Oregon School Psychologists Association Fall Conference, Skamania Lodge October 12, 2005

1
Oregon School Psychologists AssociationFall
Conference, Skamania LodgeOctober 12, 2005

• Learning Disabilities Ages 6-8
• Synthesizing Response to Intervention,
• Neuropsychology, and
• Cattell-Horn-Carroll Intelligence Theory
• To Improve Students Educational Outcomes

Jim Hanson, M.Ed. Portland Public
Schools JaBrHanson_at_yahoo.com
2
Goals of the Presentation

• Response to Intervention Intra-Individual
  Differences Models Terminology, Strengths,
  Weaknesses
• Neurological Models an overview of Wolf,
  Fletcher, Shaywitz, Geary, etc.
• CHC Theory Cross-Battery Rules
• An Integrated Assessment and Report

3
The Guiding Light

• 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
  RtI and Intra-Individual Differences 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). Presidents Message. NASP Communique,
  33, 2-3.

4
What Parents Want to Know

• Why doesnt my child read well?
• What can we do about it?

5
Group Agreements

• Mammals learn best through play
• Am I a rock star, a movie star, or just someone
  who drinks?
• Movement is good take care of your needs
• Everyone needs time for digestion.
• This wont be elegant. Learning is messy.
• Quack up with your questions.
• One quacker at a time and set cell phones to
  vibrate
• Aggregate later as a group to clarify and apply
  principles

6
Do you remember when?

• Why did you want to learn to read?
• Why do you read now?
• Why do you care if children learn to read?

7
Teach a diphthong, change the world

• The purpose of a liberal arts education is to
  give people an enhanced opportunity to decide how
  they should live their lives Edmunson (2004).
• True liberal education requires that the
  students whole life be radically changed by it,
  that what he learns may affect his actions, his
  tastes, his choices, that no previous attachment
  be immune to examination and hence re-evaluation.
  Liberal education puts everything at risk and
  requires students who are able to risk
  everything Bloom (2002).
• Hows that as an outcome criterion?

8
The Two Major Models

• RTI-Response to Intervention/Problem Solving
• Intra-Individual Differences/Cognitive Processing
  Model

9
Lets Be Perfectly Clear

• Intra-Individual/
• Cognitive Processing
• Model
• IS NOT
• Ability/Achievement
• Discrepancy Model

10
Lets be even clearer

• Intra-Individual Differences/Cognitive Processing
  Model
• DOES NOT HAVE AS ITS MAIN GOAL
• Special education placement
• Its goal is to help kids make progress faster by
  moving from professional judgment to data based
  decision making about what intervention has the
  best likelihood of accelerating a childs
  academic progress.

11
IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Doesnt Discriminate

• Disabled and non-disabled readers
• Children who were found to be difficult (and
  easy) to remediate
• Response to intervention
• Vellutino et al. (2000) p. 235

12
So, Thor, do you still have to use a discrepancy
formula?
13
RtI IID Cant we all just get along?

• Although it is common to cast these models as
  opposing views, we take the position that for LD,
  the two perspective are actually quite
  compatible
• Fletcher, Morris, Lyon (2003)

14
Checks and Balances

• Use the Strengths of Both Approaches to Overcome
  the Weaknesses of Both Approaches

15
Sharpening the Figure

• Intra-individual model different abilities
  typically assessed at the same time
• Problem-solving model assessment of the same
  abilities at different times

16
Difficulty Communicating?

• Terminology
• Ethics

17
Terminology

• The perceived incompatibility of these two
  models ultimately reflects confusion about
  different levels of classification, the relation
  of classification and identification
• Fletcher et al. (2003)

18
Terminology

• Identification
• Finding the students who require specially
  designed reading instruction
• RTI strength

• Classification
• Correctly diagnosing a specific learning
  disability in reading
• IID Strength

19
Terms-Possible Confusion

• The Three Tiered Prevention Model
• 1) Evidence-based school-wide reading programs
• 2) Supplemental support when curriculum-based
  assessment of reading indicates need
• 3) Very intense, individualized, specialized,
  consistent, closely monitored support for
  non-responders

• NASP Multi-(Three-)Tiered Model for LD
  Identification
• 1) High-quality, research-based instruction for
  all children
• 2) Problem Solving-RTI
• 3) Conduct a comprehensive evaluation for
  students who do not respond despite adequate
  intervention

20
Ethical Questions

• If you only use Cognitive Processing
• Is it ethical NOT to use available technology
  that better addresses instructional variables,
  results in earlier service delivery, and might
  improve outcomes for students?

• If you only use RTI
• Is it ethical to CLASSIFY a student as having a
  specific learning disability on the assumption
  or inference that a child has a within-child
  neurological difference?

21
More ethical questions

• She who controls the curriculum defines deviance.
  
• What would RtI look like in a society that valued
  only art or war? If you didnt paint well or kill
  well, you would need intervention.
• CBM measures standing in an environment based on
  the assumption that the environment and the
  curriculum are healthy.

• He who controls the culture defines IQ.
• Who was the smartest person in Fairbanks, Alaska
  in 1890? Hint NOT the person with the highest
  WAIS score.
• IQ is a creative adjustment to environment and
  reading is valued in this society at this time.
• When working with a student with dyslexia, look
  for the genius not measured by testing.

22
CBM or IQ?

• Kingdom of Bhutan
• Gross National Happiness, not GNP
• Official policy of the kingdom laws flow from
  this shared value
• What do their childrens state achievement tests
  look like?

23
Chew on this do we makeartificial boundaries?

• What is the difference between cognitive
  abilities and academic achievement?
• What if an employer did not care how much you
  knew, just how well you solved novel problems?
  Would Concept Formation become the new
  achievement test?
• Mutability, plasticity, and practice effects
• The kid with environmental disadvantages and low
  working memory is LD right now. He might not be
  later.

24
Why the sacred cows?

• Such a hoopla about when to test cognition.
• Why? Misunderstanding what IQ is, its plasticity,
  and its worth in educational outcomes.
• My opinion test Broad Abilities (and ignore g)
  at any point in the evaluation process when a
  team needs information about selecting students
  within academic intervention groups.
• Use cognitive testing as a part of the
  problem-solving model.

25
Back to the issues two sides
26
Two Different Ethical Bases

• Cognitive Processing
• Do they have a disability?

• RTI
• Does having a disability result in real benefit?
  Heller (1982) as cited in Vaughn Fuchs (2003)

27
RTI Benefits

• Risk rather than deficit model
• Early identification and instruction
• Building-wide screenings versus teacher referrals
• Focus on student outcomes
• Vaughn Fuchs (2003)

28
More CBM! What we need

• Curriculum-based oral reading fluency measures
  for all children
• English Language Learners by Ortiz Ochoa
  language and acculturation level
• Aggregated by O/O classification as well as by
  disability
• Remember CALP 5

29
Fuchs Criticism of RTI

• No description of cognitive deficits
• Is inadequate response to instruction a
  defensible endpoint in the identification
  process?
• Cautions Intervention Models, Instructional
  Validity, Intensiveness, Due Process, and
  Personnel

30
RTI costs Due Process

• Even if one uses curriculum-based measurements
  as an alternative to more traditional
  norm-referenced psychometric measures, there is
  always the decision to be made as to whether a
  child has met, or not met, the specified academic
  skill or ability level for their group Fletcher
  et al. (2003).
• Of course, specifying the arbitrary cutpoint
  remains a challenge Vaughn Fuchs (2003).

31
RtI Cost Intensiveness

• Two hours of reading instruction a day for one
  to two years
• 70-90 of bottom 20 in K-2 can learn to read in
  the average range

32
Instruction Must Be

• Explicit
• Intensive
• Emotionally and Cognitively Supportive (Praise at
  6 to 1 and Cognitive Scaffolds)
• Comprehensive (Big 5 Ideas of Reading)
• Progress Monitoring
• Flexible small groups of about three students are
  as effective as individual tutoring.
• Torgesen, as cited in
• Fletcher, et. al., (2003).

33
Before You Get Started with RtI Due Process,
Instructional Validity, and Personnel

• The lowest twenty percent by school or by
  district?
• DIBELS lowest 20 or benchmarks?
• Allow teacher to nominate kids for Intervention?
• State Benchmarks or CBA?
• Reliability among schools, school districts, and
  states
• Integrity of Intervention
• Infra-structure
• Training
• Team Time

34
IBA RTI chasing integrity

• Ohios Intervention Based Assessment
• Reliable and consistent implementation of this
  problem solving method was not found. Fuchs et
  al. (2003)

• Pennsylvanias Instructional Support Teams
• Although 89 of schools achieved validation, no
  definition of validity and no integrity data were
  reported.

35
Current Naglieri Comments

• Iowas Heartland Four-Level Problem-Solving Model
• Neither treatment validity nor consistency
  addressed

• Minneapolis Public Schools Multiple Data Sources
  and Convergence of Evidence Model
• Few evaluations
• No data in studies
• Terms not operationalized

36
Sly Fuchs?

• Insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of
  RtI approaches in Ohio Pennsylvania and
  particularly for Heartlands and Minneapoliss
  versions.

37
Proof in the Pudding

• What matters is how many kids learn to read
  proficiently, not what methodology is used to
  teach or what framework or model a district
  adopts.
• David Tilly, personal communication, October 15,
  2005

38
The two people schools need

• An expert in teaching reading/math
• An expert in how to change instruction when its
  not working-based on kids whole being and
  environmental resources

39
Multi-Disciplinary Teams

• All new models require that all team participants
  be more active and inter-active in intervention
  and in identification
• Characteristics of effective teams diversity,
  decentralization, independence.

40
Diversity

• Intelligence and expertise versus different
  perspectives
• Different skills equals better decision making
• More diversity leads to exploration of the child
  and the environment, not to systems exploitation
  just to get resources

41
Decentralization

• Specialization
• Based on local and child/environment-specific
  information
• The closer you are the better you see the problem
  and the possible solutions

42
Decentralization

• In other words, one size does not fit all.
• Team members must be very knowledgeable in their
  field bring their expertise to the table for
  synthesis.
• Then, teams must tailor their tools to their
  school environments and the needs of their kids.

43
Independence Schools, Districts, and Disciplines

• Increases likelihood of people sharing their
  private information
• Keeps mistakes from being correlated
• Stops information cascades-William Sellers and
  the good screw

44
Independence

• No one approach to identification and
  intervention can be applied across a large school
  district
• Teams must be given the knowledge and then the
  flexibility to start from where they are to get
  to where they have decided that they want to be.

45
Before Testing is ConsideredIf we dont know
it, we must learn it

• State standards
• District tests
• Buildings AYP SIP and
• Reading and math curricula
• Functional fit between building curricula and
  district and state measurement systems
• Functional assessments of childrens academic
  behavior
• Functional fit between child and academic
  environment

46
Team Decision Points-Identification

• Use research-based general reading programs,
  progress monitoring, and DIBELS screening for
  all students.
• For the lowest 20 on DIBELS intervene.
• For those who do respond to intervention decide
  if they will continue to require resources and if
  they will, identify them for special education
  eligibility but do not classify them as having a
  learning disability. If they will probably not
  need interventions, discontinue interventions and
  continue to monitor them with the same frequency
  as other students in general education.

47
Why take the next step?

• The notions that the problem-solving model that
  one simply intervenes until effective treatments
  are identified has not been actualized and would
  not be expected to help develop interventions for
  LD. Indeed, research that focuses largely on
  what works in the absence of a cumulative,
  integrated body of knowledge does not yield
  effective interventions
• Fletcher et al. (2003)

48
How does this fit with U of O?

• Standard Protocol Problem-Solving Model
• If response is inadequate, develop and implement
  and intervention designed to meet the individual
  needs of the child.
• requires flexibility and professional judgment
  throughout.
• IID testing allows you to use data rather than
  professional judgment to help determine
  individualized interventions.

49
In other words why keep intervening with more
of the same if the student hasnt responded?

• For the students who do not respond to
  intervention, decide if you need information from
  nationally-normed achievement tests and/or
  information on the six specific cognitive
  abilities that support early reading (or the four
  that support early math). The only reason to test
  cognition is to determine appropriate
  classification and to refine and prioritize
  interventions so the kid can make faster
  progress.
• Perform a comprehensive evaluation and examine
  intra-individual differences. If the students
  demonstrate low performance on reading tests and
  low scores on the specific cognitive abilities
  that underlie reading and/or math at their age
  (along with having other cognitive abilities in
  the normal range), classify as a student with a
  learning disability.
• Design future interventions based on academic
  need, student interests, and other data including
  the lowest and highest cognitive scores.
• Address rule-outs as identified by informal and
  formal evaluation. In other words, intervene
  there, too!

50
The power of the LEA

• RtI
• The child is identified as needing specially
  designed instruction.
• A child can be identified and receive specially
  designed instruction without being classified.

• IID
• The child is classified as a student with a
  learning disability.
• A student might be classified as having a
  learning disability but might not need specially
  designed instruction.

51
RtI On The Forms

• Curriculum
• Teacher
• Grouping
• Frequency
• Duration
• Integrity
• Targets
• Response
• Dual Deficit

52
On The Forms

• Must document that child has received instruction
  in the big ideas of reading
• And math, for math
• Courage to say that a child is an instructional
  or environmental casualty

53
Neurological (Still on the forms)

• Twin studies suggest that fifty percent of the
  variance in reading problems is due to heritable
  influences.
• Wadsworth, Olson, Pennington DeFries (1992).

54
A Severe Discrepancy (not there)

• IQ-Achievement Discrepancy-not on the paperwork
  anymore!
• Heterogeneity-still The Holy Seven Academic
  Areas, not the actual cognitive and academic
  subtypes that have been identified by science
  implies that one size of intervention fits all
• Exclusionary Factors
• Maybe reading fluency added

55
Still on the paperwork, but is it a learning
disability?

• Cognition-yes/no
• Fine Motor-no
• Perceptual Motor-no
• Communication-yes/no
• Social-no
• Emotional-no
• Perception-no
• Memory-yes
• Please update this list!

56
Rule-Out, Rule-In

• Cultural Factors
• Economic Disadvantage
• Emotional Disturbance
• Who cares? If they have a problem, intervene!
• Kavale (1988)

57
Proposed Regulations

• The child fails to achieve a rate of learning to
  make sufficient progress to meet State-approved
  results in one or more of the areas
  identifiedwhen assessed with a response to
  scientific, research-based intervention process
  OR
• The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and
  weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both,
  or a patter of strengths and weaknesses in
  performance, achievement, or both, relative to
  intellectual development, that is determined by
  the team to be relevant tot he identification of
  a specific learning disability, using appropriate
  assessments

58
Brass Tacks

• The new state forms allow teams to make a student
  eligible based on
• RtI and standardized, state, local, or classroom
  academic performance,
• The ability/achievement discrepancy model, or
• A synthesis of RtI and valid cognitive/academic
  assessment (a comprehensive evaluation).

59
Before we get to the forms

• Better definitions
• Neuroscience
• CHC

60
Dyslexia Improving the Science

• Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that
  is neurobiological in origin. It is characterized
  by difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word
  recognition and by poor spelling and decoding
  abilities. These difficulties typically result
  from a deficit in the phonological component of
  language that is often unexpected in relation to
  other cognitive abilities and the provision of
  effective classroom instruction. Secondary
  consequences may include problems in reading
  comprehension and reduced reading experience that
  can impede growth of vocabulary and background
  knowledge
• NICHHD (1994).

61
The PPS LD Integration Team

• You gotta love a state whose most aggressive
  mascots are ducks and beavers

62
Breaking It Down in the PPS LD Integration
Committee

• Neurobiological in Origin
• Inaccurate Word Recognition
• Dysfluent Word Recognition
• Poor Spelling
• Poor Decoding
• Poor Phonological Awareness
• Other Cognitive Abilities are Relatively Better
• Good Classroom Instruction
• Poor Reading Comprehension
• Can Affect Vocabulary
• Can Affect Crystallized Intelligence

63
We think we can measure that

• Cognitive These subgroups, typically defined by
  patterns on achievement tests, are clearly
  differentiated on cognitive attributes Fletcher
  et al. (2003)
• Academic Children can be differentiated by
  patterns of strengths and weaknesses in word
  recognition, fluency, and comprehension
• Instructional Functional Assessment of Academic
  Behavior Curriculum /Instructional Assessment

64
Lets start with the neurology of phonemic
awareness.

• Why?
• Because we know the most about it.

65
Would Sally Shaywitz agree?
66
The sea of strengths

• The phonological model crystallizes exactly
  what we mean by dyslexia a circumscribed,
  encapsulated weakness is often surrounded by a
  sea of strengths reasoning, problem solving,
  comprehension, concept formation, critical
  thinking, general knowledge, and vocabulary
  Shaywitz (2003).

67
And our committees continent of contention

• Phonological abilities are not related to
  intelligence and, in fact, are quite independent
  of intelligence (Shaywtiz, 2003).

68
Phonemic Awareness A Clean Measure of a
Specific Factor-But What is it?

• Cognitive Auditory Processing
• Academic Phonemic Awareness
• Language Central Auditory Processing

69
So one of us asked

• If the neurological basis of phonological
  processing has been located within the
  parieto-temporal lobes with letter-sound
  correspondence in the Wernickes area and
  articulatory mapping in the inferior frontal
  gyrus (Brocas area), how is it that phonological
  processing is not related to intelligence?

70
Not just there

• Perisylvan Cortex which contains the Planum
  Temporale (Auditory System)
• Magnocellular Pathway of the Visual System
  including the Lateral Geniculate Nucleus of the
  Thalamus
• Occipital Cortex
• Corpus Callosum
• Angular Gyrus for cross-modality
• More on math later
• Miller, C., Sanchez, J. Hynd,G. (2003)

71
Brain mapping

• Left infero-temporal cortex Orthography, direct
  lexical access
• Left temporo-parietal cortex cross modal
  integration and phonological assembly
• Left inferior frontal gyrus (Brocas area)
  semantics and phonological assembly.

72
Reading in Children 6-9 Chinese and American

• LH Tan et. al., 2005
• In Chinese, you dont need the Wernickes area,
  you need frontal lobes and occipital lobes.
• 600 characters per year in China

73
What that looks like

• Working
• Hard
• Or
• Hardly
• Working

74
The New IQ test
75
After effective interventions

• The fMRIs of former dyslexic students look just
  like those of normal readers.
• Does that means their better reading instruction
  improved the underlying abilities involved in
  early reading?
• Perhaps some abilities within cognition are
  malleable?
• Is LD a fixed trait or is the question what can
  we do to improve academic functioning?

76
Brain activity versus importance to reading

• Active, but are they crucial?
• Only way that we could know is to disable them
  and then see if the kid can read
• Guinevere Eden, personal communication, October
  7, 2005.

77
From fMRI

• to Neurological Theory

78
Not just phonological weakness?

• Rote memorization and rapid word retrieval are
  particularly difficult for dyslexics Shaywitz
  (2003).

79
Shaywitz, Fletcher, and McGrew

• Phonological Awareness (Ga, PC)
• Working Memory (WM) Associative Memory (MA)
• Processing Speed (Gs), Naming Facility (NA)

• Phonologic Weakness
• Memory
• Rapid Word Retrieval

• Phonologic Awareness
• Working Memory
• Rapid Naming

80
Rational Grouping Wolfs Double Deficit Model

• Phonological Processing
• Rapid Automatized Naming
• Both
• (Forgot Memory)

81
Empirical multivariate statistical methods
Morris (1998)

• Rate (affects fluency and comprehension)
• Rate Phonology
• Rate, Phonology, VSTM (big group)
• Phonology, VSTM, Spatial
• Phonology, VSTM, Lexical
• Global Language
• Global

82
Levine, Fletcher, and McGrew
83
Levine Lauds

• Stresses the nature of the stimulus and the
  modalities of response a reminder to use cross
  battery caution
• Classroom signs we must have explicit
  corroboration of our test result hypotheses
• Demystification Consultation
• Interventions
• Speech Language Pathologists like it
• Publicity

84
Levine Criticisms

• By what process were these constructs
  constructed?
• What is the strength of the relation between each
  construct and specific educational outcomes?

85
Questions to ask your factors

• How were you derived? From 50 years of research
  on 500,000 data sets?
• How strongly are you related to specific areas of
  academic achievement?

86
Back to measurement
87
Shaywitz recommends

• Phonology (awareness, memory, and access)
• Letters (names and sounds)
• Vocabulary (receptive and expressive)
• Print Conventions
• Listening Comprehension
• Reading (real words, nonsense words, and
  comprehension)

88
All work and no play

• Type of text presented
• Length of text/verbosity
• Complexity orthographic, semantic, linguistic
• Demands on background knowledge

89
What test do I use?
90
Only the WJ III

• Statistics on linguistic verbosity and complexity
• CALP levels
• Reduced motor response
• See Also Cross Battery Handbooks

91
Only The KABC-II

• Both receptive and expressive vocabulary measures
  within the same norm group
• Word finding problems
• Referral to a speech and language pathologist

92
Yeah, he said the WISC-IV

• Best measure of Gc Information and Vocabulary
• Remember, we shape our tools and thereafter, our
  tools shape us (McLuhan)
• There is no such thing as NLD

93
Only The WJ III

• Rasch equal interval scoring
• Relative Proficiency Index more sensitive to
  actual classroom performance, relative standing,
  the need for specially designed instruction, and
  incremental growth.

94
For the kinesthetic learners rope,
volunteers to grab hold (at 70, 85, 115 and 130),
an adjustable smelt net at 100, and a ladder on
its side to show the stationary RPIs.The Living
Bell Curve

• Percentiles and Standard Scores are less
  descriptive than the
• Relative Proficiency Index because
• The typical range of reading differences in first
  grade is FOUR YEARS (Guszak, 1992).

95
Rasch Equal Interval Scoring The Relative
Proficiency Index

• In a perfectly distributed score population, the
  RPI for SS100 and PR50 is 90/90.
• An absolutely average student of that age/grade
  would demonstrate 90 mastery level on that
  material and get an RPI of 90/90.
• Standard scores and percentiles are fine when the
  distribution of scores on a certain (sub)test is
  a perfect bell curve. In that case,
  SS85PR16RPI75 and SS115PR84RPI96.
  HOWEVER
• If the distribution of scores is either narrow,
  wide or skewed, then the standard score MOVES in
  relation to the center. An Equal Interval,
  however, STAYS THE SAME.
• If kids are closer together in their skills, they
  are easier to teach with only one curriculum. If
  kids are NOT equal in their skills, they need
  differentiated instruction or specialized
  instruction.
• Got a test with a wide distribution (like EVERY
  first grade reading skill)? Then the standard
  score of 85 moves farther away from the center
  and thus, farther down the equal (stationary)
  interval scale.
• On a test with a wide distribution of scores
  (like Word Attack) a kid with a standard score of
  85, rather than having an RPI of 75, now has an
  RPI of about 55.
• How well is a kid doing in the classroom when she
  is only demonstrating a 55 mastery level? Shes
  missing ALMOST HALF of the stuff shes supposed
  to get!
• NEVER use a standard score again to determine if
  a first grade student has a reading problem. Use
  the RPI it more closely reflects classroom
  performance and you will not have to shrug your
  shoulders and say to a teacher, But shes doing
  fine on my test.

96
The Wait to Fail Model?

• First graders were ALREADY failing at reading.
• We just didnt know it because we were bad at
  statistics.
• Shame on us for using standard scores for first
  grade kids.

97
What about math?
98
Dyscalculia Arithmetic Disability

• 8 of children
• Parents 10 times as likely to have AD
• IQ-Achievement Discrepancy over-identifies
• Math tests arent sensitive to subtypes or areas
  within subtypes
• 26 of AD are ADHD
• 17 of AD are RD
• 50 of AD have Spelling Problems

99
The first type of AD

• Procedural
• Uses developmentally immature procedures
• Execution errors
• Poor concepts
• Multiple Steps (e.g., misalignment, carrying,
  borrowing)

100
The second type of AD

• Semantic
• Retrieving math facts/strategies from long-term
  memory wrong and/or slow
• High error rate
• Associational errors
• not inhibiting irrelevant associations (e.g.,
  counting string associations such as 278, 8 is
  closer)

101
The third type of AD

• Visuospatial
• Spatial representation of numbers and
  relationships
• Misinterpretation of graphic information

102
Arithmetic Disabilities (AD)
103
Math Strategies-RtI Dynamic Assessment

• Finger Counting Counting All
• Finger Counting Counting On
• Verbal Counting Counting All
• Verbal Counting Counting On
• Retrieval of a basic fact from long-term memory
• Decomposition Retrieval of a partial sum and
  counting on.

104
The DIBEMS? Kindergarten

• Russell, G., Jordan, N., and Flojo, R., (2005).
  Early identification and interventions for
  students with mathematics difficulties. In
  Journal of Learning Disabilities 38 (4)

• Magnitude Comparison
• Counting Strategies
• Fluent Number Identification
• Working Memory-Numbers Reversed
• Number Sense

105
From Geary to McGrew

• Phonetic and semantic memory systems
• Understanding the quantity associated with words
• Ability to represent or retrieve information

• Working Memory Gs-Processing Speed, Oral
  Language
• Gq-Quantitative (Ability and Knowledge)
• Glr-Long Term Memory Storage and Retrieval
  including RAN ( perhaps Auditory Attention for
  inhibiting competing stimuli?)
• (Gf-Fluid Intelligence)

106
Working Memory Manifestations

• Keeping track of count
• Loosing place and miscounting
• Coordinating sequence of problem solving
• Phonemic loop and visuospatial sketchpad
• Executive Processing (Gf shifting set, Gv
  planning, Gs reaction time and other factors see
  Russell Barkley

107
Quantitative Ability/Knowledge

• Cardinality
• Order Irrelevance (relying on rote counting and
  not jumping beyond cardinality)
• Failure to detect errors

108
From the Geary/Shaywitz Seas to the CHC Mountains
109
Someone quacked up

• Ysseldyke says that if you use clean measures
  of specific factors you can investigate how those
  factors relate to success in school and
  educational treatment relevance.

110
Begin at the beginning

• 1) General g Binet
• 2) Subtest and Item Analysis Wechsler
• 3) Psychometric Profile Analysis Kaufman
• 4) Applying Theory to Test Interpretation
  Woodcock, Naglieri, Das
• 5) New Statistic and Measurement Methods and
  Software

111
What new statistics measurement software?

• Score exchangeability
• Convergent validity
• Convergence of indicators
• Absolute unit dependability coefficients
• Principal axis factoring
• Principal component analysis
• Maximum-likelihood estimation procedures
• Mean absolute value of the difference between
  composites
• Agreement confidence interval
• Generalizability Theory
• Varience components subprograms from SPSS 12.0,
  using the general linear model and variance
  components (test battery, random error,
  examinee/task interactions)

112
About Broad Cognitive Abilities

• Structural Fifty years of factor analytic
  research, half a million data sets
• Outcome Criterion Differential relations between
  different CHC abilities and external outcomes
  (e.g., reading, math, occupations, etc.)
• Neurocognitive Demonstrated links between CHC
  measures and physiological and neurological
  functioning
• Heritability Differential heritability rates for
  different CHC abilities
• Developmental CHC abilities show different
  patterns of growth and decline across the life
  span

113
(No Transcript)
114
Whats important for reading?

•  Measures of Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc)
  demonstrated strong relations with reading across
  childhood and adolescence.
• Measures of Short-term Memory (Gsm), Auditory
  Processing (Ga), Processing Speed (Gs), and
  Long-term Retrieval (Glr) demonstrated moderate
  relations with reading achievement during the
  elementary school years.
• Measures of more specialized abilities (phonemic
  awareness and working memory) demonstrated strong
  to moderate relations with reading achievement.
• Fluid Reasoning (Gf) and Visual-Spatial Thinking
  (Gv) contributed no significant variance to the
  prediction of reading achievement.

115
Auditory Processing/Phonemic Awareness

• Auditory Processing (Ga) 
• Sound as Input
• Doesnt require language
• Perception
• Analysis, Manipulation, Synthesis
• Control of Competing Sound Sources
• Phonetic Coding (PC)  Ability to code, process,
  and be sensitive to nuances in phonemic
  information (speech sounds) in short-term
  memory.   Includes the ability to identify,
  isolate, blend, or transform sounds of speech. 
  Frequently referred to as phonological or
  phonemic awareness.

116
Crystallized Intelligence

• Crystallized Intelligence/Knowledge (Gc) 
• Breadth and depth of acquired knowledge of the
  language, information, and concepts of specific a
  culture, and/or the application of this
  knowledge. 

117
Short-term/Working Memory

• Short-term Memory (Gsm)
• Apprehend and maintain information in immediate
  awareness
• Memory Span (MS)  Ability to attend to,
  register, and immediately recall (after only one
  presentation) temporally ordered elements and
  then reproduce the series of elements in correct
  order.
• Working Memory (MW) 
• Phonological Loop
• Visual-Spatial Sketch Pad

118
Long-term Storage Retrieval

• Long-term Storage and Retrieval (Glr) 
• Store new information in long-term memory
• Retrieve information (facts rules/processes)
  from long-term memory quickly and accurately
• Associative Memory (MA)  Ability to recall one
  part of a previously learned but unrelated pair
  of items (that may or may not be meaningfully
  linked) when the other part is presented (e.g.,
  paired-associative learning). 
• Naming Facility (NA)  Ability to rapidly produce
  accepted names for concepts or things when
  presented with the thing itself or a picture of
  it (or cued in some other appropriate way). The
  naming responses must be in an individuals
  long-term memory store (i.e., objects or things
  to be named have names that are very familiar to
  the individual). In contemporary reading research
  is ability is called rapid automatic naming
  (RAN).

119
Processing Speed

• Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs)  
• The ability to automatically and fluently perform
  relatively easy or over-learned cognitive tasks,
  especially when high mental efficiency (i.e.,
  attention and focused concentration) is required.
  

120
Fluid Intelligence

• Fluid Intelligence/Reasoning (Gf) 
• Solving novel problems
• Drawing Inferences Making Deductions
• Concept Formation
• Classification
• Generating and Testing Hypotheses
• Comprehending Implications 

121
Visual-Spatial Abilities

• Visual-Spatial Abilities (Gv)
• Generate, retain, retrieve, and transform
  well-structured visual images
• Maintaining spatial orientation with regard to
  objects that may change or move through space

122
Regression Coefficients

• .3 strong relation
• .1-.3 moderate relation

123
Phonemic Awareness 3
124
Comprehension-Knowledge
125
Oral Language
126
Working Memory
127
Long-term Retrieval
128
Processing Speed
129
Fluid Reasoning
130
Visual-Spatial Thinking
131
An Observation

• The figures showed what abilities were important
  for early reading for all children. Data was not
  aggregated for kids who learned to read well and
  those who didnt. Therefore, the figures beyond
  age eight do not reflect the importance of
  cognitive abilities in learning to read for older
  students who are struggling.

132
Another Observation

• Just because we do not have appropriate tests
  for measuring visual processing (ones that have
  strong predictive validity and instructional
  relevance) does not mean that the visual
  component of reading is not important.
• Its just not on the WISC-IV or any other test

133
(No Transcript)
134
Belly up to the bar

• Gc Pineapple Juice
• OL Mango Juice
• PA Ice
• Gs Club Soda
• WM Spices
• MA Rum (Booze)
• NA Champagne (Booze w/ shared variance on Gs)
• Gf Coffee
• Gv Milk

135
Hey bartender, blend me up

• The Cognitive Abilities of Early Reading (you can
  cheat by looking at the slide about Predicted
  Achievement on the WJ III)
• The same, but with LD in WM and MA
• A global deficit cocktail?
• The DAS Special Nonverbal Index
• The Cognitive Abilities of Math Reasoning at most
  ages
• The DIBELS Phonemic Segmentation Fluency

136
Acting Out Behavior

• GcBarbara Streissand
• PA Paris Hilton
• WM Robert Deniro
• MA Jennifer Aniston
• Gs Colin Ferrell
• RAN Angelina Jolie
• Gf Brad Pitt
• Gv Sean Penn
• Sensory Pam Anderson
• Motor Tommy Lee

137
The Reading Difference Profile Ages 6 to 8 A
Cross Battery Comparison

• Strengths and Weaknesses
• Of the Five Major Intelligence Test
• And the Three Major Academic Tests

138
How were the tests selected?

• By the highest loading on their respective broad
  cognitive ability at specific ages (technical
  manuals)
• By personal communication from the test authors
  and/or experts in cross battery assessment
• By a panel of woodland creatures
• All of the Above

139
Cross Battery Assessment

• Use the Gf-Gc (CHC) model.
• Use only relatively pure Gf-Gc indicators (e.g.,
  NOT Story Completion, Picture Arrangement).
• Select tests from the smallest number of
  batteries to minimize the effect of norming
  differences and ensure reliability. (Some
  neurologists and reading specialists use
  information from seven different tests/norming
  populations to make deductions about one student.)

140
Do we have them yet?

• Glr, Gsm PA3 no info
• Gv It looks bad but who cares? It doesnt relate
  to academics and were waiting for JLO
• Gc WPPSI-R and WISC-III (Derived)Vocabulary
  Information
• Gf KAIT (Derived) Logical Steps Mystery Codes,
  and WJ III (Gf Test Composite)
• Gs WJ III Gs (Test Composite) Visual Matching
  Decision Speed
• Floyd et al., (2005)

141
Measures versus Markers

• RAN AND FLUENCY TESTS MARKERS FOR GS
• KABC-II DOES NOT MEASURE GS
• IF RAN AND FLUENCY SCORES ARE AVERAGE OR BETTER,
  THEN ONE MAY ASSUME THAT GS IS INTACT
• SIGNIFICANT SCATTER EVALUATE GS DIRECTLY
• MODERATE TO HIGH CORRELATIONS AMONG RAN AND GS
  MEASURES
• DAWN FLANAGAN, PERSONAL COMMUNICATION, MARCH 2,
  2005

142
And when you come to the end of the comprehensive
evaluation, what are your conclusions?

• Gs (Speed) or RAN Deficit?
• MA (Associative Memory) or WM (Working Memory)
  Deficit?
• Phonological Deficit?
• Oral Language and/or Crystallized IQ Deficit?

143
What does reading sound like?

• Piano Fluid Intelligence, Visual-Spatial
  Thinking
• Mezzo Forte Working Memory, Processing Speed,
  RAN-Storage and Retrieval from Long-Term Memory
• Fortissimo Phonemic Awareness, Crystallized
  Intelligence

144
Add strings

• Mezzo Forte Reading Fluency, Vocabulary
• Fortissimo Reading Comprehension, Alphabetic
  Principle

145
Now were at the forms
146
Looking at Discrepancies

• NRCLD suggests a difference between the ability
  and the other cognitive abilities that occurs in
  less than ten percent of the population 68
  Confidence Interval, 1SD
• Melinda McKnight, personal communication,
  October 3, 2005
• I suggest not worrying about it except for
  classification purposes. For instructional
  purposes, the lowest aptitude gets the highest
  priority in instruction.

147
Flanagan OrtizOther Possible Methods

• Aptitude-Achievement Consistency AND most broad
  abilities within normal limits
• OR
• Ability/Achievement Discrepancy AND global
  ability within normal limits (SS85)
• AND
• History of (and current dysfunction in) skill

148
Doesnt that make sense?

• When we test students with poor reading
  achievement, we expect to find that at least one
  of the cognitive abilities that underlie reading
  is compromised. If there is no cognitive
  weakness, ITS PROBABLY NOT A NEUROLOGICAL
  DIFFERENCE!

149
Why standardized tests?

• Why not just use the DIBELS?
• Predictive validity versus shared variance
• More of the same?
• The Rum Cola experience

150
Example what to write on the new state forms

• The student has a learning disability in
  (academic area) this determination is based on
• Johns performance within a research-based
  general education reading curriculum,
• Johns response to intervention,
• Johns performance on state and district academic
  standards, and
• APTITUDE-ACHIEVEMENT CONSISTENCY John's
  associative memory, working memory and phonemic
  awareness (three important cognitive skills for
  early reading) are below his other cognitive
  abilities, which are within the average range.
  John's relatively lower memory and phonemic
  awareness skills impair his ability to remember
  sound/symbol associations, decode words, read
  words and sentences fluently, and remember their
  content."

151
Your Day in Court (without cut-points)

• Reasonable doubt?
• Preponderance of evidence of a students need
  based on multiple sources of information
• (a) RtI monitored classroom performance on
  researched-based curricula,
• (b) state and district standards, and
• (c) Intra-Individual Differences
  (nationally-normed tests based on CHC theory,
  using Rasch equal interval scoring).

152
How do CHC abilities help practitioners select
interventions?
153
ATI

• We do not dispute the null results for aptitude
  by treatment interactions. However, it is
  important to recognize that this is an older
  literature where cognitive models of the
  development of reading and math skills were
  seriously underdeveloped. Moreover, rejection of
  interactions of special education categories in
  policy does not negate the relevance of the
  underlying dimensions themselves, just the
  classification in federal regulation
• Fletcher et al. (2003)

154
Then talk to me about ATIs

• A common factor language (derived from
  multivariate factor analytic research on 500,000
  data sets) for instructional, environmental,
  temperamental, conative, behavioral phenomena
• Inter-correlation among these factors, CHC, and
  specific areas of academic functioning

155
Are you listening, AGS?

• What do we want?
• Personality, Temperament, Conative, and Emotional
  Factors developed from multivariate factor
  analytic research and presented in a taxonomy
  that everyone uses and for which we can test

• When do we want it?
• NOW!

156
Why we test cognition

• Studies of LD subtypes have identified the
  components of effective intervention programs and
  informed program development

157
Just the sounds

• Children who were weakest in phonological
  awareness only performed best on basal
  curriculums that taught the alphabetic principle
  explicitly Fletcher et al. (2003)
• Auditory Discrimination in Depth (Lindamood)
• Alphabet Phonics (Orton Gillingham)
• Phonographics
• Project Read
• Read Spell Pat
• Reading Mastery and Corrective Reading (SRA)
• Some research-based evidence

158
Just the sightseight weeks of intervention in
Georgetown

• Visual imagery (SI) is being tested
• Cocktail of Visual Phonemic Awareness (TAAS)
• Better Non-word reading and PA3 (p
• Reading accuracy improves rate still poor
• Real word reading and comprehension improvements,
  but they are not significant.
• Increases in left and right hemisphere
  functioning
• Eden (2005)

159
Just the pictures

• PAL Looking Games

160
Just the associations

• PAL Alphabet Retrieval Games
• Rewards (Archer)
• Phonics for Reading (Archer)
• Corrective Reading (SRA)

161
Just the meaning

• Children with poor reading comprehension and
  adequate decoding (who often demonstrate problems
  with oral language, crystallized intelligence and
  fluid reasoning) might profit from training in
  meta-cognition, accessing visual-spatial imagery
  skills, linking, and explicit teaching of Theme
  Identification
• Keene, E. Zimmerman, S., (1997). The mosaic
  of thought Teaching comprehension in a readers
  workshop. Heineman Portsmouth, NH.

162
More comprehension

• Collaborative Strategic Reading (Vaughn)
• Reading in the Content Area (Kinsella)

163
Justwhat was that?

• Multi-sensory techniques may improve reading in
  children with memory span deficits
  (self-monitoring, generalization, integration,
  feedback)
• Swanson, H. and Saez, L. (2003)

164
Just my speed

• For Processing Speed and RAN (affecting fluency)
• RAVE-O and PALFluency Bowers, P. and Ishaik, G.
  (2003).
• Six Minute Solution (Hiebert)
• Read Naturally (Imhott)

165
Just about everything.

• Students with phonemic, RAN, and memory span
  deficits had to learn sight words first and then
  internal phonological structure
• Fletcher et. al (2003)

166
Accommodations Untested

• Ask them what they need (and listen to them)
• Use their interests
• School-wide organizational systems
• Teachers reinforcement of students entries in
  their planners and providing feedback and reward
  for short and long-term performance.
• Consultation about accommodations in specific
  curriculum (highlighted texts, peer note takers,
  inspiration software, dragonspeak, hypertext-HTML
  to change text books on computer).
• See Technology Tools for Supporting Literacy
  (2005). Jeffery Connelly, Powerpoint presented at
  WSASP 2005 Conference, Stevenson, Washington
  October 14, 2005.

167
More accommodations untested

• Latin Roots
• Sign Language-ASL in preschool faster reading
• Acredelo, L., Goodwin, S. Abrams, D. (2002).
  Baby signs How to talk with your baby before
  your baby can talk. McGraw Hill Columbus, OH.
• Experiment pragmatism rules
• There is no one true method
• Give them the human connection

168
Science-based accommodation

• Berninger, Virginia, University of Washington
• Dyslexia is not brain damageWith appropriate
  instruction, dyslexic brains may become more
  efficient.
• Linking boys reading groups with science for
  higher interest

169
Accommodations NASP

• Provide the child a relationship with at least
  one caring (and wise) adult within the school.
  Pfohl (2005)
• Wiseknowledgeable and possessing the know-how
  and ability to put knowledge into practice
• Whats the real point? Jims opinion
• Learning compassion and being creative (in
  reductionist Freudian terms love and work)

170
When fluency training doesnt matter
171
When Slingerland goes awry
172
When even research-based phonemic awareness
instruction is ineffective
173
THE INTEGRATED REPORT
174
The first and last question

• How do we improve the educational outcome for
  this student?

175
Presidents 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). Presidents Message. NASP Communique,
  33, 2-3.

176
WE CAN ALL GET ALONG
177
Thanks!
178
Sources and Acknowledgements

• Portland Public Schools LD Integration Committee
• Oregon Branch of the International Dyslexia
  Association
• Vaughn, S. Fuchs, L. (2003). Redefining
  learning disabilities as inadequate response to
  instruction the promise and potential problems.
  Learning Disabilities Research Practice, 18
  (3), 137-146.
• Fletcher, J., Morris, R., Lyon, G.R. (2003).
  Classification and definition of learning
  disabilities an integrative perspective. In H.
  Swanson, K. Harris, S. Graham, (Eds.),
  Handbook of Learning Disabilities (pp 30-56). New
  York, NY The Guilford Press
• Geary, D. (2003). Learning disabilities in
  arithmetic problem solving differences and
  cognitive deficits. In H. Swanson, K. Harris,
  S. Graham, (Eds.), Handbook of Learning
  Disabilities (pp 199-212). New York, NY The
  Guilford Press.
• Eden, G. (2005, October 8). Understanding the
  reading brain Functional brain imaging studies
  of reading and reading disabilities. Powerpoint
  presented at the 2005 OHSU Fall Science
  Partnership.

179
More Sources and Acknowledgments

• Fletcher, J. (2004). Neuropsychology of reading
  learning disabilities.Powerpoint presentation.
• Surowiecki, J. (2004). The wisdom of crowds. New
  York, NY Doubleday.
• Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia A new
  and complete science- based program for reading
  problems at any level. New York, NY Alfred A.
  Knopf.
• Flanagan, D., and Ortiz, S. (2004). CHC
  cross-battery assessment and LD
  determination Theoretical and empirical
  advances in the evaluation and identification
  of learning disabilities. Powerpoint
  presentation.
• Floyd, R., Bergeron, B., et. al. (2005). Are
  Cattell-Horn-Carroll broad ability composite
  scores exchangeable across batteries? School
  Psychology Review, 34 (3), 329-357.
• McGrew, K. (2005). from http//www.iapsych.com/

180
More Sources

• www.w-w-c.org What works
• http//www.ldonline.org/njcld/operationalizing.htm
  l