Upload
kevin-mcgrew
View
4.883
Download
4
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
A Theory- and Research-based Approach to SLD Identification: Integrating RTI with Cognitive Assessment Data. Slides from Dr. Flanagan's Webinar for Wiley on 3-22-10
Citation preview
A Theory- and Research-based Approach to SLD Identification: Integrating RTI with Cognitive
Assessment Data
Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D.
St. John’s University
Yale Child Study Center, School of Medicine
Presentation Outline The Field of School Psychology is Polarized on What Constitutes “Comprehensive”
Assessment for SLD Identification
The Crux of the Debate is the Utility of Cognitive and Neuropsychological Tests for
SLD Identification and for Guiding Intervention Selection and Development
RTI and Cognitive Assessment are Complimentary
Contemporary Cognitive Assessment Differs from Traditional Cognitive Assessment
Tier II Interventions Work for Many, But Not All Students
Tier II Nonresponders Should Receive a Comprehensive Evaluation That Includes
Cognitive Assessment – Necessary to identify a disorder in one or more basic
psychological processes and necessary for Differential Diagnosis
Rather than using the traditional ability-achievement discrepancy method or an RTI-
only approach to SLD identification, a “Third Method” Approach should be used
Relevance of a “Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses” for SLD Identification
“Third Method” Approaches Integrate data from RTI with Other Data Sources
Assessment for Intervention – Linking Cognitive Assessment Data to Intervention
Conclusions and Questions
Why Is This The Question?
Cognitive Assessment for SLD Identification:
The Field of School Psychology is Polarized
Communiqué (2008)
Cognitive Assessment
Traditional Atheoretical assessment and interpretive
approaches (e.g., some subtest analysis approaches)
Limited to no attention paid to neuropsychology literature
Ability-Achievement Discrepancy
Wechsler V-P Dichotomy
g
VIQ PIQ
Traditional Cognitive Assessment
FSIQ
VerbalAbility
NonverbalAbility
1930s to the late 1990s
Cognitive Assessment
Contemporary Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory Flexible Battery Approaches School Neuropsychology Alternative research-based methods for identifying
patterns of cognitive strengths and deficits
g
Gf Gc Ga Gv Gsm
Glr Gs
Gf Gq Gsm Gv Ga Gs CDS GrwGc Glr
Flu
id
Inte
llig
ence
Cry
stal
lize
d
Inte
llig
ence
Qu
anti
tati
veK
now
led
ge
Sh
ort-
Ter
mM
emor
y
Vis
ual
P
roce
ssin
g
Au
dit
ory
Pro
cess
ing
Lon
g-T
erm
Ret
riev
al
Pro
cess
ing
Sp
eed
Cor
rect
Dec
isio
n S
pee
d
Rea
din
g/W
riti
ng
B
road
(Str
atu
m I
I) N
arro
w(S
trat
um
I)
69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll (1993)
Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Theory
Figure by McGrew; originally printed in McGrew & Flanagan (1998)
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.
New York: Cambridge University Press
A Landmark Event in Understanding the Structure of Intelligence
Carroll’s (1993) Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities
GGeneral
Intelligence
FluidIntelligence
CrystallizedIntelligence
GeneralMemory &Learning
BroadVisual
Perception
BroadAuditory
Perception
BroadRetrieval
Ability
BroadCognitiveSpeediness
ProcessingSpeed
(RTDecisionSpeed)
G
ener
al(S
trat
um
III
)
Bro
ad(S
trat
um
II)
Nar
row
(Str
atu
m I
)
69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll
Gf Gc Gy Gv Gu Gr Gs Gt
Figure by McGrew; originally printed in McGrew & Flanagan (1998)
Carroll’s Research-based Conclusions About the Cattell-Horn Model
“The Cattell-Horn model...is a true hierarchical model covering all major
domains of intellectual functioning...among available models
it appears to offer the most well-founded and reasonable approach to an acceptable theory of the structure
of cognitive abilities”
Carroll (1993)
An Integration of the Gf-Gc and Three-Stratum Theories of
Cognitive Abilities
Based largely on McGrew’s analyses in 1997-1999
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 n ow .
M ath.A ch.
Q u a n t i ta t iveK n o w le d ge
(G q )
L anguageD evelop.
L exicalK now l.
L isteningA bility
G en eralIn fo.
In fo.aboutC ulture
G en eralS cienceIn fo.
G eographyA ch.
C om m.A bility
O ralP roduction& F luency
G ram.S ens itivity
F oreignL anguageP rofic iency
F oreignL anguageA ptitude
C ry s ta l l iz edI n te l lig en ce
(G c )
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 n glishU sageK n owledge
R e ad ingS p e ed
R e a d in g a ndW r it ing
(G rw )
M emoryS pan
L earningA bilities
W orkingM emory
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 erceptualIntegra tion
L engthE stimation
P erceptualIllusions
P erceptualA lterna tions
Im agery
V isu alP r oc e ss ing
(G v )
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. toA ud. S tim .D istortion
M emoryfor SoundP atterns
G eneralS nd. D iscrim .
T emporalT racking
M usicalD iscrim . &Judgement
M ainta ining& JudgingR hythm
S nd-Intens ityD urationD iscrim .
S nd-F req.D iscrim .
H earing &S peechT hreshold
A bsoluteP itch
S oundL ocalization
A u d ito ryP r oc e ss ing
(G a )
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
Idea tionalF luency
A ssoc.F luency
E xpress ionalF luency
N amingF acility
W ordF luency
F iguralF luency
F iguralF lexibility
S ens itivity toP roblems
O riginality/C reativity
L earningA bilities
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
(G s )
S im pleR eactionT ime
C hoiceR eactionT ime
M entalC omparisonS peed
C orrectD ecisionS peed
D e cis io n/R e ac t ion
T im e /S p e ed(G t)
Contemporary Cognitive Assessment Based on CHC Theory
10 Broad Abilities and Over 70 Narrow Abilities
Integrated Model First Published in Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz (2000)
THE WJ III(WOODCOCK, MCGREW, & MATHER, 2001)
The first in a flurry of test revisions that represented
advances unprecedented in assessment fields
Contemporary Cognitive Assessment
SB5 (2003) – Based on CHC theory
KABC-II (2004) – Based on CHC theory and Luria
DAS-II (2007) – Based on CHC theory
g
Gf Gc Ga Gv Gsm
Glr Gs
Contemporary Cognitive Assessment
WISC-IV (2003) – CHC terminology (e.g., Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory) and CHC approach to interpretation (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, 2009)
WAIS-IV (2008) – CHC terminology and interpretive approach (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2009)
Picture Completion
Similarities
Vocabulary
Comprehension
Information
Block Design
Picture Concepts
Matrix Reasoning
Digit Span
Letter-Number
Arithmetic
Coding
Symbol Search
Gc
Gv
Gsm
Gs
.74
.51
u1
u2
u3
u4
u6
u7
u8
u9
u10
u11
u12
u13
u14
Chi-Square = 186.185df = 83
TLI = .982CFI = .986
RMSEA = .035SRMR = .026AIC = 260.185
Hierarchicalcomplex 3b total
Standardized estimates
g
fu2
fu1
fu3
fu4
Word Reasoning
u5
Cancellation
u15
Gf
fu5
Figure 6
Keith et al. (2006)
Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Specific Areas of Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, &
Mascolo, 2006)
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.
See McGrew and Wendling (in press) for an extension of this work
Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (in press). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Subtypes of Reading Disability (Fiefer, in press)
(1) Dysphonetic Dyslexia – difficulty sounding out words in a phonological manner (Ga-Phonetic Coding; Gsm-Memory Span, Working Memory)
(2) Surface Dyslexia – difficulty with the rapid and automatic recognition of words in print (Glr-Naming Facility; Gv-Orthographic Processing; Gs-Perceptual Speed; Gc-Vocabulary Knowledge)
(3) Mixed Dyslexia – multiple reading deficits characterized by impaired phonological and orthographic processing skills. It is probably the most severe form of dyslexia. (Multiple CHC abilities or processes involved; attention and executive functioning)
(4) Comprehension Deficits – the mechanical side of reading is fine but difficulty persists deriving meaning from print (Gf-Induction, General Sequential Reasoning; Gc- Language Development; attention and executive functioning)
Correspondence Between Diagnosis
and Treatmentas syndromes/disorders become more discretely defined, there may be a greater correspondence between diagnoses and
treatment
Kratochwill and McGivern's (1996; p. 351)
Individual Differences ARE Important
Why do some children fail to respond?
Perhaps because interventions are being applied “blindly” as a one size fits all method without understanding whether or not specific cognitive deficits exist
Individual Differences ARE Important
“A neuropsychological process that is important to reading skills development is working memory – it is a crucial process for early reading recognition and later reading comprehension. One must assess it if one is to develop the most appropriate method of intervention (Teeter et al., 1997).”
“Given the findings from the neuroimaging and neruopsychological fields of deficient performance on measures of working memory, processing speed, auditory processing ability, and executive functions, evaluation of these skills is necessary to determine the most appropriate program to fit the individual child’s need.”
Semrud-Clikeman(2005)
Individual Difference ARE Important
“The danger with not paying attention to individual differences is that we will repeat the current practice of simple assessments in curricular materials to evaluate a complex learning process and to plan for interventions with children and adolescents with markedly different needs and learning profiles.” (Semrud-Clikeman, 2005)
“Nonresponders” provide sound evidence that one size DOES NOT fit all.
Comprehensive Evaluations (That Include Assessment of Cognitive Functions) Are Necessary
for Nonresponders
Cost – Benefit Do Tier III interventions work? Would it make sense to gather more
information about Tier II nonresponders prior to implementing Tier III interventions?
For a copy of this White Paper, contact James (Brad) Hale, Ph.D. at: [email protected]
Expert Panel Consensus For Using Intensive RTI to Meet the Needs of Children with SLD
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percent
Item #8 Increasing intervention intensity in a multi-tier response to intervention model will meet the academic and psychosocial needs of all children with SLD
Hale et al. 2010 Expert Panel White Paper (N = 58)
NAPSA Practitioner Survey
05
101520253035404550
Strongly Disagree
Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree
Percent
Increasing intervention intensity in a multi-tier response to intervention model will meet the academic and psychosocial needs of all children with SLD
McHale-Small NAPSA Survey (N=680; Administrators; Practitioners; Specialists)
Response at Tier II?
Responder?
YES, Return to Tier 1Regular Education and Progress Monitoring
NO, ComprehensiveEvaluation and Problem-solvingto Redirect Intervention
NO, Tier III Intervention
OR
Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz (in press); Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Dynda (2008); Hale & Fiorello (2004)
Mathes and Colleagues (2005) Provided Tier I and Tier II intervention to
struggling first-grade readers in six schools Severe difficulties in phonological awareness,
letter-sound correspondence, and word reading
Three conditions Tier I classroom instruction only (n = 92) Tier I plus Tier II intervention (consisting of
Proactive Beginning Reading Instruction; Mathes et al., 1999; n = 83)
Tier I plus Tier II intervention (Responsive Reading Instruction; Denton & Hocker, 2006; n = 80)
Reported in Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, and Anthony, 2007
Tier II Intervention
Tier I instruction plus daily 40-minute, small group interventions for about 30 weeks in the first grade (groups of 3 students to one teacher)
Six certified teachers who received about 42 hours of professional development delivered by the developers of the programs they used Responsive Reading Instruction Proactive Beginning Reading Instruction
High levels of fidelity were achieved by intervention teachersReported in Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, and Anthony, 2007
Results of Tier I and Tier II Intervention
Of the 255 students who received Tier I and II interventions, only 22 were reading below average (below benchmark) at the end of the intervention period Below 30th percentile on WJ III Basic Reading
Skills 87 students did not reach a common oral
reading fluency benchmark 40 WCPM by end of 1st Grade
14 students were identified for Tier III intervention based on primarily on availability (Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis, 2006; Mathes and colleagues, 2005).
Reported in Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, and Anthony, 2007
Tier III Intervention 16-week intervention provided daily in
groups of two students to one teacher First 8 weeks students received the Phono-
Graphix program (McGuiness et al., 1996) two hours daily
Followed by 8 weeks of the Read Naturally program (Ihnot et al., 2001) one hour daily
Six teachers were well trained in intervention programs
Students response to Tier III intervention was highly variable
Reported in Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, and Anthony, 2007
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Pre-Test Post-Test PG Post-Test RN
Assessment Phase
WJ
III:
Bas
ic R
ead
ing
Sk
ills
Sta
nd
ard
Sco
re
1234567891011121314
Benchmark30th Percentile
Key: PG = Phono-Graphic Phase; RN = Read Naturally Phase (From An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447-466. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn. [2007]. Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.)
Results of a Tier 3 Intervention Phase
Important Consideration The education community must ask whether it
is important and reasonable to expect that even students with severe reading difficulties can be taught to read competently, closing the gap with their peers (Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, & Anthony (2007).
Can we help more children if we understand them better via a comprehensive evaluation?
Response to InterventionResponder?
YES, Regular EducationInstruction and
Progress Monitoring
NO, ComprehensiveEvaluation and Problem-solving
for Differential Diagnosis and Intervention Selection or Modification
Criteria for SLD met?
YES, Eligible forSpecial Education Services?
Implement ModifiedIntervention and Progress Monitoring
In LRE
NO, Continued Problem Solving;
Implement Modified Intervention and Progress
Monitoring
Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz (in press); Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Dynda (2008); Hale & Fiorello (2004)
A Comprehensive Evaluation , that Includes Cognitive Assessment, is
Necessary for Tier II Nonresponders
COGNITIVE STRENGTH
Average or higher abilities and processes;
May also include strengths in academic
skills
ACADEMIC WEAKNESS/FAILURE
Academic Skills/Knowledge Deficits
COGNITIVE WEAKNESS/DEFICIT
Cognitive Ability or Processing Disorder
Statistically significant difference between cognitive integrities and circumscribed cognitive ability or processing deficit(s)
Cognitive deficit(s) is specific, not general or pervasive, because overall cognitive ability is
at least average
No Statistically significant Performance Difference (constructs
are related empirically )
Statistically significant difference between cognitive integrities and academic skill
deficit(s)
Academic deficit(s) is unexpected, not expected, because overall cognitive ability
is at least average
Consistent/Concordant
Discre
pant
/Disc
orda
nt Discrepant/Discordant
Flanagan, Fiorello, and Ortiz (in press); Hale, Flanagan, and Naglieri (2008)
Common Components of Third Method Approaches to SLD Identification
CHC Abilities and Processes Related to Basic Reading Skills and Reading Comprehension in Children Ages 6-8 Years
(Cross-Battery Assessment or other Flexible Battery Approaches May be Necessary to Measure All Important Abilities and Processes)
Gc Gc Ga Ga Gs Gs Gsm Gsm Glr GlrImportant Broad
CHC Cognitive
Constructs
LD VL PC US P MW MA NAImportant
Narrow CHC CognitiveConstructs
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
Flanagan et al. Operational Definition of SLD A “Third Method” Approach
Flanagan, Alfonso, and Mascolo (in press). In Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Wiley
Continued on Next Slide
Flanagan et al. Operational Definition of SLD A “Third Method” Approach
Flanagan, Alfonso, and Mascolo (in press). In Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Wiley
Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________
KABC-II and KTEA-II Data
Ga Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)
Grw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _)
Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( ) WJ III Working Mem. (__)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )
Gf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )
Glr-MA Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)
Glr/Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)WJ III Gs Cluster__ (___)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Pattern of empirically or logically related cognitive
and academic deficits establishes basis for
satisfying criterion of “below average aptitude-achievement consistency”
Pattern of generally average cognitive
abilities and processes establishes basis for
satisfying criterion of “an otherwise normal
ability profile”
Gc Broad/Narrow ClusterExpressive Vocab. ( )Verbal Knowledge ( )_______________( )
Historical Concept of Intra-Individual Discrepancies
Domain-Specific
Unexpected Underachievement
Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________
KABC-II and KTEA-II Data
Ga Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)
Grw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _)
Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )
Gf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )
Glr-MA Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)
Glr/Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)_________________(___)
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160
Gc Broad/Narrow ClusterExpressive Vocab. ( )Verbal Knowledge ( )_______________( )
GENERAL Learning Difficulty
DOMAIN-GENERAL
EXPECTED Underachievement
(aka “Slow Learner”)
On the Flanagan et al. and Kavale and Forness Operational Definitions of SLD…
These operational definitions provide an inherently practical method for SLD identification that carries the potential for increased agreement
about the validity of SLD classification
Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)
The Importance of Assessing Cognitive Abilities and Processes and Academic Skills…
By identifying specific targets for remediation, the possibilities for truly
individualized intervention are increased significantly.
Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)
The Value of Assessing Cognitive Abilities and Processes…
Even if a student never enters the special education system, the general education teacher,
the student’s parents, and the student him- or herself would receive valuable information regarding why there was such a struggle in acquiring academic content, to the point of
possibly needing special education
Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)
What is a Specific Learning Disability?IDEA Definitions and Practices
• Discrepancy between “ability” and “achievement” (typically using cut-off points and global IQ)
• Failure to respond to scientific research-based intervention• May permit the use of other alternative research-based
procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10) (OSERS Final Regulations-8/06)• Flanagan and colleagues• Hale and Fiorello• McCloskey• Naglieri• Feifer and Della Tafano• Berninger• Geary
Determining Specific Learning Disability
All value RTI approach; All consider RTI data in the diagnostic process
On Third Method Approaches
Della Tofallo (2010; pp. 180-181) – RTRI or Response to the Right Intervention
Make no mistake…integrated models [third method approaches] of identifying (and serving) students with LDs do not arrive prepackaged along with dozens of studies touting their “scientific validation.” However, they are evidence-based because they emanate from the marriage of a collective body of knowledge that has been acquired through research in the fields of neuroscience, pedagogy, assessment, and intervention.
“At the current state of scientific knowledge, it is only through a comprehensive evaluation of a student’s cognitive and psychological abilities and processes that insights into the underlying proximal and varied root causes of [academic] difficulties can be ascertained and then specific interventions be provided targeted to each student’s individual needs, a process long advocated”
From Reynolds and Shaywitz (2009)
Diagnostic Impressions Following a Comprehensive Evaluation/Third Method Approach
Bob’s academic difficulties in reading and writing have persisted despite being exposed to quality instruction and intervention over a prolonged period of time. These difficulties could not be explained by global cognitive impairment, social-emotional problems, cultural and linguistic differences, sensory-motor difficulties, lack of motivation, environmental disadvantage, or a health-related impairment. Rather, Bob exhibited specific and circumscribed weaknesses in cognitive areas that are known to be related to difficulties in reading and writing, namely short-term memory, retrieval ability, phonological processing, and possibly associative memory. Thus, while Bob has the ability to think and reason like most children his age, as demonstrated by his performance in the cognitive areas of Fluid Reasoning, Comprehension-Knowledge, and Visual-Spatial Thinking, he possesses specific and related cognitive and academic deficits that are consistent with a diagnosis of Specific Learning Disability (SLD).
Failure To Respond to quality instruction and interventionGlobal Ability at least Average; Low Achievement UnexpectedExclusionary Factors ruled out as primary reason for underachievement
Meets third method criteria; “pattern of strengths and weaknesses”
Domain-specific weaknesses/deficits in cognitive areas that are related empirically to achievement weaknesses
Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (in press). RTI Data and Cognitive Assessment are Both Useful for SLD Identification and Intervention Planning. In N. Mather & L. E. Jaffe (Eds.), Expert Psychological Report Writing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Learning Disability Quarterly, Volume 31, Summer 2008
LINKING ASSESSMENT TO INTERVENTION
RTI at Tiers I and II
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Tier I Screening At-risk in Reading
Decoding Fluency Comprehension
Tier II Treatment Protocol Reading Recovery
•StudentsAmyBelindaCarl
Reading Recovery Results
Amy, Belinda, and Carl are making some gains in Reading Recovery
No appreciable change in reading performance
Tier II “nonresponders” Need for a
comprehensive evaluation that includes cognitive assessment
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ARE IMPORTANTOne Size Does Not Fit All
Regular Ed Teacher
Special E
d Teach
er
Diagnosticia
n
Parents and
Other School Personnel
CHILD
School Environment
Home and Community
Instructional Planning is Complex and Requires a Team of Experts
Mu
ltiple
Data
Sou
rces
Kn
ow
led
ge o
f an
d A
ccess to
Ap
pro
pria
te R
esou
rcesMascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Linking Assessment to Intervention
Requires good instruments Well trained clinicians Well trained teachers and special
educators A mechanism in place for bringing data
together to problem-solve in an attempt to offer the most effective instruction and interventions to children
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Intervention Types Need to differentiate between
Direct Interventions (remediation) Accommodations Compensation Instructional/Curricular Modifications
Intervention: any technique, product, or approach that intends to address directly an identified area of weakness through remediation
Accommodations: any technique or support that intends to alleviate the symptomatology associated with an identified area of weakness (e.g., circumventing the impact of a processing speed weakness via extended time - - the symptom is not “Gs deficit” – that’s the problem; the symptom is “unfinished assignments” - - when you extend time you alleviate the symptom and assignments are completed.
Compensation: strategies taught to a student that he or she is expected to apply independently to by pass weaknesses
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Different Cognitive Ability Profiles Suggest Different Interventions
Amy’s cognitive testing shows a significant deficit in phonetic coding – she doesn’t know how to translate symbols into sounds
Ga deficit impacts her fluency – labored reading Lack of decoding and fluency impacts comprehension Intervention should focus on Phonemic Awareness – Remediate
Ga
Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Gc deficit – language deficit Comprehension is poor b/c of low Gc Poor vocabulary – needs to re-read to gain meaning, which
impacts fluency Intervention should focus on vocabulary development –
Remediate Gc-VL, KO Accommodation of extended time due to a global Gs deficit
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions
Gsm deficit Decoding is poor – he cannot hold the complete phonemic string in mind long
enough to say the word Comprehension is poor because he needs to allocate all memory space decoding
words and therefore cannot focus on meaning Fluency is impaired because he must re-read the text to gain meaning Intervention should focus on developing a sight word vocabulary Carl needs to be taught compensatory strategies to assist with poor Gsm (text
previews; guided notes; one comprehension question at a time)
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions
Different Cognitive Ability Profiles Suggest Different Interventions
All had same academic deficits
(decoding, comprehension, fluency)
All made slow gains with
Reading Recovery
All had different patterns of cognitive
strengths and weaknesses
Reading Recovery – allocating time
to areas that do not need to be
trained
Not enough explicit instruction in
main problem area because the
intervention was not tailored
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Amy’s Intervention
No need to focus on comprehension and fluency Amy needs phonemic awareness training
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Belinda’s Intervention
No need to focus on decoding Belinda needs to focus on building her vocabulary She will also benefit from strategies/adaptations
to build fluency
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
Carl’s Intervention
No need to focus on comprehension or fluency Carl needs sight word reading and memory
strategies
Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)
http://www.multilit.com.au/
RTI-Only Camp
No evidence that your method is effective and leads to positive outcomes for children
Lack of documented effectiveness is not the same as documented ineffectiveness
Failure to Prove is not Proof of Failure (Braden et al., 2009)
We are just beginning to do the research – using current instruments, current theory, current methods
Look for upcoming special issue of JLD, Cognitive and Neuropsychological Assessment Data That Inform Educational Intervention (Guest Edited by Hale & Fuchs)
School Psychologists are Scientist-Practitioners
Third method approaches then arrive to you “with a call to duty – the duty of the scientist- practitioner to engage simultaneously in both practice and research calculated to evaluate current practice in order to guide future practice.”
Della Tofallo (2010; p. 180) – RTRI or Response to the Right Intervention
Conclusions
“To Test or Not To Test” is the Wrong Question
Rather than Abandoning our Best Tools, Practitioners Need to Learn How to Integrate
Assessment for Intervention into their Practice and Evaluate the Effectiveness of their Recommendations for Children with SLD
“In an ever-changing world, psychological testing remains the flagship of applied
psychology”
Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.