using a multi-tiered system of supports with a pattern of ...€¦ · education environment and...

Fall Conference

2014

Using a Multi-Tiered System of Supports with a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Methodology to Determine

Specific Learning Disability “Comprehensive assessment and evaluation procedures are both critical for making an accurate diagnosis of students with learning disabilities. Procedures that are not comprehensive can result in identification of some individuals as having learning disabilities when they do not, and conversely, exclude some individuals who do have specific learning disabilities.”

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD), June 2010.

“Cloaked in the mantle of the SLD definition and an implicit message that anything other than cognitive assessment is insufficient (i.e., not “comprehensive”) and puts schools at legal risk, the LDA White Paper is clearly an effort to promote another variation of a failed model. The LDA White Paper advocating PSW, like the ability-achievement discrepancy approach it replaces, remains focused on non-alterable (via instruction) variables; therefore, it has no implications for teachers.”

The Consortium for Evidence-Based Early Intervention Practices, December 2010.

The statements above reflect just a small portion of the ongoing learning disability debate. This debate involves questions of intervention design, child find, eligibility decision-making, and service delivery both in and out of the special education domain. These additional questions tend to complicate the nature of the debate, but each are important concerns in their own right. The PSW Methodology has the potential to address many of these problems by using all of the tools and knowledge base at our disposal.

Your Presenters:

Karen Apgar, MA/CAGS NCSP

Justin Potts, MS NCSP

We envision a time when a universal public education system can prepare every student for their unique future, and the best way to do that is for them to learn how to learn.

Washington State Association of School Psychologists Fall Conference 2014

Historical Note

IDEA 1997

A team may determine that a

child has a specific learning

disability if:

- The child does not achieve

commensurate with his or

her age and ability levels (if

provided appropriate

“learning experiences”);

and,

- The team finds that the child

has a severe discrepancy

between achievement and

intellectual ability.

“The Department is planning to conduct a careful, comprehensive review of research, expert opinion and practical knowledge of evaluating and identifying children with a specific learning disability over the next several years to determine whether changes to the standards and process for identifying children with a specific learning disability should be proposed. Because that review has not been done, no further changes are made to the regulations.”

Comment to §§ 300.540—300.543.

A Few Words About Severe Discrepancy

Since the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, and the subsequent release of the regulations in 2006, the use of severe discrepancy has still been permitted. However, it has been relegated to a position where states may not require districts to use it, and states may prohibit the use of severe discrepancy altogether. Although discrepancy models continue to hold wide appeal due to the inherent simplicity, it has been widely discredited as an appropriate methodology (Kavale, 2001). Given the regulatory focus on high-quality instruction, scientifically based interventions, and data-based decision-making, the discrepancy models may be increasingly subject to challenge in the courts due to the significant lack of support in the research base. In a review of many western

states, all but Oregon continue to allow discrepancy and only some directly address the third method (PSW). Discrepancy continued to appear on the sample Oregon eligibility forms, but a memo in January 2013 from the department of education clarified that districts were to discontinue the use of discrepancy. Interestingly, this decision has been questioned by directors and administrators of special education, but not by practitioners in the state. In Washington, the model of discrepancy requires the use of the published regression formula (shown below) and the test reliability values. Though mathematically accurate, this method has been shown to be diagnostically irrelevant (Kavale, 2009). The WAC appears to “permit” the use of PSW (392.172A.03055).

3

RTI Only RTI & Discrepancy

RTI & Discrepancy &

Other

RTI & Other

7

27

8 6

# of States by Method Source: https://state.rti4success.org

Modern Regulations The discussion sections of the

2006 federal regulation around

the changes to SLD comprise

no fewer than 13 pages at

about 1000 words per page.

Districts and states have since

been released from the

obligation to use discrepancy

for identifying Specific Learning

Disability (SLD) as stated under

IDEA 1997. Instead, the

regulation not only permitted

“response to scientific,

research-based intervention,”

but required that:

1. States must not require the use of severe discrepancy.

2. States may permit other “alternative research-based procedures.”

3. Data regarding the provision of appropriate instruction in regular education settings by qualified personnel is documented as part of the evaluation.

4. Evaluation documentation includes data-based evidence of “repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.”

Washington’s department of education provides some technical assistance documentation for multi-tiered intervention design and data-based decision making: (https://www.k12.wa.us/RTI/default.aspx). However, Washington’s 2011 “Identification of Students with Specific Learning Disabilities” document continues to emphasize the use of discrepancy and regression tables and fails to address PSW or a “third method” in any way.

“This table was developed on the basis of a regressed standard score discrepancy method developed in 1983 by the United States Department of Education–Office of Special Education Programs (ED-OSEP) work group. Correlations between full scale or composite intellectual ability scores and academic achievement test scores provide the basis for the severe discrepancy formula.”

Washington OSPI

Alaska’s manual for evaluation and eligibility specifies that LEAs are not required to consider discrepancy but clarifies the report must state the “nature of the severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and academic achievement or lack of response to intervention” and does not specify further. In Nevada, regulation collapses the third method (PSW) into discrepancy. It states that discrepancy must be based on a “statistically valid formula” but does not define this formula or the degree of severity required.

Idaho adopted a phased model to move away from discrepancy toward RTI in 2009. A recent review by Johnson, et al., (2012) documents the first year of these efforts. The post-2009 state rules appear to require a PSW-style interpretation. Wyoming’s regulations and eligibility paperwork appear to require either RTI or discrepancy-only using correlation tables.


RTI Hypotheticals • The school/parent

suspects a disability other than SLD, but district or state requires RTI process for all students before referring.

• Parent/school agrees a student may qualify under SLD, but district requires RTI process first.

• Parent requests evaluation but the school does not suspect SLD and suggests RTI first.

• Parent of private or home-schooled student refers his/her child for SLD but the school district or state requires RTI.

• An RTI implementation at elementary school results in months & years in tier 3 without referral, but with parent agreement.

• A district uses RTI-only process for SLD eligibility. The team obtains consent for evaluation and determines eligibility at the same time.

• A district’s RTI process utilizes special education resources and teacher to provide tier 3 interventions but does not initiate evaluation for all of these students.

“In Jenkins, et al.’s survey of RTI-implementing teachers and administrators in 62 schools across 17 states, 12 separate approaches were described for serving students with individualized education programs (IEPs) in reading, reflecting disparate views about whether special education should exist within or outside RTI frameworks, and what services it should provide” (Fuchs, et al., 2012).

Gold Standard RTI versus “Good-Enough” RTI One of the biggest challenges limiting the universal adoption of RTI practices across the country is the lack of a single cohesive “gold standard” for these practices. To explore this, it is helpful to distinguish models of general education intervention and pre-referral screening that assist in Child Find, from those that identify SLD by virtue of a failure to respond to rigorously implemented interventions. The former, as noted by confusion in case law (Zirkel, 2011) can sometimes be indistinguishable from student study teams or other informal pre-referral process that were in place prior to reauthorization. The latter represents a significant threshold for fidelity and integrity because of the implications for diagnosis and labeling. “Using RTI data primarily for LD diagnosis is almost indefensible because labeling a child with a disability due to a lack of response to effective interventions is basing a diagnosis on prognosis.” (Burns, et al., 2008).

However, from the standpoint of best practice and defensibility a “gold standard” of RTI would necessarily be based on the presumption that RTI was to be used in whole or in part to identify Specific Learning Disabilities, if not other disabilities.

The critical differentiating factors between a rigorous RTI system of the kind most often cited in the research base and more typical implementations are those that address the integrity and fidelity of implementation across all core RTI components. Adequately addressing the level of training, expertise, and system supports to carry out RTI practices is a daunting and expensive proposition. The most challenging and resource-intensive components revolve around monitoring of the regular education environment and core curriculum such that 80% of students are benefiting fully from that instruction. In the highest-needs schools, even the most well-constructed systems can only address a small number of variables impacting student achievement. As noted in Fuchs, et al., (2012), it may be most practical for a “Smart RTI” implementation to focus efforts on multi-stage screening and assessment/interventions tied to student need, while special education services are as closely coordinated as possible with the activities and prevention efforts of general education.

“Understanding the reliability of a score and the degree to which it correlates with other measures concurrently and across time is important, but is only one part of demonstrating that an RTI implementation has technical adequacy.” (VanDerHeyden, 2011)

Defining RTI: Core Components

1) Universal screening.

2) Multi-tiered interventions.

3) Progress monitoring.

4) Fidelity of implementation.

5) High-quality general education.

6) Research-based interventions tied directly to student need.

5

Patterns of Strength and Weakness Methodology

Overview and process steps

The Eugene 4J PSW Methodology is not a particular set of tests or calculations. It is a way of organizing and integrating data from intervention processes and individualized, hypothesis-driven assessments so that teams may make fully informed decisions. Eligibility and diagnostic determinations are high-stakes decisions that can have lasting impacts on students. The goal is to minimize false positives while maintaining diagnostic specificity true to the core definition of a learning disability as a disorder in one or more basic psychological processes involved in learning.

1. Review RTI/Multi-Tiered System of Support data at school, class, group, and individual levels.

2. Determine performance levels for threshold movement between tiers and when to suspect a disability.

3. At the individual level, analyze growth rate and relative performance.

4. Consider the most basic or fundamental skill component first (i.e., basic reading before comprehension).

5. Determine if core achievement deficit indicators are met.

6. Identify hypothesized processes for both potential strengths and weaknesses (Appendix C) related to achievement area.

7. Conduct evaluation planning with team and parents and adjust tools and measures chosen.

8. Conduct evaluations. 9. Synthesize data and report results. 10. Conduct eligibility decision.

Basic Psychological

Processes

Memory

Attention

Processing

Mental Control

Problem-Solving/

Judgment

Language Use

Auditory

Visual

Sensori-Motor

See Appendix A for

descriptions of each

process.

Working hypothesis and evaluation planning

Developing a working hypothesis based on the nature of the referral concerns is part of adequate evaluation planning. The working hypothesis about a weakness in a psychological process formulated by the team at the time of referral is either confirmed by assessment, refuted by assessment, or found to be inconclusive. The acceptance or rejection of this hypothesis by the team following evaluation, however, is only one factor to be considered when determining eligibility.


Basic Psychological Process

Cognitive Construct

Criterion Measures

A Process Note: A common criticism of PSW is the use of cognitive or IQ measures. However, it is not a requirement under this model to consider measures of cognitive constructs only from these tests. Just because a measure appears in an achievement test, doesn’t mean it is not a measure of a cognitive process. And just because a measure appears in a cognitive test does not mean it is not a measure of achievement. Although most reliably measured processes will be found in a cognitive test, checklist and observation measures can also provide invaluable data for assessment. In most cases, obtaining a full-scale IQ score is unnecessary and only minimally relevant to eligibility decision-making.

SLD

Basic Psychological

Processes

Formative and Summative Assessments

Responsiveness to instructional

changes

The process uses multiple measures on a principle of

convergent validity to establish a “pattern.”

Example: Basic Reading Skills (See Appendix D for other domains) Memory Verbal Working Memory WJ-III Working Memory

WISC-IV Working Memory CELF-4 Working Memory CTOPP Phonological Memory KABC-II Sequential

Auditory Phonological Awareness WJ-III Auditory Processing WJ-III Phonemic Awareness CTOPP Phonological Awareness

Processing Speeded Visual Discrimination Rapid Automatic Naming

WJ-III Processing Speed WISC-IV Processing Speed CTOPP Rapid Naming KTEA-II Naming Facility

SPED Comprehensive Evaluation: Basic Psychological Processes Following instructional interventions and systematic progress monitoring, the comprehensive evaluation itself is guided by the idea that “basic psychological processes” must be considered (see Appendix A). The concept of basic psychological processes is referenced in the definition of specific learning disability. It is also implicitly referenced in the eligibility statement as “determined to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability.” As the definition of specific learning disability includes a “disorder in one or more” of these basic psychological processes, the team would ensure that data associated with these processes is gathered and analyzed. The team cannot exclude consideration and data gathering on up to 9 basic processes: memory, processing, attention, visual, auditory, sensori-motor, mental control, problem-solving, and language use. In addition to processes related to the area of academic deficit, the evaluation should also target areas of potential strength that can be highlighted for the student. The basic psychological processes are related to academic achievement domains by virtue of the underlying cognitive constructs associated in the research base. Criterion measures based on a variety of tools allow examiners to evaluate and infer whether the student has a normative weakness or significant weaknesses relative to their areas of strength.

CASE STUDIES CASE #1

G. Smith 3rd Grade

Background: Retained in second grade between schools. Had oxygen at birth for 1 day. Low language

development scores in early childhood. History of homelessness. Attended 5 elementary schools at the

time of evaluation, but in current school for almost 2 years. Attendance problems in past (87% in the first of

his 2nd grade years), but not at time of referral (95% for last two years). Vision and hearing screenings were

normal.

What additional questions would you want to have answered before initiating the evaluation? What assumptions can you make about the data that you do have? What feedback might you give the team for data gathering an analysis?

DATE SUBJECT TYPE DESCRIPTION Fall 2 Reading Tier 2 Workshop Houghton-Mifflin differentiated instruction in

workshop, 30 min/day, 7:1 group Fall 2 Reading Tier 3

Third Dose Horizons Fast Track AB Book 2, 30 min/day, 5:1 group

Fall 3 Reading Tier 2 Workshop Houghton-Mifflin differentiated instruction in workshop, 30 min/day, 30 min/day, 6:1 group

Fall 3 Reading Tier 3 Change* Third Dose

Horizons Fast Track AB Book 3, 30 min/day, 4:1 group

Notes:

Week PRF 2 24 4 18 6 28 8 24 10 20 12 30 14 29 16 23 18 31 20 38 22 34 24 36 26 37

Week PRF 2 26 4 33 6 28 8* 34* 10 47 12 42 14 44 16 41 18 47 20 63 22 45 24 53 26 54 28 57

2nd Grade 3rd Grade

Math Numbers & Operations

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter Spring Fall Winter

3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5

Grade Level

Raw

Sco

re

easyCBM IEP Goal

District 10%ile District 20%ile District 50%ile District 90%ile

Step-by-step questions for MTSS:

1. What is the slope or rate-of-improvement for fluency (in correct words gained per week)?

2. What level of performance would you expect (see easyCBM tables in Appendix E)?

3. How would you define “adequate progress”? 4. Can you estimate how much time it would take for

this student to “catch up”? 5. Does this information provide enough data to

support evaluation? 6. What would a “comprehensive evaluation” at this

point consist of?


K. Lamkin 3rd Grade

Background: Parent referral initiated. Teacher agreed with referral but did not initiate it. Global academic

problems and attention issues (overly social). Diagnosis of a mild heart problem (tachycardia). 5th grade

sibling in SPED. One parent is non-native English speaker, but speaks English well with accent. No

attendance issues. Vision/hearing screenings were normal. Likes to please adults/teachers but requires a lot

of individual adult attention. Unhappy with her own school performance. Worries what others think of her.


DATE SUBJECT TYPE DESCRIPTION Fall 2 Reading Tier 3 Differentiation in the classroom with leveled reading

groups. 2x/wk, small group instruction for 30 minutes with Phonics for reading. 30 minutes twice a week with Read Naturally. Four times a week has skill-level phonics for 20 minutes. Progress monitoring.

Winter 2 Reading Tier 3 Change*

Continue previous intervention, but change from using Phonics for Reading to Horizons.

Fall 3 Reading Tier 3 Title

Title 1 four days a week, 30 minutes per day, using Soar to Success with PM for PRF and vocabulary at Gr. 2; comprehension in class, Gr. 3.

Winter 3 Reading Tier 3 Change*

Change Title I to group of 2, 20-25 min., 4x/wk. Horizons Fast Track and continue in Gr. 3 SOAR curriculum. Continue PM at Gr. level 2 for WRF, PRF, vocabulary. Do in-class curriculum assessments monthly.

Notes:

Week PRF 2 11 4 11 6 10 8 12 10 16 12 29 14 8 16 20 18 26 20 17 22 15 24 35 26 20 28 18 30 26

Week PRF 2 12 4 28 6 27 8 26 10* 36*

2nd Grade 3rd Grade







point consist of?


K. Magufee 2nd Grade

Background: Homeschooled until starting 2nd grade. Older sibling was also homeschooled but doing well.

Parent referral halfway through school year; official letters written near the end of the first semester

requesting evaluation. Advocate from outside the state participating and suggesting evaluation for

discrepancy. Parent provided information on homeschooling curriculum (religious-based curriculum).

Attendance below average (86% due to frequent illness). Both parents involved. No significant home

factors. Issues of attention at school, but teacher not particularly concerned.

What additional questions would you want to have answered before initiating the evaluation? What assumptions can you make about the data that you do have? What feedback might you give the team for data gathering an analysis? If you would not proceed with an evaluation, how would you justify that response if the case moved to due process?

DATE SUBJECT TYPE DESCRIPTION Fall 2 Reading Tier 3 40 minutes per week with Phonics for Reading Level 1 with an instructional

assistant; 60 minutes per week with Read Naturally Winter 2 Reading

(SPED) Tier 3 Change*

Learning Center for 60 min. per week for phonics/reading/writing instruction. He is using Phonics for Reading Level 1 and ReadWell for phonics instruction and HM Soar to Success for fluency. ADD: Continue previous intervention with IA in addition to LC time. Change from using Phonics for Reading to Horizons.

Notes:

Week PRF 2 1 4 --- 6 --- 8 --- 10* 3 12 1 14 3 16 5 18 6 20 3 22 3 24 7 26 11 28 --- 30 ---

2nd Grade



2. What level of performance would you expect going forward?




point consist of?

CASE STUDIES CASE #4 CLD

A. Ortiz 3rd Grade

Background: Team referred. Bilingual female 3rd grader, 8 years old. Good at math, struggles to read. Has received extra support since first grade, but we have few details on that because she moved in from California and the records are not very detailed. Usually on task, tries to please adults. No significant medical or developmental issues. Older siblings learned to read without much struggle. She cries when doing reading homework. Parents are worried about her reading skills and would like help.

DATE SUBJECT TYPE DESCRIPTION Fall 3 Reading Tier 3 30min, 4x/week group of no more than 5:1 focusing on phonics, long

vowels, and fluency using Phonics for Reading 2, with Fast Cycling as needed (skipping every other lesson for the first 15 lessons).

Winter 3 Reading Tier 3 Change

30min, 4x/week group of no more than 3:1 focusing on phonics, long vowels, and fluency using Phonics for Reading 2.

Notes:

3rd Grade




3. How would you define “adequate progress”? 4. Can you estimate how much time it would take for this

student to “catch up”? 5. Does this information provide enough data to support

evaluation? 6. What would a “comprehensive evaluation” at this point

consist of? 7. What is the predicted impact of ELL?

Week PRF 2 38 4 46 6 38 8 58 10 44 12 54 14 66 16 50 18 78 20 61 22 65


Appendix A

Basic Psychological Processes The Visual Process is defined by cognitive mechanisms that are involved in the retention, processing, and organization of visual information so as to demonstrate accurate perception. For PSW, these should not be confused as a measure of the sensory mechanism of sight, but rather as indicators of the more complex underlying cognitive activities. Measures of the visual process may include factors such as spatial awareness, visual perceptual skills, perceptual organization, visual mental manipulation, and perceptual discrimination.

The Auditory Process is not intended to be a measure of acuity of the sensory mechanism. Rather, it is intended to be the underlying cognitive mechanism involved in using auditory information for the purpose of learning. Measures of the auditory process may include phonemic awareness (including rhyming, segmentation, sound-symbol association, etc.), auditory perception, sound discrimination, and auditory mental manipulation.

The Attention Process involves the individual’s ability to attend to, or to selectively attenuate, perceptual stimuli in a systematic and effective manner. This process includes measures of selective attention, sustained attention, response inhibition, attention shifting, and focus.

The Memory Process is a complex and multifaceted domain related to many areas of learning. Specific kinds of memory are utilized depending on task demands. The memory process involves the ability to store and retrieve information in a useful manner. Measures of this process include short-term memory, working memory, associative memory and long-term retrieval.

Processing can be globally defined as the ability to make efficient and rapid decisions or quickly perceive distinctions in stimuli. Processing involves input and output mechanisms, and frequently demonstrated under timed conditions. Measures of processing include processing speed, automaticity, and rapid decision-making. Processing may also include aspects of Rapid Automatic Naming facility, though this is an overlapping domain with memory. The Mental Control Process may be thought of as an individual’s ability to manage and prioritize perceptions to facilitate decision-making and problem solving. Mental control allows the individual to recognize the nature of a problem, plan a course of action, and sequence multiple actions to solve a problem. Mental Control abilities may be identified through measures of executive functioning, planning, organization, and self-regulation. Like memory, the Problem-Solving Process is a complex activity that involves multiple processes. The Problem-Solving Process is defined by an individual’s skill at analysis and synthesis of multiple elements to resolve problems. The capability to engage in interpersonal interaction and social learning is involved. Measures of Problem-Solving and Judgment include social awareness, reasoning skills, decision-making, fluid reasoning and emotional control. The Language Use Process involves the individual’s skill at using verbal information to define concepts and solve problems. Language Use includes both the understanding and production of meaningful speech and communication. Language Use may include measures of receptive language, expressive language, listening comprehension, vocabulary development, and general knowledge. The Sensori-Motor Process involves integration of perceptual and cognitive skills to organize physical output. The Sensory-Motor Process can include all types of motor output including speech, gross motor, and fine motor skills. For the use as a basic psychological process involved in learning, Sensori-Motor primarily involves fine motor output. The Sensori-Motor Process may include measures of visual-motor integration, motor speed, and overall fine/gross motor skills.

Visual

Auditory

Attention

Memory

Appendix B

Basic Psychological Processes Grid This grid is designed as an overview of the likely basic psychological processes involved in each area of academic skill development as aligned with the SLD language. As with all basic psychological processes, there is overlap between processes and across academic skill domains. The purpose of the grid is to provide the evaluation planning team with a starting point when considering academic skill weaknesses with related basic psychological processes.

Visual Auditory Attention Memory Processing Mental Control

Problem-Solving

Language Use

Sensori-Motor

Basic Reading Skills

1

Reading Fluency

2

Reading Comprehension

3

Math Calculation

4 5

Math Problem-Solving

6 7 8

Written Expression

9

Oral Expression

Listening Comprehension

Visual Auditory Attention Memory WJ-III Visual-Spatial Thinking

WISC/WAIS-IV Perceptual Reasoning KABC-II Simultaneous DAS-II Spatial UNIT Non-Symbolic

WJ-III Auditory Processing WJ-III Phonemic Awareness DAS-II Auditory Processing (s) CELF-4 Phon. Awareness (s) CTOPP Phon. Awareness

WJ-III Broad Attention CAS Attention CMS Attention/Concentration

WJ-III Working Memory WJ-III Short-Term Memory WISC/WAIS-IV Working Memory CAS Successive KABC-II Sequential KABC-II Learning DAS-II Memory DAS-II Retrieval CELF-4 Working Memory CTOPP Phonological Memory

1. Although low-level sensory (visual/perceptual) abilities may be correlated to word reading problems, there is little evidence of a causal relationship unless there is an acuity issue (Fletcher, 2007).

2. When accuracy may be impacting fluency, consider effects of poor phonological awareness on decoding first (see Basic Reading Skills).

3. Phonological processing and word level decoding may significantly impact reading comprehension (see Basic Reading Skills). 4. Not currently known to be related to other types of auditory processing such as CAPD, but phonemic awareness skills may be a

cognitive correlate for fluency with number systems. 5. Consider assessment of language development when suspecting procedural (semantic) memory types of math deficits. 6. Consider assessment of phonological processing deficits when comorbid reading failures are prevalent. 7. Processing speed for basic numeracy may free up cognitive resources for applied problem-solving tasks. 8. Research in this area varies based on the specific construct of problem-solving being measured, many of which are better

characterized by other processes. 9. Students identified with AD/HD or ASD may demonstrate concurrent deficits in written expression.

Processing Mental Control Problem-Solving/ Language Use WJ-III Processing Speed

WJ-III Cognitive Fluency WISC/WAIS-IV Proc. Speed CAS Planning DAS-II Processing Speed CTOPP Rapid Naming KTEA-II Oral Fluency (s)

WJ-III Executive Processes CAS Planning KABC-II Planning

WJ-III Fluid Reasoning WISC/WAIS-IV Perceptual Reasoning/Organization CAS Simultaneous KABC-II Simultaneous DAS-II Nonverbal Reasoning

WJ-III Verbal Comp WISC/WAIS-IV Verbal Comp KABC-II Knowledge DAS-II Verbal Ability CELF-4 Expressive Language

Sensori-Motor BOT-2 Fine Manual Control

Beery VMI

The tests above are a representative, not exhaustive, set of multi-subtest index or composite measures (unless noted with “(s)” for individual subtests). Ideally,

when choosing a battery, preference should be given to a single full test and supplement with composites from additional batteries. For example, give the entire KABC-II, and supplement with the WISC-IV Processing Speed index because the KABC-II does not have a processing speed index.

Appendix C

Working Hypothesis Guiding Statements Each academic skill development area has a unique design and research base for reference. It is important to have a working definition of each of the 8 academic domains of eligibility for Specific Learning Disability. Only 6 of the 8 are noted below since oral expression and listening comprehension have limited application in real-world circumstances and often overlap with speech/language disorders. Each guiding statement is informed by its respective research base.

Basic Reading Skills (BRS) Basic reading skills deficits, also known as word-level reading disability or dyslexia, theoretically should represent approximately 80% of the students with Specific Learning Disabilities. This is defined by a weakness in decoding skills at the single word and phoneme levels. Due to the cognitive demands created by poor decoding skills, multiple academic domains may be affected. It may occur in conjunction with difficulty in reading fluency and comprehension tasks, as well as spelling and written expression. Core basic psychological processes hypothesized to have a strong relationship with basic reading skills include phonemic awareness, automaticity or rapid naming facility, and working memory.

Reading Fluency (RF) Reading fluency is the most recent addition to the classification model in the federal language around Specific Learning Disabilities. Although the measurement of reading fluency is relatively straightforward, it involves a number of processes that are highly correlated. Poor reading fluency may also be primarily caused by word-level reading and phonological deficits, although evidence for a fluency-only subtype of learning disability does exist (O’Brien, et al., 2012). Basic psychological processes primarily involved in reading fluency include Processing Speed, including rapid naming, Mental Control, Attention, and Memory (specifically retrieval fluency).

Reading Comprehension (RC) For the majority of students, reading comprehension problems are related fundamentally to decoding problems at the individual word level. However, there may be evidence for a percentage of students who demonstrate poor comprehension despite adequate decoding ability (Catts, 2003). Students with poor reading comprehension may not only exhibit poor decoding, but also comprehension in oral listening tasks. Fluency with reading tasks can also impact overall comprehension. Therefore, it is unlikely that any single underlying source may be solely attributed to poor reading comprehension (Cain, 2006). Core basic psychological processes contributing to reading comprehension may include Language (including listening comprehension and vocabulary development), Memory (such as long-term retrieval and working memory for language-based information), and Mental Control (specifically metacognitive skills such as self-monitoring, strategic planning, and formulating mental models or inferencing).

Written Expression (WE) Written expression is a complex activity involving many processes and skills. There is generally a lack of adequate research defining or distinguishing all the relevant components of the written language domain (Fletcher, 2007). However, two main subtypes may exist: (1) Poor quality of narrative composition with generally adequate mechanical elements (syntax, semantics, spelling); and, (2) Adequate content/meaning with low spelling, grammar, syntax and mechanical skills. The latter group may frequently demonstrate comorbid reading failures (Wakely, 2006). Core basic psychological processes focus on executive functions, including initiating responses and ability to shift response set. Language processes of value are oral expression, general knowledge, and vocabulary. Problem-solving processes related to writing include fluid reasoning and planning abilities.

Math Calculations (MC) Math calculation skills have generally been conceptualized and evaluated as paper-and-pencil math computations. However, researchers have struggled to consistently define the parameters of these skills, including developmental elements such as number sense, counting, estimations, and algorithmic computations. Complicating matters, nearly a decade of math instruction emphasizing cognitively advanced conceptual problem-solving may have resulted in a reduced emphasis on basic number skills (Geary, 2004). Regardless, evidence exists of students with specific deficits in fact retrieval and basic calculation fluency that occur in the absence of reading problems (Seethaler & Fuchs, 2006). Cognitive correlates of calculation skills have been centered on processing speed (including retrieval fluency), working memory span (visual-spatial sketchpad), and attention. Students with reading failures may exhibit concurrent difficulty with phonological awareness and language use.

Math Problem-Solving (MPS) Math problem-solving is a multi-domain academic activity that encapsulates features of mathematical computation competencies and adds the complexity of language interpretation and reasoning skills. Thus, many core cognitive processes may be involved (Fuchs et al., 2006b). Problem-solving skill deficits that occur distinctively from basic calculations have sometimes been characterized as a “semantic” subtype of dyscalculia, or math disorder (Feifer, 2006). Despite difficulty in defining the characteristics unique to math problem-solving, research has identified several cognitive processes that contribute to problem-solving capacity. Consistent with math calculations, the area of working memory, and specifically visual-spatial memory span, is thought to play a significant role in arithmetic skill (Bull, et al., 1999). Working memory is believed to primarily influence the acquisition of basic mathematical competencies as applied to solving problems (Wilson, et al., 2001). Additional cognitive correlates include language and executive functions, with attention and inhibitory controls influencing the ability to form conceptual representations and eliminate distracting information (Geary, 2004).

Appendix D

Basic Reading Skills

Indicator descriptions for basic reading skill deficits Difficulty in single-word decoding Problems with letter-sound correspondence Problem naming all the letters of the alphabet Problems blending two or more sounds Difficulty identifying that two words rhyme Frequent mispronunciation of age-appropriate words Failure to identify the starting letters of own name Failure to identify the initial phoneme of own name Frequent long pauses between words Makes wild guesses at unfamiliar words without sounding Avoidance or behavior problems when asked to read Spelling that demonstrates pre-phonetic relationships or no phonetic relationship Higher skill development in areas that are not dependent on reading

Processes with moderate to strong research-based link to basic reading skills

- Memory - Auditory (phonological awareness) - Processing (primarily rapid naming) - Language Use

Processes with moderate to weak link to basic reading skills

- Visual - Problem-Solving - Sensori-Motor - Mental Control

Memory Auditory Processing Language Use

Ra

ting

Sc

ale

s

BRIEF Working Memory CEFI Working Memory

PPC-R Auditory Processing BASC-2 Learning Problems BRIEF Plan/Organize CEFI Organization

BASC-2 Functional Comm CBRS Academic - Language

Empirically-Derived Criterion Assessments Phoneme segmentation (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM)

Letter/Word identification (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM) Word reading fluency (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM) - Accuracy Passage reading fluency (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM) - Accuracy

Norm-Referenced Assessments YCAT Reading

GORT-IV Accuracy WJ-III Basic Reading Skills cluster WJ-III Phoneme/Grapheme cluster KTEA-II Decoding WIAT-III Word Reading/Pseudoword Decoding

Curriculum, Grade-Leveled Assessments State-level benchmarking

Teacher-scored reading from curriculum Graded reading activities

Memory Auditory Processing Language Use

Ob

serv

atio

ns

Inconsistently follows verbal instructions Problems with initial mastery Tendency to lose track when working on sequential activites Deficits in paired associations (word & meaning, picture & word)

Difficulty compositing words from sounds Problems with associating sounds with symbols Problems breaking words down into component sounds Frequent confusion of auditory information (confusing words)

Understands initial point but misses subsequent information Mental fatigue when keeping up with routine tasks Works hard to “just keep up” Easily overwhelmed by volume of tasks

Difficulty handling large amounts of verbal information at one sitting Difficulty perceiving relationships between verbal elements Problems with abstract terms or figurative language Limited vocabulary development or word finding problems

Ac

ad

em

ic A

ch

ieve

me

nt

Notes:

Appendix D

Reading Fluency

Hypothesized Indicator descriptions Accuracy Fluency Problems accurately identifying individual letters Problems quickly associating a letter with a sound Increased effort when naming letters Substitution of words Difficulty using context to correctly identify words Frequent pauses in between words in connected text Frequently guesses at words Makes careless errors that omit words or change words with close visual construction

Difficulty reading simple connecting or function words such as that, an, in, the, etc.

Oral reading that is choppy or dysfluent Missing phonemes in the middle or end of words Problems with reading words in isolation Inability to finish reading tasks or tests in a reasonable amount of time

Processes with moderate to strong research-based link to reading fluency

- Memory - Attention - Processing - Mental Control

Processes with moderate to weak link to reading fluency

- Problem-Solving - Auditory - Language Use - Visual

Norm-Referenced Assessments GORT-4 Rate

KTEA-II Reading Fluency WJ-III Reading Fluency (subtest only) TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency

Curriculum, Grade-Leveled Assessments Reading Logs

Curriculum or diagnostic measures

Empirically-Derived Criterion Assessments Letter naming fluency (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM)

Word reading fluency (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM) Passage reading fluency (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM)

Ac

ad

em

ic A

ch

ieve

me

nt

Memory Attention Processing Mental Control

Ra

ting

Sc

ale

s


WJ-III Broad Attention CAS Attention CMS Attention/Concentration CEFI Attention

BASC-2 Learning Problems BRIEF Plan/Organize CEFI Organization

BRIEF Initiate BRIEF Shift Connors 3-T Executive Funct. CEFI Planning

Memory Attention Processing Mental Control

Ob

serv

atio

ns


Unusual or erratic patterns of error Easily distracted from relatively mundane tasks Inattentiveness to error Problems when focusing on more than one thing at a time

Concentrates on minor or irrelevant details Works well only in short intervals Trouble with word-finding or frequent pauses when talking Passive learning, requires frequent repetition of instruction

Difficulty getting energy level up to start tasks Unpredictable effort levels Problems transitioning from one task requirement to another Poor flexibility in problem-solving and recognition of obvious patterns

Notes:

Appendix D

Reading Comprehension

Hypothesized Indicator descriptions Difficulty understanding oral directions at an age/grade-appropriate level Uses imprecise vocabulary Trouble remembering what was read Difficulty retelling a story Problems defining vocabulary Trouble recalling relevant detail from a passage Difficulty retelling a sequence of consecutive actions Problems drawing an accurate picture from an age appropriate orally presented story Problems with cloze or maze reading tasks Difficulty providing possible outcomes in a given unfinished story Problems identifying inconsistencies in a contrived story Problems sorting and sequencing randomized sentences from the same story (story anagram) Difficulty with inference tasks (providing missing elements, elaboration on detail, etc.)

Processes with moderate to strong research-based link to reading comp

- Memory - Language Use - Problem-Solving - Mental Control

Processes with moderate to weak link to reading comp

- Auditory - Visual - Sensori-Motor

Norm-Referenced Assessments YCAT Reading

GORT-IV Comprehension WJ-III Reading Comprehension WIAT-III Reading Comprehension (subtest) KTEA-II Reading Comprehension (subtest)

Curriculum, Grade-Leveled Assessments State level reading benchmarks

Teacher-scored reading/vocab from curriculum

Empirically-Derived Criterion Assessments CBM Multiple Choice Reading Comprehension

CBM Reading Maze

Ac

ad

em

ic A

ch

ieve

me

nt

Memory Language Use Problem-Solving Mental Control

Ra

ting

Sc

ale

s



BRIEF Organize BRIEF Monitor CEFI Flexibility


Memory Language Use Problem-Solving Mental Control

Ob

serv

atio

ns



May do things without understanding why Difficulty with mastery of abstract concepts Difficulty perceiving relationshiop between items Poor categorization ability

Difficulty getting energy level up to start tasks Unpredictable effort levels Problems transitioning from one task requirement to another Difficulty using assistive tools adequately such as dictionary or Internet search

Notes:

Appendix D

Written Expression

Processes with moderate to strong research-based link to writing

- Language Use - Problem-Solving - Mental Control - Sensori-motor

Processes with moderate to weak link to writing

- Auditory - Attention - Visual - Processing

Norm-Referenced Assessments TOWL Composite

OWLS Written Expression Scale WJ-III Written Expression cluster WIAT-III Written Expression KTEA-II Written Expression (subtest)

Curriculum, Grade-Leveled Assessments State level reading benchmarks

Teacher-graded writing samples from curriculum Writing samples scores on state standards

Empirically-Derived Criterion Assessments 3 minute WE-CBM Probes

10 minute WE-CBM Probes

Ac

ad

em

ic A

ch

ieve

me

nt

Language Use Problem-Solving Mental Control Sensori-Motor

Ra

ting

Sc

ale

s


BRIEF Organize BRIEF Monitor CEFI Flexibility


BRIEF Organization Connors CBRS Writing PPC-R Visual Motor Processing

Language Use Problem-Solving Mental Control Sensori-Motor

Ob

serv

atio

ns


Fails to look ahead and consider consequences Seems to have trouble organizing or estimating needs for a task Excessive reliance on trial and error Frequent or careless errors

Evidence of fatigue Erratic pattern of arousal state Misses beginning of instruction Works well only for short intervals

Trouble with areas of self-help skills such as tying shoes or buttoning Approaches motor tasks in a haphazard or inefficient way Clumsiness when handling materials Poor handwriting

Notes:

Hypothesized Indicator descriptions Type 1 Type 2 Poor narrative (consistent style, point of view, etc.) Poor spelling (phonological, additional syllables, etc.) Limited use of punctuation, incorrect punctuation Demonstrates poor grammatical structure (verb tense, subject verb agreement, etc.)

Uses poor semantics (words with wrong meaning) Poor letter formation Poor descriptive quality Poor organization Poor visual format (spacing, paragraphs, indentation, margins, etc.) Incorrect or missing capitalizations Does not correct mistakes (revising for content, mechanics, etc.) Problems with vocabulary (age appropriate words, descriptive, imaginative)

Poor decoding/reading skills

Type 1 – composition & expression Type 2 – spelling & mechanical

Appendix D

Math Calculation

Processes with moderate to strong research-based link to math calculation

- Memory - Language Use - Attention - Processing

Processes with moderate to weak link to math calculation

- Visual - Auditory - Sensori-Motor

Norm-Referenced Assessments KEYMATH 3 Operations

WJ-III Math Calculation Skills cluster WIAT-III Numerical Operations and/or Math Fluency KTEA-II Math Computation

Curriculum, Grade-Leveled Assessments State level math benchmarks

Teacher-scored math computation worksheets

Empirically-Derived Criterion Assessments Math digits-correct probes

Math computation probes (AIMSWEB, DIBELS, easyCBM)

Ac

ad

em

ic A

ch

ieve

me

nt

Memory Language Use Attention Processing

Ra

din

g

Sca

les



BASC-2 Attention Problems Connors 3-T Inattention PPC-R Attention CEFI Attention

BASC-2 Learning Problems BRIEF Plan/Organize CEFI Organization

Memory Language Use Attention Processing

Ob

serv

atio

ns



Unusual or erratic patterns of error Easily distracted from relatively mundane tasks Inattentiveness to errors Problems when focusing on more than one thing at a time

Concentrates on minor or irrelevant details Works well only in short intervals Trouble with word-finding or frequent pauses when talking Passive learning, requires frequent repetition of instruction

Notes:

Hypothesized Symptom descriptions Conceptual Procedural Problems accurately identifying individual numbers Problems with rapid number identification Early delays in counting objects or object sets Errors in regrouping process Requires excessive repetition of math facts for learning Difficulty retaining instructions for solving math problems Delayed associations between amounts shown and corresponding number

Uses inefficient or ineffective strategies when solving simple problems

Makes “careless” errors on computations Lack of understanding of concepts underlying use of certain procedures

Difficulty with comparisons of quantity, volume, or other measures

Uses less mature procedures for computations (finger counting, hash marks, etc.)

Problems with sequence or order in computations Delayed response times on simple counting or computations Delayed reading development or poor phonemic awareness

Conceptual – related to facility with number sense and basic facts. Procedural – steps and strategies or algorithmic skill.

Appendix D

Math Problem-Solving Processes with moderate to strong research-based link to math problem-solving

- Memory - Mental Control - Language Use - Attention - Visual

Processes with moderate to weak link to math problem-solving

- Auditory - Sensori-Motor - Problem-Solving - Processing

Norm-Referenced Assessments KeyMath 3 Operation and/or Applications

WJ-III Math Reasoning WIAT-III Math Poblem-Solving KTEA-II Math Concepts and Applications (subtest) YCAT Math

Curriculum, Grade-Leveled Assessments State level math benchmarks

Curriculum or diagnostic measures

Empirically-Derived Criterion Assessments CBM Concepts/Applications probes (DIBELS, AIMSWEB, easyCBM)

Ac

ad

em

ic A

ch

ieve

me

nt

Memory Mental Control Language Use Attention Visual

Ra

din

g

Sca

les




WJ-III Broad Attention CAS Attention CMS Attention/Concentration CEFI Attention

NA

Memory Mental Control Language Use Attention Visual

Ob

serv

atio

ns


Difficulty getting energy level up to start tasks Unpredictable effort levels Problems transitioning from one task requirement to another Poor flexibility in problem-solving and recognition of obvious patterns


Unusual or erratic patterns of error Easily distracted from relatively mundane tasks Inattentiveness to error Problems when focusing on more than one thing at a time

Difficulty forming mental pictures Problems retaining visually-presented information Problems with visual copy or visual transfer Difficulty understanding non-verbal tasks or patterns

Notes:

Hypothesized Symptom descriptions Conceptual/Semantic

Procedural

Difficulty understanding the task expectations in math problems Problems developing estimation skills Fails to identify wildly inaccurate results Confuses operations identified by quantitative words (sum, difference, etc.)

Trouble retaining process for common algorithms Difficulty explaining verbally how an answer was derived Errors in the order of computations applied to a problem-solving task

Problems disregarding irrelevant items/numbers in word problems

Problems with basic computations even when using a calculator More anxious when approaching math in context of story problems

Difficulties with regrouping Takes excessive time to solve problems Uses immature strategies such as finger counting or hash marks

Appendix D

Charting Strengths and Weaknesses

Basic

Reading Reading Fluency

Reading Comp

Math Calculation

Math Problem-Solving

Written Expression

Oral Expression

Listening Comp

Empirically-derived criterion-referenced assessments

S I W

S I W

S I W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I W

Norm-referenced academic assessments

S I W

S I W

S I W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I W

Curriculum-based or grade-level assessments

S I W

S I W

S I W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I W

Anecdotal information or observations

S I W

S I W

S I W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I

W

S I W

S = Strength I = Inconclusive W = Weakness

Consideration of basic psychological processes: Strengths Weaknesses

Memory Standardized Assessments: Standardized Assessments:

Attention Processing

Problem-Solving Rating Scales: Rating Scales:

Visual Auditory

Sensori-Motor Observations: Observations:

Language use Mental Control

Exclusionary Factors Unlikely Inconclusive Likely

Appropriate Instruction

English Language Proficiency

Cultural or Family Factors

Environmental Disadvantage

Economic Disadvantage

Criterion-Referenced Assessments Investigating students’ academic achievement with respect to grade-level expectations Examples: easyCBM (Reading) Strength ≥ 30th percentile easyCBM (Math) Weakness ≤ 20th percentile DIBELS

Measures Guidance

Norm-referenced Standardized Academic Assessments Investigating student’s academic achievement with respect to age-level expectations Examples: Wechsler Individual Achievement Test Strength ≥ 25th percentile Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement Weakness ≤ 10th percentile Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement

Oral and Written Language Scales *using age-norms to score*

Curriculum-Based or Grade-Level Assessments Investigating student’s classroom performance with respect to grade-level expectations Examples: Statewide Assessment Tests Strength = meets/exceeds Weakness = does not meet Chapter assessments from adopted curricula Strength = average or above Informal Reading Inventories Weakness = below average Writing Prompts

Anecdotal Information Investigating student’s classroom performance with respect to age-level expectations Examples: Experienced team members’ anecdotes/observations about how a student is performing compared to age-peers Strength = professional judgment Weakness = professional judgment

Consideration of Basic Psychological Processes Investigating student’s academic achievement and classroom performance with respect to his/her intellectual development Examples: Norm-referenced intellectual assessments Strength ≥ 25th percentile (i.e. WISCIV/WAISIII, WJ-III, CAS, KABC-II, DAS) Weakness ≤ 10th percentile And/or Rating Scales Strength = non-clinical range (i.e. BRIEF, Connors-3, BASC-2, PPC-R) Weakness = clinical or at-risk ranges And/or Structured observational data Strength = professional judgment Weakness = professional judgment Basic Psychological Processes include: Memory, Attention, Processing, Problem-Solving/Judgment, Visual, Auditory, Sensori-Motor, Language Use and/or Mental Control (Exec. Functioning)

Appendix E

easyCBM Normative Data easyCBM™ is not a standardized assessment. Like most benchmarking and progress monitoring measures, it is based on a convenience sample that generally reflects the population it will be most commonly used with. Detailed information can be found through the publisher’s website at easycbm.com. Below is excerpted information from the interpretation manual. This information is only provided as an illustration of the types of information available for this class of tools.

23

Baddeley, A.D. & Larsen, J.D. (2007). The phonological loop: Some answers and some questions. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 60(4), 512-518.

Braze, D., Tabor, W., Shankweiler, D.P. & Mencl, W.E. (2007). Speaking up for vocabulary: Reading skill differences in young

adults. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 226-243. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B.R., Gersten, R.M., Scammacca, N.N., Funk, C., Winter, A., Shih, M. & Pool, C. (2008). The effects of tier 2

intervention on the mathematics performance of first-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disability Quarterly, (31), 47-63.

Bull, R., Johnston, R.S. & Roy, J.A. (1999). Exploring the roles of the visual-spatial sketch pad and central executive in

children’s arithmetical skills: Views from cognition and developmental neuropsychology. Developmental Neuropsychology, 15(3), 421-442.

Burns, M.K., Codding, R.S., Boice, C.H. & Lukito, G. (2010). Meta-analysis of acquisition and fluency math interventions with

instructional and frustration level skills: Evidence for a skill-by-treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 69-83.

Burns, M.K. & Wagner, D. (2008). Determining an effective intervention within a brief experimental analysis for reading: A

meta-analytic review. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 126-136. Burns, M.K., Jacob, S., Wagner, A.R. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-intervention to assess

learning disabilities. Journal of School Psychology, 46(2008), 263-279. Cain, K. & Oakhill, J. (2006). Profiles of children with specific reading comprehension difficulties. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 76, 683-696. Cartledge, G. & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse students with and at risk for

disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74(3), 351-371. Catts, H.W., Gillispie, M., Leonard, L.B., Kail, R.V. & Miller, C.A. (2002). The role of speed of processing, rapid naming, and

phonological awareness in reading achievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(6), 509-524. Catts, H.W., Hogan, T.P, & Fey M.E. (2003). Subgrouping poor readers on the basis of individual differences in reading-related

abilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 151-164. Catts, H.W., Adlof, S.M. & Weismer, S.E. (2006). Language deficits in poor comprehenders: A case for the simple view of

reading. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 278-293. Christ, T.J. & Silberglitt, B. (2007). Estimates of the standard error of measurement for curriculum-based measures of oral

reading fluency. School Psychology Review, 36(1), 130-146. Coltheart, M. (2006). Dual route and connectionist models of reading: An overview. London Review of Education, 4(1), 5-17. Compton, D., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. & Bryant, J. (2006). Selecting at-risk readers in first grade for early intervention: A two-year

longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists Annual Convention, Anaheim, CA.

Consortium for Evidence-Based Early Intervention Practices. (2010). A response to the Learning Disabilities Association of

America (LDA) white paper on specific learning disability (SLD) identification. Retrieved March 5, 2011 from www.isbe.state.il.us.

Cornoldi, C. (2006). The contribution of cognitive psychology to the study of human intelligence. European Journal of

Cognitive Psychology, 18(1), 1-17. Decker, S. (2008). Neuropsychological Applications in Multi-tiered Models. Paper presented at the Oregon School

Psychologists Association’s fall conference, Bend, OR.

Bibliography

24

DeHaene, S., Molko, N., Cohen, L. & Wilson, A.J. (2004). Arithmetic and the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 218-224.

DeHaene, S., Piazza, M., Pinel, P. & Cohen, L. (2003). Three parietal circuits for number processing. Cognitive

Neuropsychology, 20(3/4/5/6), 487-506. Dixon, S.G., Eusebio, E.C., Turton, W.J., Wright, P.W.D. & Hale, J.B. (2010). Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court

case: Implications for school psychology practice. Journal of Psychoeducational Asssessment, 20(10), 1-11. Dunham, M. (2006). Viewpoint: The post-secondary implications of RTI. Communique´,36 (40), p5. Escribano, C. L. (2007). Evaluation of the double-deficit hypothesis subtype classification of readers in Spanish. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 40(4), 319-330. Feifer, S.G. (2006). The Neuropsychology of Mathematics. Paper presented at the Ohio School Psychologists Association’s

fall conference, Columbus, OH. Feifer, S.G. & Sudano, R.A. (2006) Integrating a response to intervention paradigm with cognitive neuropsychology: A hybrid

model of assessment and evaluation. Paper presented at the Ohio School Psychologists Association’s Fall Conference, Columbus, OH.

Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V.C. & Dynda, A.M. (2006). Integration of response to intervention and norm-referenced

tests in learning disability identification: Learning from the Tower of Babel. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 807-826. Flanagan, D.P., Alfonso, V.C. (2011). Essentials of specific learning disability identification. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., & Alfonso, V.C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment, 2nd Ed. New Jersey: John Wiley &

Sons, Inc. Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Fuchs, L.S. & Barnes, M.A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York:

Guilford Press. Fletcher, J.M., Stuebing, K.K., Barth, A.E., Denton, C.A., Cirino, P.T., Francis, D.J. & Vaughn, S. (2011). Cognitive correlates of

inadequate response to reading intervention. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 3-22. Fletcher-Janzen, E. & Reynolds, C.R. (2008). Neuropsychological perspectives on learning disabilities in the era of RTI:

Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Fletcher-Janzen, E. (2009). Cross-cultural perspectives on the use of the KABC-2 and KTEA-2 for cognitive processing

strengths and weaknesses determination in learning disabilities assessment. Paper presented at the Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia Association’s spring conference, Portland, OR.

Floyd, R.G., Keith, T.Z., Taub, G.E. & McGrew, K.S. (2007). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities and their effects on reading

decoding skills: g has indirect effects, more specific abilities have direct effects. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(2), 200-233.

Fiorello, C.A., Hale, J.B., & Snyder, L.E. (2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention for children with

reading problems. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 835-853. Foegen, A. (2008). Algebra progress monitoring and interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability

Quarterly, (31), 65-78. Fuchs, D & Fuchs, L.S. (2006) Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research

Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99. Fuchs, D, Fuchs, L.S., & Compton, D.L. (2012) Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional

Children, 78(3), 263-279. Fuchs, L.S & Fuchs, D. (2005) Using curriculum based measurement for progress monitoring in mathematics. Washington,

D.C.: National Center for Student Progress Monitoring.

25

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D.L., Bryant, J.D., Hamlett, C.L. & Seethaler, P.M. (2007). Mathematics screening and progress monitoring at first grade: Implications for responsiveness to intervention. Exceptional Children, (73)3, 311-330.

Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S.R., Seethaler, P.M., Cirino, P.T. & Fletcher, J.M. (2008). Intensive intervention for students with

mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79-92. Gansle, K.A., VanDerHeyden, A.M., Noell, G.H., Resetar, J.L. & Williams, K.L. (2006). The technical adequacy of curriculum-

based and rating-based measures of written expression for elementary school students. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 435-450.

Geary, D.C. (2007). An evolutionary perspective on learning disability in mathematics. Developmental Neuropsychology,

32(1), 471-519. Geary, D.C. (2004). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37(1), 4-15. Geary, D.C., Hoard, M.K., Byrd-Craven, J., Nugent, L. & Numtee, C. (2007). Cognitive mechanisms underlying achievement

deficits in children with mathematical learning disability. Child Development, 78(4), 1343-1359. Gerber, M.M. (2003, December). Teachers are still the test: Limitations of response to intervention strategies for identifying

children with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the National Research Center of Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Gregg, N. & Mather, N. (2002). School is fun at recess: Information analyses of written language for students with learning

disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 7-22. Gresham, F. M. (2001, August). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning

disabilities. Paper presented at the Learning Disabilities Summit: Building a Foundation for the Future, Washington, D.C. Haager, D. (2007). Promises and cautions regarding using response to intervention with English Language Learners. Learning

Disability Quarterly, 30, 213-218. Hale, J.B., Fiorello, C.A., Dumont, R., Willis, J.O., Rackley, C. & Elliott, C. (2008). Differential Ability Scales – Second Edition

(neuro) psychological predictors of math performance for typical children and children with math disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 45(9), 838-858.

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(7), 753-770. Hale, J.B., Wycoff, K.L. & Fiorello, C.A. (2010). RTI and cognitive hypothesis testing for identification and intervention of

specific learning disabilities: The best of both worlds. In Kauffman, A. & Kauffman, N. (Eds.), Essentials of Learning Disability Identification (pp. 173-202).

Hale, J. J., Alfonso, V. V., Berninger, V. V., Bracken, B. B., Christo, C. C., Clark, E. E., & ... Goldstein, S. S. (2010). Critical issues in

response-to-intervention, comprehensive evaluation, and specific learning disabilities identification and intervention: An expert white paper consensus. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(3), 223-236.

Hanson, J., Sharma, L.A. & Brown, J.E. (2008). Pattern of strengths & weaknesses in specific learning disability evaluation:

What’s it all about? Technical Assistance Paper to the Oregon Department of Education from the Oregon School Psychologists Association’s Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Committee, Salem, OR.

Hardcastle, B. & Justice, K. (2010). Fidelity and RtI: Strategies to Ensure Intervention Integrity in Your Schools. Horsham,

Pennsylvania: LRP Publications. Harris, S. (2009). Avoiding pitfalls when using "pattern of strengths and weaknesses" criteria for SLD eligibility: How to define

and refine your process to avoid legal challenges. Paper presented at the Confederation of Oregon School Administrator’s Special Education pre-Conference, Seaside, OR.

Hojnoski, R.L., Silberglitt, B. & Floyd, R.G. (2009). Sensitivity to growth over time of the preschool numeracy indicators with a

sample of preschoolers in Head Start. School Psychology Review, 38(3), 402-418.

26

Hooper, S.R. (2002). The language of written language: An introduction to the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 2-6.

Hooper, S.R., Swartz, C.W., Wakely, M.B, deKruif, R.E.L. & Montgomery, J.W. (2002). Executive functions in elementary school

children with and without problems in written expression. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(1), 57-68. Hooper, S.R., Wakely, M.B., deKruif, R.E.L., & Swartz, C.W. (2006). Aptitude-treatment interactions revisited: Effect of

metacognitive intervention on subtypes of written expression in elementary school students. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 217-241.

Iuculano, T., Tang, J., Hall, C.W.B. & Butterworth, B. (2008). Core information processing deficits in developmental dyscalculia

and low numeracy. Developmental Science, 11(5), 669-680. Izard, V., Dehaene-Lambertz, G. & Dehaene, S. (2008). Distinct cerebral pathways for object identity and number in human

infants. PLoS Biology, 6(2), 275-285. Izard, V., Pica, P., Spelke, E.S. & Dehaene, S. (2008). Exact equality and successor function: two key concepts on the path

towards understanding exact numbers. Philosophical Psychology, 21(4), 491-505. Jitendra, A.K., Sczesniak, E. & Deatline-Buchman, A. (2005). An exploratory validation of curriculum-based mathematical

word problem-solving tasks as indicators of mathematics proficiency for third graders. School Psychology Review, 34(3), 358-371.

Johnson, E.S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D.F., Woods, K. & Swanson, H.L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with

specific learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 33(1), 3-18. Johnson, E.S., Semmelroth, C., Mellard, D.F., & Hopper, G. (2012). Using RTI within a comprehensive SLD evaluation: A review

of a state’s first year efforts. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10(2), 1-15. Johnson, J.A., Bardos, A.N. & Tayebi, K.A. (August 2003). Relationships between written expression achievement and the

Cognitive Assessment System. Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.

Jordan, J.A., Wylie, J. & Mulhern, G. (2010). Phonological awareness and mathematical difficulty: A longitudinal perspective.

British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 28, 89-107. Joshi, R.M. & Aaron, P.G. (2000). The component model of reading: Simple view of reading made a little more complex.

Reading Psychology, 21, 85-97. Kavale, K.A. (2001) Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disabilities. Executive summary. Paper presented at

the Learning Disabilities Summit (Washington, DC, Aug 27-28, 2001) Kavale, K.A., Holdnack, J.A., & Mostert, M.P. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention and the identification of specific

learning disability: A critique and alternative proposal. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 113-127. Keller-Margulis, M.A., Shapiro, E.S. & Hintze, J.M. (2008). Long-term diagnostic accuracy of curriculum-based measures in

reading and mathematics. School Psychology Review, 37(3), 374-390. Learning Disabilities Association of America. (2010). The Learning Disabilities Association of America’s white paper on

evaluation, identification, and eligibility criteria for students with specific learning disabilities. Pittsburgh, PA: LDA. Lewis, C., Hitch, G.J. & Walker, P. (1994). The prevalence of specific arithmetic difficulties and specific reading difficulties in

9- and 10-year-old boys and girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35(2), 283-292. Martin, J. (2012, January). Advising clients on modern child find questions in the RtI era. Presented at the LRP 18th Annual

Special Education School Attorneys Conference. Martson, D., Pickart, M., Reschly, A., Heistad, D., Muyskens, P., & Tindal, G. (2007). Early literacy measures for improving

student reading achievement: Translating research into practice. Exceptionality, 15(2), 97-117.

27

Mather, N. & Kaufman, N. (2006). Introduction to the special issue, part one: It's about the what, the how well, and the why. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7), 747-752.

Mastropieri, M.A. & Scruggs, T.E. (2005). Feasibility and consequences of response to intervention: Examination of the issues and scientific evidence as a model for the identification of individuals with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38(6), 525-531.

Mazzocco, M.M.M. (2009). Mathematical learning disability in girls with Turner Syndrome: A challenge to defining MLD and

its subtypes. Developmental Disabilities, 15, 35-44. McCloskey, G. (2006). Annotated bibliography for executive functions. Philadelphia, PA: Philadelphia College of

Osteopathic Medicine. McGrew, K.S. (2003). Cattell-Horn-Carroll definition project. Retrieved Sept. 12, 2007 from

http://www.iapsych.com/chcdef.htm. McMaster, K. & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing: A literature review. The

Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 68-84. Methe, S.A. (2009). “Big ideas”: Missing pieces in early mathematics assessment. Communique´, 38(3). Miller, D.C. (2007). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Miller, S.P. & Hudson, P.J. (2007). Using evidence-based practices to build mathematics competence related to conceptual,

procedural and declarative knowledge. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(1), 47-57. Moats, L., Kukic, S. & Pasternak, R. (2010). Response to Reynolds and Shaywitz: Let’s not go back to the good old days

before RTI. Retrieved March 18, 2011 from www.rtinetwork.org. Murphy, M.M., Mazzocco, M.M.M., Hanich, L.B. & Early, M.C. (2007). Cognitive characteristics of children with mathematics

learning disability (MLD) vary as a function of the cutoff criterion used to define MLD. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(5), 458-478.

Naglieri, J.A. (1999). Essentials of CAS assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Nakamura, K., Dehaene, S., Jobert, A., LeBihan, D. & Kouider, S. (2005). Subliminal convergence of kanji and kana words:

Further evidence for functional parcellation of the posterior temporal cortex in visual word perception. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 17(6), 954-968.

National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). Identification of students with specific learning disabilities (Position

Statement). Bethesda, MD: NASP. National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems. (2005). Cultural considerations and challenges in response-

to-intervention models. Tempe, AZ: Arizona State University. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early literacy: A report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup, MD:

National Institute for Literacy and National Center for Family Literacy. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2006). Learning disabilities and young children: Identification and

intervention. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 63-72. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2011). Comprehensive assessment and evaluation of students with

learning disabilities: A paper prepared by the national joint committee on learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34(1), 3-16.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Nelson, N.J. (2009). Mathematics through the lens of RTI: Best practices in assessment and instruction. Paper presented at

the North Central Indiana Superintendent’s Study Council, April 21, 2009.

28

Norton, E.S. & Wolf, M. (2012). Rapid automatized naming (RAN) and reading fluency: Implications for understanding and treatment of learning disabilities. Annual Review of Psychology (63),427-52.

O’Brien, B.A., Wolf, M. & Lovett, M.W. (2012). A taxometric investigation of developmental dyslexia subtypes.

Dyslexia,18(1),16-39. Office of Special Education Programs. (2007). Letter to Zirkel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education. Ortiz, S.O. & Flanagan, D.F. (2002). Cross battery assessment revisited: Some cautions concerning “some cautions” (part 1).

Communique´, 30(7), 32-34. Ortiz, S.O. & Flanagan, D.F. (2002). Cross battery assessment revisited: Some cautions concerning “some cautions” (part II).

Communique, 30(8), 36-38. Otaiba, S., Folsom, J.S., Schatschneider, C., Wanzek, J., Greulich, L., Meadows, J., Li, Z. & Connor, C.M. (2011). Predicting first-

grade reading performance from kindergarten response to tier 1 instruction. Exceptional Children, 77(4), 453-470. Re, A.M., Pedron, M. & Cornoldi, C. (2007). Expressive writing difficulties in children described as exhibiting ADHD symptoms.

Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(3), 244-255. Revkin, S.K., Piazza, M., Izard, V., Cohen, L. & Dehaene, S. (2008). Does subitizing reflect numerical estimation? Psychological

Science, 19(6), 607-614. Reynolds, C.R. & Shaywitz, S.E. (2009). Response to intervention: ready or not? or, from wait-to-fail to watch-them-fail. School

Psychology Quarterly, 24(2), 130-145. Reynolds, M.R., Keith, T.Z., Fine, J.G., Fisher, M.E. & Low, J.A. (2007). Confirmatory factor structure of the Kaufman Assessment

Battery for Children – Second Edition: Consistency with Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory. School Psychology Quarterly, 22(4), 511-539.

Savage, R., Lavers, N. & Pillay, V. (2007). Working memory and reading difficulties: What we know and what we don’t know

about the relationship. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 185-221. Schenck, S.J. (1980). The diagnostic/instructional link in individualized education programs. The Journal of Special Education,

14(3), 337-345. Seethaler, P.M. & Fuchs, L.S. (2006). The cognitive correlates of computational estimation skill among third-grade students.

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21(4), 233-243. Simmons, F.R. & Singleton, C. (2007). Do weak phonological representations impact on arithmetic development? A review

of research into arithmetic and dyslexia. Dyslexia, 14, 77-94. Stahl, K.A.D., Stahl, S.A. & Mckenna, M.C. (1999). The development of phonological awareness and orthographic processing

in reading recovery. Literacy Teaching and Learning, 4(1), 27-36. Swanson, H.L. (2006). Who are the learning disabled? Suggestive evidence from meta-analyses of performance outcomes

and longitudinal research. Paper presented at the National SEA Conference on SLD Determination: Integrating RTI within the SLD Determination Process, Kansas City, MO.

Swanson, H.L. & Howard, C.B. (2005). Children with reading disabilities: Does dynamic assessment help in the classification?

Learning Disability Quarterly, 28, 17-36. Swanson, H.L., Howard, C.B. & Saéz, L. (2006). Do different components of working memory underlie different subgroups of

reading disabilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 252-269. Swanson, H.L., Jerman, O. & Zheng, X. (2008). Growth in working memory and mathematical problem solving in children at

risk and not at risk for serious math difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 343-379. Swanson, H.L. & Siegel, L. (2009). Learning disabilities as a working memory deficit. Retrieved June 18, 2009 from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true& db=aph&AN=6310714&site=ehost-live.

29

Swanson, H.L., Trainin, G., Necoechea, D.M., & Hammill, D.D. (2003). Rapid naming, phonological awareness, and reading: A meta-analysis of the correlation evidence. Review of Educational Research, 73(4), 407-440.

Thurber, R.S., Shinn, M.R. & Smolkowski, K. (2002). What is measured in mathematics tests? Construct validity of curriculum-

based mathematics measures. School Psychology Review, 31(4), 498-513. Tiu, Jr., R.D., Thompson, L.A. & Lewis B.A. (2003). The role of IQ in a component model of reading. Journal of Learning

Disabilities, 36(5), 424-436. Torgesen, J.K. (2007). Empirical and theoretical support for direct diagnosis of learning disabilities by assessment of intrinsic

processing weaknesses. Retrieved Sept. 8, 2008 from http://www.fcrr.org/ Torgesen, J.K. (2007.) Using an RTI model to guide early reading instruction: Effects on identification rates for students with

learning disabilities. Retrieved Oct. 2, 2007 from http://www.fcrr.org/ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs. (2006). Assistance to states for the education of

children with disabilities. Code of Federal Registers, Title 34, Part 300. Vanderberg, R. & Swanson, H.L. (2007). Which components of working memory are important in the writing process?

Reading & Writing, 20, 721-752. VanDerHeyden, A.M. (2010). Determining early mathematical risk: Ideas for extending the research. School Psychology

Review, 39(2), 196-202. VanDerHeyden, A.M. (2011). Technical adequacy of response to intervention decisions. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 335-

350. Vanderwood, M.L., Linklater, D. & Healy, K. (2008). Predictive accuracy of nonsense word fluency for english language

learners. School Psychology Review, 37(1), 5-17. Vellutino, F.R. (2001). Working memory deficits and learning disabilities: Reaction to Swanson and Siegel. Retrieved on June

18, 2009 from http://search.ebscohost.com/ login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=6310717&site=ehost-live. Vellutino, F.R., Fletcher, J.M., Snowling, M.J. & Scanlon, D.M. (2004). Specific reading disability (dyslexia); What have we

learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(1), 2-40. Vellutino, F.R., Tunmer, W.E., Jaccard, J.J. & Chen, RuSan. (2007). Components of reading ability: Multivariate evidence for a

convergent skills model of reading development. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11(1), 3-32. Wakely, M.B., Hooper, S.R., deKruif, R.E.L. & Swartz, C. (2006). Subtypes of written expression in elementary school children: A

linguistic-based model. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 125-129. Walsh, K, Glaser, D. & Wilcox, D.D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what elementary

teachers aren’t learning. Washington, D.C.: National Council on Teacher Quality. Wilson, K. & Swanson, H.L. (2001). Are mathematics disabilities due to a domain-general or a domain-specific working

memory deficit? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 237-248. Wise, J.C., Pae, H.K., Wolfe, C.B., Sevcik, R.A., Morris, R.D., Lovett, M. & Wolf, M. (2008). Phonological awareness and rapid

naming skills of children with reading disabilities and children with reading disabilities who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23(3), 125-136.

Zirkel, P.A. (2006). SLD eligibility: A users’ guide to the new regulations. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning

Disabilities. Zirkel, P.A. & Thomas, L.B. (2010). State laws for RTI: An updated snapshot. TEACHING Exceptional Children, Jan/Feb, 56-63. Zirkel, P.A. (2011). RTI confusion in the case law and the legal commentary. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 34(4), 242-247.

30

Sample Abstract Review Aptitude–Treatment Interactions Revisited: Effect of Metacognitive Intervention on

Subtypes of Written Expression in Elementary School Students

Hooper, S.R., Wakely, M.B., deKruif, R.E.L., & Swartz, C.W. (2006). Aptitude-treatment interactions revisited: Effect of metacognitive intervention on subtypes of written expression in elementary school students. Developmental Neuropsychology, 29(1), 217-241.

We examined the effectiveness of a metacognitive intervention for written language performance, based on the Hayes model of written expression, for 73 fourth-grade (n = 38) and fifth-grade (n = 35) students. The intervention consisted of twenty 45-min writing lessons designed to improve their awareness of writing as a problem-solving process. Each of the lessons addressed some aspect of planning, translating, and reflecting on written products; their self-regulation of these processes; and actual writing practice. All instruction was conducted in intact classrooms. Prior to the intervention, all students received a battery of neurocognitive tests measuring executive functions, attention, and language. In addition, preintervention writing samples were obtained and analyzed holistically and for errors in syntax, semantics, and spelling. Following the intervention, the writing tasks were readministered and cluster analysis of the neurocognitive data was conducted. Cluster analytic procedures yielded 7 reliable clusters: 4 normal variants, 1 Problem Solving weakness, 1 Problem Solving Language weaknesses, and 1 Problem Solving strength. The response to the single treatment by these various subtypes revealed positive but modest findings. Significant group differences were noted for improvement in syntax errors and spelling, with only spelling showing differential improvement for the Problem Solving Language subtype. In addition, there was a marginally significant group effect for holistic ratings. These findings provide initial evidence that Writing Aptitude (subtype) x Single Treatment interactions exist in writing, but further research is needed with other classification schemes and interventions.

The Technical Adequacy of Curriculum-Based and Rating-Based Measures of Written

Expression for Elementary School Students

Gansle, K.A., VanDerHeyden, A.M., Noell, G.H., Resetar, J.L. & Williams, K.L. (2006). The technical adequacy of curriculum-based and rating-based measures of written expression for elementary school students. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 435-450.

Five hundred thirty-eight elementary school students participated in a study designed to examine the technical characteristics of curriculum-based measures (CBMs) for the assessment of writing. In addition, the study investigated rating-based measures of writing using the Six Trait model, an assessment instrument and writing program in use in many schools throughout the United States (Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory, 2000). Technical characteristics of both models were evaluated. Results indicated that, using the Stanford-9 standard scores for written language subtests as the criterion, most scoring conventions of CBMs for written expression were reliable and valid. Despite adequate interobserver agreement on the Six Trait measures according to scoring conventions, exact agreement was low. The Six Trait measures do not measure distinct components of writing, nor do they share a significant amount of variance with Stanford-9 measures of written expression. CBMs of written expression have shown sufficient technical adequacy across several studies to warrant their use in writing assessment. These results do not support the use of the Six Trait model as a measure of written expression. Implications for research are presented.

using a multi-tiered system of supports with a pattern of ...€¦ · education environment and...

Documents