objectives fluency basic reading 63 59–67 1 low total reading 69 65–73 2 low qualitative...

Reading Skills and Reading-Related ProcessesGloria Maccow, Ph.D., Assessment Training Consultant

Copyright © 2012. Pearson, Inc., or its affiliates. All rights reserved. 1

Why Some Students Can’t Read: A Look at Reading-Related Processes

Karen Apgar, MA/CAGS NCSPGloria Maccow, Ph.D.Justin Potts, MS NCSP

2 | Copyright © 2012. All rights reserved.

Objectives• Describe the reading-related processes and

other cognitive abilities involved in reading.

• Illustrate how we use assessment data to

– document under-achievement in reading,

– determine which reading-related processes are linked to the under-achievement, and

– identify appropriate interventions.



Developing Reading SkillsDeveloping Reading Skills


Reading

Reading is made up of two major parts:

– Pronouncing written words (decoding), and

– Comprehending words and text.

A major correlate of comprehension is vocabulary size.

VocabularyComprehension




Three Types of Struggling Readers

Deficient

DecodingDecoding

Specific Reading

Disability

(Dyslexia)

“Garden Variety”poor readers

Nonspecific Reading Disability

(Hyperlexia)

ComprehensionComprehension

Deficient

Adequate

Adequate

Reading Skills andReading-Related Processes




Reading Skills

Comprehend words.Comprehend sentences.Comprehend paragraphs.

4 and above

Name real words accurately and quickly without context clues.Decode pseudowords accurately and quickly w/o semantic cues.Decode silently.Read silently with fluency.

3

Name real words accurately and quickly (without context clues).Decode pseudowords accurately and quickly (w/o semantic cues).

2

Name real words accurately (without context clues).Decode pseudowords accurately (without semantic cues).

1

Name letters accurately.Identify and generate rhyming words.Segment syllables and phonemes in spoken words.

K

SkillsGrade


Reading Requires:

• Encoding written words into temporary memory.

• Segmenting in working memory units of the written word — whole words, single letters, and/or letter clusters.

• Phonological awareness – of the syllables in multi-syllabic words and of the phonemes in spoken words.




Reading Requires:

• Use of the grammar information in suffixes to decide if a word fits a sentence context.

• Knowledge of words and concepts.

• Expressive language abilities.

• Verbal working memory.

• Inhibition, monitoring, shifting set.


Working Memory

Central Executive

Phonological Loop

VisuospatialSketchpad Episodic

Buffer

Baddeley & Hitch, 1974; Baddeley, 2000.




Coding Word Forms in Verbal Working Memory (Berninger, 2007)


Phonological Loop (Berninger, 2007)




Executive Functions–Switching Set (Berninger, 2007)


Executive Functions–Inhibition(Berninger, 2007)




Executive Functions–Monitoring(Berninger, 2007)


Written Language Problems Based on aWorking Memory Architecture (Berninger, 2007)

Supports oral reading

Supports writing language and writing math



Case Example . . .Case Example . . .

Introducing AaronIntroducing Aaron(WISC(WISC--IV Integrated IV Integrated

Verbal Domain Case Study)Verbal Domain Case Study)


Background InformationMeet Aaron . . . a 10-year-old, African American boy with an engaging smile and a friendly, easygoing manner. After spending time with Aaron, it is easy to see that he enjoys the company of others and is equally comfortable around children and adults.




Background InformationAaron likes sports and is a good athlete. Although somewhat quiet when playing with peers, it is apparent through observation that Aaron is well liked by both boys and girls in his class.


Background Information• Aaron is in the 5th grade at

Washington Elementary.

• He earned extremely low scores in reading and language arts on a standardized group achievement test administered in the early spring of his second grade year.




Background Information• Since that time, he has been receiving

educational support services through district remediation programs.

• Consistent with the regular classroom whole language instructional program, the remedial program emphasizes improvement of reading comprehension skills rather than a systematic approach to word decoding skill development.


Background Information• In spite of educational support, Aaron’s

performance is poor in all academic areas.

• His teacher is wondering if Aaron might be intellectually disabled because of his lack of engagement during class lessons and his consistently low performance on standardized group achievement tests and classroom tests.

• His teacher refers Aaron for a psycho-educational evaluation.



Why is Aaron Struggling to Master Why is Aaron Struggling to Master GradeGrade--Level Objectives Level Objectives

in Reading?in Reading?

Symbol Search 10Letter‐Number Sequencing 5

(Picture Completion)* (10)(Information) (Information) (7)(7)

(Word Reasoning)(Word Reasoning) (10)(10)

Full Scale IQ = 80

(Cancellation) (9)(Arithmetic) (13)

Coding 5Digit Span 6

Processing SpeedProcessing Speed 8585Working MemoryWorking Memory 7474

Picture Concepts 9Comprehension 6

Matrix Reasoning 11 (S)Vocabulary 5

Block Design* 5 (W)Similarities 6

Perceptual ReasoningPerceptual Reasoning 100100Verbal ComprehensionVerbal Comprehension 7575

Index/ Composite ScoreComposite Score/Subtest Scaled Score

Index/ Composite ScoreComposite Score/Subtest Scaled Score

WISC-IV Scores





WISC-IV Integrated Scores

16

16

50

50

5

95

9

75

9

Percentile Rank

7Information

5Vocabulary

6Comprehension

6Similarities

7Information Multiple Choice

10Picture Vocabulary Multiple Choice

10Vocabulary Multiple Choice

15Comprehension Multiple Choice

12Similarities Multiple Choice

Scaled ScoreVerbal Domain Subtest


Hypotheses

Cognitive Strengths_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Cognitive Weaknesses_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________




Index-Level Discrepancy Comparisons

28.8%N12.46-118574WMI - PSI

16.5%Y12.121585100PRI - PSI

4.8%Y11.382674100PRI - WMI

29.5%N11.75-108575VCI - PSI

48.9%N10.9917475VCI - WMI

3.7%Y10.6-2510075VCI - PRI

Base Rate

Sig. Diff. Y / N

Critical Value

Diff. Scaled Score 2

Scaled Score 1

Index Comparisons


Hypotheses

Academic Strengths_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

Academic Weaknesses_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________

_________________________________________




Above Average

86109–123116Math Fluency

Average6197–111104Mathematics

Below Average

568–8275Reading Comprehensionand Fluency

Low159–6763Basic Reading

Low265–7369Total Reading

Qualitative Description

%ileRank

95%Conf. Interval

StandardScoreComposite

WIATWIAT--III Composite Score SummaryIII Composite Score Summary


0.352–66597Spelling

0.455–65606Word Reading

162–72673Pseudoword Decoding

262–787037*†Oral Reading Fluency

79103–12111226Math Fluency Multiplication

84105–12511531Math Fluency Subtraction

86103–12911636Math Fluency Addition

3787–1039527Numerical Operations

81104–12211350Math Problem Solving

1977–978726*†Reading Comprehension

3985–10796—Listening Comprehension

%ileRank

95%Conf. Interval

StandardScore

RawScoreSubtest

– Indicates a subtest with multiple raw scores (shown in the Subtest Component Score Summary).* Indicates a raw score that is converted to a weighted raw score (not shown).† Indicates that a raw score is based on a below grade level item set.

Subtest Score SummarySubtest Score Summary



Eligibility and Need For Eligibility and Need For Direct Specialized InstructionDirect Specialized Instruction


Specific Learning DisabilityIDEA 2004

. . . 3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).

“. . . the child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development . . . ”(300.309 (a) (2) (ii)).




PRI: 100WISC–IVArea of Processing Strength

VCI: 75WISC–IVArea of Processing Weakness

Basic Reading: 63WIAT–IIIArea of Achievement Weakness

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis

The PSW model is intended to help practitioners generate hypotheses regarding clinical diagnoses.

This analysis should always be used within a comprehensive evaluation that incorporates multiple sources of information.


Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Analysis

YesY10.602575100

Processing Strength / Processing Weakness

B

YesY8.823763100

Processing Strength / Achievement Weakness

A

Supports SLD hypothesis?Yes / No

Sign. Diff. Y / N

Critical Value .05Diff.

Relative Weakness Score

Relative Strength ScoreComparison

The PSW model is intended to help practitioners generate hypotheses regarding clinical diagnoses.

This analysis should always be used within a comprehensive evaluation that incorporates multiple sources of information.




Processing StrengthWISC–IV Perceptual Reasoning Index

SS = 100

Processing StrengthWISC–IV Perceptual Reasoning Index

SS = 100

B. Discrepant?Yes

A. Discrepant?Yes

Processing WeaknessWISC–IV Verbal Comprehension

Index SS = 75

Processing WeaknessWISC–IV Verbal Comprehension

Index SS = 75

Achievement WeaknessWIAT–III Basic Reading

SS = 63

Achievement WeaknessWIAT–III Basic Reading

SS = 63

Pattern of Strengths and WeaknessesPattern of Strengths and Weaknesses


Vocabulary

61104Receptive Vocabulary

50

50

5

Percentile Rank

5Vocabulary

10Picture Vocabulary Multiple Choice

10Vocabulary Multiple Choice

Scaled Score/Standard Score

Verbal Domain Subtest

(WISC-IV Integrated; WIAT-III)




Questions• Does Aaron have adequate general

ability?• Is there an academic, language, or fine-

motor skill deficit?• Is the skill deficit, in part, in reading,

spelling, language arts?

Consider possible diagnoses.


Reading-RelatedCognitive processes

X

Phono-logical

XBasic Reading

Reading Comprehension

Morpho-logical

Ortho-graphic

Executive Function

Working Memory

VocabularyCoding

At a fundamental level, Aaron has difficulty mapping the orthographic and phonological word forms. This contributes to problems with accuracy of word decoding and spelling.




Written Language Problems and the Three Word Forms

(Berninger, 2007)


Summary of Findings

• Aaron’s achievement in reading is a weakness relative to his fluid reasoning abilities.

• His reading comprehension is adversely affected by impaired decoding skills.

• His knowledge of words is within the average range, but he struggles to express his knowledge verbally.




Summary of Findings

• He is able to perform complex mental processing, but his performance is affected adversely by impaired verbal expressive abilities and impaired visual-motor integrative abilities.

• Aaron’s language was evaluated and he was diagnosed with a severe expressive language disorder.


Summary of Findings

• The Individualized Education Program Team classified Aaron with a Specific Learning Disability in Basic Reading and Written Expression.

• Due to his expressive language disorder, Aaron also received Speech/Language as a related service.



InterventionInterventionIntegrating Orthographic, Phonological,and Morphological Awareness for Word

Reading With Text Reading(Berninger, 2003)


Subword Level

• Phonological Awareness

• Orthographic Awareness

• Alphabetic Principle

• Structural Analysis




Phonological Awareness

Teacher says word. Child repeats word, then says word again, but without the small sound the teacher indicates.

proud /d/ bird /d/ for /f/

garden /en/ first /t/ contest /s/

afraid /r/ always /al/ burn /b/


Orthographic Awareness• The child looks carefully at the word. With the

pointing finger, s/he sweep under the word from left to right, paying attention to each letter.

• Then, s/he covers the word with a 3”x5” index card. When the teacher says “Now,” the child spells out loud (or in writing) the word s/he sees in the mind’s.

proud contest deeply

garden always breathed

stinker first feared




Alphabetic Principle• Teach strategies for changing printed words into

spoken words.

• For example, use Talking Letters to teach spelling-sound correspondences.

• The child can use these correspondences to help sound out words in the story you will read later.

• Focus on naming the letter(s), the picture, and then the sound.


Structural Analysis

For each word– Identify number of syllables. – Count number of phonemes in each syllable in the spoken word.– Classify each syllable in the word.




Structural Analysis


Word LevelPhonological Decoding of Words from TextStudent sounds out the words for the lesson.

PAL Research-Based Reading and Writing Lessons




Text Level

Silent Reading for Meaning

– Story: “Five Stink Bugs Have a Contest” in Corrective Reading B2.

– Child reads the story silently “to find out how the smallest stink bug tricks the others.”

– Child reads story aloud, summarizes, then reads aloud again.

– Finally, teacher guides the student(s) in reflective discussion.


Interventions for Comprehension

(National Reading Panel, June 2003)

– Monitoring comprehension

– Using graphic and semantic organizers

– Answering questions

– Generating questions

– Recognizing story structure

– Summarizing




Interventions for Vocabulary

National Reading Panel recommends

– using vocabulary words from content-learning materials.

– providing explicit instruction for vocabulary.

– pre-teaching new words.

– teaching as many connections to a specific word as possible with multiple exposures to a word.


Teaching Vocabulary-Word Web

Noun

Brick

Yard

Wood

House

Rooms

Neighbor-hood

(Joseph, 2006)




Teaching Vocabulary-Semantic Map

PeoplePeoplePres. HooverHenry Ford

Time Period 1920s

DancesDancesShimmyFox Trot

Inventions/Inventions/DiscoveriesDiscoveries

RadioPenicillin

LiteratureLiteratureFrost

Hemingway

JazzJazzArmstrongEllington

EventsEventsScopes Trial

Stock Market Crash

(Joseph, 2006)


Phonological STM Interventions

Most interventions to improve short-term memory involve rehearsal training.

Rehearsal Strategies– Say the material over and over to oneself.

– Engage in serial repetition. This allows information to be maintained in WM for longer periods of time, thus enhancing short-term recall. Elaborative rehearsal facilitates long-term storage.




Additional Phonological STM Interventions

• Naming letters and objects• Repeating spoken sentences• Reciting nursery rhymes

– Highlights the phonological structure of language

• Rhyming games– Enhance phonemic awareness and the ability

to store phonological information


Verbal Working Memory Interventions

Elaborative Rehearsal

– Associate meaning with stimuli.

– Keeps information active in WM without repetition and also facilitates moving information to LTM.

Semantic Rehearsal

– Brief sentences using the word to be remembered.




Verbal Working Memory Interventions

Chunking

– Pairing, clustering, grouping, or association of different items into units that are processed and remembered as a whole. This facilitates short-term retention and encoding into long-term storage.

Paraphrasing

– A strategy that builds on both rehearsal and chunking. Students restate information in their own words. This requires that they reorganize and condense a large amount of linguistic information into smaller, well-integrated, and more personally meaningful units.


Executive Working Memory Interventions

Dual Encoding– Strategies utilizing concurrent visual and verbal

encoding.

– Some dual encoding occurs naturally (reading).

– In the classroom, visual and verbal materials should be utilized.




Executive Working Memory Interventions

Organizational Strategies

– Fitting existing information into an organized structure (semantic category).

– Structuring and organizing information reduces the processing load on WM, thereby allowing more efficient encoding of material into long-term retrieval.

– Organizing information involves rehearsal and the processing of information at a deeper level.


An Evidence-based intervention for working memory

training.

www.cogmed.com

Working Memory TrainingWorking Memory Training




References

Aaron, P. G., & Joshi, R. M. (1992). Reading problems: Consultation and remediation. New York, NY: Guilford.

Baddeley, A. D., & Hitch, G. J. (1974). Working memory. In G. H Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol 8. London: Academic Press.

Baddeley, A. D. (2000). The episodic buffer: A new component of working memory? Trends inCognitive Science, 4, 417-423.


ReferencesBerninger, V. W. (2003). PAL research-based

reading and writing lessons. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Berninger, V. W. (2007). PAL-II user’s guide. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

Dehn, M. (2008). Working memory and academic learning: Assessment and intervention. Wiley: NJ.

Elliott, C. (2007). Differential Ability Scales-Second Edition: Introductory and technical handbook. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.




ReferencesFlanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C.

(2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment(2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. New York: Guilford.

Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006). Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 753-770.


Referenceshttp://www.psychcorp.com

Joseph, L. M. (2006). Assessing, understanding, and intervening on reading problems. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Lovett, M. (1987). A developmental approach to reading disability: Accuracy and speed criteria of normal and deficient reading skill. Child Development, 58, 234–260.




ReferencesMather, N., & Goldstein, S. (2008). Learning

disabilities and challenging behaviors. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

Miller, D. C. (2007). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Naglieri, J. A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. New York: Wiley.


References

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. (2nd ed. June 2003). Report of the National Reading Panel. Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No. 00-4769). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing

Office.

Squire, L. R. (1987). Memory and brain. New York: Oxford University Press.



Customer Service1-800-627-7271 (USA)

1-866-335-8418 (Canada)

Comments or QuestionsGloria Maccow, Ph.D.

[email protected]

www.psychcorp.com

objectives fluency basic reading 63 59–67 1 low total reading 69 65–73 2 low qualitative...

Documents