Issues and Solutions Regarding Dual Discrepancy

1
Issues and Solutions Regarding Dual Discrepancy

• Rationale for the shift to the DD model
• There were a number of problems with using IQ as
  the predictor variable, summarized below
• For students with IQ scores between 84 and 71
  (below average), it was quite difficult to be
  identified as SLD using a 16 to 20 severe point
  discrepancy criteria
• Likewise, students with IQ scores between 116 and
  129 (above average) required much more than a
  16 to 20 point discrepancy in order to show a
  need for services (in other words, to have an
  academic achievement score of 84 or below)
• When using the Severe Discrepancy model, a
  student was often tested in academics during a
  single session (or two/several within a short
  period of time). The DD model requires at least
  two academic achievement data points for Factor
  2. Thus, performance over time is considered in
  the DD model, unlike with the SD approach.
• When using the District Average score on a grade
  level standards and benchmarks measure as the
  predictor variable, it can be argued that one is
  using a predictor that is directly more relevant
  to academic achievement than is IQ

2
DD and the Shifting Role of the SAT Team

• Previously the SAT team was the gatekeeper for
  special education referrals with an implicit goal
  of getting the child the needed services as
  quickly as possible.
• Currently the SAT team will be the de facto IEP
  team for 85 to 95 of students, including those
  Tier 2 children who formerly were referred for
  testing
• The role of the SAT team has shifted from
  referral management to case management.
  Likewise, the role has shifted from making
  referrals as quickly as possible to helping
  children stay in the least restrictive
  environment

3
DD and the Changing Role of the Diagnostician

• By calculating the DD data during the SAT
  process, the SAT members can know what the likely
  outcome of the Tier 3 evaluation result will be
  prior to making a referral for testing.
• But is it unimportant to know the childs IQ
  test, even if that factor is not the best
  predictor variable? NO!!!
• A referral may be still be made, even in the case
  where a child doesnt meet Factor 1 in the DD
  analysis in order to determine why Tier 2
  interventions have not proven effective

• Shifting Diagnostician Role
• The role of the Diagnostician is shifting from
  determination of eligibility to expert in
  cognitive processing in the learning process
• The most important part of the diagnostic report
  will now become a) the cognitive processing
  analysis and b) suggested interventions to deal
  with processing deficits and individualized
  learning style
• Diagnosticians will need to learn more about the
  theory and practice of reading/math/writing
  instruction
• Diagnosticians will likely need to shift somewhat
  to a preventative model via increased
  consultation with SAT team

4
Cognitive Information Processing and the Learning
Process

• Auditory Sound Perception
• Sound/Word Discrimination
• Oral Expression/Vocabulary
• Receptive Language
• Sound-Symbol Association Knowledge
• Phonological/Phonemic Awareness
• Short Term Auditory Memory
• Long Term Auditory Memory
• Auditory Complex Reasoning
• Integration of Verbal-Visual Processing
• Auditory Fluency

• Attention Span/Concentration
• Organization
• Anticipation/Planning
• Self-Monitoring
• Self-Direction
• Impulse Control
• Cognitive Fluency

• Visual Perception
• Visual-Motor Integration
• Visual Discrimination
• Visual Orientation and Sequencing
• Visual Tracking
• Visual Short Term Memory
• Visual Categorizing of Concepts
• Visual-Spatial Abstract Reasoning
• Integration of Visual-Verbal Processing
• Visual-Spatial Fluency

5
Challenges With Using the Dual Discrepancy Model

• Challenge One Late Fall or Early Spring
  Referrals
• At present the PED short cycle data bank has
  included fall and spring scores, but not winter.
  This has several significant implications for the
  SAT team (and diagnosticians).
• Since the only DD comparison that can be made is
  between August and April short cycle scores, it
  is thus most expedient to work referrals that
  come to conclusion shortly before the final short
  cycle testing in April. This will have the
  impact of pressing the diagnosticians for
  completion before the end of the school year.
• Referrals made during fall or early spring
  semester will thus not be able to include the
  Factor 2 part of Dual Discrepancy using state
  norms (and since the diagnosticians have the 60
  day timeline, testing must proceed as soon as the
  referral comes to conclusion).

6
Challenges With Using the Dual Discrepancy Model

• Challenge Two What To Do When Factor 2 DD
  Analysis Is Not Available
• At present, the PED state-wide norms do not
  appear to include slope or difference data.
  Thus, the Factor 2 analysis is a challenge to
  accomplish.
• It is recommended that local district-wide data
  be used for a Factor 2 comparison between fall
  and winter be conducted in lieu of state
  normative data. That is, local data is
  preferable to no data at all when addressing the
  2nd factor in the DD equation.
• In order to do this, someone in the district will
  be responsible for a fairly significant grade
  level data input analysis.
• Data will be need to be entered in a spreadsheet
  for every student in the district for the grade
  under consideration. The data to be entered is
  the fall and winter short cycle scores for the
  area(s) of referral. (NOTE It could also be
  appropriate to compare winter and spring scores.)
• Additionally, the difference between the winter
  and fall score will need to be calculated for
  each student in the grade within the district.
• The mean and standard deviation of the difference
  scores for the grade level must be calculated at
  the district level then the local norms DD
  assessment for Factor 2 can occur for the
  individual student.

7
Challenges With Using the Dual Discrepancy Model

• Challenge Three Deciding What Additional
  Information (To Establish A Pattern Of Strengths
  and Weaknesses) Is Necessary When Factor 2
• Is Not Significant or Not Available
• A Severe Discrepancy analysis should be conducted
  in the areas of concern. However, even if that
  analysis is positive for an SD in the area(s) of
  concern, additional information is needed. That
  is, a single SD on a single academic achievement
  test is not sufficient to replace the lack of
  Factor 2 in the Dual Discrepancy analysis.
• If possible and when appropriate, use a second
  academic achievement test in the Dual Discrepancy
  analysis.
• Include NMSBA results from previous school year
  in the area(s) of identified concern.
• Include Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) in the
  area(s) of identified concern

8
Challenges With Using the Dual Discrepancy Model

• Challenge Four Deciding What Information
• Can Be Analyzed When No Short Cycle Results Are
  Available
• PED guidelines require each district to have a
  measurement of key academic skills in each grade
  level (from K through 12). However, a review of
  the PED aggregate test results from 2009-2010
  shows fewer measures available in kindergarten
  and 1st grades than 2nd or 3rd.
• The SLD categories of Oral Expression and
  Listening Comprehension are not often reflected
  in the short cycle testing options at many school
  districts.
• In distinguishing reading from written expression
  while using a DD analysis, use diagnostic
  academic achievement test evaluation testing
  results in order to make an argument for a
  distinction between reading and language arts if
  the short cycle results combine these factors.