SLD Eligibility Review Teresa Fritsch, Psy.S., NCSP School Psychologist...
30
-
Upload
gervais-dorsey -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of SLD Eligibility Review Teresa Fritsch, Psy.S., NCSP School Psychologist...
Purpose and Objectives
• Review SLD Evaluation Procedures
• Psychological Processing Models
Review from Psychological Processing: Part 1 Webinar
• Universal screening and data collection• Interventions provided to those students
struggling and below grade level• Progress monitoring and data collection • Referral to consider special education
evaluation
* Evidence of low achievement* Performance significantly below the mean
on a cluster, composite, or 2 or more subtests in the same academic area (i.e. Word Attack and Letter-Word Identification=Basic Reading Skills)
* Specific Learning Disability – not using Broad scores
* Norm-referenced, standardized, achievement assessment
Academic Achievement Assessment
Psychological Processing Review Con’t
• Psychological Processing evaluation– Review and analyze all data already obtained (Teacher and
Parent input from referral meeting)– Develop a theory and hypothesis– Assess/Collect data and interpret results– Determine if there is a link between psychological
processing area(s) and academic deficits– Pattern of strengths and weaknesses– Do the dots connect?
Sample SLD Eligibility Report
Section A: Do Any One of the Following Factors Contribute to the Student’s Learning Difficulty? Directions: Please complete this section by carefully reviewing items 1 through 5 prior to considering SLD eligibility. Place a check in the box marked “yes” or “no”. If “yes” was checked in items 1 through 5, use the text box provided below to provide additional narrative information.
1. A visual, hearing or motor impairment
Yes No
2. Cognitive impairment
Yes No
3. Emotional disturbance
Yes No
4. Environmental or economic disadvantage
Yes No
5. Cultural factors
Yes No
For any of the above factors marked “yes”, describe how the student’s performance is impacted and indicate if this factor is a primary factor in the student’s learning difficulty.
4. Data that establishes that the core curriculum is effective for most students. Directions: For each of the assessments, list the percentage of students within the student’s grade level who met grade-level performance benchmarks (may include ISAT, IRI, Grade Level Curriculum Based Measures, other measures).
Name of Assessment
Area Assessed Date Performance Benchmark
Percentage of Grade Level
Peers Meeting Performance Benchmark
Percentage of Disaggregated
Group Level Peers Meeting Performance Benchmark
(if applicable)
Target Student Performance
Level
ISAT Language Usage 05/13/10 214 (Proficient) 79 202 (Below Basic)
AIMSweb Correct Writing Sequence (CWS)
09/2010 43 (50th percentile)
83 24 (16th percentile)
Intervention Provided
Academic Area of
Concern Intervention
Duration Frequency (how often per week)
Intensity (minutes per
session)
Begin Date
(M/D/Y)
End Date
(M/D/Y)
Total (weeks)
Expressive Writing
Learning Lab during which Student was pre-taught and re-taught writing strategies using Step Up to Writing and Write Traits. Practice spelling tests using Spelling and Vocabulary (Houghton Mifflin). Direct instruction and practice on self-editing and use of graphic organizers.
08/31/09 02/15/11 56 weeks
5 times/week 45 minutes
Area of Concern
Date Name of Assessment Subtest(s) SS
%ile Evaluator/Title
Written Expression
02/8/11 Test of Written Language-Fourth Edition (TOWL-4)
Contrived Writing = Spontaneous Writing = Overall Writing =
84 93 89
14 32 23
Ms. Educator/Special Education Teacher
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: The TOWL-4 is a seven-subtest, norm-referenced measure used to assess written expression for students between the ages of 9 to 17 years. Student shows relative strengths in his Spontaneous Writing, which are his skills in style, contextual conventions, and story composition, and in the Average range. His greatest difficulties were in the Contrived Writing, which includes vocabulary, paragraph and sentence structure, capitalization, spelling and punctuation, and is Below Average. His overall writing on the TOWL-4 is within the low average range with difficulties noted in contrived writing. Based on his performance on both assessments, Student has a significant weakness in spelling, conventions (capitalization and punctuation), and sentence structure which correlate with the Contrived Writing assessment of the TOWL-4. Student demonstrated on-task behaviors and put forth good behavior on all tasks given to him for both assessment measures. Test results are considered valid.
Various Models/Approaches to SLD Identification:
- Discrepancy-Consistency Approach Using PASS Theory (Naglieri, Das, & Kirby)*
- RTI & Cognitive Hypothesis Testing (Concordance-Discordance Model) (Hale, Wycoff, & Fiorello)*
- Ability-Achievement Consistency Model (CHC Theory) (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo)*
- Milton Dehn Model (Dehn) * Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, 2011
Discrepancy-Consistency Approach
SignificantDifference(s)
Significant Difference(s)
AchievementWeakness(es)
ProcessingWeakness(es)
Processing & Achievement
Strengths
Similar ScoresCopyright Jack A. Naglieri, 2010
RTI and Cognitive Hypothesis Testing
Theory
Hypothesis
Data Collection
Interpretation
1. Problem5. Cognitive Strengths/Weaknesses9 . Intervention Consultation13. Continue/Terminate/Modify
2. Intellectual/Cognitive Problem6. Choose Related Construct Test10. Choose Plausible Intervention
3. Administer/Score Intelligence Test7. Administer/Score Related Construct Test11. Collect Objective Intervention Data
4. Interpret Psych. Processing8. Interpret Constructs/Compare12. Determine Intervention Efficacy
Hale, J.B., & Fiorello, CA (2004)
Flanagan et al (2002, 2006, 2007)
Ability Achievement Consistency Model (Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory)
• Level I-A: Measurement of Specific Academic Skills & Acquired Knowledge – Inter-Academic Ability Analysis (Stores of Acquired Knowledge)
• Math Calculation - Basic Reading Skills - Reading Fluency
• Math Reasoning - Reading Comprehension - Written Expression
• General information* - Oral Expression*
• Lexical Knowledge* - Listening Comprehension*
• Level I-B: Evaluation of Exclusionary Factors – NOT Sensory Impairment; NOT Mental Retardation; NOT Cultural Differences; NOT Language Differences; etc…
Ability Achievement Consistency Model (Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory)
• Level II-A: Measurement of Broad Abilities/Processes and Aptitudes for Learning-Inter-Cognitive Ability Analysis (Learning Efficiency)
• Gt, Gs, Gsm, Glr, Ga, Gv, Gf, and Gc*
• Level II-B: Re-evaluation of Exclusionary Factors
• Level III: Evaluation of Underachievement – Integrated Ability Analysis
• Below Average Aptitude-Achievement Consistency within an otherwise normal ability profile
• Level IV: Evaluation of Interference with Functioning (deficits are normative)
• The identified deficits significantly interfere with academic achievement or other daily activities requiring these skills (e.g., reading, writing, math)
Evidence of a Processing Strength or WeaknessMilton J. Dehn, Ed.D.
Spring 2010
• Both intra-individual and normative scores to be considered a strength or weakness
•A low score in a process is not necessarily a deficit indicative of LD, unless it’s also an intra-individual weakness
–Example: very low IQ have inherent processing problems
–Although Dehn defines intra-individual and normative scores by certain values, the Idaho SLD policy looks for the preponderance of evidence to support the eligibility decision.
Process Test/Battery
Name
Subtest/Factor
Name
Subtest
Scores
Factor
Score
IQ/Mean Difference
From Mean
Normative
S or W
Ipsative
S or W
Deficit
or Asset
**Information regarding the directions for the Processing Analysis Worksheet can be found in Dr. Dehn’s book.
Basic Reading Skills
Reading Comprehension
Reading Fluency
Math Calculation
Math Problem Solving
Written Expression
Crystallized Intelligence
Crystallized Intelligence
Perceptual Speed
Fluid Reasoning
Fluid Reasoning
Crystallized Intelligence
Auditory Processing
Short Term/Working Memory
Long-Term Storage
Crystallized Intelligence
Crystallized Intelligence
Short Term/Working Memory
Long-Term Storage & Retrieval
Long-Term Storage & Retrieval
Phonologi-cal Processing
Short-Term/ Working Memory
Short Term/Working Memory
Processing Speed
Processing Speed
Fluid Reasoning Crystallized Intelligence
Processing Speed
Processing Speed
Fluid Reasoning
Short-Term/ Working Memory
Auditory Processing
Visual Processing
Visual Processing
Auditory Processing
Attention Executive Function
Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007, Dehn, M., 2009, and McGrew 2009
Processing Area
Date Name of Assessment Composite/Cluster/ Subtest
SS %ile Evaluator/Title
Processing Speed (Gs)
02/09/11 Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities
Processing Speed = 83 13 Mrs. Helpful/School Psychologist
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: The Processing Speed parts of the WJ III measures an individual’s ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention. Student struggled on both subtest related to Processing Speed – Visual Matching and Decision Speed – with standard scores in the Below Average range (84 and 81, respectively). His overall processing speed ability is within the Below Average range indicating a normative weakness in this area. Processing Speed does have a direct correlation to written language skills; therefore Student’s difficulties in this psychological processing area are directly impacting his expressive writing skills. Student put forth good effort on both subtests; therefore test results are considered valid. Processing Area
Date Name of Assessment Composite/Cluster/ Subtest
SS %ile Evaluator/Title
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)
02/09/11 Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities
Fluid Reasoning = 97 41 Mrs. Helpful/School Psychologist
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: Fluid Reasoning of the WJ III COG refers to mental operations that a student uses when faced with a relatively novel task that cannot be performed automatically. There are two subtests that make up the Fluid Reasoning cluster of the WJ III, and they are Concept Formation and Analysis-Synthesis. Student scores were similar on these two subtests with a standard score of 93 at the 32nd percentile on Concept Formation and a standard score of 102 at the 55th percentile on Analysis-Synthesis. Student's overall score in Fluid Reasoning is within the Average range, with a standard score of 97, at the 41st percentile. He put forth good effort on all tasks given to him demonstrating average energy and attention. Test results are considered valid.
Key Elements of Psychological Processing:
* Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
* Normative Weaknesses must link to academic deficits
* Summarize information in Section G; bring the story together; connect the dots
www.idahotc.comwww.idahotc.comTraining and Technology for Today’s Tomorrow
• Website to link school professionals and parents with special education training opportunities and resources across the state
• Supported By:– Idaho State
Department of Education (ISDE), Special Education
• Project Team: – Cari Murphy– Shawn Wright
Statewide Special Education Technical Assistance (SESTA)
Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies, BSU
Gina Hopper, Carol Carnahan,
Associate Director Statewide Consultant
[email protected] [email protected]
208.426.4363 208.426.3257
Contact Us
Teresa Fritsch, School Psychologist, Meridian School District, [email protected]
Carol Treat, School Psychologist, Post Falls School District, [email protected]
Richard Henderson, Director of Special Education, SDE, [email protected]
