Great Ideas Convention 2016 Learning Lab Comprehensive, Efficient, & Precise: Using A Core Selective-Evaluation Process (C-SEP) with the WJ IV Battery of Tests to Identify SLD Tammy Stephens PhD, HMH/Riverside Edward Schultz PhD, Midwestern State University
20
Embed
Comprehensive, Efficient, & Precise: Using A Core ...c.ymcdn.com/sites/ · PDF file12/4/2015 1 Core-Selective ... –Limited number of item (avg. 3 per grade) Stephens &...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Using the WJ IV to Efficiently and Comprehensively Diagnose
Specific Learning Disabilities
Tammy L. Stephens, Ph.D. Account Executive, Riverside/HMH
Edward K. Schultz, Ph.D. Assistant Professor, Midwestern State University
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Agenda
• Welcome and Introductions
• History of SLD Identifications (Pros & Cons)
• Legal Considerations
• Core Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP)
• WJ IV Core Tests
• Diagnostic Precision & Cognitive Complexity
• Case Study
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Description
• Texas Educational Diagnosticians and LSSPs have been using CHC theory-based assessment as one of the methods since the movement away from the discrepancy models.
• Advances in both CHC Theory and in test design, specifically the WJ IV Battery of Tests, has led to greater efficiency in the testing process as well as improved diagnostic precision.
• This session will demonstrate how to use the WJ IV using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP), yielding diagnostically useful information in less time.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
12/4/2015
2
The Participant Will be Able to…..
• Understand and apply the lessons from the last decade regarding SLD identification
• Interpret test data using a variety of statistically sound techniques.
• Increase diagnostic precision using the Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP)
• Identify SLD using single-batteries by interpreting results using the norms and scoring software created for the test, specifically the WJ IV.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Current Practice
• The Texas regulations allow several options to school districts to develop local policy in order to identify SLD including IQ/Achievement approaches, RTI, cross battery approaches (XBA), processing approaches, and integrated models such as RTI/XBA.
• Each of these methods have features that help answer complex referral questions, however each of these methods have disadvantages related to comprehensiveness, efficiency, precision, and legal ramifications.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Pros of Discrepancy Approaches
• Easy to apply and arguably efficient
• Simple to understand & interpret
• Consistency across interpretations
• Administratively/Legally Appealing due to quantifiable scores and cuts
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
12/4/2015
3
Cons of the Discrepancy Approaches
• IQ/Achievement discrepancy lacks comprehensiveness and precision.
• Overreliance on the standard scores, assessment does not inform intervention, and under- identifies students with low-average IQs and over-identifies students with high IQs.
• Potential for rigid adherence to cut-scores.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Pros of Cross-Battery Approaches
• Useful when using single batteries that do not sufficiently measure theory-based constructs (e.g., CHC factors)
• Results inform intervention.
• Comprehensive and flexible
• Useful for ELLs and identify students with low or lower IQs.
• Theory-Driven
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Cons of Cross-Battery Approaches
• Contrived norms utilized instead of actual test norm samples (precise) for interpretation
• Complicated-time consuming pg. 361 (XBASS)
• Inconsistency in professional development resulting in varying degrees of implementation
• Transferring scores from single-batteries such as the WJ IV to XBA software impacts precision by replacing actual norms with contrived norms.
• Necessity and efficiency of inputting scores in two different places is in question (potential for error)
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
12/4/2015
4
Cons of Cross-Battery Approaches
• Misinterpretation/disregarding of scores (divergent scores). P. 192
• Global ability is now “relevant” for Dual-Discrepancy PSW Analysis –subject to misuse to get 3 “yes’s
• Over-emphasis on mathematical formulas using standard scores and less on clinical judgment.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP)
• The Core-Selective Evaluation Process to identify specific learning disabilities (SLD) is an efficiently focused, data-driven professional judgment process rooted in contemporary CHC theory.
• Specifically, using a single-battery (WJ IV core battery of tests from the cognitive, achievement and oral language) as a foundation of the evaluation, integrated with current policy and practice, the most salient features of SLD are assessed in order to comprehensively and efficiently describe an individual’s unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Pros of Using C-SEP Model the WJ IV
• Efficient. (power to accomplish something)-more cognitively complex measures makes testing more robust yet efficient.
• Comprehensive. Comprehensively-measures the most salient features of SLD (language)
• Precise.-use of actual norms
• Diagnostic. Ability to go into greater depth. New narrow-beyond CHC
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
12/4/2015
5
Pros of C-SEP Model Using the WJ IV
• One-step scoring –no transferring
• Beyond Standard Scores-RPI’s, CALP, etc.
• PSW analysis using actual norms, GIA
• Intra-individual differences (COG, ACH, OL)
• OL as a predictor
• Scholastic APT Cluster
• Gf-Gc
• Oral Expression, Listening Comp are directly measured.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Legal Considerations
• Tests should be used for the purposes for which they were published.
• Interpretation should be conducted using the actual test norms UNLESS crossing batteries is necessary.
• Varying levels of expertise in using more complex eligibility models (e.g., XBA) results in inability to explain results.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Legal Guidelines
• Specific Learning Disability:
…Means a DISORDER in one or more basic psychological processes, involved in understanding or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations….
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
12/4/2015
6
Step 1: Measure Psychological Processes (CORE 7)
• Administer the WJ IV Cognitive CORE 7 and
analyze the student’s performance.
• If one of the G’s is not average or above average, further exploration IS warranted through the utilization of selective testing procedures.
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Step 2: Measure Language (CORE 4)
• ….. or in using LANGUAGE, either written or SPOKEN, and which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak…. (core 4)
• Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) – Picture Vocabulary and Oral Comprehension (primarily)
Step 4: Use Integrated Data Analysis Procedures to Identify PSWs
• Regulations and Research
• Profile Analysis
• Multiple lenses
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
WJ IV & C-SEP Model
“It is a delight to see the level of leadership and practical solutions Dr Schultz and Stephens have brought to contemporary evaluation practices. The C-SEP model parallels one of the author’s team design objectives of the WJ IV.” - Dr. Fred
• Most cognitively complex and ecologically valid tests in each battery
• Increases ease and flexibility of use
Stephens & Schultz, 2016 (TCASE 2016)
Summary
• The updated WJ IV Tests are more cognitively complex and ecologically valid resulting in a more robust and efficient test instrument.
• Core-Selective Evaluation Process (C-SEP) provides an efficient and comprehensive SLD eligibility model while utilizing the robustness of the WJ IV tests.
• Legal implications exist when evaluators neglect to interpret test scores using the actual test norms and scoring system; instead, they are manipulated and entered into a third-party software program (e.g., contrived norms & increased error rate)