Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model (PSW) and ...casponline.org/pdfs/events/conv16/W-10.pdf · Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model ... o Click on the download icon at

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model (PSW)

and English Learners

Jenny Ponzuric [email protected]

Nadia Villapudua [email protected]

Online Resources:

Ventura County SELPA PSW Procedural Manual can be found at www.vcselpa.org

At the top of the page, choose Resources for Teachers and Staff Choose the Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses tab Click on PSW Resources and Brochures

Additional electronic handouts for this presentation can be found at http://tinyurl.com/PSW-CASP16

If you are unable to view the individual documents correctly,o Click on the download icon at the top (arrow pointing down)o Add the documents to your personal Google Drive (blue button at top

right)

Personal Learning Goal:

Takeaway(s):

1

The

COM

PARE

S Ke

y

COM

PARE

S Ke

y of

Rat

ing

Sym

bols

for R

esea

rch

Asso

ciat

ing

Proc

essi

ng &

Ac

hiev

emen

t Are

as

Desc

riptio

n of

Rel

atio

nshi

p

Stro

ng c

onvi

ncin

g ev

iden

ce.

Rese

arch

show

s a st

rong

to v

ery

stro

ng re

latio

nshi

p, a

nd is

con

siste

nt.

Met

a-an

alys

es m

ay c

onfir

m th

e co

rrel

atio

n be

twee

n th

is pr

oces

sing

area

and

ach

ieve

men

t are

a.

Conv

inci

ng e

vide

nce.

O

ne o

r mor

e re

sear

ch st

udie

s or m

eta-

anal

yses

show

a st

rong

rela

tions

hip,

but

find

ings

may

be

inco

nsist

ent

or c

ontr

adic

tory

. A

reco

gnize

d ex

pert

in th

e fie

ld m

ay st

ate

in a

n ar

ticle

or a

text

book

that

ther

e is

a sig

nific

ant o

r rel

evan

t rel

atio

nshi

p, y

et c

urre

nt re

sear

ch m

ay n

ot fo

cus o

n th

e ex

plic

it co

nnec

tion.

An

fMRI

st

udy

may

show

act

ivat

ion

of a

bra

in a

rea

know

n to

be

asso

ciat

ed w

ith a

par

ticul

ar c

ogni

tive

proc

ess w

hile

en

gage

d in

a re

late

d ac

adem

ic ta

sk.

Part

ially

con

vinc

ing

evid

ence

. So

me

rese

arch

show

s a m

oder

ate

or re

leva

nt re

latio

nshi

p, b

ut fi

ndin

gs m

ay b

e in

cons

isten

t, co

ntra

dict

ory,

or

prel

imin

ary.

Unc

onvi

ncin

g ev

iden

ce.

Rese

arch

show

s a w

eak

rela

tions

hip,

and

/or i

s ane

cdot

al ra

ther

than

qua

ntita

tive,

and

/or l

acks

pee

r rev

iew

, an

d/or

has

few

or n

o bi

blio

grap

hic

cita

tions

.

∅N

o re

sear

ch fo

und

that

show

s eve

n a

wea

k co

rrel

atio

n as

of t

he p

ublic

atio

n da

te o

f thi

s doc

umen

t. If

a st

udy

was

foun

d th

at sh

ows “

no re

latio

n,”

this

stud

y is

cite

d in

the

anno

tate

d ve

rsio

n of

the

COM

PARE

S.

2

Ove

rvie

w o

f the

CO

MPA

RES

Dire

ctio

ns

for

use

: Th

e o

verv

iew

of

the

CO

MP

AR

ES

do

cum

ent a

llow

s a

sse

ssm

en

t tea

ms

a q

uic

k gl

an

ce a

t the

str

en

gth

of

the

rese

arc

h

link

be

twe

en

the

pro

cess

ing

are

a a

nd

aca

dem

ic a

chie

vem

ent

are

a.

Ass

ess

men

t te

ams

nee

d to

exa

min

e th

e sp

eci

fic p

age

num

be

r(s)

(w

hic

h a

re lo

cate

d d

irect

ly t

o t

he

rig

ht

of t

he r

atin

g sy

mb

ol)

for

the

are

as

of q

ue

stio

n a

nd

take

into

co

nsi

dera

tion

the

oth

er

info

rma

tion

p

rovi

de

d w

ithin

th

e C

OM

PA

RE

S.

Proc

essi

ng

Area

Pr

oces

sing

Su

b-Ar

ea

Basi

c Re

adin

g Sk

ills

(Dec

odin

g)

Read

ing

Flue

ncy

Read

ing

Com

preh

ensi

on

Writ

ten

Expr

essi

on

Mat

h Ca

lcul

atio

n M

ath

Prob

lem

-So

lvin

g Li

sten

ing

Com

preh

ensi

on

Ora

l Ex

pres

sion

Audi

tory

Pr

oces

sing

Phon

olog

ical

Pro

cess

ing

96

96

96

96

103

103

108

108

Audi

tory

Mem

ory

96

96

96

96

103

103

108

108

Audi

tory

Pro

cess

ing

Spee

d *

96

* 96

*

96

* 96

*

103

* 10

3

10

8

10

8

Audi

tory

Pro

cess

ing

97

* 97

97

97

∅

10

3 ∅

10

3

10

8

10

8

Visu

al-

Spat

ial

Proc

essi

ng

Visu

al-S

patia

l Pro

cess

ing

98

98

98

98

104

104

109

∅

109

Ort

hogr

aphi

c Pr

oces

sing

98

98

98

98

104

∅

104

∅

109

∅

109

Visu

al M

emor

y

98

98

98

98

10

4

10

4 ∅

10

9 ∅

10

9

Visu

al P

roce

ssin

g Sp

eed

98

98

* 98

*

98

* 10

4 *

104

∅

109

∅

109

Cogn

itive

Ab

ilitie

s

Mem

ory

99

99

99

99

105

105

11

0

11

0 Ra

pid

Nam

ing

Skill

s

99

99

99

99

10

5

10

5 ∅

11

0 *

110

Conc

eptu

aliza

tion

and

Flui

d Re

ason

ing/

Prob

lem

-Sol

ving

∅

99

∅

99

99

99

105

105

∅

110

∅

110

Expr

essio

n

10

0 ∅

10

0

10

0

10

0 ∅

10

5

10

5

11

0 *

110

Lang

uage

Pro

cess

ing

(Cry

stal

ized

Know

ledg

e)

100

100

100

100

105

105

* 11

0 *

110

Proc

essin

g Sp

eed

100

100

100

10

0

10

6

10

6

11

1

11

1 Ex

ecut

ive

Func

tions

10

1

101

101

101

106

106

111

111

Sens

ory-

Mot

or S

kills

Visu

al M

otor

, Fin

e M

otor

, Gr

apho

mot

or, S

enso

rimot

or

10

2 ∅

10

2 ∅

10

2

10

2

10

7

10

7 ∅

11

2 ∅

11

2

Sens

orim

otor

Mem

ory

102

∅

102

∅

102

∅

102

∅

107

∅

107

∅

112

∅

112

Sens

orim

otor

Spe

ed

∅

102

∅

102

∅

102

* 10

2 ∅

10

7 ∅

10

7 ∅

11

2 ∅

11

2

Ora

l Mot

or/O

ral M

otor

Sp

eed

102

102

∅

102

∅

102

∅

107

∅

107

∅

112

* 11

2

Atte

ntio

n†At

tent

ion

102

102

102

102

107

107

113

113

*Ple

ase

refe

renc

e th

e C

OM

PA

RE

S f

or s

peci

fic in

form

atio

n.

† P

leas

e re

fer

to p

age

88

for

addi

tiona

l inf

orm

atio

n re

gar

din

g A

tten

tion.

3

CO

MPA

RES

for C

alifo

rnia

’s F

ive

Proc

essi

ng A

reas

, Sub

-Are

as, a

nd A

cade

mic

Are

as

Proc

essi

ng

Area

Su

b-Ar

ea

Bas

ic R

eadi

ng S

kills

(a

ka R

eadi

ng D

ecod

ing

) R

eadi

ng F

luen

cy*

Rea

ding

C

ompr

ehen

sion

W

ritte

n La

ngua

ge

*S

tud

ies

by

McG

rew

& W

end

ling

(20

10),

Ben

son

(20

08),

an

d E

vans

et

al (

200

1) s

ugge

st t

hat

ther

e is

a d

irect

rel

atio

nsh

ip b

etw

een

bas

ic r

ead

ing

ski

lls (

e.g.

,de

cod

ing)

and

re

adin

g f

lue

ncy.

The

refo

re,

wh

ere

sig

nifi

canc

e is

fou

nd

betw

een

a p

roce

ssin

g ar

ea a

nd b

asic

rea

ding

ski

lls,

it m

ay

be p

oss

ible

to

infe

r a

rela

tions

hip

betw

een

tha

t pr

oces

sing

are

a a

nd r

ead

ing

fluen

cy,

eve

n if

the

rese

arch

was

not

exp

licitl

y ex

amin

ing

prof

icie

ncy

in r

eadi

ng f

lue

ncy.

In

add

itio

n, r

eadi

ng f

lue

ncy

initi

ally

has

a s

tro

ng e

ffec

t on

rea

ding

com

preh

ensi

on b

ut t

hat

effe

ct is

red

uced

with

ag

e (B

enso

n 20

08)

.

Audi

tory

Pr

oces

sing

(G

a)

Dev

elop

men

tal

Not

e1 : A

udito

ry

proc

essi

ng

mat

ures

ear

ly,

afte

r gr

adua

l de

velo

pmen

t.

Phon

olog

ical

Pro

cess

ing

(incl

udin

g ph

onem

ic

awar

enes

s an

d so

und

disc

rimin

atio

n, p

hone

tic

codi

ng, p

hono

logi

c m

emor

y)

Dev

elop

men

tal N

ote1 :

Pho

nolo

gic

al P

roce

ssin

g m

atur

es e

arly

aft

er g

radu

al

deve

lopm

ent.

See

als

o “M

emor

y” u

nder

“C

ogn

itive

Ab

ilitie

s.”

See

al s

o “M

emor

y”

unde

r “C

ogn

itive

A

bilit

ies.

”

Ratin

g of

3 fo

r you

nger

st

uden

ts, b

ut fo

r old

er

stud

ents

typi

cally

oth

er

fact

ors i

mpa

ct re

adin

g co

mpr

ehen

sion,

so ra

ting

wou

ld b

e 1

See

also

“M

emor

y” u

nder

“C

ogni

tive

Abili

ties.

”

See

also

“M

emor

y” u

nder

“C

ogni

tive

Abili

ties.

”

Aud

itory

Mem

ory,

Aud

itory

Sh

ort-T

erm

Mem

ory,

Aud

itory

W

orki

ng M

emor

y, V

erba

l M

emor

y, V

erba

l Wor

king

M

emor

y, P

hono

logi

cal

Mem

ory,

Pho

nolo

gica

l Sho

rt-

Term

Mem

ory

Dev

elop

men

tal N

ote1 :

Wor

king

Mem

ory

mat

ures

late

af

ter

grad

ual d

evel

opm

ent.

See

als

o “M

emor

y” u

nder

“C

ogn

itive

Ab

ilitie

s.”

See

als

o “M

emor

y”

unde

r “C

ogn

itive

A

bilit

ies.

”

See

also

“M

emor

y” u

nder

“C

ogni

tive

Abili

ties.

”

See

also

“M

emor

y” u

nder

“C

ogni

tive

Abili

ties.

”

Aud

itory

Pro

cess

ing

Spee

d S

ee “

Pro

cess

ing

Spe

ed”

an

d “R

api

d N

amin

g S

kills

” un

der

Cog

nitiv

e A

bilit

ies

sect

ion.

See

“P

roce

ssin

g S

pee

d”

and

“Ra

pid

Nam

ing

Ski

lls”

und

er C

ogn

itive

A

bilit

ies

sect

ion

.

See

“P

roce

ssin

g S

pee

d”

and

“Ra

pid

Nam

ing

Ski

lls”

und

er C

ogn

itive

A

bilit

ies

sect

ion

.

See

“P

roce

ssin

g S

pee

d”

and

“Ra

pid

Nam

ing

Ski

lls”

und

er C

ogn

itive

A

bilit

ies

sect

ion

.

4

Table of Contents

Section

Acknowledgments…….…………………………………………………………………………..i

1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. Federal and State Criteria …………………………………………………………………......3

3. Specific Learning Disability Definition ………………………………………………………10

• Differentiating an Intellectual Disability (ID), General Learning Difficulty (GLD) and a Specific Learning Disability (SLD)………………………………...…….…….12

• What a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is vs. What SLD is not……….……….13

4. Research to Support the Ventura County SELPA PSW Assessment Model……………14 • Comparison of the California Discrepancy Model and the Ventura County PSW

Model for SLD Identification……………………………………………………….….17

5. Overview of Model ……………………………………..………………………………………18 • Ventura County Model for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Eligibility & Pattern

of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Model Overview………………………...…19

6. Pre-Referral Guidelines…..……………………………………………………………………20 • Ventura County Office of Education RtI2 Forms A, B, C and D…………………...25 • Ventura County Recommended Model—Response to Instruction (RtI2) and

Intervention Multi-Tiered Systems of Support………………………………………31 • Ventura County RtI2 Implementation Self-Assessment Tool……………………...40

7. Evaluation Planning as a Team………………………………………………………….……55

• SLD Planning Worksheet for Multidisciplinary Assessment Teams……………...58 8. Evaluating Academic Strengths and Weaknesses…………………………………….……60

• Guidelines for Cut-off Scores…………………………………………………………62 • Academic Assessment Tools…………………………………………………………63 • Observation Checklists………………………………………………………………..67

9. Evaluating Processing Strengths and Weaknesses…………………..……………………70

• Cross-Battery Assessment Overview by Dr. Vincent Alfonso…………...............72 • Dehn’s Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Model Assessment Overview

by Dr. Milton J. Dehn……………………………………………………………….…76 • Processing Definitions Aligned with California Ed. Code………………………....80 • Comprehensive Organizational Matrix of Processing-Achievement Relations,

Evaluating Significance (COMPARES)………………………………………..……85

10. Ruling out Exclusionary Factors………………………………………………………….…137 • Exclusionary Factors Worksheet……………………………………...……………139

5

11. Specific Populations ………………………….…………………………………………...…140 • English Learners……………………………………………………………………..141 • African American Students………………………………………………………….142 • Private School/ Home School/ Independent Study Students……………………143

12. Triennial/Reevaluation Assessments…………………………………………….…………144

• SLD Triennial/Reevaluation Assessment Flow Chart…………………………….146 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..…………………147 A. Forms:

• Specific Learning Disability Eligibility Summary: Using a Pattern of Strengths and Weakness (PSW) Model……………………………………………………….149

• Specific Learning Disability Eligibility Summary: Using a Pattern of Strengths and Weakness (PSW) Model- Instructions………………………………………..152

• Psychoeducational Assessment Report For SLD Identification using Ventura County SELPA PSW Model.........................................................…....155

References ……………………………………………………………………………….……………160

6

VENTURA COUNTY Special Education Local Plan Area

(SELPA)

Mary E. Samples, Assistant Superintendent

“GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION OF

ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS”

Contact Person: Regina Reed

Director, Personnel Development

2012

7

http://www.venturacountyselpa.com/

1. Pre-Referral Interventions........................................................................................... 6 2. Assessment Considerations .....................................................................................10 3. Assessment Areas

A. Background Information ...............................................................................15 B. Speech and Language ................................................................................18 C. Cognitive .........................................................................................................30 D. Academics .....................................................................................................37 E. Behavioral and Social/Emotional ................................................................40 F. Self-Help and Vocational .............................................................................51 G. Non Standardized Assessment ....................................................................53

4. Documentation .........................................................................................................55 5. Appendices

A. Facts About Second Language Acquisition.. ...........................................59 B. Spanish Phonology ........................................................................................61 C. Normal Speech & Language Development of English/Spanish

Speaking Children .........................................................................................65 D. Skill Area Proficiency Level Description (for CELDT), California

Department of Education ............................................................................72 E. Background Data for English Learners (ELs) for Problem-Solving Team 79 F. Prereferral Interventions for ELs, Catherine Colier, 1988 ..........................84 G. Key Questions for English Learners (ELs) .....................................................86 H. Guidelines for use of an Interpreter ............................................................88 I. Parent Interview Questions for ELs ...............................................................93

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8

Meeting the Needs of English Learners with Disabilities Resource Book

By

Jarice Butterfield

Santa Barbara County SELPA

On Behalf of the SELPA Administrators of California Association

Appreciation also goes to the following persons who provided feedback and contributions to the content of this resource book:

Trena Spurlock, Pomona SELPA Director /Committee Co-Chair Nancy Snodgrass, Bilingual SPED Resource Teacher Turlock Unified School District

Dr. Sue Balt, Riverside County SELPA Executive Director / Committee Member Dr. Michael Gerber, Professor, University of California Santa Barbara

Sheila Levy-Craven, SLP, Retired SELPA Director / Committee Member Dr. Pedro Olvera, Azusa Pacific University

Lino Gomez-Cerrillo, Bilingual Psychologist & Azusa Pacific University Alan Houser, Pajaro Valley Unified School District SELPA / Committee Co-Chair

Sherry Herrera, Retired ABC Norwalk La Mirada SELPA Director Troy Fennell, California Department of Corrections SELPA Administrator

This resource book provides regular and special educators information and resources regarding best practices and regulatory requirements for identifying, providing services, and reclassifying English Learners with disabilities. This publication was designed and written to provide the most current and accurate information in regard to English Learners and Special Education known to date in the State of California. It is distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the SELPA Administrators of California is engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of an appropriate professional should be solicited.

Approved December 3, 2010; Revision Approved March 1, 2012; June 6, 2014

9

Table of Contents Section I: Introduction

Background Information

Intended Audience

Overview of Second Language Acquisition

Review of Laws and Regulations Governing Instruction for English Learners

Section II: Assessment, Identification, and Programs for English Learners

California’s Statewide Assessment System

Assessment of English Learners in California

Identification of English Learners

California’s English Language Development Standards

Instructional Programs and Methodology for English Learners in California

Curriculum and Instruction for English Learners

Staff Certification Requirements for Teaching English Learners

Frequently Asked Questions

Section III: Interventions for English Learners Prior to Referral to Special Education

Pre-Referral Interventions for English Learners

Best Practices for Promoting Reading Literacy in English Learners

RtI / MTSS for English Learners

The Role of Problem Solving Teams in the Pre-Referral Process


Section IV: Assessment and Identification of English Learners for Special Education

Learning Disabilities versus Language Difference

Legal Requirements for Assessment of English Learners

Assessment of EL Students for Special Education

Use of Interpreters for Assessment

Components of the Assessment Report for ELs

Determining Eligibility for Special Education


Section V: Development of the IEP for English Learners with Disabilities

Development of Linguistically Appropriate IEPs

Required IEP Components for EL Students

Decisions Regarding CELDT and the IEP

Linguistically Appropriate Goals and Objectives

10

IEP Accommodations and Modifications

Other Legal Requirements Related to IEPs of English Learners


Section VI: Programs and Services for English Learners with Disabilities

Collaboration Between Special and General Education

Programs and Services for EL Students with Disabilities

Sample Elementary School ELD /SPED Service Delivery Models

Sample Secondary School ELD /SPED Service Delivery Models

Instructional Strategies / ELD for ELs with Disabilities


Section VII: Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities

Understanding Reclassification of English Learners

Issues Related to the Reclassification of EL Students with an IEP

Application of the Four Criteria to Students with Disabilities

Sample Reclassification Scenarios


References

Appendices

A. ELD Programs / Curricular Materials and Resources A1. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) EL Reading Programs A2. Publishers Listing Programs as Appropriate for ELD A3. The CDE Approved AB 1802 English Learner Supplemental Materials List (2010) A4. The CDE EL Approved Core and Intervention Programs and Current List of

Instructional Materials for Programs, Grades Kindergarten through Eight (2008) A5. Resources for Working with EL Students

B. Resources B1. The CDE English Learner Test Variations, (2014) B2. Sample Annual Title III Parent Notification Letter B3. Excerpts from English Learners and the Common Core Standards B4. Proficiency Level Descriptors for California English Language Development Standards

(2014) C. Office of Civil Rights Communication Regarding English Learners D. Sample EL Documents

D1. Sample EL / SPED Reclassification Checklist D2. EL / SPED Reclassification Worksheet D3. IEP Team Checklist for English Language Learners D4. Comparison of Language Differences versus Disabilities

11

*The

test

s abo

ve a

re g

ener

al g

uide

lines

. Al

way

s use

info

rmed

pro

fess

iona

l jud

gmen

t.

* Fo

llow

you

r Dist

rict p

roto

cols

& p

roce

dure

s, u

nles

s the

y ar

e di

scrim

inat

ory

Pr

ofile

#1

Prof

ile #

2 Pr

ofile

#3

Prof

ile #

4 Pr

ofile

#5

Prof

ile #

6 Pr

ofile

#7

Prof

ile #

8 Pr

ofile

#9

CALP

PR

OFI

CIEN

CY

(L1)

Nat

ive

→

(L

2) S

econ

d →

CA

LP

Lim

ited

(1-2

) Li

mite

d (1

-2)

CA

LP

Emer

ging

(3)

Lim

ited

(1-2

)

CA

LP

Flue

nt (4

-5)

Lim

ited

(1-2

)

CA

LP

Lim

ited

(1-2

) Em

erge

nt (3

)

CA

LP

Emer

gent

(3)

Emer

gent

(3)

CA

LP

Flue

nt (4

-5)

Emer

gent

(3)

CA

LP

Lim

ited

(1-2

) Fl

uent

(4-5

)

CA

LP

Emer

gent

(3)

Flue

nt (4

-5)

CA

LP

Flue

nt (4

-5)

Flue

nt (4

-5)

PO

SSIB

LE

ASSE

SSM

ENT

M

ODA

LITY

↓

Non

verb

al

↓

Non

verb

al

and

poss

ibly

in

L1

↓

Asse

sses

in

nativ

e la

ngua

ge

↓

Non

verb

al a

nd

poss

ibly

in L

2

↓

Non

verb

al

and

poss

ibly

in

L1

& L

2

↓

Asse

ss in

na

tive

lang

uage

and

po

ssib

ly L

2

↓

Asse

ss in

se

cond

la

ngua

ge

↓

Asse

ss in

se

cond

la

ngua

ge o

r po

ssib

ly L

1 &

L2

↓

Asse

ss in

se

cond

la

ngua

ge o

r po

ssib

ly

L1

& L

2

FORM

AL A

SSES

SMEN

T TO

OL

RECO

MM

ENDA

TIO

NS

*U

se in

form

ed p

rofe

ssio

nal j

udgm

ent

LAN

GU

AGE

PRO

FICI

ENCY

W

MLS

-R N

U

WJ I

V- O

L

Bat

ería

III

B

VAT-

NU

CO

GN

ITIV

E-

PSYC

HOLO

GIC

AL

PRO

CESS

ING

KABC

-II

UN

IT 2

Le

iter-

R TO

NI-4

DA

S-II

MVP

T-3

TVPS

-3

Beer

y VM

I

KABC

-II

UN

IT

Leite

r-R

TON

I-4

DAS-

II

MVP

T-3

TVPS

-3

Beer

y VM

I

Bate

ria C

OG

TA

PS-3

:SBE

KABC

-II

UN

IT 2

TO

NI-4

Le

iter-

R DA

S-II

M

VPT-

3 TV

PS-3

Be

ery

VMI

KABC

-II

UN

IT 2

TO

NI-4

Le

iter-

R DA

S- I

I M

VPT-

3 TV

PS-3

Be

ery

VMI

Bate

ria C

OG

BVAT

NU

Ba

teria

CO

G

TAPS

-3:S

BE

MVP

T-3

TVPS

-3

Beer

y VM

I

WJ I

V CO

G N

U

KABC

-II

WIS

C-V

Beer

y VM

I W

RAM

L-2

BVAT

NU

W

J IV

COG

NU

Ba

teria

CO

G

KABC

-II

Beer

y VM

I W

RAM

L-2

BVAT

NU

W

J IV

COG

NU

Ba

teria

CO

G

KABC

-II

WIS

C-V

Beer

y VM

I W

RAM

L-2

12

Case Study: Mary – Background Information

Mary is a 5th grade student at your school. She has been attending your school since kindergarten. She

was born in the US, but parents were both born in Mexico and immigrated to the US 15 years ago. At

home, parents speak Spanish with Mary and her two older siblings. Mary speaks English at school and

with her brother and sister, and speaks Spanish mainly with her parents and grandparents, who also live

in the home.

Mary has been struggling for many years with reading. The school has provided intervention both

during the school day as well as during the after‐school program, when available for her grade level.

Despite all of the intervention, she continues to struggle.

When she began attending Kindergarten, the school assessed her primary language (IPT) as well as her

English (CELDT). Similar to the CELDT, the IPT scores on a 5‐point scale with 5 being the highest score.

Her primary language score was a 2 and her initial CELDT was a 2 overall. She has made slow but steady

progress in her Listening and Speaking skills, with 4th grade scores being a high 3 in listening and a low 3

in speaking; however, her Reading and Writing scores consistently alternate between scores of 1 and 2.

Mary showed early signs of reading difficulties, with difficulties remembering the letter sounds, which

impacted her blending of sounds. While she has learned these skills slowly, her reading is still very slow

and she struggles to respond to comprehension questions when she has to read the words on her own.

Her reading difficulties are also impacting her math homework, as she struggles to accurately read the

word problems for homework.

Parents have been in attendance at all SST meetings (2nd and 4th grades). They are also very worried

about her reading, as her two older siblings did not show the same difficulties at school. They cannot

help her with her homework, but they make sure she attends all of the intervention programs that have

been made available. They also encourage her older sister to help her with her homework.

Parents wrote a letter 10 days ago requesting testing, with the assistance of the 5th grade teacher. They

expressed concern about dyslexia and the SST decided to move forward with assessment.

13

Mary’s Assessment Scores

K-ABC-2 Subtest Standard

Score

Sequential Processing 72 -Number Recall 4 -Word Order 5 -Hand Movements 8 Planning Ability 95 -Story Completion 9 -Pattern Reasoning 9 Learning Ability 80 -Atlantis 7 -Rebus 5 Delayed Recall 75 -Atlantis Delayed 6 -Rebus Delayed 4 Simultaneous Processing 92 -Rover 8 -Triangles 7 -Block Counting 8 Knowledge 80 Verbal Knowledge 8 Riddles 7

WJ-IV COG Subtest

Standard

Score

Cognitive Processing Speed 91 -Letter-Pattern Matching 90 -Pair Cancellation 95 Auditory Processing 100 -Phonological Processing 108 -Nonword Repetition 87

14

Mary’s Assessment Scores

VMI-6 Subtest

Standard

Score

VMI 95 -Visual Perception 95 -Motor 90

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III): Standard Score READING COMPOSITES/SUBTESTS Basic Reading Composite 85 Word Reading 84 Pseudoword Reading 88 Reading Comp/Fluency Composite 77 Reading Comprehension 78 Oral Reading Fluency 75 MATH COMPOSITES/SUBTESTS Mathematics Composite 96 Math Problem Solving 95 Numerical Operations 100 Math Fluency Composite 100 Math Fluency- Addition Math Fluency –Subtraction Math Fluency - Multiplication

105 93 99

WRITTEN LANGUAGE COMPOSITE/SUBTESTS Written Expression Composite 89 Essay Composition 90 Sentence Composition 89 Spelling 93 Oral Language 87 Listening Comprehension 90 Oral Expression 85

BASC-3 Parent Teacher Attention Problems 45 47 Executive Functioning 45 48

15

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Tier 1 ‐ Low/Low

Tier 2 ‐ Low/M

oderate

Tier 3 ‐ Mod

erate

Tier 4 ‐ Mod

erate/High

Tier 5 ‐ High/High

DIFFERE

NCE

LEV

EL FOR EV

ALUAT

ION:

C‐LIM Sum

maryGraph

for a

ll Te

stScore Data: Tiered An

alysis

Grade:

CASP

Sam

ple

10 yea

rs 3 m

onth(s)

510

/15/20

16Date:

Age:

Nam

e:

C‐LIM M

atrix

Print C

‐L Tiered Graph

C‐LIM In

dex

Cultu

re‐O

nly Graph

Lang

uage

‐Only Graph

Cultu

re‐Lan

guage Graph

Slig

htly

Diffe

rent

Mod

erat

ely

Diffe

rent

Mar

kedl

y Di

ffere

nt

Use

Gifte

d Sc

ale

Thi

s pa

ge w

as g

ener

ated

by

the

X-B

AS

S v

1.3

Cop

yrig

ht 2

017

Ort

iz, F

lana

gan

and

Alfo

nso.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

16

Steve’s Assessment Scores

WJ-IV COG Subtest Standard

Score Comprehension-Knowledge 77 -Oral Vocabulary 79 -General Information 77 Fluid Reasoning 89 -Number Series 90 -Concept Formation 87 Short-Term Working Memory 85 -Verbal Attention 80 -Numbers Reversed 89 Cognitive Processing Speed 91 -Letter-Pattern Matching 85 -Pair Cancellation 95 Auditory Processing 83 -Phonological Processing 80 -Nonword Repetition 85 Long-Term Retrieval 80 -Story Recall 75 -Visual-Auditory Learning 83 Visual Processing 94 -Visualization 97 -Picture Recognition 90

VMI-6 Subtest Standard

Score

VMI 95 -Visual Perception 95 -Motor 90

17

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Tier 1 ‐ Low/Low

Tier 2 ‐ Low/M

oderate

Tier 3 ‐ Mod

erate

Tier 4 ‐ Mod

erate/High

Tier 5 ‐ High/High

DIFFERE

NCE

LEV

EL FOR EV

ALUAT

ION:

C‐LIM Sum

maryGraph

for a

ll Te

stScore Data: Tiered An

alysis

Grade:

Steve CA

SP12

yea

rs 4 m

onth(s)

710

/15/20

16Date:

Age:

Nam

e:

C‐LIM M

atrix

Print C

‐L Tiered Graph

C‐LIM In

dex

Cultu

re‐O

nly Graph

Cultu

re‐Lan

guage Graph

Lang

uage

‐Only Graph

Slig

htly

Diffe

rent

Mod

erat

ely

Diffe

rent

Mar

kedl

y Di

ffere

nt

Use

Gifte

d Sc

ale

Thi

s pa

ge w

as g

ener

ated

by

the

X-B

AS

S v

1.3

Cop

yrig

ht 2

017

Ort

iz, F

lana

gan

and

Alfo

nso.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

18

Nam

e:

Grade

: 5

Date:

10/15/20

16Ag

e:

80 95 75 72 92 100

91 85 78 75 90

Grw

‐R

BRS

Grw

‐R

RC

Grw

‐W

RF

Grw

‐W

WE

W W W

WIA

T-I

II B

asic

Rea

din

g S

kill

s (B

RS

) T

est

Co

mp

WIA

T-I

II R

ead

ing

Co

mp

reh

ensi

on

(R

C;G

rw-R

:RC

) S

ub

test

WIA

T-I

II O

ral

Rea

din

g F

luen

cy (

RF

;Grw

-R:R

S)

Su

bte

st

Grw

‐W

WE

10 yea

rs 3 m

onth(s)

Mary CA

SP

Ga Gs

Gc Gf

Gv

S S

WJ

IV C

OG

Co

gn

itiv

e P

roce

ssin

g S

pee

d (

Gs:

P)

Tes

t C

om

p

Gc* Gf

0.64 93 72

WJ

IV C

OG

Au

dit

ory

Pro

cess

ing

(G

a) T

est

Co

mp

Glr

Gsm Gv

Ga Gs

W W

S

WIA

T-I

II E

ssay

Co

mp

osi

tio

n (

WE

;Grw

-W:W

A,E

U)

Su

bte

st

KA

BC

-II D

elay

ed R

ecal

l (G

lr:M

A)

Tes

t C

om

p

KA

BC

-II P

lan

nin

g (

Gf)

Tes

t C

om

p

KA

BC

-II S

equ

enti

al (

Gsm

:MS

) T

est

Co

mp

S S S

KA

BC

-II K

no

wle

dg

e (G

c:V

L)

Tes

t C

om

p

KA

BC

-II S

imu

ltan

eou

s (G

v) T

est

Co

mp

CHCAB

ILITY DOMAINS

S&W In

dicator

g‐Va

lue

SCORE

Composites or subtest scores designated

as weakn

esses may be usedto

represent acad

emic deficits in

PSW

‐Aan

alyses (bottom rightoval in theDD/C

model). Only oneacad

emic weakn

ess at a tim

e is evaluated

relative toa cogn

itive weakn

ess an

d gen

eral ability, b

ut an

y area

may be selected

in turn to examineother

patternsof strengthsan

d weakn

esses on the PSW

Analyzer tab

.

CHC Co

mposites designated

as strengths are used for computation of the g‐Value an

d FCC (top oval in the

DD/C m

odel) an

d those

designated

as weakn

esses are used for computation of the ICC (bottom left oval in

the DD/C m

odel). W

hen

a domain contains a strength and a weakn

ess, the strength is used in

calculation of

the g‐Value/FC

C and the weakn

ess is used in

the calculation of the ICC.

Area

s of w

eakn

ess b

elow

form

the Inhibitin

g Co

gnitive

Com

posite

(ICC).

ACHIEVE

MEN

T/SLDDOMAINS

SCORE

Area

s of stren

gthbe

low

are lik

ely consistent

with

theindividu

al'sov

erall

gene

ral ability.

Area

s of w

eakn

ess b

elow

may be used

as

acad

emic deficits

in th

eDD/C m

odel.

Area

s of stren

gth be

low

form

the Facilitating

Cogn

itive

Com

posite

(FCC

)

2a. Facilitatin

g Co

gnitive

Compo

site

(FCC

)Represents an individual's overall general ability

(based on strengths) and is used to evaluate

differences relative to a specific of pattern of

cogn

itive an

d academ

ic wea

knesses .

2b. A

lternative Co

gnitive Com

posite (A

CC)

You m

ay enter an

alternative value if desired

or when

the FC

C is not believed to be the best estimate of

general ability .

1. g‐Value

:Th

e g‐Value reflects overall cogn

itive ab

ility based

on

the CHC abilities ju

dged by the evaluator to be strengths.

The g‐Value is in

terpreted according to thelikelihoo

d that an in

dividual possesses at least average overall

3. In

hibitin

g Co

gnitive Com

posite (ICC

)Rep

resents an aggregate of an

individual's overall

weakn

esses an

d is used to evaluate consisten

cy and the

relationship betwee

n cogn

itive an

d academ

ic

weakn

esses. If there is only one cogn

itive weakn

ess, the

4. Frequ

ency of D

ifferen

ce ‐Overall Streng

th to

Cog

nitiv

e Wea

kness

Select level to be used for determining if the size of a difference is in

freq

uen

t or uncommon. D

efau

lt

value is 5% and is adjusted

for test unreliability. A m

ore conservative or liberal value may be selected

. If

multiple comparisons are mad

e, a stricter value may be ap

propriate.

Data Organ

izer

XBA An

alyzer

Inde

xStart

WISC‐V

WAIS‐IV

WPP

SI‐IV

WIAT‐III

SB5

WJ IV CO

GWJ IV OL

WJ IV AC

HKA

BC‐II

KTEA

‐3DAS

‐IICA

S2

PSW Ana

lyzer

SelectingPS

W Scores

Cross‐Ba

ttery As

sessmen

t Softw

are System

(X‐BAS

S®v1

.2)

PSW‐A

Data Su

mmary

Concep

tualization by

D.P. Flana

gan, S.O. O

rtiz, V

.C. A

lfonso; Program

ming by

S.O. O

rtiz and

A.M

. Dyn

daCo

pyrig

ht ©

201

5 Samue

l O. O

rtiz, D

awn P. Flana

gan & Vincent C. A

lfonso. All Righ

ts Reserved

Diffe

renc

e oc

curs

abo

ut 1

0% o

f the

tim

e in

the

gene

ral p

opul

atio

n (v

ery

liber

al v

alue

, inc

reas

es fa

lse p

ositi

ve ra

te--

not r

ecom

men

ded)

Diffe

renc

e oc

curs

abo

ut 5

% o

f the

tim

e in

the

gene

ral p

opul

atio

n (d

efau

lt an

d re

com

men

ded

valu

e, b

est f

or s

tand

ard

anal

yses

with

com

posit

es a

nd re

liabl

e te

sts)

Diffe

renc

e oc

curs

abo

ut 1

% o

f the

tim

e in

the

gene

ral p

opul

atio

n (v

ery

stric

t val

ue, b

est f

or m

ultip

le c

ompa

rison

s or

test

s w

ithlo

w re

liabi

lity)

Thi

s pa

ge w

as g

ener

ated

by

the

X-B

AS

S v

1.2

Cop

yrig

ht 2

015

Ort

iz, F

lana

gan

and

Alfo

nso.

All

righ

ts r

eser

ved.

19

Nam

e:

Age:

Grade

: 5

Date:

g‐Va

lue =

0.64

Diff

eren

ceC

ritic

al V

alue

Diff

eren

ceC

ritic

al V

alue

YE

S, C

ON

SIS

TE

NT

*Use of G

c as a cog

nitiv

e processing

wea

kness m

ay only be

defen

sible whe

n it represen

tslang

uage

processes (e

.g., CM

, LS), rathe

r tha

n stores of a

cquired kn

owledg

e (e.g., VL

, K0).

Mary CA

SP10

yea

rs 3 m

onth(s)

10/15/20

16

7595

8596

19.8

212

.65

LIK

EL

YM

OD

BR

SG

lr

93

16.7

010

.59

No

, no

t u

nex

pec

ted

un

der

ach

ieve

men

tY

es, d

om

ain

sp

ecif

icY

ES

YE

S

FC

C =

Is th

e differen

ce statis

tically sign

ificant?

Cogn

itive Stren

gths

The value here is either the Facilitating Cogn

itive

Composite (FC

C) or a user‐en

tered Alternative

Cogn

itive Composite (ACC).

Thesm

all box on the left in

this section addresses the first componen

t of the criterion through

consideration of the degree to which the mea

ning of the

scores is consisten

t based

on their respective m

agnitudes (e.g., are they both in

dicative of a wea

kness relative to m

ost peo

ple?). The sm

all box on the righ

t ad

dresses the second componen

t through

evaluation of the extent to which the cogn

itive wea

kness, either collectively (e.g., via the ICC) or individually, is

empirically related

to the acad

emic wea

kness, as suggested by mainly correlational resea

rch. R

elationships that are LOW suggest that the cogn

itive

wea

kness may not be a contributory factor in the acad

emic wea

kness. However, in all cases, clin

ical ju

dgm

ent should be exercised. The larger box directly

above yields a decision with respect to the consisten

cy criterion based

on consideration of both the magnitude of the reported

and selected cogn

itive an

d

acad

emic wea

knesses an

d the strength of the relationship betwee

n them

.

Isun

derachievemen

t une

xpected?

Using the FC

C as the predictor, if the difference b

etwee

n

Actual and Predicted specific academ

ic perform

ance

equals or exceed

s the Critical V

alue, then

thesize of the

difference is unusually large an

d in

freq

uen

t an

d

underachievemen

t is unexpected.

Cogn

itive

Wea

kness

If calculated, the Inhibiting Cogn

itive Composite (ICC)

is selected below by defau

lt. You m

ay select a

different area

of cogn

itive wea

kness from the drop

down m

enu for an

alysis.

Acad

emic W

eakn

ess

The first wea

kness in the list is selected by defau

lt.

You m

ay select a different area

of acad

emic

wea

kness from

the drop down m

enu for an

alysis.

Are wea

knesses d

omain specific?

Usingthe FC

C as the predictor, if the difference

betwee

n Actual and Predicted specific cogn

itive

perform

ance equals or exceed

s the Critical V

alue, then

the size of the difference is unusually large an

d

infreq

uen

t an

d the wea

kness is domain specific.

A "YES" in

these boxes indicates that the difference betwee

n the

FacilitatingCogn

itive Composite (FC

C or alternative) and the Actual

cogn

itive or the Actual academ

icwea

kness score is statistically significan

t at a 95% level o

f probab

ility (one‐tailed; assumes the cogn

itive/acad

emic

wea

kness is < cogn

itive aggregate).

Actual

Predicted by

Actual

Predicted by

Crit

ical

val

ue s

et a

t 5%

Crit

ical

val

ue s

et a

t 5%

p< .05

S&W In

dicator

Inde

xStart

PSW‐A Data Su

mmary

Cross‐Ba

ttery As

sessmen

t Softw

are System

(X‐BAS

S®v1

.2)

Dua

l‐Discrep

ancy/Con

sisten

cy M

odel: P

SW Ana

lyses for SLD

Concep

tualization by

D.P. Flana

gan, S.O. O

rtiz, V

.C. A

lfonso; Program

ming by

S.O. O

rtiz and

A.M

. Dyn

daCo

pyrig

ht ©

201

5 Samue

l O. O

rtiz, D

awn P. Flana

gan & Vincent C. A

lfonso. All Righ

ts Reserved

Strengths

(FCC)

Strengths

(FCC)

Both W

eakn

esses?

Supp

ortin

g Ac

adem

ic Stren

gths

Areas listed

in the drop down m

enu above have bee

n

iden

tified

as acad

emic stren

gths for the individual.

Data Organ

izer

XBA An

alyzer

WISC‐V

WAIS‐IV

WPP

SI‐IV

WIAT‐III

SB5

WJ IV CO

GWJ IV OL

WJ IV AC

HKA

BC‐II

KTEA

‐3DAS

‐IICA

S2

Is th

ere a BE

LOW AVE

RAGE ap

titud

e‐achiev

emen

t con

sisten

cy?

Strength of

Relationship

SelectingPS

W Scores

g‐Va

lue

Thi

s pa

ge w

as g

ener

ated

by

the

X-B

AS

S v

1.2

Cop

yrig

ht 2

015

Ort

iz, F

lana

gan

and

Alfo

nso.

All

right

s re

serv

ed.

20

The Psychological Processing Analyzer (PPA) conducts a cross-battery analysis of psychological processing test scores, analyzes achievement test scores for strengths and weaknesses, and compares achievement scores with related processing scores. The PPA can be used to determine a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) in both achievement and psychological processes. Statistically significant intra-individual scores are identified for this purpose. When an examinee has both a below average score and an intra-individual weakness, that psychological process or academic skill is labeled as a deficit. When an examinee has both an above average score and an intra-individual strength, that psychological process or academic skill is labeled as an asset.

Definitions of Psychological Processes

Attention includes self-inhibitory processes that allow one to focus, sustain, and divide attention. Difficulties with attentional control are associated with poor academic productivity and with deficient mathematics achievement.

Auditory Processing consists of the processes involved in perceiving, analyzing, synthesizing, and discriminating speech and other auditory stimuli. Auditory processing has strong relations with language and literacy skills.

Executive Functions regulate behavior and cognitive functions during purposeful, goal-directed, problem-solving. Well-developed executive functions are most important for applied academics, such as reading comprehension, mathematics reasoning, and written expression. Academic productivity, such as completing homework, also depends on adequate executive processes.

Fine Motor processes, such as motor planning, are involved in the control and coordination of small muscle movements that occur in the fingers. Fine motor skills affect penmanship, which in turn influences written expression and academic performance.

Fluid Reasoning includes problem solving and deductive and inductive reasoning. Fluid reasoning plays an important role in higher-level, applied academics, such as reading comprehension and mathematics reasoning.

Verbal Long-Term Recall is the delayed recall of new verbal learning and the efficient retrieval of previously acquired verbal knowledge. All aspects of academic learning and performance depend heavily on verbal long-term recall.

Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall is the delayed recall of new visual-spatial learning. This type of memory is associated with daily functioning, reading, and mathematics learning and performance.

Oral Language includes the linguistic processes that allow one to communicate effectively, such as the ability to construct meaningful sentences. Oral language development has a strong influence on the acquisition of literacy.

PPA Version 5.1.0 Report

Student's Last Name: Casp Student's First Name: Mary

Age: 10 School: Amazing Grade: 5th Teacher: Mrs. Exellent

Examiner: Me Dates of Evaluation: 10/15/2016

Page 1

21





Page 2

Phonological Processing involves the awareness and manipulation of phonemes, the smallest units of speech that are used to form syllables and words. Basic reading and writing skills, as well as the development of oral expression and listening comprehension, depend heavily on the development of phonological processing.

Verbal Working Memory manipulates and transforms verbal information that is being held in short-term memory or has been retrieved from long-term memory. Verbal working memory capacity has strong relations with language and literacy skills.

Visual-Spatial Working Memory manipulates and transforms visual-spatial information that is being held in short-term memory or has been retrieved from long-term memory. This type of memory is associated with daily functioning and with mathematics learning and performance.

22





PSW Among Processes

Mary appears to have average psychological processing aptitudes in Attention, Executive Functions, Fine Motor, Fluid Reasoning, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, and Visual-Spatial Processing. In contrast, Mary has below average process scores in Auditory Processing, Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall, and Verbal Working Memory.

When a process score is significantly different from the predicted score for that process, an intra-individual strength or weakness is indicated. Mary has a significant intra-individual weakness in Verbal Working Memory. The intra-individual weaknesses that can be considered a deficit include Verbal Working Memory.

Differences Between Related Processes

The table labeled 'Pairwise Comparisons of Related Processes' identifies processes that have weaknesses relative to the specific processes they are paired with. These pairwise strengths and weaknesses should not be used for specific learning disability diagnosis. Rather, the table provides in-depth information that should be used for interventions or treatment planning. Only closely related processes are included in the table.

PSW Among Academic Skills

Mary appears to have average academic skills in Mathematics Calculation, Mathematics Problem Solving, Written Expression, and Listening Comprehension. In contrast, Mary has below average academic skills in Basic Reading Skills, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, and Oral Expression.

When an achievement score is significantly different from the predicted score for that skill, an intra-individual strength or weakness is indicated.

Page 3

23





Page 4

Consistency Between Achievement Scores and Process Scores

When one or more of the processes that strongly influence the development of a specific area of achievement are intra-individual weaknesses, the examinee is likely to have a deficiency in that achievement area. The “Consistency Between Achievement Scores and Process Scores” table compares academic skills and psychological processes that are highly related. Consistency between an achievement score and a process score is indicated by a “No” in the “Significant Difference” column. Consistency between a process score and a related area of deficient achievement provides support for a diagnosis of a specific learning disability. A process score that is significantly lower than a related area of deficient achievement is also evidence for specific learning disability. When a process score is significantly higher than a deficient area of achievement, the deficiency in achievement cannot be attributed to a weakness in that particular process. The following Achievement and Process scores are consistent:

Basic Reading Skills Auditory Processing, Processing Speed, Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall

Reading Fluency Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall

Reading Comprehension Auditory Processing, Verbal Working Memory, Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall, Visual-Spatial Working Memory

Mathematics Calculation Attention, Executive Functions, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed, Visual-Spatial Processing, Visual-Spatial Working Memory

Mathematics Problem Solving Executive Functions, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed, Visual-Spatial Working Memory

Written Expression Attention, Auditory Processing, Executive Functions, Fine Motor, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, Verbal Working Memory

Oral Expression Executive Functions, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, Verbal Working Memory

Listening Comprehension Auditory Processing, Executive Functions, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, Verbal Working Memory

24