how chc links school psychologists with speech language pathologists ( or how to collaborate besides...
TRANSCRIPT
How CHC links School Psychologists
with Speech Language Pathologists
(or how to collaborate besides using a staple)Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP
Jacquelyn O’Connor, MAJacqueline Butera, MA
College of Saint Rose, Albany [email protected]
Goals of Presentation
• Change how we approach assessment• Review the Federal Law• Define CHC and Cultural Linguistic Demands• How to assemble a Cross Battery Assessment• How it impacts recommendations and
interventions• Show how we do the same or nearly the same
tests• Writing a Comprehensive SLP SP report• Open up communication between SP’s and SLP’s
2
(Perlman, 1958)
What are we doing?
After you've done a thing the same way for two years, look it
over carefully. After five years, look at it with
suspicion. And after ten years, throw it away and start all
over.
3
(Reynolds, 2009)
What are we doing?
THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE
MALPRACTICE OF TOMORROW
4
We like RtI
• Terrific Model for Early Intervention/Prevention– No more Wait to Fail– Early intervention lowers the risk of academic difficulty in the future
• Helps identify those who suffer from dispedagogia rather than a possible learning disability
• General Education movement– Break down the walls between Spec Ed and Gen Ed.
• Teach everyone not just the middle • Focus on the resources we have, not what we
don’t have. 5
YAY RtI
• Allow me to do more than just test!• We are not psychometricians, we are
psychologists (no matter what APA may say)
• Gets me more involved in academics• Pushes school psychologists to
understand what is reading, writing, math, etc.
• We can actually use our consultation skills
6
Questions RtI still needs to answer
• How long for interventions• How many interventions• Differences between schools (even
within districts)• Reliability and Validity• RtI only answers WHAT is
happening, not WHY (especially at Tier III)
7
Comprehensive Assessment
• Can give us a better sense of the WHY?– CHC, PASS, CHT, etc.
• Is NOT Discrepancy Analysis• It is invasive• Is no longer trying to find ‘g’• Should be based on research and
confirmatory data.• Based on contemporary research
8
9
Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a Single Approach,
Consider an “Open Mind” Proposal
• Understand the benefits and limitations of RTI (Special Issue of Learning and Individual Differences; Compton, 2008)
• Understand that the “promise of RTI swamps the evidence” for it at this time (Speece & Walker, 2007, p. 287)
• Understand the benefits and limitations of contemporary cognitive assessment (Flanagan, Kaufman, Kaufman, & Lichtenberger, 2008)
• Understand that Tier II nonresponders are not well understood in terms of a) how they differ from responders; and b) the types of treatments/interventions that may be more or less successful for them (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2008)
• Consider “third option” approaches to SLD Identification (Hale, Flanagan, & Naglieri, 2008; McCloskey, 2007)
5.29.08 – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.
10
Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a Single Approach,
Consider an “Open Mind” Proposal
• Entertain the idea that RTI and cognitive assessment can occur on a continuum
• Try not to blame psychological tests, but rather the people who use them inappropriately
• Understand that you must do what your state requires for SLD identification but you can add to those requirements in a manner that approaches best practices (Zirkel, 2008)
• Understand that neither RTI nor any other approach to SLD identification is a panacea – so don’t endorse any approach as a cure-all
• Entertain the idea that a balanced approach may be the best approach at this time
5.29.08 – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.
5.29.0811
President’s Message
“I would hope that the goal here is to expand the methods of assessment available to the practitioner and not to limit them. It seems possible that these two very valuable approaches can be utilized along a continuum of collecting information about a child that would culminate in a very clear and comprehensive evaluation that would be of value to all.”
Huff, L. (2005, February). President’s Message. NASP Communique, 33, 2-3.
5.29.08 – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.
12
The American Educational System Structure
K-12 Education
Gifted
SPED
Migrant
ESL
At-Risk
Title I
•Turfdom
•Conflicting Programs
•Lack of coordination
•bureaucracy for sake of bureaucracy
•Student grouping not instructionally based
•Rigidity, rules
•Redundancy
Gen. Ed.
13
School Psychologist and Speech Language Pathologists
Speech Language Pathologist
SCHOOL
PSYCHOLOGIST
•Turfdom
•Lack of coordination
•Redundancy
14
Shared office, separate lives
• For many initial evaluations, the school psychologist and the speech language pathologist are asked to do an assessment
• The assessments often happen in isolation of one another
• Little to no discussion about what abilities are to be tapped
• Every kid, no matter what the issue, gets the same battery of tests
• The SP and SLP share results at CSE as separate voices rather than one.
15
Shared Office, Separate lives
• SLP’s and SP’s will do the same tests without knowing it
• We report on the same issues without reading each others report
• Expect parents and teachers to consolidate our findings
• Reports are filled with numbers and not information
• Multiple reports connected by a staple.
16
ASHA Guidelines for Assessment
and Evaluation• Assessment should be based on multiple sources of
information to obtain a comprehensive picture of the child's functioning. (Division of Early Childhood, 2007)
• No single measure can provide sufficient information; therefore, assessment data should reflect multiple perspectives (ASHA, 2000)
• In addition to the use of various tools, assessment practices should include consultation with team members. (ASHA, 2005, 2008b)
Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)
ASHA Guidelines for Assessment and Evaluation• Emphasize the importance of professionals
working as a team for assessment and service provision (DEC, 2007)
• Assessment should provide information to inform program planning and intervention decisions. – go beyond the determination of eligibility for
services to include the gathering of information
that will be useful in making decisions for effective intervention planning. (ASHA, 2005)
17Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)
Traditional System Issues
CASE 1:
THIRD GRADERREADING DIFFICULTY
WISCWIAT
18
Traditional System Issues
CASE 2:
SEVENTH GRADERWRITING DIFFICULTY
WISCWIAT
19
Traditional System Issues
CASE 3:
FIRST GRADERMATH DIFFICULTY
WISCWIAT
20
21
Traditional System issues• Little emphasis on early intervention and prevention
– False Positives and False Negatives
• IQ-Achievement Discrepancy – BAD– (Identifying CHC Abilities, using consistency GOOD!)
• IEP’s did not implement scientifically based instruction– Start program in September, find out if effective in May
• Overrepresentation of cultural/linguistic minorities in special education
• Stop Retention and Social Promotion
• More concern about being in compliance than child’s educational success – THE FORGOTTEN GOAL
• Within Student vs. Within System– Darn those lazy kids. I sat them in the room for a half hour and nothing
happened.
Traditional Systems Issue
THIRD GRADE REFERRAL
22
23
BREAKING NEWS
THE EARLIER THE INTERVENTION
THE LOWER THE RISK
OF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTY
IN THE FUTURE
24
Related to Traditional Assessment?
• Inconsistencies in Identification
1988 27 % of identified children in Utah were ED,the ED rate in CA was 2.5 % of identified childrenForness & Kavale, 1990
• Huge Increases in Identification
From 1976 to 2002 the classification of children with specific learning disabilities increased 300%President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education July 1, 2002
25
Related to the Traditional Model?
• Reading Failure
80% of of those with SLD (40-53% of all Sp Ed students) are there because they haven’t learned how to read
• Cultural Bias African American
students are twice as likely as whites to be labeled MR and 50% more likely to be designated as emotionally disturbed
(A New Era 2002, Gresham, 2002)
26
Related to the Traditional Model?
• 6 million children currently in special education
• Federal funding is 8.5 billion dollars
• Placement in special education programs most often result in little gain or negative outcomes
(A New Era 2002)
27
Over thirty years of research has provided
support for the termination of discrepancy
as a way of identifying learning disabilities
28
Validity – If discrepancy is true then…..
•Learning disability is result of unexpected low achievement.
•Also implies that children with unexpected low achievement (LD) are distinct from expected low achievement (i.e., low achievement and low intelligence).
Assessment: Past & Future
Traditional Model– Definitional
Concerns– Discrepancy
based models– Wait to fail– Disconnection of
assessments
Model of the Future– Preventative approach– Validated Models– Response to
Intervention– CHC XBA (putting the
why in RTI)– Comprehensive
Evaluations29
IDEIAWhat are some of the details
of the Federal Law?
30
RTI may be used AS A PART of the evaluation… but not as sole method
IQ achievement discrepancy no longer required
31
“use a variety of assessment tools”
“not use any single procedure”
“assess cognitive factors”
32
non discriminatory assessments
valid and reliable assessment
33
IDEIA 2004 LawDefinition of SLD
remains the same
34
New York’s Response
35
36
NYS Learning Disability Definition
Past and Present
A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifests itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected achievement and actual achievement determined on an individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning disability [**language repealed**]
ALRIGHT ALREADY!
TALK ABOUT CHC!
37
Any Overall or Global Score
• What is it?• What is it made of?• Does it really mean anything?• Does it mean anything in relation to
intervention?• It’s the parts that make the whole• It’s the parts that will identify the
strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning
38
Breaking up is not so hard to do
• It is using research can we identify the parts of ‘g’ that impact learning
• Through the CHC model we can identify the subtests that measure various parts of ‘g’
• Through Cross Battery, we can create a full evaluation that connects the pieces which can describe the whole child.
39
The CHC Cross-Battery The CHC Cross-Battery ApproachApproach
• Definition:The CHC Cross-Battery Approach is a
time-efficient method of intellectual assessment that allows practitioners to measure validly a wider range (or a more in-depth but selected range) of cognitive abilities than that represented by any one intelligence battery in a manner consistent with contemporary psychometric theory and research on the structure of intelligence.
40
G eneralS equentialR easoning
Induction
Q uantitativeR easoning
P iagetianR easoning
S peed ofR easoning
F lu idI n te l lig en ce
(G f)
M ath.K now.
M ath.A ch.
Q u a n ti ta t iveK n o w le d ge
(Gq )
L anguageD evelop.
L exicalK now l.
L isteningAbility
G eneralInfo.
Info.aboutC ulture
G eneralScienceInfo.
G eographyA ch.
C om m.Ability
O ralP roduction& F luency
G ram.S ensitivity
F oreignL anguageP rofic iency
F oreignL anguageAptitude
C ry s ta l l iz edI n te l lig en ce
(Gc )
R e ad ingD e c od ing
R e ad ingC o m p .
V e rb alL a n g u a g eC o m p .
C lo zeA b i l i ty
S p e l lingA b i l i ty
W r it ingA b i l i ty
E nglishU sageK nowledge
R e ad ingS p e ed
R e a d in g a ndW r it ing
(G rw )
M emoryS pan
W orkingM emory
L earningAbilities
S h o r t-T e rmM e m o ry
(G sm )
V isualiza tion
S patialR ela tions
V isu alM e m o ry
C losureS peed
F lexibilityof C losure
S patialS canning
S erialP erceptualIntegration
L engthE stimation
P erceptualIllusions
P erceptualA lternations
Im agery
V isu alP r oc e ss ing
(Gv )
P h o n . C d g .:A n aly s is
P h o n . C d g .:S y n th e s is
S peech S nd.D iscrim .
R es. toAud. S tim .D istortion
M emoryfor SoundP atterns
G eneralS nd. D iscrim .
T emporalT racking
M usicalD iscrim . &Judgm ent
M ainta ining& JudgingR hythm
S nd-Intens ityD ura tionD iscrim .
S nd-F req.D iscrim .
H earing &S peechT hreshold
AbsoluteP itch
S oundL oca lization
A u d ito ryP r oc e ss ing
(Ga )
A s so c .M e m o ry
M n g fu l.M e m o ry
F reeR e ca llM e m o ry
IdeationalF luency
Assoc.F luency
E xpress ionalF luency
N amingF acility
W ordF luency
F iguralF luency
F iguralF lexibility
S ensitivity toP roblems
O rigina lity/C reativity
L earningAbilities
L o n g -T e rmS to r a g e &R e tr iev al
(G lr )
P erceptualS peed
R ate-of-T est Taking
N um berF acility
S emanticP rocess ingS peed*
P r oc e ss ingS p e ed
(Gs )
S im pleR eac tionT ime
C hoiceR eac tionT ime
M entalC omparisonS peed
C orrectD ec isionS peed
D ec is ionS p e ed /
R e a ct io nT im e(Gt)
Italic indicates abilities that were not included in Carroll’s three-stratum model but were included by Carroll in the domains of knowledge and achievement. Bold indicates abilities that are placed under different CHC broad abilities than in Carroll’s model. These changes are based on the Horn-Cattell model and/or recent research (see Flanagan, McGrew & Ortiz, 2000; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; McGrew, 1997; McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). *Semantic Processing Speed was previously classified under Gt consistent with Carroll (1993). However, recent data analysis from WJ III now suggests that it may be a narrow Gs ability instead (see Woodcock et al., 2001). See Appendix B for more detailed information regarding both the broad and narrow abilities.
Bro
ad
Stra
tum
II
Nar
row
St
ratu
m I
Figure 2.2 The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities (CHC Theory)
Flanagan, D.P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley &
Sons.
41
One Battery Does Not Fit All
• Given that no individual battery contains sufficient indicators of all of the major CHC abilities, a cross battery approach has been developed to bridge the gap between theory and practice.
• Do more than simply choose another battery and give the whole darn thing. Be specific.
42
• The breadth and depth of knowledge of a culture
• The ability to communicate one’s knowledge (especially verbally)
• The ability to reason using previously learned knowledge or procedures
• Originally described as “crystallized intelligence”
• “Jeopardy” players have waaaay too much Gc.
• Includes Listening Skills and Oral Communication.
Gc Gc Comprehension-KnowledgeComprehension-Knowledge
43
•Novel reasoning and problem solving that depend minimally on learning and acculturation
•Ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems that often include novel information or procedures
•Induction & deduction are hallmarks of Gf
•Impacts math reasoning, reading comprehension, higher level thinking
•The first few times you do Soduku, you are using your Fluid Reasoning. After you learn the trick, it becomes crystallized knowledge (Gc)
Gf Gf Fluid ReasoningFluid Reasoning
44
•Ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later
•Ability to retrieve from file cabinet
•Not to be confused with acquired stores of knowledge (Gc)
•There has to be an intervening event. Can mean retrieving information learned several seconds earlier.
•Not long term memory
•Includes Rapid Naming, Meaningful Memory, Associative memory
•All contestants on Jeopardy have good Gc, but those who are more effective at retrieving the info do better.
Glr Glr Long-term (Storage &) RetrievalLong-term (Storage &) Retrieval
45
•Ability to analyze, synthesize, & discriminate auditory stimuli
•Ability to perceive and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions
•Not to be confused with an “auditory learner” or how well someone hears. Can be hearing impaired and still have good Ga
•Includes Phonemic Awareness
Ga Ga Auditory ProcessingAuditory Processing
46
Is it All About Phonological Processing?
• “In the area of reading, a model suggesting that phonological deficits fully account for reading problems in virtually all children is now being amended (Snowling, 2008)”
• “Today, we are witnessing many children whose phonological skills have been remediated, and remediated well, and who continue to struggle to read fluently and with comprehension (Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008)”
From Shaywitz and Reynolds (2009)47
•Ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds
• 7 chunks of information (+ /– 3)
• Working Memory and Memory Span
•Working Memory is key in most academic areas.
Gsm Gsm Short-term MemoryShort-term Memory
48
•Ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention
• Attentive speediness
•Usually measured by tasks that require rapid cognitive processing but little thinking
•Card sorting, game of Perfection
Gs Gs Processing SpeedProcessing Speed
49
•Ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize and think with visual patterns
•Ability to store and recall visual representations
•Fluent thinking with stimuli that are visual in the “mind’s eye”
•Not to be confused with a “visual learner” or how well does someone see. Can be visually impaired and still have good Gv
Gv Gv Visual-Spatial ThinkingVisual-Spatial Thinking
50
Supporting Evidence for CHC theory
• Structural – Evidence from over 50 years of factor analytic studies
• Outcome Criterion – Evidence of differential relationships between diff. CHC abilities and external outcomes (i.e. reading, occupation, math, etc.)
• Neurocognitive – Links between CHC measures and neurological functioning
• Heritability – Differential heritability for different CHC abilities (i.e. Spatial relations vs. Visual Memory)
• Developmental – Different patterns of growth and decline across the life span (i.e. Gc vs. Gsm)
51
IQ – Not so smart
• What is it?• What is it made of?• Does it really mean anything?• Does it exist?• Does it mean anything in relation to
intervention?• IQ can no longer mean Wechsler FSIQ• It’s the parts that make the whole• It’s the parts that will identify the strengths
and weaknesses that impact upon learning
52
THE WISCAND CHC
FULL
SCALE
IQ
(FSIQ)
Verbal
Comprehension
Index
VCI
Perceptual
Reasoning
Index
PRI
Working Memory Index
WMI
Similarities
Vocabulary
Comprehension
WISC-IV Composition INDEX SUBTESTS CHC
Processing Speed Index
PSI
Information
Word Reasoning
Matrices
Picture Concepts
Block Design
Picture Completion
Arithmetic
Digit Span
Letter Number Sequencing
Cancellation
Symbol Search
Coding
GcGcGcGcGc
Gf
Gc/Gf
Gv
Gv/Gc
Gsm
Gs
Gq
Gsm
GsGs
SO WHY DO A CHC EVAL
• Almost all new versions of cognitive batteries are based in CHC– Stunning since CHC came out only 10 years ago
• Don’t waste time with unnecessary tests between our two evals and within our individual evals.
• Shooting with the LIGHTS ON• Legally defensible. Less lawsuits. • Parents and educators actually understand our
reports and appreciate knowing why the child is struggling. Empowering for everyone!
55
Cross Battery is THEORY/RESEARCH
focusedNOT
KIT FOCUSED
REMEMBER: USE THEORY AND RESEARCH TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY. 56
Let’s go through the steps!
57
Presumption of Normalcy
•Assessment should be driven by presumptions of normalcy rather than pre-conceptions of dysfunction.
• In the absence of any gross physiological trauma or developmental dysfunction, and given a history of appropriate and sufficient instruction and opportunity to learn, it is expected that an individual undergoing LD assessment will perform within normal limits on WJ III tests (i.e., standard scores of 90 to 110, inclusive). 58
STEP 1: REASON FOR
REFERRAL• Individualize your assessment batteries.
– Don’t give WISC/WIAT/TOLD to every single kid who is referred.
• Know what cognitive/language abilities impact the specific academic concern
• Rule out exclusionary factors
59
60
Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006) see also Kevin McGrew’s website: www.iapsych.com
CHC Ability
Reading Achievement
Math Achievement
Writing Achievement
Gf Inductive (I) and general sequential reasoning (RG) abilities play a moderate role in reading comprehension.
Inductive (I) and general sequential (RG) reasoning abilities are consistently very important at all ages.
Inductive (I) and general sequential reasoning abilities is related to basic writing skills primarily during the elementary school years (e.g., 6 to 13) and consistently related to written expression at all ages.
Gc Language development (LD), lexical knowledge
(VL), and listening ability (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with age.
Language development (LD), lexical knowledge (VL), and listening abilities (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with age.
Language development (LD), lexical knowledge (VL), and general information (K0) are important primarily after age 7. These abilities become increasingly more important with age.
Gsm Memory span (MS) is important especially when
evaluated within the context of working memory.
Memory span (MS) is important especially when evaluated within the context of working memory.
Memory span (MS) is important to writing, especially spelling skills whereas working memory has shown relations with advanced writing skills (e.g., written expression).
Gv Orthographic Processing May be important primarily for higher level or
advanced mathematics (e.g., geometry, calculus).
Ga Phonetic coding (PC) or “phonological
awareness/processing” is very important during the elementary school years.
Phonetic coding (PC) or “phonological awareness/processing” is very important during the elementary school years for both basic writing skills and written expression (primarily before age 11).
Glr Naming facility (NA) or “rapid automatic
naming” is very important during the elementary school years. Associative memory (MA) may be somewhat important at select ages (e.g., age 6).
Naming Facility (NA); Associative Memory (MA) Naming facility (NA) or “rapid automatic naming” has demonstrated relations with written expression, primarily the fluency aspect of writing.
Gs Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important
during all school years, particularly the elementary school years.
Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important during all school years, particularly the elementary school years.
Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important during all school years for basic writing and related to all ages for written expression.
Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD Patterns: Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD Patterns: Ages 6-8Ages 6-8
GcCrystallized Intelligence
GsmShort-TermMemory
Gs ProcessingSpeed
Ga Auditory Processing
Glr Long-TermRetrieval
Basic Reading Skills
ReadingComp
GcCrystallized Intelligence
GsmShort-TermMemory
Gs ProcessingSpeed
Ga Auditory Processing
Glr Long-TermRetrieval
Gf Fluid Intelligence
GcCrystallized Intelligence
GsmShort-TermMemory
Gs ProcessingSpeed
Math Reasoning
Basic Math Skills
Gf Fluid Intelligence
GsmShort-TermMemory
Gs ProcessingSpeed
Glr Long-TermRetrieval
61
STEP 2: CHOOSE A CORE
BATTERY• If you need an overall g, you have to do
all the core tests. If not, then you can just do the ones that are related to the reason for referral.
• Not all cognitive batteries address the same cognitive areas. Need to know what the tests are actually measuring.
62
Broad WISC-IV KABC-II WJ III COG
Gf Picture Concepts (I)Matrix Reasoning (I)Word Reasoning (I)
Pattern Reasoning (I, Gv-Vz)Story Completion (I, RG, Gc-
K0)
Concept Formation (I)Analysis Synthesis (RG)
Gc Similarities (LD & VL), Vocabulary (VL)
Comp. (K0), Picture Concepts (K0)
Picture Completion (K0)Information (K0), Word
Reasoning (VL)
Riddles (VL, LD, Gf-RG)Expressive Vocab. (VL)Verbal Know. (VL, K0)
Verbal Comp. (VL & LD)General Info. (K0)
Ga -- See KTEA-II Incomplete Words (PC:A)Sound Blend. (PC:S)Auditory Att. (US/U3, UR)
Gv Block Design (SR)Picture Completion (CF)
Conceptual Thinking (Vz, Gf-I)Block Counting (Vz, Gq-A3)Face Recog. (MV), Triangles
(SR, Vz)Rover (SS, Gf-RG, Gq-A3)Gestalt Closure (CS)
Spatial Relations (Vz & SR)Picture Recognition (MV)
Gsm Digit Span (MS & MW)Letter-# Sequencing (MW)
Word Order (MS, WM)Number Recall (MS)Hand Mvmts. (MS, Gv-MV)
Memory for Words (MS)Numbers Rev. (MW)Auditory Work. Mem.(MW)
Glr -- Atlantis (MA & L1)Rebus (MA)Atlantis Delayed (MA, L1)Rebus Delayed (MA, L1)
Visual Aud. Learning (MA & MM)
Vis.-Aud. Delayed (MA)Retrieval Fluency (FI & FA)Rapid Pic. Nam. (NA)
Gs Coding (R9)Symbol Search (P & R9)Cancellation (P & R9)
See KTEA-II Fluency tests Visual Matching (P & R9)Decision Speed (R4)
Gq Arithmetic (A3) See KTEA-II
Evaluation of Cognitive Abilities Mascolo (2004). Published in Flanagan & Kaufman (2004) Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment. Wiley
63
The Step-by-Step CB Approach
• Identify the CHC abilities that are represented adequately on the core battery– Review the CHC Cross-Battery
Worksheets
• Identify the CHC abilities that are not represented or are underrepresented on the core battery and select tests to approximate/ensure adequate representation of these abilities 64
Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles
Broad or Narrow test interpretation?
Ind
uct
ive R
eas.
Ded
uct
. R
eas.
Ind
uct
ive R
eas.
Ind
uct
ive R
eas.
Gf
I RG I
GfBattery A contains twoqualitatively differentindicators that can becombined to represent abroad ability cluster
Battery B contains twoqualitatively similarindicators that can becombined to represent anarrow ability cluster
Broad
Narrow
65
STEP 3: CHOOSE A
SUPPLEMENTAL• Identify the Absence or
Underrepresentation – Supplement your core with subtests
from another battery (Hence the title CROSS BATTERY)
• Find Supplemental tests •keep the number of batteries to a minimum
(preferably two)
• Use confidence bands to identify what has been measured 66
This is where SP and SLP can get together and see what should be done next.
How can we supplement rather than duplicate
67
CHC Abilities Related to Basic Reading Skills and Reading Comprehension in Children Ages 6-8 Years
Gc Gc Ga Ga Gs Gs Gsm Gsm Glr GlrImportant Broad
CHC Abilities
LD VL PC US P MW MA NAImportant
Narrow CHC Abilities
Rid
dle
s
Ver
bal
Kn
ow.
KABC-II
KTEA-II
Non
. Wrd
Dcd
Ph
on. A
war
e.
Tim
ed N
WD
Wor
d O
rder
Atl
anti
s
RA
N
Tim
ed W
rd R
ec
WJ
III
WM
Clu
ster
Co-normed
Flu
ency
Reb
us
Supplemental
CT
OP
P
WJ
III
Au
d. A
tten
t.
= Strongest and most consistent significant relation
= Consistent significant relation
WJ
III Gs
Clu
ster
68
STEP 4: MAKE SCORES COMMUNICATE
• Convert Scaled Scores into Standard Scores
• See handout
• If crossing batteries, find Cluster Average.– Need to understand Confidence Intervals
• If the Cluster score on one battery adequately measures a Broad Ability, use that score rather than averaging.
69
STEP 5: INTERPRET TOGETHER
• Combine our perspectives, knowledge, and clinical understandings to better understand the child.
• Are we talking a language deficit or a cognitive deficit or both?– To heck with IEP DIRECT
• It’s time to be detectives.
• Follow the clues/data
• Confirmatory data should support any conclusions.
70
Look at CONSISTENCY
NotDISCREPANCY
71
Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002)
-1 SEM 68 %
+1 SEMSubtests = + 7Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5
Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____
Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Glr Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)
Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)
Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )
Gf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )
Ga Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)
Grw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)_________________(___) 72
Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002)
-1 SEM 68 %
+1 SEMSubtests = + 7Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5
Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____
Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Glr Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)
Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)
Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )
Gf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )
Ga Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)
Grw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)_________________(___) 73
Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002)
-1 SEM 68 %
+1 SEMSubtests = + 7Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5
Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____
Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Glr Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)
Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)
Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )
Gf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )
Ga Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)
Grw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)_________________(___) 74
Phonological Deficit
Rapid Naming Deficit
Lexical Deficit
Fletcher et al., (2002). Fletcher et al., (2002).
Subtypes of reading disability based on phonological awareness (PA), rapid naming (RN), and vocabulary skills.
Working memory is not depicted, but would also be a subtyping dimension
SubtypePA Only
SubtypePA & RN
SubtypePA & RN,Lex GlobalLanguage
SubtypeRN Only
CHC domain
Ga
Glr/Gs
Gc
Gsm
75
Assessment of Diverse Children:Dimensions of Standardized Tests Related to
Bias• Tests are culturally loaded:– the majority of tests used by psychologists were developed and
normed in U.S. and inherently reflect native anthropological content as well as the culturally bound conceptualizations of the test developers themselves. Many tests require specific prior knowledge of and experience with mainstream U.S. culture
• Tests require language (communication):– linguistic factors affect administration, comprehension,
responses, and performance on virtually all tests. Even nonverbal tests that reduce oral language requirements continue to rely on effective communication between examiner and examinee in order to measure optimal performance
• Tests vary on both dimensions:– Tests vary significantly with respect to the degree that they are
culturally loaded as well as the degree of language required
Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand
Low Moderate High
Flanagan & Ortiz (2001)
76
Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Bias in Test Validity and Interpretation (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001)
Pattern of Expected Performance of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children
LOW MODERATE HIGH
LO
W
PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED
INCREASING EFFECT OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE
MO
DE
RA
TE
HIG
H
INCREASING EFFECT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCE
PERFORMANCE MOST
AFFECTED(COMBINED EFFECT OF CULTURAL &
LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES)
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
DE
GR
EE
OF
CU
LT
UR
AL
LO
AD
ING
77
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND
DEGREE
OF
CULTURAL
LOADING
LOW MODERATE HIGH
LOW
Matrix ReasoningCancellationHand MovementsFace RecognitionPattern ReasoningTrianglesAtlantisAtlantis – DelayedRebus - Delayed
Block DesignSymbol Search Digit SpanCodingBlock CountingRoverNumber RecallRebus
Letter-Number Sequencing
MODERATE
ArithmeticPicture ConceptsWord OrderConceptual Thinking
HIGH
Picture CompletionGestalt Closure
InformationSimilaritiesVocabularyComprehensionWord ReasoningStory CompletionExpressive VocabularyRiddlesVerbal Knowledge
*The culture-language classifications for the WISC-IV and KABC-II are preliminary. Expert consensus studies are underway.
Culture and Language Matrix developed by Flanagan and Ortiz (2001) and found in Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment. Wiley
78
CHC Culture-Language Matrix Worksheet (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001)
Name of Examinee: _________________________ Age: _______ Grade: _______ Date: _____________
DE
GR
EE
OF
CU
LT
UR
AL L
OA
DIN
G
DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMANDLOW MODERATE HIGH
LOW
Test Name: Score:___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
Test Name: Score:___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
Test Name: Score:__________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______)__________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
MODERATE
Test Name: Score:___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
Test Name: Score:___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
Test Name: Score:__________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______)__________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
H IGH
Test Name: Score:___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
Test Name: Score:___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
Test Name: Score:__________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______)__________________________(______) Cell Average = ______
79
Let’s talk
about how to
talk to our speech language
colleagues
Why Combine
• SLPs measure many of the same abilities SPs do– eg. Short Term Memory - Digits forward– Makes sense as the Broad Abilities impact learning– Don’t repeat testing
• Share different expertise and perspective on data.– Accuracy of diagnosis– Accuracy of intervention/intervention development
Saving Time• Reduce number of subtests administered
– Based on referral– Based on research
• Report Writing– No more staple – Comprehensive Report– Combine results and perspectives– Parents don’t have to mix and match
• Feedback or IEP meetings– Stop saying the same thing in different
languages
LET’S
TALK
ABOUT
Speech and Language Batteries
Test of Language Development- Primary &
Intermediate Versions: Fourth Edition(TOLD-4)
• designed specifically to assess children’s receptive and expressive spoken language competences
• Published in 2008• Ages 4-0 through 8-11; 8-0 through 17-11• 6 core subtests, 3 supplemental (Primary
Version)• 35 minutes to 50 minutes administration time• normative sample characteristics based on
sample conformed to U.S. 2005 school-age population census data
Rationale• assess children’s expressive and receptive
competencies in the major components of linguistics
• identify children who are significantly below their peers in language proficiency
• determine children’s specific strengths and weaknesses in language skills (composite indexes are Listening, Organizing, Speaking, Grammar, Semantics, and Spoken Language)
• document children’s progress in language as a consequence of special intervention programs
TOLD-P:4 subtest organization
Linguistic Systems
Linguistic
Features
Listening
(receptive)
Organizing (integrating-mediating)
Speaking
(expressive)
Semantics Picture
Vocabulary
Relational
Vocabulary
Oral
Vocabulary
Syntax Syntactic
Understanding
Sentence
Imitation
Morphological
Completion
Phonology Word
Discrimination
Phonemic Analysis
Word
Articulation
TOLD-I:4 subtest organization
Linguistic Systems
Linguistic
Features
Listening
(receptive)
Organizing (integrating-mediating)
Speaking
(expressive)
Semantics Picture
Vocabulary
Relational
Vocabulary
Multiple Meanings
Grammar Morphological Comprehension
Word Ordering Sentence Combining
Semantic Subtests
“…study of the meaning of language; relationship between language and thought.”
(P/I) Picture Vocabulary (Gc-VL)(P/I) Relational Vocabulary (Gc-LD)
(P) Oral Vocabulary (Gc-VL)(I) Multiple Meanings (Gc-VL/LD)
Syntactic/Grammar Subtests
“…the structure of the language (order and organization among words that determine the relationships between sound patterns and meaning through the formation of sentences).
(P) Syntactic Understanding (Gc LS)(P) Sentence Imitation (Gsm MS)
(I) Sentence Combining (Gc LD; Gsm MW)(I) Morphological Completion (Gc MY)
(I) Morphological Comprehension (Gc MY)(I) Word Ordering (Gc LD)
Phonological Subtests
“…the sound system of language (most important component is phonemics, the study of significant speech sounds).”
(P) Word Discrimination (Ga US/U3)(P) Phonemic Analysis (Ga PC:A)(P) Word Articulation (Ga PC:S)
RedundancyWJ-III
WISC-IV/WIATIII
TOLD-P:4 Time to Administer
Picture Vocabulary Picture Vocabulary 5 min.
Vocabulary Oral Vocabulary 10 min.
Receptive Voc (WIAT III) Syntactic
Understanding
connected
Sentence Mem (wiat iii) Sentence Imitation 5 min.
Auditory Attention Word Discrimination 10 min.
Sound Awareness Phonemic Analysis 10 min.
Word Articulation
Similarities Relational Vocabulary 10 min.
Morphological Completion
Test of Auditory Processing Skills – 3rd
Edition(TAPS-3)
• Published in 2005• Ages 4-18• 9 subtests; 1-hour administration• Normed on 2,000+ students• Individual subtest scores & cluster
scores
Rationale
• Provide the information necessary to assess the auditory processing related to cognitive and communicative aspects of language
• Assess the auditory skills necessary for the development, use, & understanding of language
• Ability to comprehend auditory information
Three Major Indices
I. Basic Phonemic Skills (3 subtests)– Assessment of basic phonological
abilities
II. Auditory Memory (4 subtests)– Measures basic memory processes
III. Auditory Cohesion (2 subtests)– Higher order skills
Basic Phonemic Skills
“Provide quick assessments of very basic phonological abilities that allow one to discriminate between sounds within words, segment words into morphemes, and blend phonemes into words”
• Word Discrimination (Ga-US/U3)• Phonological Segmentation (Ga-PC:A)• Phonological Blending (Ga-PC:S)
Overall, a strong measure of Ga
Auditory Memory
“Measures basic memory processes, including sequencing”
• Number Memory Forward (Gsm-MS)• Number Memory Reversed (Gsm-MW)• Word Memory (Gsm-MS)• Sentence Memory (Gsm-MS)
“Basic memory” is really Gsm, and primarily Memory Span
Auditory Cohesion
“Higher order linguistic skill that requires the student not only to understand exactly what is said, but also to be able to use inferences, deductions, and abstractions to understand the meaning of a passage”
• Auditory Comprehension (Gc-LS)• Auditory Reasoning (Gc-KO)
Not so much “reasoning” as it is Gc
RedundancyWJ-III/WISC-IV TAPS-3 Time to Administer
Sound Blending Phonological Blending 10 min.
Auditory Attention Word Discrimination 10 min.
Numbers Reversed Number Memory Reversed
5 min.
Memory for Words Word Memory 5 min.
Sound Awareness Phonological Segmentation
10 min.
Sentence Mem (WIAT III) Sentence Memory 5 min.
Auditory Comprehension
Auditory Reasoning
Digit Span Numbers Forward 5 min.
Redundancy for CELF-4WJ/WISC/WIAT CELF -4 Time to Administer
Understanding Directions
Concepts/Following Directions
10 min.
Sentence recall Recalling Sentence 5 min.
Similarities Word Classes 10 min.
Picture Vocab Expressive Voc 5 min.
Vocabulary Word Definitions 10 min.
Story Recall Understanding Spoken Paragraph
10 min.
Sound Awareness Phonological Awareness
10 min.
Retrieval Fluency Word Associations 5 min.
Digit Span Number Rep 1 & 2 5 min.
Broad CELF – 4 TOLD 4Primary and Intermediate
TAPS 3
Gf Word ClassesSemantic Relationships
Gc Sentence Assembly (LD, MY)Expressive Vocabualry (VL)Word Classes: Exp/Rec (VL,
LD, Gf-I)Word Definitions (VL)Sentence Structure (LS)Word Structure (LS)Formulated Sentences (OP)Concepts/Follow Direction (LS,
Gsm-MS)Semantic Relationship(LS,
Gsm-MW, Gf-I,)
Generals (LD)Picture Vocabulary (LD,VL)Sentence Combining (LD)Relational Vocabulary (LD)Oral Vocabulary (VL)Grammatical Understanding
(LS, LD)Malapropisms (MY, VL)Grammatic Comprehension
(MY)Grammatic Completion (MY)
Auditory Reasoning (K0, LD)
Ga Phonological Awareness (PC:S) Phonemic Awareness (PC:A)Word Discrimination (BR)
Phonological Blending (PC:A)Word Discrimination (BR)
Gv
Gsm Familiar Sequence (MS, MW)Number Repetition (MS)Recalling Sentences (MS, Gc-
LD)Number Repetition Backward
(MW)
Word Ordering (MW, Gc-LS)Sentence Imitation (MS)
Number memory Forward (MS)
Sentence Memory (MS, Gc-LD)
Word Memory (MS)Number Memory Reversed
(MW)
Glr Word Associations (MA)Rapid Automatic Naming (NA)
Gs
MAJOR SPEECH LANGUAGE BATTERIES
WIAT-III Listening Comprehension
• Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse.
• Two testlets make up whole Standard Score– Receptive Vocabulary: Identify picture
corresponding to a spoken word
– Oral Discourse Comprehension: Listen to narrative & answer questionUnderstanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF)
Picture Vocab (TOLD)
Auditory Comprehension (TAPS)
WIAT III: Oral Expression
• Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse.
• Three testlets make up whole Standard Score– Expressive Vocabulary (Gc): Provide a
definition -
– Oral Word Fluency (Glr): Name words in a specific category
– Sentence Repetition (Gsm): Repeat a sentence verbatim
Sentence Memory (TAPS)Recalling Sentences (CELF)
Word Associations (CELF)
LET’S
LOOK
AT
A REPORT
Conclusions
• CHC and RtI should be used in concert• SLP’s and SPs use similar measures• SLP’s and SPs can combine knowledge
and experience to better interpret data, allowing for more specific diagnosis and recommendations.
• End the worry about getting an overall ‘g’
• Be theory/research based, not kit based
References
• Cross Battery Assessment – http://www.crossbattery.com/
• Dumont and Willis - ATDR– http://alpha.fdu.edu/~dumont/psychology/ATDR.htm
• Kevin McGrew’s Intelligence Corner– http://www.iqscorner.com/
• Andrew Shanock, Ph. D., NCSP– [email protected], 518-337-4843