1 / 23

Planning LD Evaluations Dr. Sharon Lynch Dr. Philip Swicegood Sam Houston State University

Planning LD Evaluations Dr. Sharon Lynch Dr. Philip Swicegood Sam Houston State University. Hou -Met Annual Conference November 9, 2012.

kerryn
Télécharger la présentation

Planning LD Evaluations Dr. Sharon Lynch Dr. Philip Swicegood Sam Houston State University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Planning LD EvaluationsDr. Sharon LynchDr. Philip SwicegoodSam Houston State University Hou-Met Annual Conference November 9, 2012

  2. “ The field of learning disabilities has had other problems that helped stymie its development. The most problematic of these was our complete failure to develop operational criteria that could be used to identify (diagnose) children with learning disabilities and to delineate these children form underachieving or slow learners.” [Chamberlain (Ed.), An interview with Don Hammill, 2010, p. 315] Has this been true?

  3. “Eliminating the ‘severe discrepancy’ requirement and authorizing the use of a process to determine how a student responds to research-based interventions many provide assessment information that is more helpful for educational planning, but will probably have little impact on the numbers of students who receive special education.” (p. 98) • Weintraub, F. (2005). The evolution of LD policy and future challenges. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(2), 97 – 99. Will RTI solve all our problems in LD eligibility?

  4. “We take it as axiomatic that no student should be declared as having a leaning disability until we have exhausted our instructional repertoire and been unable to find an instructional match.” (p. 212) • Applegate, A. J., Applegate, M. D., & Turner, J. D. (2010). Learning disabilities or teaching disabilities? Rethinking literacy failure. The Reading Teacher, 64(3), 211 – 213. How do we know what is likely to be an “instructional match”?

  5. “Learning Disabilities, like other disabilities, vary with the individual. Intra-individual differences may include strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both. In addition, each of these differences must be considered relative to age, grade, or intellectual abilities and within areas pertinent to learning (e.g, listening, reading, writing, reasoning, and mathematics). [page 10] Comprehensive assessment and evaluation of students with learning disabilities : A paper prepared by the National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. June 2010. Learning Disability Quarterly. (2011). , 34(1), 3 – 16.

  6. “ The ‘two factor theory of math fact learning we are proposing her suggests that difficulties learning math facts might result from either weaknesses in phonological processing or weakly developed number sense.” (p. 86) • Robinson, C. S., Menchetti, B. M., & Torgesen, J. K. (2002). Toward a two-factor theory of one type of mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 17(2), 81 -89. Examples of Complexity in Cognitive Abilities and Impact on Learning

  7. “Our findings provide support for including cognitive processes related to the suspected area of disability in the explanatory component of an SLD diagnostic process. Clinicians should assess processes strongly related to a specific area of academic achievement (Flanagan, etc. al., 206; Mather & Gregg, 2006; Pennington, 2009). The magnitude of effect sizes suggests that the key cognitive areas on which to focus include working memory, processing speed, executive functioning, and receptive and expressive language.” (p. 13) • Johnson, E. S., Humphrey, M., Mellard, D. F., Woods, K., & Swanson, H. L. (2010). Cognitive processing deficits and students with specific learning disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 3 – 18. Relating Cognitive Abilities to Academic and Literacy Domains

  8. Manifestations of Learning Disabilities

  9. (10) Specific learning disability —(i) General. Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. • (ii) Disorders not included. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of intellectual disability, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. [34 CFR §300.8(c)(10)] IDEA Definition has not changed…

  10. Underachievement: Learning difficulties in language, reading, writing, or math that require SPD • Review exclusionary factors • Document processing deficits based on CHC theory • Academic deficits related to processing deficits • Document areas of processing strengths based on CHC theory • Establish interference with functioning & review exclusionary factors VII. Criteria met for SLD Evaluation for LD(Kavale & Forness, 2000; Flanagan, 2007)

  11. What is the problem? • Legal requirement to evaluate in all areas of suspected disability • The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities • § 300.304 Evaluation procedures • Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(1)-(3), 1412(a)(6)(B)) Evaluation:Referral Information

  12. Observations • Interviews • Record Review • Progress Monitoring Data Informal Evaluation Data

  13. Best to use co-normed instruments for achievement and cognitive ability • For children with cultural and language issues KABC II-KTEA II family can be used • Other: Wechsler Family with supplemental testing using the DAS-II or other instrument • Woodcock-Johnson III Cognitive Ability

  14. Research Based • Cattell: 1941 • Horn: 1965 • Carroll: 1993 • Other theories of intelligence are not based on research • CHC Theory is based on factor analytic studies • CHC: McGrew 1997 CHC Theory

  15. CHC Theory: 10 Broad and 70+ Narrow Ability Areas

  16. Assess narrow ability areas required to determine general intellectual ability • Assess in broad and narrow ability areas related to the suspected disability Cognitive Assessment

  17. Basic Reading Skills • Reading Fluency • Reading Comprehension • Written Expression • Oral Expression • Listening Comprehension • Math? Reading Concern: What areas to assess?

  18. Sizeable percentage of those with learning disabilities in reading also have learning disabilities in math • Extant data: grades, work samples, and benchmark testing Math

  19. Assess in all areas of suspected disability • Decision to use a targeted assessment process or to use a general protocol approach Legal Requirement

  20. Assess in all academic areas where there is a suspected disability • Assess in basic cognitive areas required to determine that the suspected disability is not due to intellectual disability • Assess in cognitive areas, either Broad or Narrow Ability Areas or both, that are related to the area or areas of academic difficulty • Analyze data for a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) Using the CHC Processing Approach to Evaluation

  21. Planning Guide: select those tests that are related to the area of suspected disability for the child’s age group • Research indicates that different narrow ability areas are related to various academic areas at different age groups: ages 6-8, 9-13, 14-19 Test Selection

  22. Pattern of strengths and weaknesses indicative of dual language background rather than a disability • Students perform better on subtests that are not linguistically and culturally loaded • Poor performance in those areas requiring linguistic and cultural knowledge, particularly Gc • Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (Ortiz, 2007) Caveats: Dual Language Backgrounds

  23. Floyd, R.G., McGrew, K.S., & Evans, J.J. (2008). The relative contributions of the Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive abilities in explaining writing achievement during childhood and adolescence. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 132-144. McGrew, K.S. (2011). Applied psychometrics 101: CHC narrow ability assessment with the WJ III Battery. Institute for Applied Psychometrics, Retrieved March 17, 2012 from http://iapsych.com/iapap101/iapap10112.pdf . McGrew, K.S., & Wendling, B. (2010). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive achievement relations: What have we learned from the past 20 years of research. Psychology in the Schools, 47(7), 651-675. Ramaa, S., & Gowramma, I. P. (2002). A systematic procedure for identifying and classifying children with dyscalculia among primary school children in India. Dyslexia,8, 67-85. Robinson, C.S., Menchette, B.M., Torgeson, J. (2002). Toward a two-factor theory of one type of mathematics disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 81-89. Vukovic, R.K. (2012). Mathematics difficulty with and without reading difficulty: Findings and implications from a four-year longitudinal study. Exceptional Children, 78, 280-300. Wagner, R. K. & Compton, D. L. (2011). Dynamic assessment and its implications for RTI models. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 44(4), 311 – 312. References

More Related