karen apgar, ma/cags...

Karen Apgar, MA/CAGS NCSP Justin Potts, MS NCSP

Eugene (Oregon) School District 4J

pswpro.wordpress.com

California Association of School Psychologists October 2014

[email protected]

1 •What are some of the challenges your

district is facing around SLD identification?

2 •Does the SLD evaluation model identify

only the students with SLD?

3 •Does your process seek to explain why a

student may not be learning?

4 •How do you define a comprehensive

evaluation?

CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS…

As IDEA 2004 no longer requires an ability–achievement discrepancy as a criterion for SLD eligibility, attention has shifted to alternative means, in particular, RTI and assessment of cognitive processes. The former, to be fully effective, is embedded within a well-designed and institutionalized multitiered service delivery system. The latter is dependent upon advanced clinical skills and knowledge of cognitive science by the individual evaluator.

Lichtenstein, R. (2008) Best Practices in Identification of Children with Learning Disabilities. Best Practices in School Psychology V: NASP Apgar &

Potts, Eugene School District, 2010

WHAT ABOUT RTI?

“Although RTI addresses some significant shortcomings in current approaches to SLD identification and other concerns about early identification of students at risk for reading problems, RTI should be considered as merely one important component within the larger context of the SLD determination process.”

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

Emerging legal

opinions in favor of

integrated model of

evaluation

Difficulty in establishing

and maintaining fidelity when

using RtI only for SLD identification

True to intent of adequate

differentiation of a unique

population of students with

SLD

Minimize any delays in providing support to

students who need it

Ensure a comprehensive look at student

needs has been

conducted to support

instructional planning

FOUNDATIONS OF THE INTEGRATED MODEL

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF A SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY?

Characterized by measurable skill deficits •One or more of 8 specific domains (Basic Reading Skills, Math

Calculations, Written Expression, etc.) •Generally confined to a broad domain (e.g. reading) rather than

global delays across domains

Endogenous in origin •Traits inherent to the individual, manifested in relationship to

the demands of the environment •Neurologically-based deficits impacting specific cognitive skills,

resulting in poor learning skill acquisition

Results in an uneven “pattern” of learning •Not directly explained by failures in instruction or exposure to

adequate learning opportunities •Occur unexpectedly, given a range of student strengths

DEFINITION OF SLD

34CFR300.7(10) Specific learning disability is defined as follows: The term 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 an 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.

CCR TITLE 5 §3030(B)(10) – SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY

(C) Whether or not a pupil exhibits a severe discrepancy… a pupil may be determined to have a specific learning disability if: 1. The pupil does not achieve adequately for the pupil's age or to meet

State-approved grade-level standards…and

2. (ii) The pupil exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments

4. (ii) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of

achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the pupil's parents.

WHAT’S IN A PATTERN?

Performance

Achievement

Age

Grade-level standards

Intellectual development

A pattern of strengths and weaknesses in:

Relevant to the identification of SLD

ACHIEVEMENT related to GRADE-LEVEL

Strength: >30th %ile Weakness: <20th %ile

Response to Instruction data

(from Multi-Tiered System of Supports)

EasyCBM, AimsWeb DIBELS

NEW REQUIREMENT

Benchmarks and progress monitoring Intervention

Key indicators of lack of progress Slope < aimline (aimline at 30%ile by end of year)

Performance below 30%ile

“Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal

assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the pupil's parents.” (CCR Title 5 §3030(b)(10)(c)(4)(ii))

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Here’s where the process starts. Regardless of model used, ALL eligibilities for SLD now require “Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents” Oregon regs put it slightly differently, but with the same intent. So, our model requires, at a minimum, the following: Benchmarks, progress monitoring with “empirically-derived criterion-referenced assessments”, intervention and analysis of the level and slope. So, what does that look like?

MULTI-TIERED INTERVENTION

Core + Instructional + Targeted Additional 60 min/week minimum

Instructional intervention based on diagnostics Use of targeted instructional materials

Core + Instructional Level Same 90 min/day

Use of supplemental materials to core (instructional level) Progress monitoring

Core Reading 90 min/day

Benchmark Screening min 3x/year

Decision rule: <20th Percentile on

screening assessments

Decision rule: 6 weeks/3 data points

Trendline/Aimline analysis

Decision rule: 12 weeks/6 data points

Trendline/Aimline analysis Change targeted &/or Referral for Evaluation

ACHIEVEMENT related to AGE-LEVEL


Norm-referenced, Standardized Assessment data

Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-III, Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement-

II, Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-III

PERFORMANCE related to GRADE-LEVEL

Curricular Assessments

State or Common Core assessments, chapter assessments,

writing prompts, reading inventories

Strength: meets or average Weakness: does not meet or

below average

PERFORMANCE related to AGE-LEVEL

Anecdotal Information

experienced team members’ anecdotes/

observations of student performance compared to age-similar peers

Strength: professional judgment Weakness: professional judgment

Intellectual abil ity as DEEMED RELEVANT TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF SLD

Consideration of Basic Psychological Processes

norm-referenced assessments, rating scales,

observations, etc.

See PSW Methodology worksheets for details

Presenter

Presentation Notes

WHAT ARE BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES? WHERE DO THEY COME FROM? HOW DO WE FIND THEM?

THEORETICAL MODELS FOR PROCESSES

FSIQ

WMI

PRI

PSI

VCI

Output

PLAN

SUCC SIM

ATTN

Wechsler

Luria

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Theoretically agnostic

SCHOOL NEUROPSYCHOLOGY

Facilitators/Inhibitors: Attention, Working Memory, Speed/Efficiency of Processing

SensoriMotor abilities: Fine and Gross motor, Visual-motor, Sensory, Visual Scanning

Cognitive Processes: •Visuospatial •Auditory •Learning and Memory •Executive

Acquired Knowledge: •Acculturation •Language •Reading •Written Language •Math

Social-emotional, Cultural & Environmental Factors

Used

with

per

mis

sion

from

Dan

iel C

. Mill

er, P

hD

CATTELL-HORN-CARROLL (CHC)

Image Source: Wikipedia

Presenter

Presentation Notes

These 9 fell out of the literature

MEMORY

Immediate Memory

Working Memory

Long Term Memory

Verbal Immediate

Letters, words,

sentences stories

Visual Immediate

Spatial location Designs Faces Pictures

Verbal Working Memory

Nonverbal Working Memory

Semantic

Verbal Long-term

Visual Long-term

Adapted from: Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment (Miller, 2007)

MEMORY

Appendix A: Memory The Memory Process is a complex and multifaceted domain related to many areas of learning. Specific kinds of memory are utilized depending on task demands. The memory process involves the ability to store and retrieve information in a useful manner. Measures of this process include short term memory, working memory, associative memory and long term retrieval.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Memory is something we can tell a teacher or parent and they will understand what we mean. What it means underneath, may be very complicated and important to understand, but not always necessary to explain. What is most important for the evaluator to understand is how each of our tools measure parts or combinations of these types of memory

MEMORY

http://develintel.blogspot.com/2006/03/visualizing-working-memory.html

Example: Phonological Loop (aka Verbal Working Memory)

Images: commons.wikimedia.org (creative commons license)



MEMORY

• Sequential 1. Number Recall 2. Word Order

Images: commons.wikimedia.org (creative commons license)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

On the KABC-II, the memory measure is called the “Sequential” processes, and involves a digit recall task as well as an auditory-visual memory task in “word order” Chair-hat-dog-shoe-cow-man It also has a long-term memory index which is the “Learning” index or Glr. It measures long-term semantic memory as well as verbal long-term memory. So, you get the idea. Different tools measure memory as related to learning in different ways. The WISC-IV measures digits forwards (sequential verbal short-term memory), and verbal working memory (with a phonological component because letter-number sequences includes letter number rhymes). But the WISC can also measure nonverbal working memory and visual sequencing if you use the WISC Integrated.

MEMORY

WJ-III Working Memory WJ-III Short-Term Memory WISC/WAIS-IV Working Memory CAS Successive KABC-II Sequential KABC-II Learning DAS-II Memory DAS-II Retrieval CELF-4 Working Memory CTOPP Phonological Memory

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Memory is something we can tell a teacher or parent and they will understand what we mean. What it means underneath, may be very complicated and important to understand, but not always necessary to explain. What is most important for the evaluator to understand is how each of our tools measure parts or combinations of these types of memory

SPEED OF PROCESSING

Appendix A: Processing Processing can be globally defined as the ability to make efficient and rapid decisions or quickly perceive distinctions in stimuli. Processing involves input and output mechanisms, and frequently demonstrated under timed conditions. Measures of processing include processing speed, automaticity, and rapid decision-making. Processing may also include aspects of Rapid Automatic Naming facility, though this is an overlapping domain with memory.

SPEED OF PROCESSING

WJ-III Processing Speed WJ-III Cognitive Fluency WISC/WAIS-IV Proc. Speed CAS Planning DAS-II Processing Speed CTOPP Rapid Naming KTEA-II Oral Fluency (s)

Ventral stream (purple above) and myelination

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Ventral stream (or the “what” of visual processing) goes to the language center. Relates to the RAN tasks associated with slower reading fluency.

MENTAL CONTROL

Appendix A: Mental Control The Mental Control Process may be thought of as an individual’s ability to manage and prioritize perceptions to facilitate decision-making and problem solving. Mental control allows the individual to recognize the nature of a problem, plan a course of action, and sequence multiple actions to solve a problem. Mental Control abilities may be identified through measures of executive functioning, planning, organization, and self-regulation.

MENTAL CONTROL

WJ-III Executive Processes CAS Planning KABC-II Planning WISC-IV (Elithorn Mazes) D-KEFS

Set shifting, organization, planning, self-monitoring Self-regulation

AUDITORY

Appendix A: Auditory The Auditory Process is not intended to be a measure of acuity of the sensory mechanism. Rather, it is intended to be the underlying cognitive mechanism involved in using auditory information for the purpose of learning. Measures of the auditory process may include phonemic awareness (including rhyming, segmentation, sound-symbol association, etc.), auditory perception, sound discrimination, and auditory mental manipulation.

AUDITORY

WJ-III Auditory Processing WJ-III Phonemic Awareness DAS-II Auditory Processing (s) CELF-4 Phon. Awareness (s) CTOPP Phon. Awareness

Presenter

Presentation Notes

For these tasks, primarily the auditory cortex, angular gyrus, and Wernicke’s area.

VISUAL

Appendix A: Visual The Visual Process is defined by cognitive mechanisms that are involved in the retention, processing, and organization of visual information so as to demonstrate accurate perception. For PSW, these should not be confused as a measure of the sensory mechanism of sight, but rather as indicators of the more complex underlying cognitive activities. Measures of the visual process may include factors such as spatial awareness, visual perceptual skills, perceptual organization, visual mental manipulation, and perceptual discrimination.

VISUAL

WJ-III Visual-Spatial Thinking WISC/WAIS-IV Perceptual Reasoning KABC-II Simultaneous DAS-II Spatial UNIT Non-Symbolic

SENSORI-MOTOR

Appendix A: Sensori-Motor The Sensori-Motor Process involves integration of perceptual and cognitive skills to organize physical output. The Sensory-Motor Process can include all types of motor output including speech, gross motor, and fine motor skills. For the use as a basic psychological process involved in learning, Sensori-Motor primarily involves fine motor output. The Sensori-Motor Process may include measures of visual-motor integration, motor speed, and overall fine/gross motor skills.

SENSORI-MOTOR

Postcentral Gyrus (sensory cortex)

BOT-2 Fine Manual Control Beery VMI NEPSY

LANGUAGE USE

Appendix A: Language Use The Language Use Process involves the individual’s skill at using verbal information to define concepts and solve problems. Language Use includes both the understanding and production of meaningful speech and communication. Language Use may include measures of receptive language, expressive language, listening comprehension, vocabulary development, and general knowledge.

LANGUAGE USE

WJ-III Verbal Comp WISC/WAIS-IV Verbal Comp KABC-II Knowledge DAS-II Verbal Ability CELF-4 Expressive Language

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Language production tasks draw also on long term memory but problems with expressive language measured in these tasks can fall towards Broca’s area.

JUDGMENT & REASONING

Appendix A: Problem-Solving/Judgment Like memory, the Problem-Solving Process is a complex activity that involves multiple processes. The Problem-Solving Process is defined by an individual’s skill at analysis and synthesis of multiple elements to resolve problems. The capability to engage in interpersonal interaction and social learning is involved. Measures of Problem-Solving and Judgment include social awareness, reasoning skills, decision-making, fluid reasoning and emotional control.

JUDGMENT & REASONING

WJ-III Fluid Reasoning WISC/WAIS-IV Perceptual Reasoning/Organization CAS Simultaneous KABC-II Simultaneous DAS-II Nonverbal Reasoning

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/

Presenter

Presentation Notes

This could be thought of as the intersection of executive functioning skills and perceptual organization skills. It is a significant area in that this is all about seeing patterns and predicting what comes next.

http://eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com/

ATTENTION

Appendix A: Attention The Attention Process involves the individual’s ability to attend to, or to selectively attenuate, perceptual stimuli in a systematic and effective manner. This process includes measures of selective attention, sustained attention, response inhibition, attention shifting, and focus.

ATTENTION

Dorsolateral prefrontal

Focusing, sustaining and shifting attention

Response inhibition, selective attention

Anterior Cingulate Gyrus

ATTENTION

WJ-III Broad Attention CAS Attention CMS Attention/Concentration

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Stroop task

PROCESSES MOST RELATED TO BASIC READING

Basic Psychological Process •Auditory •Processing

Cognitive Construct •Phonological

Awareness •Speeded Visual

Discrimination

Specific Criterion Measure •CTOPP

Phonological Awareness

•WISV-IV Processing Speed

Presenter

Presentation Notes

So this is the heirarchy of definitions: The basic processes are global and broad domains (processes). The specific cognitive construct is defined by the literature. The criterion is the specific test used to measure the construct. Warning: remember that a specific criterion measure may measure only a “portion” of the construct, which only represents a “portion” of the process.

However, his word-reading accuracy is consistently above 93%

A SAMPLE CASE:

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Let’s go through a case and see how it works

Reading Comprehension: below 10th percentile

Math skills: 30th-50th percentile

INTERVENTIONS?

GUIDING STATEMENT (READING FLUENCY)

Guiding Statement: Although the measurement of reading fluency is

relatively straightforward, it involves a number of processes that are highly correlated. Poor reading fluency may also be primarily caused by word-level reading and phonological deficits, although evidence for a fluency-only subtype of learning disability does exist. Basic psychological processes primarily involved in reading fluency include Processing Speed, including rapid naming, Mental Control, Attention, and Memory (specifically retrieval fluency).

GATHER STRENGTHS/EXCLUSIONS

Academic Strengths:

Very good at art; likes to draw Understands very well when things are read to him Better at math Enjoys writing!

Cognitive/Psychological Strengths Loves to learn, eager to come to school Good vocabulary Good class participation, even with reading aloud

Exclusionary Considerations: Some concerns about fidgety, restless behavior – mostly during reading

GENERATE A HYPOTHESIS re: Reading Fluency

Processes are

generally ordered in terms of

likelihood.

Unrelated

One or more is likely to be

weak

One or more is likely to be strong

Apgar & Potts, Eugene School D

istrict, 2010

Choosing Assessment Tools and Procedures

COGNITIVE OR ACADEMIC?

• Phonological Memory 1. Memory for Digits 2. Nonword Repetition

• Phonological Awareness • Rapid Automatic Naming

Presenter

Presentation Notes

As a reminder, just because a test is in an academic or a cognitive battery, doesn’t mean each doesn’t include a measure of the other. The KTEA-II and WJ-III both have phonological awareness measures, as well as measures of processing speed (rapid naming tasks). The CTOPP also includes a fairly thorough look at this process.

PROCESSES RELATED TO READING FLUENCY

WORKING HYPOTHESIS

Deficit in reading

fluency skills

Exclusionary factors?

YES

NO Identify suspected

related and unrelated processes/skills

The working hypothesis is that the student has a pattern that shows a consistent weakness in a process related to the achievement delay, and a relative strength in a process unrelated to the achievement delay.

Choose a core (and/or supplemental) battery

for processes/ achievements

Evaluate both strengths and weaknesses

Analyze the data and evaluation results

PREDICTIONS FOR SAMPLE CASE?

• Weak auditory short-term memory • Weak speed of processing or rapid naming ability • Poor attention? • Good visual processing or visual memory • Good language development • Good problem-solving or abstract reasoning skills

Developmental History

Classroom Observation

Individual Standardized Academic Assessment: KTEA-2

Basic Psychological Processes: Cognitive Assessment System (CAS)

Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing, 2 (CTOPP-2)

BASIC PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES

Processes are

generally ordered in terms of

likelihood.

Unrelated

Weaknesses Strengths

COMPARISONS

Achievement

Achievement

Cognitive Process

Cognitive Process

Ach Cog

CONVERGENT VALIDITY

SLD

Basic Psychological

Processes

Formative and Summative

Assessments

Responsiveness to instructional

changes

What’s a Strength or Weakness? Guidance and Decision Rules

• Don’t think of them as “cut-off scores”– however, differences should: – Not occur by chance (statistically unusual) – Be unusual in the population (normative weakness)

• Decision rules are based on: – 3 points of evidence for performance/achievement strength – 3 points of evidence for performance/achievement weaknesses – Weakness in related psychological process(es) – Strength in unrelated psychological process(es)

• Should confirm or refute the working hypothesis

EXAMPLE CASE: 2ND GRADE GIRL

Since early 1st grade, has been progress monitored on more than

one intervention

Low fluency + Low accuracy

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Is progress being made? How do you know? 72 weeks/18 cwpm gain = ROI of +.25 words/minute/week of instruction increase Average ROI for end of 2nd grade is +.99 In progress monitoring, let’s say it’s been 12 weeks (6 data points). Student has increased from 11 to 18. That is a gain of 7 over 12 weeks or an ROI of +.58 words/minute/week. There are lots of ways to do the math, but this is the simplest method. You could alternately take the averages of the first three, and averages of the last three for your beginning and end, or even have the computer calculate a moving average. Regardless, it doesn’t put you on the slope to meet the 20th percentile What other things would you like to know? Accuracy levels at grade level passages versus lower level? How about phoneme segmentation, word reading fluency, or initial sound fluency measures? What are the interventions?

GATHER STRENGTHS/EXCLUSIONS

Academic Strengths:

Better at math Can tell a great story, but not yet writing well

Cognitive/Psychological Strengths Loves to build things, solve puzzles Likes to talk and always engages the teacher in conversation (related or not)

Exclusionary Considerations: One parent’s L1 is not English, but English spoken primarily at home Medical issue (heart problem) and missed about 9% of days in 1st grade

BASIC PROCESS GRID

GENERATE A HYPOTHESIS

EVAL RESULTS – KTEA-II

EVAL RESULTS – KABC-II

Scale

Standard

Score

Percentile

Rank

95% Confidence

Interval

Qualitative Description

Sequential (Gsm) 71 3 63-83 Below Average Simultaneous (Gv)* 111 77 100-120 Average Learning (Glr) 89 23 81-97 Average Planning (Gf) 111 77 99-121 Average Knowledge (Gc) 92 30 84-100 Average Fluid-Crystallized Index (FCI) 92 30 86-98 Average Mental Processing Index (MPI) 93 32 87-99 Average Nonverbal Index (NVI) 111 77 104-118 Average

Scale

Standard

Score

Percentile

Rank

95% Confidence

Interval

Qualitative Description

Normative & Personal Weakness

Normative & Personal

Strength

Infrequent (occurs rarely)

Sequential (Gsm) 71 3 63-83 Below Average

<5%

Simultaneous (Gv)* 111 77 100-120 Average Learning (Glr) 89 23 81-97 Average Planning (Gf) 111 77 99-121 Average <10% Knowledge (Gc) 92 30 84-100 Average

Scale Index Scores Summary *Note: the Simultaneous Index had significant subtest variation within the index and may not be a unitary measure of this construct.

EVAL RESULTS – CTOPP

76 82

106

80

100

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

PhonologicalAwareness

PhonologicalMemory

Rapid Naming AlternatePhonologicalAwareness

AlternateRapid Naming

CTOPP Results

Standard Scores

Conclusions? Low phonological awareness (blending, Elision) and phonological memory (digits, nonword repetition)

Presenter

Presentation Notes

The CTOPP results then confirm what we saw in the brief single-subtest of the KTEA (previous slide), in that the student demonstrated lower phonological awareness and memory for phonological information. We can be more confident when there are multiple measures in a given domain (or construct) that show similar results.

ACADEMIC ANALYSIS

Evaluation Type Results

KTEA – Decoding <10th %ile

KTEA – Reading Composite < 10th %ile

easyCBM Reading Fluency <10th %ile

Phonics for Reading Interv. Weakness


KTEA – Math Composite >25th %ile

easyCBM Math >30th %ile

Classroom math Strength

PROCESS ANALYSIS


KABC - Sequential <10th %ile

CTOPP – Phon Aware < 10th %ile

CTOPP – Phon Memory <10th %ile

Observations in class Weakness


KABC – Simultaneous (Gv) >25th %ile

KABC – Planning (Gf) >25th %ile

Observations in class Strength

PATTERN OF STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES


Response to Instruction data (from RTI process) Achievement/Grade-level

Examples: EasyCBM, AimsWeb

Curricular Assessments Performance/Grade-level

Examples: OAKS, chapter assessments, writing prompt, reading inventories

Norm-referenced, Standardized Assessment data

Achievement/Age-level

Examples: WJ-III, KTEA-2, WIAT, OWLS

Consideration of Basic Psychological Processes Intelligence…deemed relevant to identification of SLD

Examples: norm-referenced cognitive assessments, rating scales,

observations, etc.

Anecdotal Information Performance/Age-level

Examples: experienced team members’ anecdotes/observations of student

performance compared to age-similar peers

At least 3

of these


Strength: meets or average

Weakness: does not meet or below average

Strength: professional judgment

Weakness: professional judgment

and

See PSW Methodology worksheets for details

Apgar & Potts, 2011

DATA ANALYSIS/EVALUATION REPORT

Basic Reading Skills: Strength, as demonstrated by

his high accuracy on easyCBM assessments, performance on the KTEA-II (Decoding) and classroom observations, and supported by the related basic psychological process strengths of Auditory (KTEA-II, Phonological Awareness and CTOPP-2, Phonological Awareness) and short term Memory (CAS, Successive).


Reading Fluency: Weakness, as demonstrated

by classroom performance, observations, easyCBM data and KTEA-II, Reading Fluency, and supported by the related psychological processing weakness of Processing Speed (CTOPP-2, Rapid Symbol Naming).


Reading Comprehension: Inconclusive. Student demonstrated very low reading

comprehension when measured by easyCBM, and he appears to struggle with comprehension in class; however, he was able to obtain an average reading comprehension score on the KTEA-II. In addition, most of the basic psychological processes related to comprehension are strong for student (Problem-Solving, CAS Simultaneous; Mental Control, CAS Planning). It is likely that student’s reading comprehension difficulties are an artifact of his reading fluency challenges; as reading fluency improves, comprehension will also likely improve.

INSTRUCTIONAL IMPLICATIONS

• Short-term auditory memory problem vs. Phonological awareness problem • Rapid automatic naming problem vs. Language development problem • Processing speed (decision speed) problem vs. Attention problem • Executive function (inhibit) problem vs. Short-term auditory memory

These students may all look exactly the same on RTI deficit-based measurements.

And therefore the goal is not just to train against their weakness, but to recognize and

utilize their strengths.

Presenter

Presentation Notes

In this case, she was found eligible under SLD. Recommendations included working to fluency but using lower level texts. Practice reading to near 100% accuracy on the same passage. Told parents that because of her well-developed language skills, she will likely be a pretty good comprehender once she builds a reasonable silent reading fluency. Oral reading fluency will likely stay low for some time. Also needed some structure to the classroom behavior.

karen apgar, ma/cags...

Documents