How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists (or how to collaborate besides using a staple)

1
How CHC links School Psychologistswith Speech
Language Pathologists(or how to collaborate
besides using a staple)

• Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP
• Jacquelyn OConnor, MA
• Jacqueline Butera, MA
• College of Saint Rose, Albany NY

2
Goals of Presentation

• Change how we approach assessment
• Review the Federal Law
• Define CHC and Cultural Linguistic Demands
• How to assemble a Cross Battery Assessment
• How it impacts recommendations and interventions
• Show how we do the same or nearly the same tests
• Writing a Comprehensive SLP SP report
• Open up communication between SPs and SLPs

3
What are we doing?
After you've done a thing the same way for two
years, look it over carefully. After five years,
look at it with suspicion. And after ten years,
throw it away and start all over.
(Perlman, 1958)
4
What are we doing?
THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE MALPRACTICE OF
TOMORROW
(Reynolds, 2009)
5
We like RtI

• Terrific Model for Early Intervention/Prevention
• No more Wait to Fail
• Early intervention lowers the risk of academic
  difficulty in the future
• Helps identify those who suffer from dispedagogia
  rather than a possible learning disability
• General Education movement
• Break down the walls between Spec Ed and Gen Ed.
• Teach everyone not just the middle
• Focus on the resources we have, not what we dont
  have.

6
YAY RtI

• Allow me to do more than just test!
• We are not psychometricians, we are psychologists
  (no matter what APA may say)
• Gets me more involved in academics
• Pushes school psychologists to understand what is
  reading, writing, math, etc.
• We can actually use our consultation skills

7
Questions RtI still needs to answer

• How long for interventions
• How many interventions
• Differences between schools (even within
  districts)
• Reliability and Validity
• RtI only answers WHAT is happening, not WHY
  (especially at Tier III)

8
Comprehensive Assessment

• Can give us a better sense of the WHY?
• CHC, PASS, CHT, etc.
• Is NOT Discrepancy Analysis
• It is invasive
• Is no longer trying to find g
• Should be based on research and confirmatory
  data.
• Based on contemporary research

9
Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a
Single Approach, Consider an Open Mind Proposal

• Understand the benefits and limitations of RTI
  (Special Issue of Learning and Individual
  Differences Compton, 2008)
• Understand that the promise of RTI swamps the
  evidence for it at this time (Speece Walker,
  2007, p. 287)
• Understand the benefits and limitations of
  contemporary cognitive assessment (Flanagan,
  Kaufman, Kaufman, Lichtenberger, 2008)
• Understand that Tier II nonresponders are not
  well understood in terms of a) how they differ
  from responders and b) the types of
  treatments/interventions that may be more or less
  successful for them (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso,
  2008)
• Consider third option approaches to SLD
  Identification (Hale, Flanagan, Naglieri, 2008
  McCloskey, 2007)

5.29.08 Flanagan Webinar Pearson Education,
Inc.
10
Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a
Single Approach, Consider an Open Mind Proposal

• Entertain the idea that RTI and cognitive
  assessment can occur on a continuum
• Try not to blame psychological tests, but rather
  the people who use them inappropriately
• Understand that you must do what your state
  requires for SLD identification but you can add
  to those requirements in a manner that approaches
  best practices (Zirkel, 2008)
• Understand that neither RTI nor any other
  approach to SLD identification is a panacea so
  dont endorse any approach as a cure-all
• Entertain the idea that a balanced approach may
  be the best approach at this time

5.29.08 Flanagan Webinar Pearson Education,
Inc.
11
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.

5.29.08 Flanagan Webinar Pearson Education,
Inc.
12
The American Educational System Structure

• Turfdom
• Conflicting Programs
• Lack of coordination
• bureaucracy for sake of bureaucracy
• Student grouping not instructionally based
• Rigidity, rules
• Redundancy

Migrant
K-12 Education
13
School Psychologist and Speech Language
Pathologists

• Turfdom
• Lack of coordination
• Redundancy

Speech Language Pathologist
14
Shared office, separate lives

• For many initial evaluations, the school
  psychologist and the speech language pathologist
  are asked to do an assessment
• The assessments often happen in isolation of one
  another
• Little to no discussion about what abilities are
  to be tapped
• Every kid, no matter what the issue, gets the
  same battery of tests
• The SP and SLP share results at CSE as separate
  voices rather than one.

15
Shared Office, Separate lives

• SLPs and SPs will do the same tests without
  knowing it
• We report on the same issues without reading each
  others report
• Expect parents and teachers to consolidate our
  findings
• Reports are filled with numbers and not
  information
• Multiple reports connected by a staple.

16
ASHA Guidelines for Assessment and Evaluation

• Assessment should be based on multiple sources of
  information to obtain a comprehensive picture of
  the child's functioning. (Division of Early
  Childhood, 2007)
• No single measure can provide sufficient
  information therefore, assessment data should
  reflect multiple perspectives (ASHA, 2000)
• In addition to the use of various tools,
  assessment practices should include consultation
  with team members. (ASHA, 2005, 2008b)

17
ASHA Guidelines for Assessment and Evaluation

• Emphasize the importance of professionals working
  as a team for assessment and service provision
  (DEC, 2007)
• Assessment should provide information to inform
  program planning and intervention decisions.
• go beyond the determination of eligibility for
  services to include the gathering of information
  that will be useful in making decisions for
  effective intervention planning. (ASHA, 2005)

18
Traditional System Issues

• CASE 1
• THIRD GRADER
• READING DIFFICULTY
• WISC
• WIAT

19
Traditional System Issues

• CASE 2
• SEVENTH GRADER
• WRITING DIFFICULTY
• WISC
• WIAT

20
Traditional System Issues

• CASE 3
• FIRST GRADER
• MATH DIFFICULTY
• WISC
• WIAT

21
Traditional System issues

• Little emphasis on early intervention and
  prevention
• False Positives and False Negatives
• IQ-Achievement Discrepancy BAD
• (Identifying CHC Abilities, using consistency
  GOOD!)
• IEPs did not implement scientifically based
  instruction
• Start program in September, find out if effective
  in May
• Overrepresentation of cultural/linguistic
  minorities in special education
• Stop Retention and Social Promotion
• More concern about being in compliance than
  childs educational success THE FORGOTTEN GOAL
• Within Student vs. Within System
• Darn those lazy kids. I sat them in the room for
  a half hour and nothing happened.

22
Traditional Systems Issue

• THIRD GRADE REFERRAL

23
BREAKING NEWS

• THE EARLIER THE INTERVENTION
• THE LOWER THE RISK
• OF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTY
• IN THE FUTURE

24
Related to Traditional Assessment?

• Huge Increases in Identification
• From 1976 to 2002 the classification of
  children with specific learning disabilities
  increased 300
• Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
  Education July 1, 2002

• Inconsistencies in Identification
• 1988 27 of identified children in Utah were
  ED,
• the ED rate in CA was 2.5 of identified
  children
• Forness Kavale, 1990

25
Related to the Traditional Model?

• Cultural Bias
• African American students are twice as likely
  as whites to be labeled MR and 50 more likely to
  be designated as emotionally disturbed
• (A New Era 2002, Gresham, 2002)

• Reading Failure
• 80 of of those with SLD (40-53 of all Sp Ed
  students) are there because they havent learned
  how to read

26
Related to the Traditional Model?

• 6 million children currently in special education
• Federal funding is 8.5 billion dollars

• Placement in special education programs most
  often result in little gain or negative outcomes
• (A New Era 2002)

27

• Over thirty years of research has provided
  support for the termination of discrepancy as a
  way of identifying learning disabilities

28
Validity If discrepancy is true then..

• Learning disability is result of unexpected low
  achievement.
• Also implies that children with unexpected low
  achievement (LD) are distinct from expected low
  achievement (i.e., low achievement and low
  intelligence).

29
Assessment Past Future

• Traditional Model
• Definitional Concerns
• Discrepancy based models
• Wait to fail
• Disconnection of assessments

• Model of the Future
• Preventative approach
• Validated Models
• Response to Intervention
• CHC XBA (putting the why in RTI)
• Comprehensive Evaluations

30
IDEIA

• What are some of the details of the Federal Law?

31
IQ achievement discrepancy no longer required
RTI may be used AS A PART of the evaluation but
not as sole method
32
use a variety of assessment tools
not use any single procedure
assess cognitive factors
33
non discriminatory assessments
valid and reliable assessment
34
IDEIA 2004 Law
Definition of SLD remains the same
35
New Yorks Response
36
NYS Learning Disability DefinitionPast and
Present

• A student with a disorder in one or more of the
  basic psychological processes involved in
  understanding or in using language, spoken or
  written, which manifests itself in an imperfect
  ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
  spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The
  term includes such conditions as perceptual
  handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment,
  minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and
  developmental aphasia. The term does not include
  students who have learning problems which are
  primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor
  handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional
  disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or
  economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a
  discrepancy of 50 percent or more between
  expected achievement and actual achievement
  determined on an individual basis shall be deemed
  to have a learning disability language
  repealed

37

• ALRIGHT ALREADY!
• TALK ABOUT CHC!

38
Any Overall or Global Score

• What is it?
• What is it made of?
• Does it really mean anything?
• Does it mean anything in relation to
  intervention?
• Its the parts that make the whole
• Its the parts that will identify the strengths
  and weaknesses that impact upon learning

39
Breaking up is not so hard to do

• It is using research can we identify the parts of
  g that impact learning
• Through the CHC model we can identify the
  subtests that measure various parts of g
• Through Cross Battery, we can create a full
  evaluation that connects the pieces which can
  describe the whole child.

40
The CHC Cross-Battery Approach

• Definition
• The CHC Cross-Battery Approach is a
  time-efficient method of intellectual assessment
  that allows practitioners to measure validly a
  wider range (or a more in-depth but selected
  range) of cognitive abilities than that
  represented by any one intelligence battery in a
  manner consistent with contemporary psychometric
  theory and research on the structure of
  intelligence.

41
Flanagan, D.P. Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials
of cross-battery assessment. New York Wiley
Sons.
42
One Battery Does Not Fit All

• Given that no individual battery contains
  sufficient indicators of all of the major CHC
  abilities, a cross battery approach has been
  developed to bridge the gap between theory and
  practice.
• Do more than simply choose another battery and
  give the whole darn thing. Be specific.

43
Gc Comprehension-Knowledge

• The breadth and depth of knowledge of a culture
• The ability to communicate ones knowledge
  (especially verbally)
• The ability to reason using previously learned
  knowledge or procedures
• Originally described as crystallized
  intelligence
• Jeopardy players have waaaay too much Gc.
• Includes Listening Skills and Oral Communication.
  

44
Gf Fluid Reasoning

• Novel reasoning and problem solving that depend
  minimally on learning and acculturation
• Ability to reason, form concepts, and solve
  problems that often include novel information or
  procedures
• Induction deduction are hallmarks of Gf
• Impacts math reasoning, reading comprehension,
  higher level thinking
• The first few times you do Soduku, you are using
  your Fluid Reasoning. After you learn the trick,
  it becomes crystallized knowledge (Gc)

45
Glr Long-term (Storage ) Retrieval

• Ability to store information and fluently
  retrieve it later
• Ability to retrieve from file cabinet
• Not to be confused with acquired stores of
  knowledge (Gc)
• There has to be an intervening event. Can mean
  retrieving information learned several seconds
  earlier.
• Not long term memory
• Includes Rapid Naming, Meaningful Memory,
  Associative memory
• All contestants on Jeopardy have good Gc, but
  those who are more effective at retrieving the
  info do better.

46
Ga Auditory Processing

• Ability to analyze, synthesize, discriminate
  auditory stimuli
• Ability to perceive and discriminate speech
  sounds that may be presented under distorted
  conditions
• Not to be confused with an auditory learner or
  how well someone hears. Can be hearing impaired
  and still have good Ga
• Includes Phonemic Awareness

47
Is it All About Phonological Processing?

• In the area of reading, a model suggesting that
  phonological deficits fully account for reading
  problems in virtually all children is now being
  amended (Snowling, 2008)
• Today, we are witnessing many children whose
  phonological skills have been remediated, and
  remediated well, and who continue to struggle to
  read fluently and with comprehension (Shaywitz,
  Morris, Shaywitz, 2008)

From Shaywitz and Reynolds (2009)
48
Gsm Short-term Memory

• Ability to apprehend and hold information in
  immediate awareness and then use it within a few
  seconds
• 7 chunks of information ( / 3)
• Working Memory and Memory Span
• Working Memory is key in most academic areas.

49
Gs Processing Speed

• Ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks,
  particularly when measured under pressure to
  maintain focused attention
• Attentive speediness
• Usually measured by tasks that require rapid
  cognitive processing but little thinking
• Card sorting, game of Perfection

50
Gv Visual-Spatial Thinking

• Ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize and
  think with visual patterns
• Ability to store and recall visual
  representations
• Fluent thinking with stimuli that are visual in
  the minds eye
• Not to be confused with a visual learner or how
  well does someone see. Can be visually impaired
  and still have good Gv

51
Supporting Evidence for CHC theory

• Structural Evidence from over 50 years of
  factor analytic studies
• Outcome Criterion Evidence of differential
  relationships between diff. CHC abilities and
  external outcomes (i.e. reading, occupation,
  math, etc.)
• Neurocognitive Links between CHC measures and
  neurological functioning
• Heritability Differential heritability for
  different CHC abilities (i.e. Spatial relations
  vs. Visual Memory)
• Developmental Different patterns of growth and
  decline across the life span (i.e. Gc vs. Gsm)

52
IQ Not so smart

• What is it?
• What is it made of?
• Does it really mean anything?
• Does it exist?
• Does it mean anything in relation to
  intervention?
• IQ can no longer mean Wechsler FSIQ
• Its the parts that make the whole
• Its the parts that will identify the strengths
  and weaknesses that impact upon learning

53

• THE WISC
• AND
• CHC

54
WISC-IV Composition INDEX SUBTESTS
CHC
Verbal Comprehension Index VCI
Similarities
Vocabulary
FULL SCALE IQ (FSIQ)
Comprehension
Word Reasoning
Information
Perceptual Reasoning Index PRI
Block Design
Picture Concepts
Matrices
Picture Completion
Letter Number Sequencing
Working Memory Index WMI
Digit Span
Arithmetic
Coding
Processing Speed Index PSI
Symbol Search
Cancellation
55
SO WHY DO A CHC EVAL

• Almost all new versions of cognitive batteries
  are based in CHC
• Stunning since CHC came out only 10 years ago
• Dont waste time with unnecessary tests between
  our two evals and within our individual evals.
• Shooting with the LIGHTS ON
• Legally defensible. Less lawsuits.
• Parents and educators actually understand our
  reports and appreciate knowing why the child is
  struggling. Empowering for everyone!

56

• Cross Battery is THEORY/RESEARCH focused
• NOT
• KIT FOCUSED

REMEMBER USE THEORY AND RESEARCH TO DETERMINE
ELIGIBILITY.
57
Lets go through the steps!
58
Presumption of Normalcy

• Assessment should be driven by presumptions of
  normalcy rather than pre-conceptions of
  dysfunction.
• In the absence of any gross physiological trauma
  or developmental dysfunction, and given a history
  of appropriate and sufficient instruction and
  opportunity to learn, it is expected that an
  individual undergoing LD assessment will perform
  within normal limits on WJ III tests (i.e.,
  standard scores of 90 to 110, inclusive).

59
STEP 1 REASON FOR REFERRAL

• Individualize your assessment batteries.
• Dont give WISC/WIAT/TOLD to every single kid
  who is referred.
• Know what cognitive/language abilities impact the
  specific academic concern
• Rule out exclusionary factors

60
Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and
Processes and Academic Achievement (Flanagan,
Ortiz, Alfonso, Mascolo, 2006) see also Kevin
McGrews website www.iapsych.com
61
Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD
Patterns Ages 6-8
62
STEP 2 CHOOSE A CORE BATTERY

• If you need an overall g, you have to do all the
  core tests. If not, then you can just do the
  ones that are related to the reason for referral.
  
• Not all cognitive batteries address the same
  cognitive areas. Need to know what the tests are
  actually measuring.

63
Evaluation of Cognitive Abilities Mascolo (2004).
Published in Flanagan Kaufman (2004) Essentials
of WISC-IV Assessment. Wiley
Broad WISC-IV KABC-II WJ III COG
Gf Picture Concepts (I) Matrix Reasoning (I) Word Reasoning (I) Pattern Reasoning (I, Gv-Vz) Story Completion (I, RG, Gc-K0) Concept Formation (I) Analysis Synthesis (RG)
Gc Similarities (LD VL), Vocabulary (VL) Comp. (K0), Picture Concepts (K0) Picture Completion (K0) Information (K0), Word Reasoning (VL) Riddles (VL, LD, Gf-RG) Expressive Vocab. (VL) Verbal Know. (VL, K0) Verbal Comp. (VL LD) General Info. (K0)
Ga -- See KTEA-II Incomplete Words (PCA) Sound Blend. (PCS) Auditory Att. (US/U3, UR)
Gv Block Design (SR) Picture Completion (CF) Conceptual Thinking (Vz, Gf-I) Block Counting (Vz, Gq-A3) Face Recog. (MV), Triangles (SR, Vz) Rover (SS, Gf-RG, Gq-A3) Gestalt Closure (CS) Spatial Relations (Vz SR) Picture Recognition (MV)
Gsm Digit Span (MS MW) Letter- Sequencing (MW) Word Order (MS, WM) Number Recall (MS) Hand Mvmts. (MS, Gv-MV) Memory for Words (MS) Numbers Rev. (MW) Auditory Work. Mem.(MW)
Glr -- Atlantis (MA L1) Rebus (MA) Atlantis Delayed (MA, L1) Rebus Delayed (MA, L1) Visual Aud. Learning (MA MM) Vis.-Aud. Delayed (MA) Retrieval Fluency (FI FA) Rapid Pic. Nam. (NA)
Gs Coding (R9) Symbol Search (P R9) Cancellation (P R9) See KTEA-II Fluency tests Visual Matching (P R9) Decision Speed (R4)
Gq Arithmetic (A3) See KTEA-II
64
The Step-by-Step CB Approach

• Identify the CHC abilities that are represented
  adequately on the core battery
• Review the CHC Cross-Battery Worksheets
• Identify the CHC abilities that are not
  represented or are underrepresented on the core
  battery and select tests to approximate/ensure
  adequate representation of these abilities

65
Broad or Narrow test interpretation?
Guiding Principles
Gf
Gf
Broad
Battery A contains two qualitatively
different indicators that can be combined to
represent a broad ability cluster
I
RG
I
Narrow
Battery B contains two qualitatively
similar indicators that can be combined to
represent a narrow ability cluster
Inductive Reas.
Inductive Reas.
Inductive Reas.
Deduct. Reas.
66
STEP 3 CHOOSE A SUPPLEMENTAL

• Identify the Absence or Underrepresentation
• Supplement your core with subtests from another
  battery (Hence the title CROSS BATTERY)
• Find Supplemental tests
• keep the number of batteries to a minimum
  (preferably two)
• Use confidence bands to identify what has been
  measured

67

• This is where SP and SLP can get together and see
  what should be done next.
• How can we supplement rather than duplicate

68
CHC Abilities Related to Basic Reading Skills and
Reading Comprehension in Children Ages 6-8 Years
Gc
Ga
Gs
Gsm
Glr
Important Broad CHC Abilities
Important Narrow CHC Abilities
LD
VL
PC
US
P
MW
MA
NA
Co-normed
KABC-II
Non. Wrd Dcd
Phon. Aware.
Timed NWD
Verbal Know.
Timed Wrd Rec
Word Order
Fluency
KTEA-II
Atlantis
Riddles
Rebus
RAN
WJ III WM Cluster
WJ III Aud. Attent.
Supplemental
WJ III Gs Cluster
CTOPP
Consistent significant relation
Strongest and most consistent significant
relation
69
STEP 4 MAKE SCORES COMMUNICATE

• Convert Scaled Scores into Standard Scores
• See handout
• If crossing batteries, find Cluster Average.
• Need to understand Confidence Intervals
• If the Cluster score on one battery adequately
  measures a Broad Ability, use that score rather
  than averaging.

70
STEP 5 INTERPRET TOGETHER

• Combine our perspectives, knowledge, and clinical
  understandings to better understand the child.
• Are we talking a language deficit or a cognitive
  deficit or both?
• To heck with IEP DIRECT
• Its time to be detectives.
• Follow the clues/data
• Confirmatory data should support any conclusions.
  

71

• Look at
• CONSISTENCY
• Not
• DISCREPANCY

72
Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al.,
2002)
40 50 60 70
80 90 100 110
120 130 140 150 160
Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite(
) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading
Fluency__(_ _)
Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ (
) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ (
)
Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __(
) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________(
)
Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ (
) Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)
Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod(
) Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)

Glr Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___)
Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___)

Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc.
Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) _______
__________(___)
40 50 60 70
80 90 100 110
120 130 140 150 160
73
Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al.,
2002)
40 50 60 70
80 90 100 110
120 130 140 150 160
Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite(
) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading
Fluency__(_ _)
Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ (
) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ (
)
Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __(
) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________(
)
Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ (
) Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)
Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod(
) Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)

Glr Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___)
Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___)

Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc.
Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) _______
__________(___)
40 50 60 70
80 90 100 110
120 130 140 150 160
74
Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al.,
2002)
40 50 60 70
80 90 100 110
120 130 140 150 160
Grw Broad/Narrow Cluster Reading Composite(
) Sound Symbol ( ) Reading
Fluency__(_ _)
Gf Broad/Narrow Cluster Story Comp.__ (
) Pattern Reasoning ( _) _______________ (
)
Gv Broad/Narrow Cluster Rover _ __(
) Triangles_______ ( ) _______________(
)
Gsm Broad/Narrow Cluster Word Order__ (
) Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)
Ga Broad/Narrow Cluster Nonsense Wd Decod(
) Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)

Glr Broad/Narrow Cluster Rebus_____________(___)
Atlantis_ __________(___) __________________(___)

Gs Broad/Narrow Cluster Assoc.
Fluency_____(___) Naming Facility____(___) _______
__________(___)
40 50 60 70
80 90 100 110
120 130 140 150 160
75
Fletcher et al., (2002).
Subtypes of reading disability based on
phonological awareness (PA), rapid naming (RN),
and vocabulary skills. Working memory is not
depicted, but would also be a subtyping dimension
CHC domain
Lexical Deficit
Gc
Gsm
Glr/Gs
Rapid Naming Deficit
Ga
Phonological Deficit
76
Assessment of Diverse ChildrenDimensions of
Standardized Tests Related to Bias
Flanagan Ortiz (2001)

• Tests are culturally loaded
• the majority of tests used by psychologists were
  developed and normed in U.S. and inherently
  reflect native anthropological content as well as
  the culturally bound conceptualizations of the
  test developers themselves. Many tests require
  specific prior knowledge of and experience with
  mainstream U.S. culture
• Tests require language (communication)
• linguistic factors affect administration,
  comprehension, responses, and performance on
  virtually all tests. Even nonverbal tests that
  reduce oral language requirements continue to
  rely on effective communication between examiner
  and examinee in order to measure optimal
  performance
• Tests vary on both dimensions
• Tests vary significantly with respect to the
  degree that they are culturally loaded as well as
  the degree of language required

77
Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests
Addressing Bias in Test Validity and
Interpretation (Flanagan Ortiz, 2001)
Pattern of Expected Performance of Culturally
and Linguistically Diverse Children
LOW
MODERATE
HIGH
INCREASING EFFECT OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE
LOW
PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED
MODERATE
PERFORMANCE MOST AFFECTED
INCREASING EFFECT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCE
HIGH
(COMBINED EFFECT OF CULTURAL LANGUAGE
DIFFERENCES)
78

DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
Culture and Language Matrix developed by Flanagan
and Ortiz (2001) and found in Essentials of
Cross-Battery Assessment. Wiley
LOW MODERATE HIGH
LOW Matrix Reasoning Cancellation Hand Movements Face Recognition Pattern Reasoning Triangles Atlantis Atlantis Delayed Rebus - Delayed Block Design Symbol Search Digit Span Coding Block Counting Rover Number Recall Rebus Letter-Number Sequencing
MODERATE Arithmetic Picture Concepts Word Order Conceptual Thinking
H I GH Picture Completion Gestalt Closure Information Similarities Vocabulary Comprehension Word Reasoning Story Completion Expressive Vocabulary Riddles Verbal Knowledge
DEGRE E OF CU L T URA L LOAD I NG
The culture-language classifications for the
WISC-IV and KABC-II are preliminary. Expert
consensus studies are underway.
79
CHC Culture-Language Matrix Worksheet (Flanagan
Ortiz, 2001)
Name of Examinee _________________________
Age _______ Grade _______ Date
_____________
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
LOW MODERATE HIGH
LOW Test Name Score ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average ______ Test Name Score ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average ______ Test Name Score __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) Cell Average ______
MODERATE Test Name Score ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average ______ Test Name Score ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average ______ Test Name Score __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) Cell Average ______
H I GH Test Name Score ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average ______ Test Name Score ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) Cell Average ______ Test Name Score __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) Cell Average ______
DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING
80
Lets talkabout how to talk to our speech
language colleagues
81
Why Combine

• SLPs measure many of the same abilities SPs do
• eg. Short Term Memory - Digits forward
• Makes sense as the Broad Abilities impact
  learning
• Dont repeat testing
• Share different expertise and perspective on
  data.
• Accuracy of diagnosis
• Accuracy of intervention/intervention development

82
Saving Time

• Reduce number of subtests administered
• Based on referral
• Based on research
• Report Writing
• No more staple Comprehensive Report
• Combine results and perspectives
• Parents dont have to mix and match
• Feedback or IEP meetings
• Stop saying the same thing in different languages

83

• LETS
• TALK
• ABOUT
• Speech and Language Batteries

84
Test of Language Development- Primary
Intermediate Versions Fourth Edition(TOLD-4)

• designed specifically to assess childrens
  receptive and expressive spoken language
  competences
• Published in 2008
• Ages 4-0 through 8-11 8-0 through 17-11
• 6 core subtests, 3 supplemental (Primary Version)
• 35 minutes to 50 minutes administration time
• normative sample characteristics based on sample
  conformed to U.S. 2005 school-age population
  census data

85
Rationale

• assess childrens expressive and receptive
  competencies in the major components of
  linguistics
• identify children who are significantly below
  their peers in language proficiency
• determine childrens specific strengths and
  weaknesses in language skills (composite indexes
  are Listening, Organizing, Speaking, Grammar,
  Semantics, and Spoken Language)
• document childrens progress in language as a
  consequence of special intervention programs

86
TOLD-P4 subtest organization
Linguistic Systems Linguistic Systems Linguistic Systems Linguistic Systems
Linguistic Features Listening (receptive) Organizing (integrating-mediating) Speaking (expressive)
Semantics Picture Vocabulary Relational Vocabulary Oral Vocabulary
Syntax Syntactic Understanding Sentence Imitation Morphological Completion
Phonology Word Discrimination Phonemic Analysis Word Articulation
87
TOLD-I4 subtest organization
Linguistic Systems Linguistic Systems Linguistic Systems Linguistic Systems
Linguistic Features Listening (receptive) Organizing (integrating-mediating) Speaking (expressive)
Semantics Picture Vocabulary Relational Vocabulary Multiple Meanings
Grammar Morphological Comprehension Word Ordering Sentence Combining
88
Semantic Subtests

• study of the meaning of language relationship
  between language and thought.
• (P/I) Picture Vocabulary (Gc-VL)
• (P/I) Relational Vocabulary (Gc-LD)
• (P) Oral Vocabulary (Gc-VL)
• (I) Multiple Meanings (Gc-VL/LD)

89
Syntactic/Grammar Subtests

• the structure of the language (order and
  organization among words that determine the
  relationships between sound patterns and meaning
  through the formation of sentences).
• (P) Syntactic Understanding (Gc LS)
• (P) Sentence Imitation (Gsm MS)
• (I) Sentence Combining (Gc LD Gsm MW)
• (I) Morphological Completion (Gc MY)
• (I) Morphological Comprehension (Gc MY)
• (I) Word Ordering (Gc LD)

90
Phonological Subtests

• the sound system of language (most important
  component is phonemics, the study of significant
  speech sounds).
• (P) Word Discrimination (Ga US/U3)
• (P) Phonemic Analysis (Ga PCA)
• (P) Word Articulation (Ga PCS)

91
Redundancy
WJ-III WISC-IV/WIATIII TOLD-P4 Time to Administer
Picture Vocabulary Picture Vocabulary 5 min.
Vocabulary Oral Vocabulary 10 min.
Receptive Voc (WIAT III) Syntactic Understanding connected
Sentence Mem (wiat iii) Sentence Imitation 5 min.
Auditory Attention Word Discrimination 10 min.
Sound Awareness Phonemic Analysis 10 min.
Word Articulation
Similarities Relational Vocabulary 10 min.
Morphological Completion
92
Test of Auditory Processing Skills 3rd
Edition(TAPS-3)

• Published in 2005
• Ages 4-18
• 9 subtests 1-hour administration
• Normed on 2,000 students
• Individual subtest scores cluster scores

93
Rationale

• Provide the information necessary to assess the
  auditory processing related to cognitive and
  communicative aspects of language
• Assess the auditory skills necessary for the
  development, use, understanding of language
• Ability to comprehend auditory information

94
Three Major Indices

• Basic Phonemic Skills (3 subtests)
• Assessment of basic phonological abilities
• Auditory Memory (4 subtests)
• Measures basic memory processes
• III. Auditory Cohesion (2 subtests)
• Higher order skills

95
Basic Phonemic Skills

• Provide quick assessments of very basic
  phonological abilities that allow one to
  discriminate between sounds within words, segment
  words into morphemes, and blend phonemes into
  words
• Word Discrimination (Ga-US/U3)
• Phonological Segmentation (Ga-PCA)
• Phonological Blending (Ga-PCS)
• Overall, a strong measure of Ga

96
Auditory Memory

• Measures basic memory processes,
• including sequencing
• Number Memory Forward (Gsm-MS)
• Number Memory Reversed (Gsm-MW)
• Word Memory (Gsm-MS)
• Sentence Memory (Gsm-MS)
• Basic memory is really Gsm, and primarily
  Memory Span

97
Auditory Cohesion

• Higher order linguistic skill that requires the
  student not only to understand exactly what is
  said, but also to be able to use inferences,
  deductions, and abstractions to understand the
  meaning of a passage
• Auditory Comprehension (Gc-LS)
• Auditory Reasoning (Gc-KO)
• Not so much reasoning as it is Gc

98
Redundancy
WJ-III/WISC-IV TAPS-3 Time to Administer
Sound Blending Phonological Blending 10 min.
Auditory Attention Word Discrimination 10 min.
Numbers Reversed Number Memory Reversed 5 min.
Memory for Words Word Memory 5 min.
Sound Awareness Phonological Segmentation 10 min.
Sentence Mem (WIAT III) Sentence Memory 5 min.
Auditory Comprehension
Auditory Reasoning
Digit Span Numbers Forward 5 min.
99
Redundancy for CELF-4
WJ/WISC/WIAT CELF -4 Time to Administer
Understanding Directions Concepts/Following Directions 10 min.
Sentence recall Recalling Sentence 5 min.
Similarities Word Classes 10 min.
Picture Vocab Expressive Voc 5 min.
Vocabulary Word Definitions 10 min.
Story Recall Understanding Spoken Paragraph 10 min.
Sound Awareness Phonological Awareness 10 min.
Retrieval Fluency Word Associations 5 min.
Digit Span Number Rep 1 2 5 min.
100
MAJOR SPEECH LANGUAGE BATTERIES
Broad CELF 4 TOLD 4 Primary and Intermediate TAPS 3
Gf Word Classes Semantic Relationships
Gc Sentence Assembly (LD, MY) Expressive Vocabualry (VL) Word Classes Exp/Rec (VL, LD, Gf-I) Word Definitions (VL) Sentence Structure (LS) Word Structure (LS) Formulated Sentences (OP) Concepts/Follow Direction (LS, Gsm-MS) Semantic Relationship(LS, Gsm-MW, Gf-I,) Generals (LD) Picture Vocabulary (LD,VL) Sentence Combining (LD) Relational Vocabulary (LD) Oral Vocabulary (VL) Grammatical Understanding (LS, LD) Malapropisms (MY, VL) Grammatic Comprehension (MY) Grammatic Completion (MY) Auditory Reasoning (K0, LD)
Ga Phonological Awareness (PCS) Phonemic Awareness (PCA) Word Discrimination (BR) Phonological Blending (PCA) Word Discrimination (BR)
Gv
Gsm Familiar Sequence (MS, MW) Number Repetition (MS) Recalling Sentences (MS, Gc-LD) Number Repetition Backward (MW) Word Ordering (MW, Gc-LS) Sentence Imitation (MS) Number memory Forward (MS) Sentence Memory (MS, Gc-LD) Word Memory (MS) Number Memory Reversed (MW)
Glr Word Associations (MA) Rapid Automatic Naming (NA)
Gs
101
WIAT-III Listening Comprehension

• Measures listening comprehension at the level of
  the word, sentence and discourse.
• Two testlets make up whole Standard Score
• Receptive Vocabulary Identify picture
  corresponding to a spoken word
• Oral Discourse Comprehension Listen to narrative
  answer question

Picture Vocab (TOLD)
Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF)
Auditory Comprehension (TAPS)
102
WIAT III Oral Expression

• Measures listening comprehension at the level of
  the word, sentence and discourse.
• Three testlets make up whole Standard Score
• Expressive Vocabulary (Gc) Provide a definition
  -
• Oral Word Fluency (Glr) Name words in a specific
  category
• Sentence Repetition (Gsm) Repeat a sentence
  verbatim

Word Associations (CELF)
Sentence Memory (TAPS)
Recalling Sentences (CELF)
103

• LETS
• LOOK
• AT
• A REPORT

104
Conclusions

• CHC and RtI should be used in concert
• SLPs and SPs use similar measures
• SLPs and SPs can combine knowledge and
  experience to better interpret data, allowing for
  more specific diagnosis and recommendations.
• End the worry about getting an overall g
• Be theory/research based, not kit based

105
References

• Cross Battery Assessment
• http//www.crossbattery.com/
• Dumont and Willis - ATDR
• http//alpha.fdu.edu/dumont/psychology/ATDR.htm
• Kevin McGrews Intelligence Corner
• http//www.iqscorner.com/
• Andrew Shanock, Ph. D., NCSP
• shanocka_at_strose.edu, 518-337-4843