017444_Chapter9-InterpretationofData

8/3/2019 017444_Chapter9-InterpretationofData

1/53

!

"#!$%&'()('&*&+,%!,-!.*&*!

/,%&'%&0!,-!&1+0!2'3&+,%!

Chapter Overview 1

Regulations and Rules 2

Quality Practices ;

Defining the Learning Problem A

Re-nalyzing the Problem - Interpreting chievement Data FExternal Evaluation

nalyzing the Problem - Interpreting Basic Psychological 2AProcessing Data

Re-nalyzing the Problem - Interpreting Intellectual/Cognitive 2Functioning Data

Guidelines and Resources for School Psychologists 3

nalyzing the Problem - pplying the Discrepancy ormula ;1

External Evaluation ;

Interpreting Data for Young Students ging Out of A2

Developmental Delay

Resources A3

/1*)&'(!45'(5+'6!This chapter will help specialists and instructional staff interpret data for the purposes ofdesigning instruction and determining whether a student is eligible for special educationservices under SLD criteria. The chapter includes discussions on interpreting outcomesof formal assessment guidance on integrating multiple sources of data backgroundinformation and intervention data as well as guidance on issues that may surface inwriting a summary of background information including documenting evidence of

exclusionary factors. Perhaps the most valuable part of this chapter is the tools andguidance for interpreting achievement data basic psychological processing data anddiscrepancy.

Minnesota Department of Education Draft -1


2/53

Chapter Interpretation of Data

7'89:*&+,%0!*%;!79:'0!


3/53


The performance measures used to verify this finding must be representative ofthe childs curriculum or useful for developing instructional goals and obectives.

Documentation is required to verify this finding. Such documentation includesevidence of low achievement from the following sources when available:cumulative record reviews` class-work samples` anecdotal teacher records`

statewide and district-wide assessments` formal diagnostic and informal tests`curriculum-based evaluation results` and results from targeted support programsin general education.

B. The child has a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processeswhich includes a basic psychological processing condition that is manifested in avariety of settings by behaviors such as inadequate: acquisition of information`organization` planning and sequencing` working memory including verbal visualor spatial` visual and auditory processing` speed of processing` verbal andnonverbal expression` transfer of information` and motor control for written tasks.

C. The child demonstrates a severe discrepancy between general intellectual abilityand achievement in one or more of the following areas: listening comprehension

oral expression basic reading skills reading comprehension reading fluencywritten expression mathematics calculation or mathematical problem solving.The demonstration of a severe discrepancy shall not be based solely on the useof standardized tests. The group shall consider these standardized test results asonly one component of the eligibility criteria. The instruments used to assess thechilds general intellectual ability and achievement must be individuallyadministered and interpreted by an appropriately licensed person usingstandardized procedures. or initial placement the severe discrepancy must beequal to or greater than 1.\A standard deviations below the mean of thedistribution of difference scores for the general population of individuals at thechilds chronological age level.

D. The child demonstrates an inadequate rate of progress. Rate of progress ismeasured over time through progress monitoring while using intensive SRBI(scientific research-based intervention) which may be used prior to a referral oras part of an evaluation for special education. minimum of 12 data points arerequired from a consistent intervention implemented over at least seven schoolweeks in order to establish the rate of progress. Rate of progress is inadequatewhen the childs:

i. Rate of improvement is minimal and continued intervention will not likelyresult in reaching age or state-approved grade-level standards`

ii. Progress will likely not be maintained when instructional supports areremoved`

iii. Level of performance in repeated assessments of achievement fallsbelow the childs age or state-approved grade-level standards` and

iv. Level of achievement is at or below the fifth percentile on one or morevalid and reliable achievement tests using either state or nationalcomparisons. Local comparison data that is valid and reliable may beused in addition to either state or national data. If local comparison data isused and differs from either state or national data the group must providea rationale to explain the difference.



4/53


>9*:+&?!@(*3&+3'0!

!

$%&'()('&+%8!49&3,A'0!,-!B,(A*:!C00'00A'%&!.*&*!

ll information collected prior to and during a comprehensive evaluation will be of help to

teams of professionals and parents in making a disability determination. t this step inthe process teams that have used the problem solving protocol and systematicallyaddressed the appropriateness of instruction curriculum and environment should shifttheir focus to answering the question of why the student is unable to learn normallywithin the context of the regular classroom (Ortiz 2F).

No single prescription exists to organize and weigh data. However teams may find thetools provided in previous chapters helpful. The following tools were designed tointegrate evaluate and summarize the findings from multiple sources of data:

! Guiding questions presented at the end of each chapter.

! Problem-solving protocol in Chapter ;.

!ICEL/RIOT matrix in Chapter 6.

! nalyzing Evidence Sample orms in Chapter 6.

! Eligibility Worksheet in Chapter 1.

Specialist and instructional staff should keep the focus of the evaluation process ondesigning instruction that accelerates the students rate of learning. In some cases theinstruction will be specialized to meet the unique needs of a learner with a disability` inother cases it will be differentiated to meet the needs of a student without a disabilitybut who continues to struggle. systematic approach to interpreting prioritizingsynthesizing and summarizing the findings will help teams not only improve instructionbut also determine eligibility for special education.

Care should be taken to not presume that persistent lack of achievement is automaticallythe result of a specific learning disability. Specialists andinstructional staff may be predisposed to narrowing datainterpretation to fit a pre-udgment that a persistent learningproblem is the result of a specific learning disability. The risk isthat teams may focus on supportive data to the exclusion ofdisconfirming evidence and make an inappropriate eligibilitydetermination. To avoid narrowing the review of data specialistsand instructional staff should reiterate the steps in the problemsolving process described in Chapters ; 6 and F:

2&')!D# Redefine the learning problem.

2&')!E# Re-analyze the data to identify patterns in performance and evidencesupporting explanations for why the learning problem occurs. Select instructionalpractices that address the students needs.

2&')!F#!Implement the instructional plan or Individualized Education Program

2&')!G# Monitor and evaluate the results of instruction.

Minnesota Department of Education Draft -;


5/53


The protocol to help integrate the problem-solving model into the eligibility criteria asdescribed in Chapters ; 6 and F is reiterated throughout this chapter to help specialistsand instructional staff implement quality practices when interpreting data. Resourcesinclude general guidance in what teams should review with appropriate sources ofevidence as well as specific guidance for questions that frequently occur during this partof an evaluation process.

.'-+%+%8!&1'!H'*(%+%8!@(,I:'A!

7'5+'6+%8!J*3K8(,9%;!$%-,(A*&+,%!*%;!$%&'(5'%&+,%!.*&*!

To understand the learning problem specialists and instructional staff should review thebackground and history of the child as well as data gathered during intervention andparent interviews. The table below shows the background information to review anddata sources to use.

Table -1

Relevant Background Information and Sources of Data

J*3K8(,9%;!$%-,(A*&+,%!!

2,9(3'0!,-!.*&*!

Reason for thereferral (areas ofconcern andsuspecteddisability(ies)

History in specialeducation or otherspecialized

services

Parent concernsand perspective

Language historyand culturalbackground

Tip: Review data from the beginning of the process to understandthe concerns that have emerged and how they have beenaddressed.

! Problem analysis statement from secondary tertiaryintervention plans and prior written notice statements.

! Student performance in relation to setting demands (onsetduration variation across settings interference with personalinterpersonal and academic adustment).

! Interviewees perceptions of the problem its nature intensitysignificance to the student and relation to grade-level or age-appropriate expectations.

! Information regarding the students home language and familycultural background.

! Independent evaluation data or reports presenting concernsand links to academic or behavioral performance within theschool setting.

! Report cards district test results etc.

! Existence of relevant health or sensory problems potentiallyrelated to the referral concern.

! The students developmental and educational history thatprovides context for why the learning problem is occurring.

Minnesota Department of Education Draft -A


6/53



J*3K8(,9%;!$%-,(A*&+,%!!

2,9(3'0!,-!.*&*!


7/53


Minnesota Department of Education Draft -\

J*3K8(,9%;!$%-,(A*&+,%!!

2,9(3'0!,-!.*&*!

! Changes in performance with group size incentives change instaff or change in task etc.

! Exclusionary factors (vision hearing or motor impairment`

cognitive impairment` emotional or behavioral disorders`environmental cultural or economic influences` or a history ofinconsistent education program limited English proficiency(LEP) or lack of instruction in reading or math).

! Parent/teacher/student report regarding effectiveness ofaccommodation(s) and/or modification(s).

! Progress monitoring data collected during interventions.

2)'3+-+3!L9+;*%3'!,%!MN3:90+,%*(?!B*3&,(0!!

It is not uncommon for teams to wrestle with understanding the extent to whichexclusionary factors contribute to or preclude consideration of SLD as a primary

disability.

Quality practices suggest that a thorough review of the recommended questions andsummary of available evidence in the background section of the evaluation report willmake the eligibility determination and documentation of instructional needs proceedsmoothly. The team should always give consideration to the family and communitysystems including culturally and linguistically diverse populations when interpreting andevaluating the data. Refer to guiding questions in Chapter \ that may help in interpretingthe data with respect to specific exclusionary factors.

Regardless of whether an exclusionary factor is primary or contributing teams mustdocument all needs and the instructional programming designed to meet the needs.

2)'3+-+3!L9+;*%3'!,%!29AA*(+O+%8!2&*%;*(;!23,('0!!While lanagan and Kaufman recommend that teams report standard scores with theirassociated confidence intervals (A percent level recommended) along with needed datathis guidance creates a problem when calculating and standard deviations withMinnesotas formula. The application of confidence intervals creates differences in theapplication of the 1.\A standard deviation interval.

The authors also present three variations of a normative descriptive system for reportingull Scale IQ score results. The table below shows one that is growing in popularityamong school and clinical psychologists:


8/53


Table -2

Standard Score Range, Classification, Performance

2&*%;*(;!23,('!7*%8'!

/:*00+-+3*&+,%! @'(-,(A*%3'!

131! Xpper extreme! 2 SD!

116 to 13! bove average! Normative strength as compared with thegeneral population

1 SD (top 16 percent of the population)

116 (FAth percentile)

FA to 11A verage range Within normal limits

/- SD inclusive (6F percent ofpopulation)

11A (F;th percentile)-FA (16th percentile)!

\ to F; Below average Normative weakness -1 SD bottom 16thpercentile of population

F; (1Ath percentile)

6 Lower extreme -2 SD

7'P*%*:?O+%8!&1'!@(,I:'A!P!$%&'()('&+%8!C31+'5'A'%&!.*&*!To ensure clarity and alignment of interpretation of data with Minnesota Rule the step ofre-analyzing the problem has been broken into interpreting achievement data

interpreting basic psychological processing data and interpreting discrepancy. It isassumed that interpretation of intervention data consistent with Minnesota Rule3A2A.13;1 subp. 2 D could be done in the review of background information describedabove or in this section. It is a district decision.

The primary goals of interpreting achievement data should be to:

! Document all the academic needs.

! Identify areas where existing instructional supports are sufficient.

! Identify dimensions on which continued intervention or specialized instructionalsupports may be altered to improve achievement.

! Identify dimensions on which accommodations or modifications must be made to

provide access to grade-level standards.

Teams may be tempted to skip or rush analysis of achievement data` however evidenceshows that careful data review can lead to additional discoveries relevant to the designof future instruction. The consequences of not considering all data sources may lead toinappropriate identification or designing ineffective instruction which has implications forstudent self-efficacy as well as lowered expectations and misuse of educationalresources. Ineffective instruction increases the challenge of accelerating achievementtowards grade-level standards and readiness for post-secondary options.

Minnesota Department of Education Draft -F


9/53



10/53


Table -3

Achievement Data Relevant to Intervention, Evaluation, and their Sources

This table shows!what to include in a comprehensive review of achievement data inorder to identify all areas of need and sources for that data.

.*&*!&,!.,39A'%&! 2,9(3'0!,-!+%-,(A*&+,%!

The achievement level andrate of learning given:

! Evidence-based coreinstructionand supplementaryinterventions

! Intensity of frequencyof and attendanceduring delivery ofresearch-basedinterventions.

! Progress monitoringgraphs

! idelity of interventionimplementation

Q+)= In addition to progress monitoring data summarizeboth successful and unsuccessful supplemental effortsaimed at accelerating student learning and level ofperformance which may include whether the interventionwas frequent enough long enough and intensive enoughto yield a change in performance or accelerated learningrate.

dditional topics in the review of data include:

! Intervention plans.

! Progress monitoring data indicating slope level andprogress as compared to benchmark or peer group.

! Documentation of fidelity (e.g. minutes of interventionas designed vs. received observations thatintervention was delivered as intended etc.).

Comprehensive review ofadditional achievementdata

! Classroom based repeated measures of achievement(curriculum-based measures formative assessmentinformal inventories etc.).

! Norm-referenced state district group or individualizedassessment data.

! Standardized observation protocols e.g. MinnesotaStudent Oral Language Observation Matrix(MNSOLOM) rubrics or rating scales.

! Criterion-referenced tests.! Interviews with students parents teachers etc.! Observations during core instruction intervention

sessions and/or individualized assessmentdocumenting results of testing limits.

! Work samples results of other targeted assistanceprograms independent tutoring or interventionprograms.

! Results of Cultural Language Interpretive Matrix(CLIM) for students with cultural and linguisticdifferences.

! Comparison of achievement data against backgroundand contextual knowledge for students with culturaland linguistic differences.



11/53


R,6!;,!6'!K%,6!61'&1'(!&1'!:'*(%+%8!)(,I:'A!+0!(':*&';!&,!:+A+&';!M%8:+01!:*%89*8'!*3S9+0+&+,%!50#!2H.T!

The answer to this question is elaborated on in the appendix of this chapter with anexplanation of the Cultural Language Interpretive Matrix. Essentially the team mustreturn to interpreting the data from multiple sources that address language acquisition

and SLD concerns.Ortiz would likely say that if students do not have normative weaknesses in their firstlanguage the concern(s) needs to be addressed outside of special education. Howeversome current measures of language acquisition may be inadequate and should be sonoted in weighing the interpretation of data. Please refer to Interpretation using Cross-Battery ssessment below for a brief overview as well as the following resources:

Rhodes R. Ochoa S. Ortiz S. (2A). ssessing Culturally and LinguisticallyDiverse Students. New York: The Guilford Press. (Specifics for interpreting theCulture Language Interpretive Matrix (CLIM) found in the appendix.)

National ssociation of School Psychologists. (2). ComprehensiveMultidimensional pproach to ssessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse

Students. In ones anine (Ed.) The Psychology of Multiculturalism in theSchools (Ch. \). Bethesda MD: Lau M. Blatchley L.

Reducing Bias in Special Education for merican Indian and frican merican Studentsfrom the Minnesota Department of Education (to be revised)

The Minnesota Department of Education has resources to support teams in developingappropriate procedures for English Language Learners (ELL) who are suspected ofhaving a disability including the ELL Companion Manual.

2)'3+-+3!L9+;*%3'!-,(!&1'!C31+'5'A'%&!.*&*!29AA*(?!

Issues of non-compliance have occurred when evaluation reports do not include all theareas of need that show up on Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) one or twoyears later. Minnesota rule requires teams to identify all the needs connected to thedisability as well as any needs that are necessary to help the student gain control overand make progress in the general curriculum.

Providing statements in the evaluation report that discuss implications of a disability onfuture performance not only provides the team rationale for other goals but also drawsattention to the possibility of incorporating instructional strategies or practices that mayreduce the adverse impacts of a specific learning disability.

dditional benefits include helping parents to fully participate in longitudinal planning asthey are typically the only team members that have both historical and future knowledgeof the student throughout their academic career.



12/53


!$::90&(*&+5'!MN*A):'!

Sam a third grade student has normative weaknesses in basic reading skillsvocabulary and working memory. The team does not currently find evidence of below-grade-level performance in math. The team decides to document only the concernsrelated to reading in the evaluation report. The fact that the team did not document allneeds that may arise from the disability prevents them from providing services in math orwritten expression in later grades. Yet Sam will likely need additional supports in fourthand fifth grade when he is required to master regrouping take notes summarize themain idea etc.

Katrina a first grader struggling to develop letter sound correspondence receivesbalanced instruction in phonological awareness and vocabulary building. Both skills arewoven into her reading instruction so that she continues to improve in reading andlanguage abilities. The integration of vocabulary building skills prevents the need for

language intervention later on.

Sometimes the area of concern does not match the picture of achievement that emergesfrom pulling together the results of formal assessment. Instances include but are notlimited to:

! chievement that is within age or state grade-level expectations but belowdistrict expectations.

! n area of inadequate achievement not mentioned in the referral for specialeducation evaluation.

If the team sees a mismatch between the referral concern and pattern of achievement

that emerges from formal assessment the team may have also missed data or contextrelevant to accurate interpretation and evaluation of the data. If so collect those dataand re-convene the team. Teams may have also chosen or been provided independentevaluation data that suggests physical sensory cognitive or psychological issues.Teams integrating the results of evaluation need to be careful to include multiple sourcesof data and put them in the context. Teams may need to consider gathering additional orre-prioritize the data being presented.

7'0,9(3'!Q,,:!-,(!B+%;+%8!@*&&'(%0!+%!C31+'5'A'%&!.*&*!

Research indicates that predictable patterns of performance in achievement data willcorrespond with normative weaknesses in basic psychological processes. The followingfigure indicates where patterns of poor achievement emerge the impact in other

academic domains as well as corresponding patterns in basic psychological processes.

The narrative that follows the figure describes a synthesis of the patterns found in theliterature as well as a cursory discussion of implications for instruction.



13/53


Figure 9-1: Likely Patterns of Performance for SLD Identification.



14/53


H*%89*8'!.'5':,)A'%&!*%;!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

It is unlikely that a student with significant inadequate achievement or developmentaldelays in the acquisition of listening comprehension and oral expression will have skillsthat develop in the average range in reading writing or math. Teams should look at theconnection between the development of language and areas of academic achievement.t least four patterns emerge in language development discussed below in the firstcolumn of the following table. The patterns described below are not exhaustive of what ateam may find through formal evaluation.

Instructional implications for students with language development issues includebalancing or switching emphasis between improving the instructional level of listeningcomprehension basic skills acquisition and reading comprehension. See suggestions inthe second column.

Table -;

Language Development and General Instructional Implications

H*%89*8'!.'5':,)A'%&! L'%'(*:!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!C= Poor articulation. Only in instanceswhere evidence shows issues with articulation tobe connected to the development of phonologicalawareness should an SLD be suspected. speech language impairment that requires specialeducation in the area of reading may also belikely.

@*&&'(%!J= Inadequate development of non-verbal language skills. This typically indicatesSpeech and Language Impairment utismSpectrum (SD) or non-verbal learning disorder(NVLD). This discussion is beyond the scope ofthis SLD Manual. Refer to the resources on theMDE Website for additional information on SDand NVLD.

! Xse skills hierarchy to determineinstructional level e.g. whetherskill must be developed withinlistening comprehension oralexpression readingcomprehension or writtenexpression.

! Determine if interventions inlanguage skills need to beimplemented alongside or inadvance of targeted academicskills (prioritize content andvocabulary).

Minnesota Department of Education Draft -1;


15/53


Minnesota Department of Education Draft -1A

H*%89*8'!.'5':,)A'%&! L'%'(*:!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!/= Poor listening comprehension.Students with below average achievement inlistening comprehension skills are most likely to

have corresponding below average abilities inphonetic coding resistance to auditory distractionauditory processing processing speed auditory(verbal) working memory short-term memory orrapid naming. In addition low or below averageperformance in oral expression is likely. s thecurriculum becomes increasingly demandingnormative weaknesses in processing speedauditory working memory short-term memory etc.would predict areas of persistent difficulty inacquiring grade-level listening comprehensionreading comprehension reading fluency written

expression skills and math computational fluency.

@*&&'(%!.= Poor oral expression. Studentswith below average achievement in oralexpression may exhibit normativeweaknesses with: adequately understandingoral vocabulary` associating meaning anddemonstrating flexibility with and derivingmeaning from the spoken word` integratingnew information with prior knowledge`following oral directions/information`

remembering what was heard withoutdistortion or omission of sequence or content`or accessing desired information within areasonable time.

! ttend to the difference betweenclassroom demands and thestudents level of listening

comprehension or oralexpression as these mayconstrain acquisition of skills orperformance within the generalcurriculum.

! pply principles of differentiationand universal design ofinstruction to make grade-levelcontent accessible (differentiatebetween language skills andcontent skills).

! Document the Speech andLanguage concerns the impacton achievement in reading ormath and develop the IEP toaddress the needs. There is aclear relationship betweenlanguage delay and lateracademic concerns normativeweaknesses that persist in orallanguage often impact academicachievement. or moreinformation see Brown lyward

Keogh (166) athttp://www.ldonline.org/article/6366 for summary and references.There is variability as to howdistricts will handle this issue.

! In some situations it may beappropriate for the Speech andLanguage Pathologist to consultor collaborate with the specialeducation teacher to address thelanguage needs within the

regular classroom.! In other instances the student

may receive reading or mathinstruction from a specialeducation teacher trained toembed language interventionswithin the special educationservices.
http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366http://www.ldonline.org/article/6366


16/53



H*%89*8'!.'5':,)A'%&! L'%'(*:!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

requent misunderstanding between the speakerand the student may occur as conversation isinappropriate to the topic or situation and verbal

responses do not align with previously spokencomment or question. Speech may be limited andthe student may have difficulty: finding words todescribe intent using inflection relatingexperience or stories in sequential order providingrelevant detail to convey meaning to listenershowing control over the vocabulary that has beentaught and relying on fixed expressions and highlyfamiliar often less specific vocabulary. Overallcommunicative success is likely adverselyimpacted both in the classroom and with peers.Students with oral expression issues may lack the

ability to go deeper into a topic or discussionsubect with a variety of vocabulary. !

! In some schools students with alanguage disability may receivesome of the accommodationsand/or modified instructionprovided to their peers with SLD.

L9+;*%3'!,%!C00'00+%8!4(*:!MN)('00+,%!*%;!H+0&'%+%8!/,A)('1'%0+,%!

Quality practices suggest that if the team is considering SLD eligibility in the area of oralexpression they need to involve the speech-language pathologist (SLP). The SLP willadministerboth standardized and non-standardized assessment as a part of their usual testbattery. The team should also consider including measures of academic language to facilitatethe development of written expression and reading comprehension.

Teams must be aware of which results are being summarized as documentation of

achievement. So while a disorder of spoken language and the imperfect ability to speak(as measured by the Clinical Evaluation of Language undamentals (CEL)) may beindicators of a possible specific learning disability the disorder must be demonstrated inacademic functioning and manifest in a way that results in the student not learning at anadequate rate. ssessments continue to be developed and revised so teams are in thebest position to select the assessments designed to meet the situational needs(inadequate achievement).

If the assessment data gathered thus far isnt helpful in answering why the student is notachieving within the regular classroom environment teams may need to conductadditional observations to see how well the student is able to follow directions filter outwhite noise and focus/orient to teacher direction. or situations where a lessonconveyed technical content conduct an interview with the student to determine what

he/she understood (e.g. vocabulary concepts etc.). If the area is oral expression useobservations to explain or describe the experience. re there differences in speaking ondemand vs. self-initiated expression Some staff may recall that this method isdiagnostic teaching/evaluation.!!!

J*0+3!7'*;+%8!2K+::0!*%;!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

The table below shows the four common patterns for poor basic reading skills. Thepatterns described below are not exhaustive of what a team may find through formalevaluation.


17/53


Table -A

Basic Reading Skills and General Instructional Implications

J*0+3!7'*;+%8!2K+::0! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!C= Student shows poor achievement but

all areas of basic psychological processing arewithin normative limits. Potential reasons for thispattern include lack of sufficient practice timed towhen the student was developmentally preparedto accept the instruction and lack of priorknowledge consistent systematic explicitevidence based instruction in the basics ofphonological awareness vocabulary or decodinginstruction.

! dditional intensive evidence-

based phonics and languageinstruction consistentlyimplemented until a rate ofachievement reaches withingrade-level expectations.

@*&&'(%!J= Lack of progress in acquiring basicreading skills with corresponding below-average

abilities in phonetic coding resistance to auditorydistraction auditory processing processing speedauditory (verbal) working memory short-termmemory or rapid naming. Students with thispattern are also more likely to have low or belowaverage performance in oral expression. s thecurriculum becomes increasingly demandingnormative weaknesses in processing speedauditory working memory short-term memory etc.would predict persistent difficulty in acquiringgrade-level listening comprehension readingcomprehension reading fluency written

expression and math computational fluency.

! Differentiate between phoneticcoding issues and resistance to

auditory distractions. Poorphonetic coding requiresevidence-based instruction inphonological awareness. Whenresistance to auditory distractionis indicated include an evaluationfor Central uditory ProcessingDisorder (CPD). Provideaccommodations andmodifications consistent withCPD as well as evidence-based instruction in basic

reading skills to remediate gapsin achievement.

@*&&'(%!/= less frequent pattern results from alack of orthographic fluency. Students with anorthographic processing weaknesses may havesome basic decoding skills and strong sight wordvocabulary` however data indicate that spellingreading connected text or reading multi-syllabicwords are difficult. Students with normativeweaknesses in orthography but not phoneticcoding or auditory processing are less likely tohave weaknesses in listening comprehension oralexpression or vocabulary acquisition. Olderstudents may develop poor reading fluencydespite having basic decoding skills.

! Provide evidence-basedinstruction to address normativeweaknesses in orthography andmorphology.

! Emphasize sound symbolassociation and teach decodingand encoding simultaneously.

Minnesota Department of Education Draft -1\


18/53


Minnesota Department of Education Draft -1F

J*0+3!7'*;+%8!2K+::0! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!.=!The least likely pattern but also thepattern that is most difficult to accelerate is thepattern where both phonetic coding andorthographic processing are impaired. Students

with this pattern of impairment are likely to havemore severe normative weaknesses in all areas ofreading as well as have weaknesses in vocabularydevelopment.

! Provide balanced phonicsvocabulary listeningcomprehension and orthographicprocessing interventions.

ddress areas of concern inorder to make continuedprogress in reading writing andmath skills.

7'*;+%8!B:9'%3?!2K+::0!*%;!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

The table below shows two patterns of achievement connected to poor reading fluency.The patterns described below are not exhaustive of what a team may find through formalevaluation.

Table -6

Reading Fluency and Instructional Implications

7'*;+%8!B:9'%3?! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!C= Students with below averageachievement in reading fluency but intact basicreading skills are also likely to have below averageabilities in orthography and morphology andweaknesses in specific areas of readingcomprehension` such as inferencing etc.

Inferencing text structure and comprehensionmonitoring are common concerns with readingcomprehension.

! Provide oral models of readingconnected text to improvereading with intonation andemotion (prosody).

! Provide opportunities for

repeated reading.! Provide evidence-based strategy

instruction in inferencing textstructure and connecting priorknowledge to what is read.

! Explicitly teach and reinforcecomprehension monitoring.


19/53



7'*;+%8!B:9'%3?! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!J= It is highly unlikely that a studentwould be eligible for SLD with only inadequateachievement in reading fluency. That said it maybe the case that a student manages to

comprehend despite a labored reading rate. scurriculum demands increase the volume ofreading it may be that at some point the student isnot able to keep pace. When the volume ofreading outpaces a students ability to keep upthe lack of reading fluency may begin to constrainthe acquisition of grade-level vocabulary andreading comprehension. Teams should be awarethat concerns with the development of readingcomprehension may or may not be present at thetime of evaluation but could develop if thestudents reading rate cannot keep pace with

assignments.

! The IEP should specify theamount and difficulty of text at thestudents instructional levelnumber of repetitions and/or

criteria for moving on and type offeedback the student will receive.

! Clearly articulateaccommodations andmodifications made to contain thevolume of reading and alternativemeans of making grade-levelcontent accessible so thatteachers know who will providethe modifications what isincluded when and under what

circumstances.! If considering assistive

technology look at how thestudent will continue to acquirethe necessary vocabulary andlanguage comprehension skills tobenefit from these options.lthough not legally requiredinclude each component in theIEP so staff more clearly meet thestudents needs.

!Vocabulary interventions may alsoneed to be put in place in order toaccelerate readingcomprehension to keep pace withgrade-level content.

!


20/53


7'*;+%8!/,A)('1'%0+,%!*%;!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

The table below shows the two common patterns for poor basic reading skills. Thepatterns described below are not exhaustive of what a team may find through formalevaluation.

Table -\

Reading Comprehension and Instructional Implications!

7'*;+%8!/,A)('1'%0+,%! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!C# Poor reading comprehension with co-existing weaknesses in phonological awarenesslistening comprehension oral expression workingmemory and/or processing speed.

Teams should consider the students lack of ordifferent body of prior knowledge before assuming a

language normative weakness. When assumingprior knowledge for a given prompt or sample ofwork teams are more likely to find specificnormative weaknesses in expressive or receptivelanguage that limit the students ability to developschemas and multiple meanings for words.Individuals with this pattern of normativeweaknesses may perform similarly to individualswith Nin-Verbal Learning Disability (NVLD). Lack ofreading comprehension often leads to limitedenoyment and practice of reading so studentsidentified in later grades may have limited sight-word

vocabulary as well as morphographic knowledge.

@*&&'(%!J# Poor reading comprehension withaccurate beginning decoding skills grade-levelreading rate and normative weaknesses on prosodyand comprehension (may also be referred to ashyperlexia). Normative weaknesses in readingcomprehension tend to be in inferencingcomprehension monitoring and understanding oftext structure. These students may havecorresponding weaknesses in speed of processing

working memory and/or executive functions(planning sustained attention self-monitoring andproblem-solving skills). Disorders in the executivefunctions listed are also consistent for individualsdiagnosed with DHD. !

! Systematic explicit skillsinstruction in comprehensionstrategies and vocabularyacquisition strategies

! Identification of weaknesses inlistening comprehension and

oral expression to identifyinstructional level of languagecomprehension that must bedeveloped in advance ofapplication to silent readingcomprehension

! Training in comprehensionmonitoring or use of internalspeech as means ofdeveloping comprehensionmonitoring skills

! Modification of the instructionalenvironment to cue studentswith disorders in executivefunction specifically planningand problem solving to applythe strategies they know at themoment they need them

!



21/53


U(+&&'%!MN)('00+,%!*%;!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

Research for an operational definition of a disability that addresses written languagecontinues to evolve. There is less research on established patterns of academicperformance in written expression than in reading. dditionally the academic normative

weaknesses presented in the data are different for individuals with traumatic brain inurythan those who have developmental writing disabilities.

Most students with a specific learning disability will have problems with one or more ofthe three writing skills (handwriting spelling expression of ideas). The patternsdescribed below are more typical but not exhaustive of what a team may find throughformal evaluation. There is an indication that the development of expression of ideasthrough writing is hampered when handwriting and spelling skills are poor.

Table -F

Written Expression and Instructional Implications

U(+&&'%!MN)('00+,%!! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!C= Normative weaknesses in writtenexpression due primarily to poor handwriting and orspelling with no other language normativeweaknesses. Poor handwriting and motorcoordination constrains the development of writtenexpression in that sloppy and labored writing tendsto limit the quality and length of compositions. ustas poor decoding impairs the development ofreading comprehension poor handwriting andspelling impair the development of expression of

ideas. Xntil handwriting becomes automatic theremay be little room in working memory to composeand connect ideas.

! Intervene as early as possibleto improve handwriting toachieve improvedcompositions

! Consider appropriate assistivetechnology.

! Consider appropriateaccommodations such asmore time to complete written

tasks reduced amount ofcopying shorten assignmentsby allowing the student tosupplement work withillustrations graphicorganizers and/or verbalexplanations.



22/53



U(+&&'%!MN)('00+,%!! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!J= Normative weaknesses in writtenexpression due primarily to poor spellingphonological or orthographic normativeweaknesses. Language normative weaknesses may

or may not be present. s mentioned previouslypoor spelling skills have been linked with poordecoding skills. Normative weaknesses inphonological and/or orthographic processing may bethe constraining factor in the development oflistening comprehension reading as well asspelling. Poor spelling scores in the absence ofnormative weaknesses in hand writing or expressionof ideas may indicate lack of automaticity inintermediate decoding or morphological awarenessskills. It is most likely that poor spelling abilityconstrains the development and expression of ideas

in the same way as poor handwriting.

! Explicitly teach spelling withinreading instruction tostrengthen both decoding andspelling skills. When the

writing process is the focususe of word banks or assistivetechnology may be anappropriate accommodationor modification.


23/53



U(+&&'%!MN)('00+,%!! $%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!/= Normative weaknesses in writtenexpression due to poor composition and expressionof ideas. Data may indicate that the student hasdifficulty with poor organization variety of sentence

structure limited vocabulary use (semanticsknowledge or word finding) or grammar.

Normative weaknesses in written expression mayco-occur with normative weaknesses in orallanguage reading and mathematics speed ofprocessing working memory and executivefunctions (planning sustained attention self-monitoring and problem-solving skills). dditionallynormative weaknesses in written expression mayco-occur with diagnosed DHD and NVLD.Individuals with DHD may have writing samples

that indicate poor monitoring of writing processleading to poor sentence coherence evaluation ofquality and appropriate conventions and lack ofediting in their own writing quantity of writingdecipherable handwriting use of vocabulary toconvey ideas.

lternatively students with NVLD may have datathat indicate literal interpretation and expression ofideas a focus on details at the expense of thecoherence in addressing the writing assignment.There may be late emerging normative weaknessesin organization and complexity of writing. Writing is

functional grammatically and syntactically correctbut semantically simple. There may be fewalternative words and sentence structures. Writingsamples are predictable formulaic and concreteand lacking in creativity or novel perspective.

Poor note-taking ability poor report writing and lowscores on writing fluency samples may indicatemotor coordination or speed of processing issues`therefore interpretation of writing samples shouldtake into consideration both variables.

! Develop instructional plan toaddress handwriting note-taking and creative writingabilities. Xse observations of

behaviors during assessmentand class work to identifyaccommodations that may bepractical for the student: suchas word banks filled notesuse of keyboarding graphicorganizers chunking of writingprocess receptivity to strategyinstruction etc.

!


24/53


V*&1!/*:39:*&+,%0!*%;!@(,I:'AP0,:5+%8!*%;!$%0&(93&+,%*:!$A):+3*&+,%0!

Research in math calculations and problem solving continues to evolve as do subtypesor patterns of normative weaknesses. Patterns of normative weaknesses are morepredicted by the model of mathematical abilities put forward by the researcher` howeversome indications show that inadequate achievement in math calculations may coincide

with inadequate number sense normative weaknesses in phonological processingspeed of processing and/or short-term and working memory.

Table -

Math Calculations and Problem-Solving and Instructional Implications

V*&1!/*:39:*&+,%0W@(,I:'AP2,:5+%8! $%0&(93&+,%*:!+A):+3*&+,%0!

@*&&'(%!C= Students with a delay in mastering one-to-one correspondence and number sense are likelyto have the most severe and persistent difficulties in

acquiring math skills. There may be a pattern ofnormative weakness in working knowledge ofnumber facts combinations and important numberrelationships letter correspondence in reading aswell as age appropriate development of listeningcomprehension and oral expression. Instructionalimplications are to develop efficient means ofdeducing math facts as quickly as possible.Normative weakness in working memory and short-term memory also lead to careless and proceduralerrors poor strategy use difficulty recalling andimplementing sequences. It is likely that difficulties

with problem-solving will develop as curriculardemands increase. These types of difficulties arealso prevalent for individuals with DHD.

! Include systematic andexplicit instruction in problem-solving skills as early as

possible. They should not beput off until basiccomputational skills are over-learned. Students withdifficulty in mastering basiccomputation are likely to havenormative weaknesses inprocessing speed andworking memory which notonly impact numericalcomputation but also multi-step procedures (such as

regrouping)

@*&&'(%!J= Students with difficulties in problem-solving are also likely to have normativeweaknesses in language acquisition non-verbalproblem-solving abilities concept formationsustained attention simultaneous processing sightword efficiency and possibly working memory. Theyare most likely to have difficulty with sequencingprocedures vocabulary (numerical quantifiers)

language acquisition in the area of semantics andcategorization. These types of difficulties are alsoprevalent for individuals with DHD and NVLD dueto disorders in executive functions.

! Develop language skillssufficient to assist in thecomprehension acquisitionand production of academicskills

! Intervention and developmentof problem-solving skills

should take place as early aspossible. They should not beput off until basiccomputational skills are overlearned

Minnesota Department of Education Draft -2;


25/53



C%*:?O+%8!&1'!@(,I:'A!P!$%&'()('&+%8!J*0+3!@0?31,:,8+3*:!@(,3'00+%8!.*&*!Teams should have a hypothesis of suspected areas of weaknesses in basicpsychological processing as well as correlating normative weaknesses in achievement.

!$::90&(*&+5'!MN*A):'

ackie O. has below normative performance in processing speed as verified ininterviews and classroom observations. Her academic performance in reading mathand written expression is in the low to below average in all areas.

Bobby received interventions for poor reading fluency. lthough he has averagedecoding abilities his vocabulary knowledge is very narrow and inferencing skills arebelow average. Bobbys assessment data indicates normative weaknesses inassociative memory.

Given a hypothesis for why the learning problem exists the team should look forconvergent evidence of below normative performance on cognitive or measures ofaptitude that correspond with areas of academic weakness described above (for toolsillustrating the connection between basic psychological processes and achievement seeChapters 6 and F.)

Current research recommends that normative weaknesses are present whenperformance on standardized measures indicates that cluster scores fall below astandard score of FA and are confirmed by additional sources of data such as interviewsobservations or records. n intra-individual weakness alone is not sufficient to

determine eligibility for a specific learning disability. or example a student with highabilities in working memory and low average abilities with processing speed hassignificant intra-individual weaknesses but this difference is not synonymous with aspecific learning disability.

inally basic psychological processing abilities are developmental. Basic psychologicalprocessing abilities impacting the acquisition of academic and/or behavioral skills willchange across development. or example orthographic processing is more highlycorrelated with acquisition of basic reading skills and working memory with readingcomprehension.

Teams should realize that assessment of executive functions reliable if measured afterage seven may be beneficial in predicting additional needs that emerge as curriculumand grade-level expectations increase in rigor and abstraction (anzen E. 2F).dditionally teams may find that evaluating executive functions or working memoryprovides a means of documenting the need for accommodations in order to have accessto general education curriculum (e.g. instructional and testing accommodations).

Normative weaknesses in executive functions may also impact a students ability to learnand/or apply strategies. Thus teams should be mindful of areas of weakness whendesigning instruction modifications and behavior plans. If an individual has normativeweaknesses in problem-solving or sustained attention an intervention focusing on


26/53


strategy instruction will not be sufficient. dditional training on how to use cues andsystem supports to apply the appropriate strategy at the moment it is needed.

$%0&(93&+,%*:!+A):+3*&+,%0!-,(!0&9;'%&0!6+&1!%,(A*&+5'!6'*K%'00'0!+%!I*0+3!)0?31,:,8+3*:!)(,3'00+%8= Students may be able to compensate in some areas betterthan others may` however increasingly rigorous and abstract academic standards may

overwhelm compensatory strategies. Students identified late in a school career mayhave reached a point where compensating is no longer possible without supports.Teams may find benefit in taking time to review grade-level content standards and thebasic psychological processing abilities required to achieve the standards. This processcan be used to predict points where students may need additional differentiation orinstructional supports to achieve grade-level expected performance.

Given the pattern of achievement and basic psychological processes near futurecurriculum demands and current levels of performance teams should note anddocument skills or abilities that require monitoring and differentiated instruction. t thefirst signs of struggle the team should develop a preventive intervention or specialeducation supports. With documentation indicating the logical relationship between thestudent needs the findings from evaluation and the appropriate instructional supports

there should not be a concern about adding special education services a year or moreafter the evaluation.

Review data from both achievement and cognitive processing. See tools for integratingdata previously mentioned in Chapters 1 and 6.



27/53


Table -1

Basic Psychological Processing - Information Summary and Sources of Data

$%-,(A*&+,%!-,(!29AA*(?! 2,9(3'0!,-!.*&*!

Review areas of academic

concern

Review areas of basicpsychological processesthat signal below normalperformance

!! Observational data from classrooms notable

behaviors documented during formal testingbehaviors noted during intervention

!! Student work samples and teacher records

!! Interviews from student parent teachers etc.

!! nalysis of curriculum and grade-level standardsindicating demands on cognitive processing

!! Data from independent evaluations or observationsmade during tutoring

!! Test results from normative standardized cognitiveachievement or rating scales

!! Data noting exclusionary factors

!! Relevant medical data or developmental historyindicating risk or likely history of impairment incognitive processing (comparison relative to normgroup or same age peers)

2)'3+-+3!L9+;*%3'!-,(!$A):'A'%&+%8!V+%%'0,&*!79:'!!

lthough Minnesota Rule does not explicitly require standardized measures to be usedthere are defensible research-based assessments of processing available (see Ch. F).

The following bulleted lists are for creating a profile of strengths and weaknesses forinstructional planning purposes:

D#@(,-+:'!,-!2&('%8&10!X! Include the following:!

! Describe intra-individual strengths or otherwise normal and higher abilities.

! Include the students strengths and weaknesses in learning styles.

! Integrated analysis of data indicates areas of performance are within normal rangeor higher relative to age or state-approved grade-level standards.

! Multiple sources of data (2-3 pieces) indicate similar level of functioning. (homecommunity involvement school self reports and assessments).

! Documentation of strengths that can be tapped to motivate or accelerate acquisitionof skills.

E#!@(,-+:'!,-!U'*K%'00'0!X! include the following:

! Integrated analysis of data indicates all areas of performance below age or state-approved grade-level standards.



28/53


! Multiple sources of data (2-3 pieces) indicate similar level of functioning acrossareas listed.

! ssessment tasks that were developmentally appropriate and yield data consistentwith classroom demands or expectations.

! nalysis indicating stage of learning (acquisition fluency maintenance

generalization adaptation).

! Error analysis and professional udgment indicate skill areas important for futureinstruction or functioning post-high school.

OR

! Data from scientific research-based intervention (SRBI) indicates intensity andfrequency of intervention are equivalent to intensity and frequency of servicedelivery within special education and/or rate of improvement is minimal andcontinued intervention will not likely result in reaching age or state-approved grade-level standards.


29/53


Careful interpretation of the intellectual test results by a school psychologist is critical.Three situations warrant special consideration of results:

Table -11

Mitigating Factors in IQ Tests and Possible Solutions

V+&+8*&+%8!B*3&,(0! !@,00+I:'!2,:9&+,%0!

When the learnersbackground experience issignificantly different fromthat of the group on whichthe test was normed.!

It is inappropriate to report norm-referenced scores or touse them to draw conclusions regarding eligibility. Insome cases the derived IQ scores may not accuratelyreflect the general intellectual ability of a student. orexample a student may have low motivation low self-esteem inattentiveness cultural and linguisticdifferences or may fail to comprehend and follow thedirections resulting in a low score.

When a students language-based disability precludesan accurate estimate ofintelligence.

In these cases using a supplemental test of intellectualability or supplemental procedure is recommended (formore information see Reducing Bias in SpecialEducation ssessment for merican Indian and fricanmerican Students Minnesota Department of Childrenamilies and Learning 1F` Essentials of CrossBattery ssessment Second Edition).

When the results indicateextreme variations incognitive performance.

See specific guidelines and resources for schoolpsychologists below.

Teams should be looking for convergence in data. or students performing near cut-offscores a pattern of information consistent with the underlying diagnostic constructshould lead to classifying a student as a student with a disability. When one or moresources of information are not consistent with the hypothesized learning problem theteam should consider alternative explanations. Is it that there is a mismatch inexpectations between the two sources of data Or is it that the student is not disabledbut presents with low performance.



30/53


L9+;':+%'0!*%;!7'0,9(3'0!-,(!231,,:!@0?31,:,8+0&0!!

!$A),(&*%&= This section illustrates three theoretical orientations 031,,:!)0?31,:,8+0&0 may choose to use to interpret the data. The section is divided as follows:

Part : Interpreting the WISC-IV

Part B: Interpreting the KBC-II Scales and Global Scales using models CHC and Luria

Part C: Interpretation using Cross-Battery ssessment

Part D: lternative Model for ELL Students

There tend to be fewer questions about interpretation of the Woodcock ohnson IIICognitive` therefore we have not included specific guidance on interpreting that in thismanual.!

Part A: Interpreting the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV)

In their chapter on interpreting the WISC-IV lanagan and Kaufman (2;) describe away to meaningfully organize WISC-IV data that is consistent with contemporary theoryand research. These include:

1. nalysis of index scores (including ull Scale IQ) to determine the best way tosummarize the students overall intellectual ability. The four index scores areVerbal Comprehension Index (VCI) Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI) WorkingMemory (WMI) and Processing Speed (PSI)

2. nalysis of fluctuations in the students index profile to identify strengths andweaknesses in cognitive skills both in terms of inter-individual and intra-individualcomparisons

3. nalysis of composite or professional cluster scores to further identify patterns ofcognitive capabilities

;. Exclusion of individual subtest interpretation

A. Xse of base rate data to evaluate the clinical meaningfulness of score variability

6. Grounding interpretation in the CHC theory of cognitive abilities

\. Guidance on the use of supplemental measures to test hypotheses aboutsignificant subtest variation

!$A),(&*%&=!Xse a variety of current intellectual assessment instruments such as K-BCDS-2 Stanford Binet Woodcock ohnson Cognitive bility and the XNIT toaccommodate the needs and performance styles of diverse learners. The WISC-IVshould not be the only measure used for cognitive assessment.

29AA*(+O+%8!45'(*::!$%&'::'3&9*:!CI+:+&?!90+%8!&1'!U$2/P$Y!

The WISC-IV examiner must consider the four index scores:

! Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)



31/53


! Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI)

! Working Memory Index (WMI) and Processing Speed Index (PSI).


32/53


!$A),(&*%&=!The GI score is not necessarily a more valid estimate of overall cognitiveability than the SIQ. Working memory and processing speed are vital to thecomprehensive evaluation of cognitive ability and excluding these abilities from theevaluation could be misleading. Thus even if the GI score is used to determine theability-achievement discrepancy the WMI and PSI scores should still be reported andinterpreted (WISC-IV Technical Report ;).

If the psychologist and team decide to use the GI score rather than the SIQ score asthe best estimate of global intellectual functioning for the individual student the rationaleshould be described in the Evaluation Report. This would be consistent with the intent ofthe publishers of the WISC-IV in giving flexibility to practitioners in interpreting thequantitative data yielded by the test. This would not be considered an over-ride becauseno data is being reected as invalid in preference for other data that is more valid.

Select the most accurate interpretation of the available data given the unique pattern ofstrengths and weaknesses of the student. It is appropriate to examine the SIQ GIscore discrepancy.

If the difference is equal to or larger than the critical value the difference is considered atrue difference rather than a difference due to measurement error or random fluctuation.

If the two scores are not significantly different this suggests that reducing the influenceof working memory and processing speed on the estimate of overall ability resulted inlittle difference.

7'0,9(3'!Q,,:!-,(!Z0+%8!LC$!50#!&1'!B9::P23*:'!23,('!

Xse the following steps as a decision tree for determining when to use the GI versus

the ull-Scale score.

2&')!D= Determine if each of the four indexes is unitary and interpretable: unitaryability is defined as an ability that is represented by a cohesive set of scaled scoreseach reflecting slightly different or unique aspects of the ability.

To determine if the VCI and PRI index scores are interpretable subtract the lowestsubtest scaled score from the highest subtest scaled score within each index andanswer the question: Is the size of the difference less than 1.A SDs (A points)

$-!?'0! $-!%,!

The ability presumed to underlie the VCI orPRI is unitary and may be interpreted. The difference is too large and the VCI orPRI cannot be interpreted as representingunitary abilities.

Xse the same procedure for the two subtest Working Memory and Processing Speedindexes. When there is extreme variability in a students profile there are additionalguidelines for interpretation which can be found in lanagan and Kaufman (2;).



33/53


2&')!E= Determine normative and personal strengths and weaknesses in the indexprofile: Only unitary index scores can be included in the analysis. Refer to the tableabove to describe the range within which each interpretable score lies.

To determine personal strengths and weaknesses:

1. Compute the mean of the students index standard scores and round to thenearest 1th of a point.

2. Subtract the mean of all Index standard scores from each interpretable Indexstandard score.

To be considered statistically significant the difference must be equal to or greater thanthe value reported in a chart called Difference Required for Statistical Significancebetween an Index and the Mean of all four Indexes by ge and Overall Sample.

$-the difference is significant and theinterpretable Index is higher than themean:

$-!the difference is significant and theinterpretable Index is lower than the mean:

Q1'%!the Index is a personal strength. Q1'%!the Index is a personal weakness.The examiner may also determine if any of these personal strengths or weaknesses areuncommon compared to base rates in the WISC-IV standardization sample. Personalstrengths can be considered key assets for the student while personal weaknesses canbe considered high priority concerns.

2&')!F=!dditional professional analysis of a students profile is possible using CHCclinical clusters. This may yield meaningful hypotheses that relate to diagnosis andeducational programming. In Sattlers chapter of Interpreting the WISC-IV additionalanalysis of a students profile includes six steps of profile analysis. This is to provideinformation about cognitive strengths and weaknesses and can be used to develophypotheses about the students cognitive functioning.

Description of these processes goes beyond the scope of the SLD Manual. Interestedreaders are referred to Sattler (2F) lanagan Kaufman (2;) or lanagan Ortiz lfonso (2\) for further information.

Part B: Interpreting the KABC-II Scales and Global Scales with Respect toTwo Models (CHC & Luria)

In their chapter on interpreting the KBC-II Kaufman Lichtenberger letcher-anzenKaufman N. (2A) provide both a step-by-step guide to the interpretive approach andground rules for the interpretive system. Only the first two steps are consideredessential. n optional step includes generating hypotheses to be verified with other data

(background information observations etc).

This system includes the four steps described in the KBC-II manual and two additionalsteps. The six steps are applicable to both the CHC and Luria models and are:

2&')!D=!$%&'()('&!L:,I*:!23,('0! Interpret the global scale index whether the luid-Crystallized bility (CI: CHC model) Mental Processing Index (MPI: Luria model) orNonverbal Index (NVI) (ages 3-1F).



34/53


Whether the CI or MPI is used before evaluating the global score you need todetermine whether the global scale is interpretable.

1. Calculate Range of ll Index Scores before Interpreting CI or MPI.

2. Subtract the highest from the lowest index standard score.

3. If the difference is greater than or equal to 23 points (1.A SD) then do notinterpret the CI or MPI rather focus interpretation on the four or five indexes.


35/53


2&')!]=!!V*K'!@:*%%';!/,A)*(+0,%0!

our of five planned comparisons involve alternative groupings into relevant clusters buthave no theoretical foundation (exception: Nonverbal bility versus Verbal bility).uthors recommend this step only if the examiner is comfortable with in-depth analysis

and has no obections to examination of subtest profiles.!! Step A: Nonverbal bility (NVI) vs. Verbal bility (ages 3-1F).

!! Step AB: Problem-Solving bility vs. Memory Learning (ages 3-1F).

!! Step AC: Visual Perception of Meaningful Stimuli vs. bstract Stimuli (ages ;-1F).

!! Step AD: Verbal Response vs. Pointing Response (ages ;-1F).

!! Step AE: Little or No Motor Response vs. Gross-Motor Response (ages ;-1F).

2&')!^=!L'%'(*&'!R?),&1'0+0!&,!MN):*+%!B:93&9*&+,%0!+%!Q6,!/+(39A0&*%3'0=!

When one or more scale indexes are not interpretable from Step 2 then proceed to tryto identify possible hypothesis as to why Supplementary subtest was either significantly

higher or lower than Core subtest on its scale. Options include Step A and/or use ofInterpretive Worksheet.

Optional Steps 3-6: Provide examiners with guidelines to generate hypothesis toexamine these differences for both the CHC and Luria models as well as providingeducationally relevant interventions. Because steps 3-6 are beyond the scope of theSLD Manual the reader is referred to Kaufman et al. 2A.

The new KBC-II approach is similar to new approach for the WISC IV interpretation(lanagan lanagan 2;) in the following ways:

1. Limits the number of alternate groupings of subtests to a small number ofcarefully chosen clusters.

2. Does not advocate the interpretation of subtest-specific abilities under anycircumstances.

3. Blends ipsative assessment with normative assessments

;. Descriptive categories are the same as those used for the WISC IV.

29AA*(?!,-!_CJ/P$$!

The KBC II can be interpreted from both a CHC and Luria perspective. The globalscore measuring general mental processing ability from the Luria perspective is theMental Processing Index (MPI) and the global score measuring general cognitive abilityfrom the CHC perspective is the luid-Crystallized Index (CI). Only the first two stepsare considered essential as outlined in the manual. (Kaufman and Kaufman 2;) The

six interpretive steps (Kaufman et al 2A) are the foundation for the CHD and MPIinterpretation. The KBC-II Interpretive Worksheet (ppendix) assists with summarizingeach step of the profile.



36/53


2988'0&';!7'*;+%80!,%!$%&'()('&+%8!&1'!_CJ/P$$=!!

Kaufman . Lichtenberger E. letcher-anzen E. Kaufman N. (2A). Essentialsof KBC-II ssessment. Hoboken N: ohn Wiley Sons.

National ssociation of School Psychologists. (2F). Best Practices in SchoolPsychology V. Bethesda MD: Thomas . Grimes .

Part C: Interpretation Using Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA)

While teams may use the Cross-Battery pproach when applying the Cultural LanguageInterpretive Matrix as applied with culturally and linguistically diverse learners there isnothing that precludes using the inherent logic in this approach to other applications

when doing an evaluation. The Cross-Battery ssessment approach includes a set ofresearch-based interpretive guidelines that allow practitioners to interpret data from oneor more batteries from Cattel-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory and research usingpsychometrically defensible methods. The link between CHC theory and studentachievement are addressed in the CHC Theory of Cognitive Processing(see chapter FTable F-2) which may provide assistance in the interpretation of test results.

Stages within the ramework for Cross-Battery ssessment and Interpretation(lanagan et al 2\) provides an overview of the steps. Complete descriptions of theseprocesses however are beyond the scope of the SLD Manual. See lanagan Ortiz lfonso (2\) Thomas Grimes (2F) and Kaufman et al. (2A) for furtherinformation.


37/53


different from that of grade-level peers with the same linguistic and cultural backgroundand similar educational experiences. Some large urban districts have found it useful tosystematically collect such academic norms for their various ELL groups in order tofacilitate such udgments of discrepancy. The measures generally used have beencurriculum-based measures which are direct brief sensitive to growth and havedemonstrated reliability and validity (Lau Blatchley 2). In this application of these

measures the norms represent expected achievement on the part of a linguistically andculturally unique population of students. The size of this discrepancy along with allother assessment data has been found to be a valid index of the possibility of disabilityin the target student.

When districts lack the resources or the critical mass of ELL students to ustify thecollection of norms it is possible to collect data on a smaller group in order to make lessformal comparisons. One of the advantages of this model is that the same curriculumbased measures may be used for progress monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe Tier 2 or 3 interventions being applied with the student. This data could also be usedto validate the accuracy of udgments about the students performance made earlier inthe process. The rate of a students academic learning over time is a very basic yetpowerful measure for analysis.

45'(5+'6!,-!&1'!/(,00!J*&&'(?!C))(,*31!!

The research-based guiding principles address the test selection process. The step-by-step process starts from the selected intelligence battery to the interpretation of data.Enter data into the B DMI refers to the CD ROM included with the book Essentialsof Cross Battery ssessment-Second Edition which contains three programs that allowusers to enter data and review results: the Cross Battery ssessment Data Managementand Interpretive ssistant` the Specific Learning Disability ssistant` and the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM).

The Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) corresponds to application of CrossBattery to CLD assessments.



38/53


Table -12

Overview of Cross-Battery Approach (Applications)

L9+;+%8!@(+%3+):'0! 2&')PI?P2&')!@(,3'00! /H.!@,)9:*&+,%0!

Select battery that best

addresses referral concerns

Select intelligence battery Review C-LTC and select

tests that are likely to bemost fair

Xse clusters based on actualnorms when possible

Identify Broad and narrowCHC abilities measured bybattery

Include tests from C-LTCneeded for referral despiteCHC classification

Select tests classified throughan acceptable method

Select tests to measureCHC abilities notmeasured by battery

dminister entire collectionof tests selected instandardized way

When broad ability isunderrepresented obtain

from another battery

dminister battery andsupplemental tests as

necessary

Xse C-LIM to compareresults to expected pattern

of performance

When crossing batteries usetests developed and normedwithin a few years

Enter data into B DMI If pattern evident resultsare invalid cannotinterpret data further

Select tests from the smallestnumber of batteries tominimize error

ollow B interpretiveguidelines

If no pattern results arevalid interpret via Bguidelines


39/53


The following Qs should answer some commonly asked questions about thessessment.

Table -13

Qs: Intellectual ssessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students>9'0&+,%! C%06'(!

To use Culture-LanguageTest Classifications (C-LTC) and Culture-Language InterpretiveMatrix (C-LIM) must I useCHC Cross-Batteryssessment

No. ny combination of tests or test battery is acceptable` C-LTC andC-LIM are used to analyze and interpret the results. The administrationof the culture-language test classifications are independent of what thetests are actually designed to measure. Their organization is based onthe degree to which they share the characteristics of cultural loadingand linguistic demand rather than a particular cognitive ability such asvisual or auditory processing.

How do we handle astudent whose language

profile is blacked out onthe Ochoa OrtizMultidimensionalssessment Model(MMBI)

Exceptions to the illogical or improbable classifications include:

7'-98''!0&9;'%&0 who arrive in the X.S. at older ages with no or very

limited prior schooling. Those who have begun or have alreadylearned English may display language Profile 2 (L1 emergent/L2minimal) or Profile 3 (L1 fluent/L2 minimal). The length of time thestudent has received formal education and how long they have beenlearning English is critical. High school students may in fact have fewyears of formal instruction and learning English. Treat these as similarto students who display profile 2 within the K-; category. Evaluate thestudents developmental pattern as opposed to relying solely on age orgrade placement.

$%&'(%*&+,%*:!*;,)&''0!or refugees who lost or had limited nativelanguage development and have learned English within the adoptedhome might display Profile \ (L1 limited/L2 fluent) or Profile F (L1emergent/ L2 fluent). The recommended mode of evaluation would be

more like Profiles 2 and ; within the K-; category.

MMBI seems to equateCLP with reading/writingskills. Discuss late-arrivingrefugees without priorschooling or literacy skillswith higher skills in oralexpression reasoning.

The concept of CLP has never been strictly specified from atheoretical standpoint and thus how it is to be operationalized can varysignificantly. Generally reading and writing are components of CLPwhich emerge as a function of formal schooling. Yet it is possible thatstudents develop higher order skills related to oral language use andcommunication that are evidence of some type of CLP. This level ofCLP may be measured by SOLOM informally or by Bilingual Verbalbilities Test (BVT) formally.

The Ochoa Ortiz MMBIseems to imply thatstudents who are servedprimarily in ESL programscannot be identified asstudents with SpecificLearning Disabilities. Isthis true

No. Students served in ESL-only and general programs are equallyidentifiable. The only reason it seems that it is harder is that the lack ofnative language instruction needs to be ruled out as the primary causefor the students learning problems. This is not impossible only difficultas compared to students in native language programs where the issuehas already been dealt with. Thus with students in native languageprograms instructional factors are much more easily eliminated aspossible causes of observed learning difficulties.



40/53


Minnesota Department of Education Draft -;

>9'0&+,%! C%06'(!

The link between MMBIand C-LTC/C-LIM isunclear. Whenrecommending

assessments in English asthe primary or secondaryassessment mode shouldC-LTC/C-LIM be used

MMBI provides guidance on the method e.g. native language orbilingual which is likely to yield the fairest estimates of actual ability. IfC-LTC/C-LIM is not used MMBI leads to the least discriminatorymode of assessment. Xse C-LTC after choosing assessment modality

to hand pick the tests that measure the constructs of interest with theleast amount of cultural loading or linguistic demand and bias leadingto fairest evaluation of the students abilities. Xse C-LIM to analyzetest results MMBI to select the modality C-LTC to select the fairesttests within that modality and C-LIM to interpret the results.

C-LTC categorizessubtests according to low/medium/ high languagedemand and culturalloading. Is it appropriate toplot students languageand cultural background(low/medium/high)

English proficiency andlow/medium/high degreeof acculturation If sohow do the categoriescorrelate to the variouslanguage profiles on theMMBI

Yes determine the students degree of difference in terms of Englishlanguage proficiency and level of acculturation. The language profilesin MMBI would break down as follows: minimal (CLP level1 or 2)is low emergent (CLP level3) is moderate and fluent (CLPlevel; or A) is high. Levels of acculturation can also be equatedfairly simply and in the same manner from results of acculturationchecklists or other data and information that were gathered. Thus interms of difference which is the key to fair assessment and

interpretation individuals with high degrees of English proficiency andhigh degrees of acculturation would be only slightly different. Thosewith more moderate levels of proficiency and acculturation would ustbe different or moderately different. Those with low levels ofproficiency and acculturation would be markedly different. Note thatproficiency and acculturation are highly related to and predict eachother. Thus although possible its unlikely that a student will be at twodifferent levels at the same time and any such differences ultimatelymust be resolved into one category or another.

The XNIT is designed toevaluate verbal reasoningskills through nonverbal

means. Do you think itdoes so adequately

No. The kind of internal meta-linguistic processes that people mayuse during the completion of a task are not the same as the overt useof receptive and expressive oral language skills that are demanded

and measured by other tasks. No compelling evidence shows that self-talk is required for completing tasks on the XNIT. They may well becompleted without any internal verbal mediation. In short the onlyappropriate and valid way to measure verbal reasoning skills isthrough verbal reasoning tasks.

Should the XNIT be usedas a stand-aloneinstrument (as the onlymeasure of intellectualability) If not whatadditional measuresshould it be combinedwith

The XNIT is used as a stand-alone measure of intellectual ability insome circumstances particularly if the results are analyzed via C-LIM.However when culture and language are ruled out as primaryinfluences on the results practitioners may find that they havemeasured a relatively limited range of cognitive abilities. The XNITtends to measure visual processing (Gv) almost exclusively with onetest of fluid intelligence (Gf) added. Thus Gv is well represented on theXNIT but Gf is underrepresented and many important areas offunctioning such as short-term memory auditory processing long-term retrieval processing speed etc. are not represented at all. Thusif a more comprehensive evaluation of cognitive abilities is desiredsupplementing the XNIT is necessary. Give subtests from the W IIIcognitive battery as it contains at least two good measures of all of theabilities that may be relevant or of interest.


41/53


Minnesota Department of Education Draft -;1

>9'0&+,%! C%06'(!

Should interpreters beused in the administrationof the XNIT

The XNIT can be administered entirely in pantomime using eightgestures provided in the instructions. However how these gestures(which represent a de facto language and communication system) areto be taught to an individual who does not speak or understand

English is unclear. Therefore the XNIT can be administered via use ofan interpreter subect to the conditions described in the section aboveon Native Language ssessment and the Xse of Interpreters. Thisperson should ensure that the student knows the purpose of theactivity when to start stop and when to work quickly.

Many batteries place apremium on speed andquick responses. remodifications inadministration such asallowing more timerecommended

Yes but only in cases where the test has already been administered inEnglish in a standardized manner. The second administrationpresumably conducted in the native-language via a translator or via anative-language test is the recommended point at which modificationssuch as removing time constraints testing the limits additionalmediation and so forth should be employed. But the ability to drawvalid and equitable inferences from the data rests on following theprocedures outline above in the section titled Native Language

ssessment and the Xse of Interpreters.


42/53


Best practice indicates that cluster scores be comprised of at least two or three subtestswhich are under the tests same theory of cognitive abilities/processes and preferablydevelopmentally appropriate to the individual being tested. Subtest scores may be usedto further understand the nature of strengths and weaknesses as well as direct focusduring instructional planning and goal setting. Only use global intelligence scores whenthere is no significant factor or subtest variability. Xse only broad or cluster scores to

analyze achievement.

V+%%'0,&*!7'8('00+,%!Q*I:'!Xse the Minnesota Regression Table to determine a severe discrepancy consistent withstate criteria. In previous practice teams were to assume a .62 correlation and used onlythat column to determine discrepancy. or more accurate practice current research tellsus to identify and use the appropriate correlation for the specific ability test and theachievement test used in the assessment.

The steps below show how to accurately use the Minnesota Regression Table.

2&')!D= ind the correlation between the ability and achievement tests administered tothe student. Such information will usually be available at different age levels in thetechnical manuals provided by the test publishers. It is helpful to consult with someonewho is well-versed in the technical aspects of tests such as a school psychologist tolocate the information. If a specific correlation is not available use the .62 correlationcolumn.

2&')!E=!If the students achievement score (standard score) is equal to or less than thescore reported in the correlation column then the students discrepancy is consideredsevere and meets this part of the SLD eligibility criteria. Caution: This is ust one of threecriteria for SLD eligibility. The team must also verify and document the presence of theother two criteria elements (severe underachievement and basic psychologicalprocessing condition).

2&')!F=!The team must verify this discrepancy through other measures such as

observation performance-based measures etc.!

V+%%'0,&*!7'8('00+,%!B,(A9:*!

017444_Chapter9-InterpretationofData

Documents

Transcript of 017444_Chapter9-InterpretationofData