTI costs Due Process
  • Even if one uses curriculum-based measurements
    as an alternative to more traditional
    norm-referenced psychometric measures, there is
    always the decision to be made as to whether a
    child has met, or not met, the specified academic
    skill or ability level for their group Fletcher
    et al. (2003).
  • Of course, specifying the arbitrary cutpoint
    remains a challenge Vaughn Fuchs (2003).

31
RtI Cost Intensiveness
  • Two hours of reading instruction a day for one
    to two years
  • 70-90 of bottom 20 in K-2 can learn to read in
    the average range

32
Instruction Must Be
  • Explicit
  • Intensive
  • Emotionally and Cognitively Supportive (Praise at
    6 to 1 and Cognitive Scaffolds)
  • Comprehensive (Big 5 Ideas of Reading)
  • Progress Monitoring
  • Flexible small groups of about three students are
    as effective as individual tutoring.
  • Torgesen, as cited in
  • Fletcher, et. al., (2003).

33
Before You Get Started with RtI Due Process,
Instructional Validity, and Personnel
  • The lowest twenty percent by school or by
    district?
  • DIBELS lowest 20 or benchmarks?
  • Allow teacher to nominate kids for Intervention?
  • State Benchmarks or CBA?
  • Reliability among schools, school districts, and
    states
  • Integrity of Intervention
  • Infra-structure
  • Training
  • Team Time

34
IBA RTI chasing integrity
  • Ohios Intervention Based Assessment
  • Reliable and consistent implementation of this
    problem solving method was not found. Fuchs et
    al. (2003)
  • Pennsylvanias Instructional Support Teams
  • Although 89 of schools achieved validation, no
    definition of validity and no integrity data were
    reported.

35
Current Naglieri Comments
  • Iowas Heartland Four-Level Problem-Solving Model
  • Neither treatment validity nor consistency
    addressed
  • Minneapolis Public Schools Multiple Data Sources
    and Convergence of Evidence Model
  • Few evaluations
  • No data in studies
  • Terms not operationalized

36
Sly Fuchs?
  • Insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of
    RtI approaches in Ohio Pennsylvania and
    particularly for Heartlands and Minneapoliss
    versions.

37
Proof in the Pudding
  • What matters is how many kids learn to read
    proficiently, not what methodology is used to
    teach or what framework or model a district
    adopts.
  • David Tilly, personal communication, October 15,
    2005

38
The two people schools need
  • An expert in teaching reading/math
  • An expert in how to change instruction when its
    not working-based on kids whole being and
    environmental resources

39
Multi-Disciplinary Teams
  • All new models require that all team participants
    be more active and inter-active in intervention
    and in identification
  • Characteristics of effective teams diversity,
    decentralization, independence.

40
Diversity
  • Intelligence and expertise versus different
    perspectives
  • Different skills equals better decision making
  • More diversity leads to exploration of the child
    and the environment, not to systems exploitation
    just to get resources

41
Decentralization
  • Specialization
  • Based on local and child/environment-specific
    information
  • The closer you are the better you see the problem
    and the possible solutions

42
Decentralization
  • In other words, one size does not fit all.
  • Team members must be very knowledgeable in their
    field bring their expertise to the table for
    synthesis.
  • Then, teams must tailor their tools to their
    school environments and the needs of their kids.

43
Independence Schools, Districts, and Disciplines
  • Increases likelihood of people sharing their
    private information
  • Keeps mistakes from being correlated
  • Stops information cascades-William Sellers and
    the good screw

44
Independence
  • No one approach to identification and
    intervention can be applied across a large school
    district
  • Teams must be given the knowledge and then the
    flexibility to start from where they are to get
    to where they have decided that they want to be.

45
Before Testing is ConsideredIf we dont know
it, we must learn it
  • State standards
  • District tests
  • Buildings AYP SIP and
  • Reading and math curricula
  • Functional fit between building curricula and
    district and state measurement systems
  • Functional assessments of childrens academic
    behavior
  • Functional fit between child and academic
    environment

46
Team Decision Points-Identification
  • Use research-based general reading programs,
    progress monitoring, and DIBELS screening for
    all students.
  • For the lowest 20 on DIBELS intervene.
  • For those who do respond to intervention decide
    if they will continue to require resources and if
    they will, identify them for special education
    eligibility but do not classify them as having a
    learning disability. If they will probably not
    need interventions, discontinue interventions and
    continue to monitor them with the same frequency
    as other students in general education.

47
Why take the next step?
  • The notions that the problem-solving model that
    one simply intervenes until effective treatments
    are identified has not been actualized and would
    not be expected to help develop interventions for
    LD. Indeed, research that focuses largely on
    what works in the absence of a cumulative,
    integrated body of knowledge does not yield
    effective interventions
  • Fletcher et al. (2003)

48
How does this fit with U of O?
  • Standard Protocol Problem-Solving Model
  • If response is inadequate, develop and implement
    and intervention designed to meet the individual
    needs of the child.
  • requires flexibility and professional judgment
    throughout.
  • IID testing allows you to use data rather than
    professional judgment to help determine
    individualized interventions.

49
In other words why keep intervening with more
of the same if the student hasnt responded?
  • For the students who do not respond to
    intervention, decide if you need information from
    nationally-normed achievement tests and/or
    information on the six specific cognitive
    abilities that support early reading (or the four
    that support early math). The only reason to test
    cognition is to determine appropriate
    classification and to refine and prioritize
    interventions so the kid can make faster
    progress.
  • Perform a comprehensive evaluation and examine
    intra-individual differences. If the students
    demonstrate low performance on reading tests and
    low scores on the specific cognitive abilities
    that underlie reading and/or math at their age
    (along with having other cognitive abilities in
    the normal range), classify as a student with a
    learning disability.
  • Design future interventions based on academic
    need, student interests, and other data including
    the lowest and highest cognitive scores.
  • Address rule-outs as identified by informal and
    formal evaluation. In other words, intervene
    there, too!

50
The power of the LEA
  • RtI
  • The child is identified as needing specially
    designed instruction.
  • A child can be identified and receive specially
    designed instruction without being classified.
  • IID
  • The child is classified as a student with a
    learning disability.
  • A student might be classified as having a
    learning disability but might not need specially
    designed instruction.

51
RtI On The Forms
  • Curriculum
  • Teacher
  • Grouping
  • Frequency
  • Duration
  • Integrity
  • Targets
  • Response
  • Dual Deficit

52
On The Forms
  • Must document that child has received instruction
    in the big ideas of reading
  • And math, for math
  • Courage to say that a child is an instructional
    or environmental casualty

53
Neurological (Still on the forms)
  • Twin studies suggest that fifty percent of the
    variance in reading problems is due to heritable
    influences.
  • Wadsworth, Olson, Pennington DeFries (1992).

54
A Severe Discrepancy (not there)
  • IQ-Achievement Discrepancy-not on the paperwork
    anymore!
  • Heterogeneity-still The Holy Seven Academic
    Areas, not the actual cognitive and academic
    subtypes that have been identified by science
    implies that one size of intervention fits all
  • Exclusionary Factors
  • Maybe reading fluency added

55
Still on the paperwork, but is it a learning
disability?
  • Cognition-yes/no
  • Fine Motor-no
  • Perceptual Motor-no
  • Communication-yes/no
  • Social-no
  • Emotional-no
  • Perception-no
  • Memory-yes
  • Please update this list!

56
Rule-Out, Rule-In
  • Cultural Factors
  • Economic Disadvantage
  • Emotional Disturbance
  • Who cares? If they have a problem, intervene!
  • Kavale (1988)

57
Proposed Regulations
  • The child fails to achieve a rate of learning to
    make sufficient progress to meet State-approved
    results in one or more of the areas
    identifiedwhen assessed with a response to
    scientific, research-based intervention process
    OR
  • The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and
    weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both,
    or a patter of strengths and weaknesses in
    performance, achievement, or both, relative to
    intellectual development, that is determined by
    the team to be relevant tot he identification of
    a specific learning disability, using appropriate
    assessments

58
Brass Tacks
  • The new state forms allow teams to make a student
    eligible based on
  • RtI and standardized, state, local, or classroom
    academic performance,
  • The ability/achievement discrepancy model, or
  • A synthesis of RtI and valid cognitive/academic
    assessment (a comprehensive evaluation).

59
Before we get to the forms
  • Better definitions
  • Neuroscience
  • CHC

60
Dyslexia Improving the Science
  • Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that
    is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized
    by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word
    recognition and by poor spelling and decoding
    abilities. These difficulties typically result
    from a deficit in the phonological component of
    language that is often unexpected in relation to
    other cognitive abilities and the provision of
    effective classroom instruction. Secondary
    consequences may include problems in reading
    comprehension and reduced reading experience that
    can impede growth of vocabulary and background
    knowledge
  • NICHHD (1994).

61
The PPS LD Integration Team
  • You gotta love a state whose most aggressive
    mascots are ducks and beavers

62
Breaking It Down in the PPS LD Integration
Committee
  • Neurobiological in Origin
  • Inaccurate Word Recognition
  • Dysfluent Word Recognition
  • Poor Spelling
  • Poor Decoding
  • Poor Phonological Awareness
  • Other Cognitive Abilities are Relatively Better
  • Good Classroom Instruction
  • Poor Reading Comprehension
  • Can Affect Vocabulary
  • Can Affect Crystallized Intelligence

63
We think we can measure that
  • Cognitive These subgroups, typically defined by
    patterns on achievement tests, are clearly
    differentiated on cognitive attributes Fletcher
    et al. (2003)
  • Academic Children can be differentiated by
    patterns of strengths and weaknesses in word
    recognition, fluency, and comprehension
  • Instructional Functional Assessment of Academic
    Behavior Curriculum /Instructional Assessment

64
Lets start with the neurology of phonemic
awareness.
  • Why?
  • Because we know the most about it.

65
Would Sally Shaywitz agree?
66
The sea of strengths
  • The phonological model crystallizes exactly
    what we mean by dyslexia a circumscribed,
    encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a
    sea of strengths reasoning, problem solving,
    comprehension, concept formation, critical
    thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary
    Shaywitz (2003).

67
And our committees continent of contention
  • Phonological abilities are not related to
    intelligence and, in fact, are quite independent
    of intelligence (Shaywtiz, 2003).

68
Phonemic Awareness A Clean Measure of a
Specific Factor-But What is it?
  • Cognitive Auditory Processing
  • Academic Phonemic Awareness
  • Language Central Auditory Processing

69
So one of us asked
  • If the neurological basis of phonological
    processing has been located within the
    parieto-temporal lobes with letter-sound
    correspondence in the Wernickes area and
    articulatory mapping in the inferior frontal
    gyrus (Brocas area), how is it that phonological
    processing is not related to intelligence?

70
Not just there
  • Perisylvan Cortex which contains the Planum
    Temporale (Auditory System)
  • Magnocellular Pathway of the Visual System
    including the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus of the
    Thalamus
  • Occipital Cortex
  • Corpus Callosum
  • Angular Gyrus for cross-modality
  • More on math later
  • Miller, C., Sanchez, J. Hynd,G. (2003)

71
Brain mapping
  • Left infero-temporal cortex Orthography, direct
    lexical access
  • Left temporo-parietal cortex cross modal
    integration and phonological assembly
  • Left inferior frontal gyrus (Brocas area)
    semantics and phonological assembly.

72
Reading in Children 6-9 Chinese and American
  • LH Tan et. al., 2005
  • In Chinese, you dont need the Wernickes area,
    you need frontal lobes and occipital lobes.
  • 600 characters per year in China

73
What that looks like
  • Working
  • Hard
  • Or
  • Hardly
  • Working

74
The New IQ test
75
After effective interventions
  • The fMRIs of former dyslexic students look just
    like those of normal readers.
  • Does that means their better reading instruction
    improved the underlying abilities involved in
    early reading?
  • Perhaps some abilities within cognition are
    malleable?
  • Is LD a fixed trait or is the question what can
    we do to improve academic functioning?

76
Brain activity versus importance to reading
  • Active, but are they crucial?
  • Only way that we could know is to disable them
    and then see if the kid can read
  • Guinevere Eden, personal communication, October
    7, 2005.

77
From fMRI
  • to Neurological Theory

78
Not just phonological weakness?
  • Rote memorization and rapid word retrieval are
    particularly difficult for dyslexics Shaywitz
    (2003).

79
Shaywitz, Fletcher, and McGrew
  • Phonological Awareness (Ga, PC)
  • Working Memory (WM) Associative Memory (MA)
  • Processing Speed (Gs), Naming Facility (NA)
  • Phonologic Weakness
  • Memory
  • Rapid Word Retrieval
  • Phonologic Awareness
  • Working Memory
  • Rapid Naming

80
Rational Grouping Wolfs Double Deficit Model
  • Phonological Processing
  • Rapid Automatized Naming
  • Both
  • (Forgot Memory)

81
Empirical multivariate statistical methods
Morris (1998)
  • Rate (affects fluency and comprehension)
  • Rate Phonology
  • Rate, Phonology, VSTM (big group)
  • Phonology, VSTM, Spatial
  • Phonology, VSTM, Lexical
  • Global Language
  • Global

82
Levine, Fletcher, and McGrew
83
Levine Lauds
  • Stresses the nature of the stimulus and the
    modalities of response a reminder to use cross
    battery caution
  • Classroom signs we must have explicit
    corroboration of our test result hypotheses
  • Demystification Consultation
  • Interventions
  • Speech Language Pathologists like it
  • Publicity

84
Levine Criticisms
  • By what process were these constructs
    constructed?
  • What is the strength of the relation between each
    construct and specific educational outcomes?

85
Questions to ask your factors
  • How were you derived? From 50 years of research
    on 500,000 data sets?
  • How strongly are you related to specific areas of
    academic achievement?

86
Back to measurement
87
Shaywitz recommends
  • Phonology (awareness, memory, and access)
  • Letters (names and sounds)
  • Vocabulary (receptive and expressive)
  • Print Conventions
  • Listening Comprehension
  • Reading (real words, nonsense words, and
    comprehension)

88
All work and no play
  • Type of text presented
  • Length of text/verbosity
  • Complexity orthographic, semantic, linguistic
  • Demands on background knowledge

89
What test do I use?
90
Only the WJ III
  • Statistics on linguistic verbosity and complexity
  • CALP levels
  • Reduced motor response
  • See Also Cross Battery Handbooks

91
Only The KABC-II
  • Both receptive and expressive vocabulary measures
    within the same norm group
  • Word finding problems
  • Referral to a speech and language pathologist

92
Yeah, he said the WISC-IV
  • Best measure of Gc Information and Vocabulary
  • Remember, we shape our tools and thereafter, our
    tools shape us (McLuhan)
  • There is no such thing as NLD

93
Only The WJ III
  • Rasch equal interval scoring
  • Relative Proficiency Index more sensitive to
    actual classroom performance, relative standing,
    the need for specially designed instruction, and
    incremental growth.

94
For the kinesthetic learners rope,
volunteers to grab hold (at 70, 85, 115 and 130),
an adjustable smelt net at 100, and a ladder on
its side to show the stationary RPIs.The Living
Bell Curve
  • Percentiles and Standard Scores are less
    descriptive than the
  • Relative Proficiency Index because
  • The typical range of reading differences in first
    grade is FOUR YEARS (Guszak, 1992).

95
Rasch Equal Interval Scoring The Relative
Proficiency Index
  • In a perfectly distributed score population, the
    RPI for SS100 and PR50 is 90/90.
  • An absolutely average student of that age/grade
    would demonstrate 90 mastery level on that
    material and get an RPI of 90/90.
  • Standard scores and percentiles are fine when the
    distribution of scores on a certain (sub)test is
    a perfect bell curve. In that case,
    SS85PR16RPI75 and SS115PR84RPI96.
    HOWEVER
  • If the distribution of scores is either narrow,
    wide or skewed, then the standard score MOVES in
    relation to the center. An Equal Interval,
    however, STAYS THE SAME.
  • If kids are closer together in their skills, they
    are easier to teach with only one curriculum. If
    kids are NOT equal in their skills, they need
    differentiated instruction or specialized
    instruction.
  • Got a test with a wide distribution (like EVERY
    first grade reading skill)? Then the standard
    score of 85 moves farther away from the center
    and thus, farther down the equal (stationary)
    interval scale.
  • On a test with a wide distribution of scores
    (like Word Attack) a kid with a standard score of
    85, rather than having an RPI of 75, now has an
    RPI of about 55.
  • How well is a kid doing in the classroom when she
    is only demonstrating a 55 mastery level? Shes
    missing ALMOST HALF of the stuff shes supposed
    to get!
  • NEVER use a standard score again to determine if
    a first grade student has a reading problem. Use
    the RPI it more closely reflects classroom
    performance and you will not have to shrug your
    shoulders and say to a teacher, But shes doing
    fine on my test.

96
The Wait to Fail Model?
  • First graders were ALREADY failing at reading.
  • We just didnt know it because we were bad at
    statistics.
  • Shame on us for using standard scores for first
    grade kids.

97
What about math?
98
Dyscalculia Arithmetic Disability
  • 8 of children
  • Parents 10 times as likely to have AD
  • IQ-Achievement Discrepancy over-identifies
  • Math tests arent sensitive to subtypes or areas
    within subtypes
  • 26 of AD are ADHD
  • 17 of AD are RD
  • 50 of AD have Spelling Problems

99
The first type of AD
  • Procedural
  • Uses developmentally immature procedures
  • Execution errors
  • Poor concepts
  • Multiple Steps (e.g., misalignment, carrying,
    borrowing)

100
The second type of AD
  • Semantic
  • Retrieving math facts/strategies from long-term
    memory wrong and/or slow
  • High error rate
  • Associational errors
  • not inhibiting irrelevant associations (e.g.,
    counting string associations such as 278, 8 is
    closer)

101
The third type of AD
  • Visuospatial
  • Spatial representation of numbers and
    relationships
  • Misinterpretation of graphic information

102
Arithmetic Disabilities (AD)
103
Math Strategies-RtI Dynamic Assessment
  • Finger Counting Counting All
  • Finger Counting Counting On
  • Verbal Counting Counting All
  • Verbal Counting Counting On
  • Retrieval of a basic fact from long-term memory
  • Decomposition Retrieval of a partial sum and
    counting on.

104
The DIBEMS? Kindergarten
  • Russell, G., Jordan, N., and Flojo, R., (2005).
    Early identification and interventions for
    students with mathematics difficulties. In
    Journal of Learning Disabilities 38 (4)
  • Magnitude Comparison
  • Counting Strategies
  • Fluent Number Identification
  • Working Memory-Numbers Reversed
  • Number Sense

105
From Geary to McGrew
  • Phonetic and semantic memory systems
  • Understanding the quantity associated with words
  • Ability to represent or retrieve information
  • Working Memory Gs-Processing Speed, Oral
    Language
  • Gq-Quantitative (Ability and Knowledge)
  • Glr-Long Term Memory Storage and Retrieval
    including RAN ( perhaps Auditory Attention for
    inhibiting competing stimuli?)
  • (Gf-Fluid Intelligence)

106
Working Memory Manifestations
  • Keeping track of count
  • Loosing place and miscounting
  • Coordinating sequence of problem solving
  • Phonemic loop and visuospatial sketchpad
  • Executive Processing (Gf shifting set, Gv
    planning, Gs reaction time and other factors see
    Russell Barkley

107
Quantitative Ability/Knowledge
  • Cardinality
  • Order Irrelevance (relying on rote counting and
    not jumping beyond cardinality)
  • Failure to detect errors

108
From the Geary/Shaywitz Seas to the CHC Mountains
109
Someone quacked up
  • Ysseldyke says that if you use clean measures
    of specific factors you can investigate how those
    factors relate to success in school and
    educational treatment relevance.

110
Begin at the beginning
  • 1) General g Binet
  • 2) Subtest and Item Analysis Wechsler
  • 3) Psychometric Profile Analysis Kaufman
  • 4) Applying Theory to Test Interpretation
    Woodcock, Naglieri, Das
  • 5) New Statistic and Measurement Methods and
    Software

111
What new statistics measurement software?
  • Score exchangeability
  • Convergent validity
  • Convergence of indicators
  • Absolute unit dependability coefficients
  • Principal axis factoring
  • Principal component analysis
  • Maximum-likelihood estimation procedures
  • Mean absolute value of the difference between
    composites
  • Agreement confidence interval
  • Generalizability Theory
  • Varience components subprograms from SPSS 12.0,
    using the general linear model and variance
    components (test battery, random error,
    examinee/task interactions)

112
About Broad Cognitive Abilities
  • Structural Fifty years of factor analytic
    research, half a million data sets
  • Outcome Criterion Differential relations between
    different CHC abilities and external outcomes
    (e.g., reading, math, occupations, etc.)
  • Neurocognitive Demonstrated links between CHC
    measures and physiological and neurological
    functioning
  • Heritability Differential heritability rates for
    different CHC abilities
  • Developmental CHC abilities show different
    patterns of growth and decline across the life
    span

113
(No Transcript)
114
Whats important for reading?
  •  Measures of Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc)
    demonstrated strong relations with reading across
    childhood and adolescence.
  • Measures of Short-term Memory (Gsm), Auditory
    Processing (Ga), Processing Speed (Gs), and
    Long-term Retrieval (Glr) demonstrated moderate
    relations with reading achievement during the
    elementary school years.
  • Measures of more specialized abilities (phonemic
    awareness and working memory) demonstrated strong
    to moderate relations with reading achievement.
  • Fluid Reasoning (Gf) and Visual-Spatial Thinking
    (Gv) contributed no significant variance to the
    prediction of reading achievement.

115
Auditory Processing/Phonemic Awareness
  • Auditory Processing (Ga) 
  • Sound as Input
  • Doesnt require language
  • Perception
  • Analysis, Manipulation, Synthesis
  • Control of Competing Sound Sources
  • Phonetic Coding (PC)  Ability to code, process,
    and be sensitive to nuances in phonemic
    information (speech sounds) in short-term
    memory.   Includes the ability to identify,
    isolate, blend, or transform sounds of speech. 
    Frequently referred to as phonological or
    phonemic awareness.

116
Crystallized Intelligence
  • Crystallized Intelligence/Knowledge (Gc) 
  • Breadth and depth of acquired knowledge of the
    language, information, and concepts of specific a
    culture, and/or the application of this
    knowledge. 

117
Short-term/Working Memory
  • Short-term Memory (Gsm)
  • Apprehend and maintain information in immediate
    awareness
  • Memory Span (MS)  Ability to attend to,
    register, and immediately recall (after only one
    presentation) temporally ordered elements and
    then reproduce the series of elements in correct
    order.
  • Working Memory (MW) 
  • Phonological Loop
  • Visual-Spatial Sketch Pad

118
Long-term Storage Retrieval
  • Long-term Storage and Retrieval (Glr) 
  • Store new information in long-term memory
  • Retrieve information (facts rules/processes)
    from long-term memory quickly and accurately
  • Associative Memory (MA)  Ability to recall one
    part of a previously learned but unrelated pair
    of items (that may or may not be meaningfully
    linked) when the other part is presented (e.g.,
    paired-associative learning). 
  • Naming Facility (NA)  Ability to rapidly produce
    accepted names for concepts or things when
    presented with the thing itself or a picture of
    it (or cued in some other appropriate way). The
    naming responses must be in an individuals
    long-term memory store (i.e., objects or things
    to be named have names that are very familiar to
    the individual). In contemporary reading research
    is ability is called rapid automatic naming
    (RAN).

119
Processing Speed
  • Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)  
  • The ability to automatically and fluently perform
    relatively easy or over-learned cognitive tasks,
    especially when high mental efficiency (i.e.,
    attention and focused concentration) is required.

120
Fluid Intelligence
  • Fluid Intelligence/Reasoning (Gf) 
  • Solving novel problems
  • Drawing Inferences Making Deductions
  • Concept Formation
  • Classification
  • Generating and Testing Hypotheses
  • Comprehending Implications 

121
Visual-Spatial Abilities
  • Visual-Spatial Abilities (Gv)
  • Generate, retain, retrieve, and transform
    well-structured visual images
  • Maintaining spatial orientation with regard to
    objects that may change or move through space

122
Regression Coefficients
  • .3 strong relation
  • .1-.3 moderate relation

123
Phonemic Awareness 3
124
Comprehension-Knowledge
125
Oral Language
126
Working Memory
127
Long-term Retrieval
128
Processing Speed
129
Fluid Reasoning
130
Visual-Spatial Thinking
131
An Observation
  • The figures showed what abilities were important
    for early reading for all children. Data was not
    aggregated for kids who learned to read well and
    those who didnt. Therefore, the figures beyond
    age eight do not reflect the importance of
    cognitive abilities in learning to read for older
    students who are struggling.

132
Another Observation
  • Just because we do not have appropriate tests
    for measuring visual processing (ones that have
    strong predictive validity and instructional
    relevance) does not mean that the visual
    component of reading is not important.
  • Its just not on the WISC-IV or any other test

133
(No Transcript)
134
Belly up to the bar
  • Gc Pineapple Juice
  • OL Mango Juice
  • PA Ice
  • Gs Club Soda
  • WM Spices
  • MA Rum (Booze)
  • NA Champagne (Booze w/ shared variance on Gs)
  • Gf Coffee
  • Gv Milk

135
Hey bartender, blend me up
  • The Cognitive Abilities of Early Reading (you can
    cheat by looking at the slide about Predicted
    Achievement on the WJ III)
  • The same, but with LD in WM and MA
  • A global deficit cocktail?
  • The DAS Special Nonverbal Index
  • The Cognitive Abilities of Math Reasoning at most
    ages
  • The DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency

136
Acting Out Behavior
  • GcBarbara Streissand
  • PA Paris Hilton
  • WM Robert Deniro
  • MA Jennifer Aniston
  • Gs Colin Ferrell
  • RAN Angelina Jolie
  • Gf Brad Pitt
  • Gv Sean Penn
  • Sensory Pam Anderson
  • Motor Tommy Lee

137
The Reading Difference Profile Ages 6 to 8 A
Cross Battery Comparison
  • Strengths and Weaknesses
  • Of the Five Major Intelligence Test
  • And the Three Major Academic Tests

138
How were the tests selected?
  • By the highest loading on their respective broad
    cognitive ability at specific ages (technical
    manuals)
  • By personal communication from the test authors
    and/or experts in cross battery assessment
  • By a panel of woodland creatures
  • All of the Above

139
Cross Battery Assessment
  • Use the Gf-Gc (CHC) model.
  • Use only relatively pure Gf-Gc indicators (e.g.,
    NOT Story Completion, Picture Arrangement).
  • Select tests from the smallest number of
    batteries to minimize the effect of norming
    differences and ensure reliability. (Some
    neurologists and reading specialists use
    information from seven different tests/norming
    populations to make deductions about one student.)

140
Do we have them yet?
  • Glr, Gsm PA3 no info
  • Gv It looks bad but who cares? It doesnt relate
    to academics and were waiting for JLO
  • Gc WPPSI-R and WISC-III (Derived)Vocabulary
    Information
  • Gf KAIT (Derived) Logical Steps Mystery Codes,
    and WJ III (Gf Test Composite)
  • Gs WJ III Gs (Test Composite) Visual Matching
    Decision Speed
  • Floyd et al., (2005)

141
Measures versus Markers
  • RAN AND FLUENCY TESTS MARKERS FOR GS
  • KABC-II DOES NOT MEASURE GS
  • IF RAN AND FLUENCY SCORES ARE AVERAGE OR BETTER,
    THEN ONE MAY ASSUME THAT GS IS INTACT
  • SIGNIFICANT SCATTER EVALUATE GS DIRECTLY
  • MODERATE TO HIGH CORRELATIONS AMONG RAN AND GS
    MEASURES
  • DAWN FLANAGAN, PERSONAL COMMUNICATION, MARCH 2,
    2005

142
And when you come to the end of the comprehensive
evaluation, what are your conclusions?
  • Gs (Speed) or RAN Deficit?
  • MA (Associative Memory) or WM (Working Memory)
    Deficit?
  • Phonological Deficit?
  • Oral Language and/or Crystallized IQ Deficit?

143
What does reading sound like?
  • Piano Fluid Intelligence, Visual-Spatial
    Thinking
  • Mezzo Forte Working Memory, Processing Speed,
    RAN-Storage and Retrieval from Long-Term Memory
  • Fortissimo Phonemic Awareness, Crystallized
    Intelligence

144
Add strings
  • Mezzo Forte Reading Fluency, Vocabulary
  • Fortissimo Reading Comprehension, Alphabetic
    Principle

145
Now were at the forms
146
Looking at Discrepancies
  • NRCLD suggests a difference between the ability
    and the other cognitive abilities that occurs in
    less than ten percent of the population 68
    Confidence Interval, 1SD
  • Melinda McKnight, personal communication,
    October 3, 2005
  • I suggest not worrying about it except for
    classification purposes. For instructional
    purposes, the lowest aptitude gets the highest
    priority in instruction.

147
Flanagan OrtizOther Possible Methods
  • Aptitude-Achievement Consistency AND most broad
    abilities within normal limits
  • OR
  • Ability/Achievement Discrepancy AND global
    ability within normal limits (SS85)
  • AND
  • History of (and current dysfunction in) skill

148
Doesnt that make sense?
  • When we test students with poor reading
    achievement, we expect to find that at least one
    of the cognitive abilities that underlie reading
    is compromised. If there is no cognitive
    weakness, ITS PROBABLY NOT A NEUROLOGICAL
    DIFFERENCE!

149
Why standardized tests?
  • Why not just use the DIBELS?
  • Predictive validity versus shared variance
  • More of the same?
  • The Rum Cola experience

150
Example what to write on the new state forms
  • The student has a learning disability in
    (academic area) this determination is based on
  • Johns performance within a research-based
    general education reading curriculum,
  • Johns response to intervention,
  • Johns performance on state and district academic
    standards, and
  • APTITUDE-ACHIEVEMENT CONSISTENCY John's
    associative memory, working memory and phonemic
    awareness (three important cognitive skills for
    early reading) are below his other cognitive
    abilities, which are within the average range.
    John's relatively lower memory and phonemic
    awareness skills impair his ability to remember
    sound/symbol associations, decode words, read
    words and sentences fluently, and remember their
    content."

151
Your Day in Court (without cut-points)
  • Reasonable doubt?
  • Preponderance of evidence of a students need
    based on multiple sources of information
  • (a) RtI monitored classroom performance on
    researched-based curricula,
  • (b) state and district standards, and
  • (c) Intra-Individual Differences
    (nationally-normed tests based on CHC theory,
    using Rasch equal interval scoring).

152
How do CHC abilities help practitioners select
interventions?
153
ATI
  • We do not dispute the null results for aptitude
    by treatment interactions. However, it is
    important to recognize that this is an older
    literature where cognitive models of the
    development of reading and math skills were
    seriously underdeveloped. Moreover, rejection of
    interactions of special education categories in
    policy does not negate the relevance of the
    underlying dimensions themselves, just the
    classification in federal regulation
  • Fletcher et al. (2003)

154
Then talk to me about ATIs
  • A common factor language (derived from
    multivariate factor analytic research on 500,000
    data sets) for instructional, environmental,
    temperamental, conative, behavioral phenomena
  • Inter-correlation among these factors, CHC, and
    specific areas of academic functioning

155
Are you listening, AGS?
  • What do we want?
  • Personality, Temperament, Conative, and Emotional
    Factors developed from multivariate factor
    analytic research and presented in a taxonomy
    that everyone uses and for which we can test
  • When do we want it?
  • NOW!

156
Why we test cognition
  • Studies of LD subtypes have identified the
    components of effective intervention programs and
    informed program development

157
Just the sounds
  • Children who were weakest in phonological
    awareness only performed best on basal
    curriculums that taught the alphabetic principle
    explicitly Fletcher et al. (2003)
  • Auditory Discrimination in Depth (Lindamood)
  • Alphabet Phonics (Orton Gillingham)
  • Phonographics
  • Project Read
  • Read Spell Pat
  • Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading (SRA)
  • Some research-based evidence

158
Just the sightseight weeks of intervention in
Georgetown
  • Visual imagery (SI) is being tested
  • Cocktail of Visual Phonemic Awareness (TAAS)
  • Better Non-word reading and PA3 (p
  • Reading accuracy improves rate still poor
  • Real word reading and comprehension improvements,
    but they are not significant.
  • Increases in left and right hemisphere
    functioning
  • Eden (2005)

159
Just the pictures
  • PAL Looking Games

160
Just the associations
  • PAL Alphabet Retrieval Games
  • Rewards (Archer)
  • Phonics for Reading (Archer)
  • Corrective Reading (SRA)

161
Just the meaning
  • Children with poor reading comprehension and
    adequate decoding (who often demonstrate problems
    with oral language, crystallized intelligence and
    fluid reasoning) might profit from training in
    meta-cognition, accessing visual-spatial imagery
    skills, linking, and explicit teaching of Theme
    Identification
  • Keene, E. Zimmerman, S., (1997). The mosaic
    of thought Teaching comprehension in a readers
    workshop. Heineman Portsmouth, NH.

162
More comprehension
  • Collaborative Strategic Reading (Vaughn)
  • Reading in the Content Area (Kinsella)

163
Justwhat was that?
  • Multi-sensory techniques may improve reading in
    children with memory span deficits
    (self-monitoring, generalization, integration,
    feedback)
  • Swanson, H. and Saez, L. (2003)

164
Just my speed
  • For Processing Speed and RAN (affecting fluency)
  • RAVE-O and PALFluency Bowers, P. and Ishaik, G.
    (2003).
  • Six Minute Solution (Hiebert)
  • Read Naturally (Imhott)

165
Just about everything.
  • Students with phonemic, RAN, and memory span
    deficits had to learn sight words first and then
    internal phonological structure
  • Fletcher et. al (2003)

166
Accommodations Untested
  • Ask them what they need (and listen to them)
  • Use their interests
  • School-wide organizational systems
  • Teachers reinforcement of students entries in
    their planners and providing feedback and reward
    for short and long-term performance.
  • Consultation about accommodations in specific
    curriculum (highlighted texts, peer note takers,
    inspiration software, dragonspeak, hypertext-HTML
    to change text books on computer).
  • See Technology Tools for Supporting Literacy
    (2005). Jeffery Connelly, Powerpoint presented at
    WSASP 2005 Conference, Stevenson, Washington
    October 14, 2005.

167
More accommodations untested
  • Latin Roots
  • Sign Language-ASL in preschool faster reading
  • Acredelo, L., Goodwin, S. Abrams, D. (2002).
    Baby signs How to talk with your baby before
    your baby can talk. McGraw Hill Columbus, OH.
  • Experiment pragmatism rules
  • There is no one true method
  • Give them the human connection

168
Science-based accommodation
  • Berninger, Virginia, University of Washington
  • Dyslexia is not brain damageWith appropriate
    instruction, dyslexic brains may become more
    efficient.
  • Linking boys reading groups with science for
    higher interest

169
Accommodations NASP
  • Provide the child a relationship with at least
    one caring (and wise) adult within the school.
    Pfohl (2005)
  • Wiseknowledgeable and possessing the know-how
    and ability to put knowledge into practice
  • Whats the real point? Jims opinion
  • Learning compassion and being creative (in
    reductionist Freudian terms love and work)

170
When fluency training doesnt matter
171
When Slingerland goes awry
172
When even research-based phonemic awareness
instruction is ineffective
173
THE INTEGRATED REPORT
174
The first and last question
  • How do we improve the educational outcome for
    this student?

175
Presidents Message
  • I would hope that the goal here is to expand
    the methods of assessment available to the
    practitioner and not to limit them. It seems
    possible that these two very valuable approaches
    can be utilized along a continuum of collecting
    information about a child that would culminate in
    a very clear and comprehensive evaluation that
    would be of value to all. Huff, L. (2005,
    February). Presidents Message. NASP Communique,
    33, 2-3.

176
WE CAN ALL GET ALONG
177
Thanks!
178
Sources and Acknowledgements
  • Portland Public Schools LD Integration Committee
  • Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia
    Association
  • Vaughn, S. Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining
    learning disabilities as inadequate response to
    instruction the promise and potential problems.
    Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 18
    (3), 137-146.
  • Fletcher, J., Morris, R., Lyon, G.R. (2003).
    Classification and definition of learning
    disabilities an integrative perspective. In H.
    Swanson, K. Harris, S. Graham, (Eds.),
    Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp 30-56). New
    York, NY The Guilford Press
  • Geary, D. (2003). Learning disabilities in
    arithmetic problem solving differences and
    cognitive deficits. In H. Swanson, K. Harris,
    S. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Learning
    Disabilities (pp 199-212). New York, NY The
    Guilford Press.
  • Eden, G. (2005, October 8). Understanding the
    reading brain Functional brain imaging studies
    of reading and reading disabilities. Powerpoint
    presented at the 2005 OHSU Fall Science
    Partnership.

179
More Sources and Acknowledgments
  • Fletcher, J. (2004). Neuropsychology of reading
    learning disabilities.Powerpoint presentation.
  • Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New
    York, NY Doubleday.
  • Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia A new
    and complete science- based program for reading
    problems at any level. New York, NY Alfred A.
    Knopf.
  • Flanagan, D., and Ortiz, S. (2004). CHC
    cross-battery assessment and LD
    determination Theoretical and empirical
    advances in the evaluation and identification
    of learning disabilities. Powerpoint
    presentation.
  • Floyd, R., Bergeron, B., et. al. (2005). Are
    Cattell-Horn-Carroll broad ability composite
    scores exchangeable across batteries? School
    Psychology Review, 34 (3), 329-357.
  • McGrew, K. (2005). from http//www.iapsych.com/

180
More Sources
  • www.w-w-c.org What works
  • http//www.ldonline.org/njcld/operationalizing.htm
    l
About PowerShow.com