amanda sanford, ph.d. portland state university kimberly ingram, ph.d

Sanford (2008)1

Comprehensive Evaluation of Specific Learning Disabilities:

Legal Requirements and Best Practices

Amanda Sanford, Ph.D. Portland State University

Kimberly Ingram, Ph.D. Oregon Department of Education

Agenda: Comprehensive Evaluation

Legal Requirements New Models Recommendations for implementation

Legal Requirements Specific Learning Disabilities Requirement of Comprehensive

Evaluation

Definition of Specific Definition of Specific Learning Disability:Learning Disability:

Defined at §300.8(c)(10) as…

A disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written…

…May manifest itself in the imperfect ability to:• listen

• think• speak• read• write• spell• do mathematical calculations…

Definition of Specific Definition of Specific Learning DisabilityLearning Disability

• perceptual disabilities

• brain injury

• minimal brain dysfunction

• dyslexia

• developmental aphasia

…including conditions such as:

• visual, hearing, or motor disabilities

• mental retardation

• emotional disturbance

• of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage

Does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of:

What are hallmark characteristics of individuals with learning disabilities ?(e.g. dyslexia)http://www.readingrockets.org/shows/watch#brain

How could we measure it (to determine if the child has a learning disability)?

How could this information be used to plan instruction (IEP planning process)?

Changes to SLD Eligibility Requirements34 CFR 300.307 - 311 & OAR 581-015-2170

Added progress monitoring component (all)

Added option of RTI (OAR - based on district model)

Changed “severe discrepancy” to “pattern of strengths and weaknesses”

Observation – before or during

SLD Evaluation Components – Required for both RTI & PSW

Academic assessment (academic achievement toward Oregon grade level standards)

Review of cumulative records, IEPs, teacher collected work samples

Observation in learning environment (by qualified professional) – before or during

Progress monitoring data instruction component assessment component

SLD Evaluation Components – Both (if needed)

Assessment of cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, social-emotional, memory (if student exhibits impairment in one or more of these areas)

Medical statement

Comprehensive EvaluationOAR 581-015-2110 (3)

(3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must: (a) Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies to

gather relevant functional, developmental, and academic information about the child, including information provided by the parent that may assist in determining: (A) Whether the child is a child with a disability under

OAR 581-015-2130 through OAR 581-015-2180; and (B) The content of the child’s IEP, including

information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general education curriculum (or for a preschool child, to participate in appropriate activities);

(3) Conduct of evaluation. In conducting the evaluation, the public agency must:(b) Not use any single measure or

assessment as the sole criterion for determining whether a child is a child with a disability and for determining an appropriate educational program for the child; and

Assessments and other evaluation materials

used to assess a child under this part: (A) Are selected and administered so

as not to be discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis;

(C) Are used for the purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable;

Checklist:Use a variety of assessment toolsNot use any measure as sole criterionAre reliable and valid for the purpose

New models The old discrepancy model New models

Sanford (2008)15

Options to determining eligibility of learning disability

And exhibits one of the following:

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses(PSW)

Response to Intervention(RTI)

Sanford (2008)16

Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses

OAR 581-015-2170 subsection 3 (c) For a student evaluated using a model that is based on the student's strengths and weaknesses, in relation to one or more of the areas in subsection (3)(a), the student exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in classroom performance, academic achievement, or both, relative to age, Oregon grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability.

Sanford (2008)17

District interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses

Interpretations: this language may have come from research like Sally Shaywitz’s:

“… 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).

IQ-Achievement discrepancy: some continue to use

Sanford (2008)18

Often = Always? Interpretations: PSW language may have come from research like Sally Shaywitz’s:“… 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).

Problem with logic: State Governors are often born in the United States Therefore, if you are born in the United States, you are a State Governor Or: Therefore, if you are not born in the united states, you are not a State

Governor

Therefore, if you have a “sea of” cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you have a learning disability

If you do not have a “sea of” cognitive strengths and one encapsulated weakness, you do not have a learning disability

IQ-Achievement discrepancy: some continue to use

Sanford (2008)19

Some districts continue to use simple IQ-Achievement Discrepancy

WJ Read

WISC-III FSIQ

100 85 70 55 115 130 145

Lowest 6% inreading skills

6% SimpleDiscrepancy

SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education services.

Potentiallyeligibleseldomreferred(unless otherConcerns)

Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998

Sanford (2008)20

Problems with IQ-achievement discrepancy?(Fletcher, et al. 2001)

We are not providing special education services to those children MOST in need of individualized instruction

The decisions are unreliable: A small difference in score on one measure could

change who we say is eligible We are spending a lot of time on this process

(and time is money!!!) This information does not help us make efficient

decisions to support learning This decision often requires that a student “waits to fail”

or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services

Sanford (2008)21

District interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses

Proposed new models: one urban school district’s example Achievement subtest below 90 The student’s IQ must be in the average range with a

standard score of 80 or above An academic weakness exists when there is a significant

difference using the regression chart between the student’s IQ and the standard score in a content area on a standardized achievement test

An academic strength exists when the standard score in a content area of a standardized achievement test is at or above the student’s IQ

Sanford (2008)22

Potentially Eligible

Eligible under category of Mental Retardation

Pattern of Strength and Weakness – is it better?

WJ Read

WISC-III FSIQ

100 85 70 55 115 130 145

Lowest 6% inreading skills

6% SimpleDiscrepancy

SOL -- Simply out of Luck. Not eligible for special education despite substantial need.

Score below 90(lowest 25%) demonstrates “academic need”

Not eligible due to IQ below 80

Adapted from Shinn, Good, & Parker 1998

Sanford (2008)23

Problems with this PSW model? We are not providing special education services to

those children MOST in need of individualized instruction (and we’re denying it to more children with this model)

The decisions are unreliable: A small difference in score on one measure could

change who we say is eligible We are spending a lot of time on this process

(and time is money!!!) This information does not help us make efficient

decisions to support learning This decision often requires that a student “waits to

fail” or waits until their discrepancy is large enough to receive services

Checklist:Use a variety of assessment tools

• yesNot use any measure as sole criterion

• 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test)

Are reliable and valid for the purpose used

• Subtracting subtests decreases reliability

Sanford (2008)25

Another district interpretation of Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses

Pattern demonstrated by At least three “points of evidence” indicating a strength or

weakness in one SLD area• Academic Achievement

• Grade level expectations (DIBELS, CBM, Reading Kit)• Age expectations (WIAT, WJ III, OWLS, KTEA)• Intellectual development (WISC IV, CAS, TOLD, etc.)

• Classroom Performance• Grade level expectations (OSAT/CBM)• Age expectations (Grades, anecdotal)• Intellectual development (observation)

At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations

http://www.ode.state.or.us/offices/slp/sld_eugene_psw_pp.ppt

Sanford (2008)26

PSW Cut-offs & Measures Guidance

12/11/07

with respect to Grade-level with respect to state Age-level with respect to Intellectual expectations expectations development

Criterion-referenced Norm-referenced Norm-referenced standardized standardized assessments standarized academic assessments cognitive processing assessments

CAS, K-ABC, WechslerEasyCBM (K-4), DIBELS (K-8), WIAT, WJ , KTEA, OWLS * Use Index/Process scores*

Academic Reading Kits (K-9) Achieve. Strength = >25th percentile (SS>90) or Norm-referenced language

Strength = > 30th percentile Weak. = <10th percentile (SS<81) processing assessmentsWeakness= < 20th percentile CASL, CELF, Oral/Listen. from WIAT

(* use age norms when scoring) * Use Expressive or Receptive scores*OSAT scores Grades

Strength= index score >25th percentileStrength = "meets" or "exceeds" Strength = A/B or "meets/exceeds" Weak. = index score <16th percentile

Classroom Weakness = "does not meet" Weak. = D/F or "does not meet" AND is significantly below student'sPerform. mean score

Curriculum based measurements Anecdotal information Classroom observations(e.g., from lang. arts and math adoptions)

Str./Weak.= professional judgment Str/Wk=observational dataStr. = average or above performance regarding "average," "atypical," etc. with respect to how cognitive processesWeak. = below average performance when compared to age- peers may be affecting student's

performance in class

Sanford (2008)27

Example of one part of the requirement:

Requirement: a student must demonstrate, “At least one strength and one weakness in cognitive processing with supporting observations” To document a strength and weakness in cognitive processing: Norm-referenced standardized assessment of cognitive or language

processing: Strength: index score above 25th percentile (SS>90) Weakness:

• index score below 16th percentile (SS<85) AND• index score is significantly below the mean of the student’s index scores

*Weakness = Normative Weakness (compared to population) AND Relative Weakness (within student)

One (of several) option to measure cognitive processing:• CAS

Sanford (2008)28

Defining a cognitive strength or weakness

A student must demonstrate at least one of each:

Strength: a score above the 25th

%ile Weakness:

At least one score must be below the 16th %ile AND

must be significantly below the students’ mean score

101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

Sanford (2008)29

Qualifies: has a strength and weakness

CAS scores Planning = 95 (37th%ile) Attention = 78 (7th %ile) Simultaneous = 96 (40th %ile) Successive =104 (61st%ile)

• Mean CAS score = 93.25 (31st %ile)

• Attention score is <16th percentile AND significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual)

• Evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention 0

5101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

Weakness

Sanford (2008)30

Does not qualify: has no documented strength, and low score (“weakness”) is not below mean

• Mean CAS score = 83.5 (14th %ile)

• Attention score is <16th percentile BUT is not significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual)

• No evidence of a cognitive processing weakness in the area of attention 0

5101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

No Strength

Weakness?

Sanford (2008)31

• Mean CAS score = 85 (16th %ile) • Attention score is <16th

percentile BUT is not significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual)

5101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

Has a strength (score above

25th %ile)

Weakness is below 16th %ile, but not significantly below the mean

Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score (“weakness”) is not below mean

Sanford (2008)32

• Mean CAS score = 95.25 (31st %ile)

• Attention score is NOT <16th percentile but IS significantly below the mean score (using tables in CAS manual)

5101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

No Weakness

Does not qualify: has a documented strength, but low score (“weakness”) is not below 16th %ile (even if it is below the mean)

Sanford (2008)33

Which student needs the most help?

101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

101520253035404550

Weakness

StudentScore

Strength

Does Not QualifyMay Qualify

Does Not QualifyDoes Not Qualify

Checklist: Use a variety of assessment tools

• yes Not use any measure as sole criterion

• 1 measure used to exclude students (IQ test) Are reliable and valid for the purpose used

• Subtracting subtests decreases reliability• There is not evidence to suggest that a specific of

general “strength” is required to diagnose an individual with learning disabilities.

Recommendations Avoiding pitfalls Recommended practices

Avoiding pitfalls Subtracting subtests:

Reduces reliability of testsThey were not designed for that

purpose Require a high performance on one

ability/measure/cluster of measures in order to provide students services due to a disability in another area

Recommendations: to ensure compliance

Make sure that your assessments1. Include progress monitoring as a part of

comprehensive evaluation (new requirement) – (see The National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org and Research

Institute on Progress Monitoring: www.progressmonitoring.net) 2. Ensure appropriate instruction is

provided – (new requirement) 3. determine whether or not a child has

need for special education services

Recommendations To determine eligibility:

1. Identify: what are the necessary hallmark characteristics of children with learning disabilities?

2. How can we reliably and validly measure those characteristics?

3. What additional assessments could we use to validate and increase the reliability of our decisions?

4. How do we use this information to plan instruction? • Using the pattern of a students strengths and weaknesses (or

areas of academic need) are necessary and relevant to planning a student’s IEP

Indicators of learning disabilities

Performing below expectations (compared to age, grade, or state standards)

Has “processing deficits” (e.g. dyslexia: students have deficits in phonological processing,

fluency, and RAN)• These could be documented using a variety of assessments

Look for converging patterns of performance (e.g. low performance on in-class reading assessments, formal curriculum-based measurement, and phonological processing on a cognitive assessment)

Looking at many assessments that indicate the same thing increases reliability

Subtracting measures or requiring one area to be high while another area is low reduces reliability (and there is not evidence to suggest that it meaningfully differentiates between individuals with or without learning disabilities)

Examples of comprehensive evaluations

Fletcher, J.M., Lyon, G.R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K.K., Francis, D.J., Olson, R.K., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (2001, August). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. Paper presented at the Office of Special Education Programs and U.S. Department of Education Learning Disabilities Summit, Washington, DC.

amanda sanford, ph.d. portland state university kimberly ingram, ph.d

Documents

ingram micro

sanford legal documents

april 2016 ingram trucking, llc contact information€¦ ·...

1 meeting ayp: how pbs supports academic growth for schools...

8215 sanford

angel ingram

ingram towline

catalogue ingram micro...

communicating across cultures by: lauren tarpley, phil...

clark ingram

-sanford power summer 2016- -...

attachment and psychotherapy: implications from empirical...

sanford report - sanford stem cell clinical center€¦ ·...

sanford harmony | teacher handbook changing...

sanford 6. bloom

electricity, magnetism, and motors william a. stapleton,...

electricity, magnetism, and their applications an...

sanford university

general motors phillip dalen, kent ingram, tyler mcginnis,...

the american association of immunologists€¦ · agustina...