How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists ( or how to collaborate besides...

How CHC links School Psychologists

with Speech Language Pathologists

(or how to collaborate besides using a staple)Andrew Shanock, Ph.D., NCSP

Jacquelyn O’Connor, MAJacqueline Butera, MA

College of Saint Rose, Albany [email protected]

Goals of Presentation

• Change how we approach assessment• Review the Federal Law• Define CHC and Cultural Linguistic Demands• How to assemble a Cross Battery Assessment• How it impacts recommendations and

interventions• Show how we do the same or nearly the same

tests• Writing a Comprehensive SLP SP report• Open up communication between SP’s and SLP’s

2

(Perlman, 1958)

What are we doing?

After you've done a thing the same way for two years, look it

over carefully. After five years, look at it with

suspicion. And after ten years, throw it away and start all

over.

3

(Reynolds, 2009)

What are we doing?

THE PRACTICE OF TODAY IS THE

MALPRACTICE OF TOMORROW

4

We like RtI

• Terrific Model for Early Intervention/Prevention– No more Wait to Fail– Early intervention lowers the risk of academic difficulty in the future

• Helps identify those who suffer from dispedagogia rather than a possible learning disability

• General Education movement– Break down the walls between Spec Ed and Gen Ed.

• Teach everyone not just the middle • Focus on the resources we have, not what we

don’t have. 5

YAY RtI

• Allow me to do more than just test!• We are not psychometricians, we are

psychologists (no matter what APA may say)

• Gets me more involved in academics• Pushes school psychologists to

understand what is reading, writing, math, etc.

• We can actually use our consultation skills

6

Questions RtI still needs to answer

• How long for interventions• How many interventions• Differences between schools (even

within districts)• Reliability and Validity• RtI only answers WHAT is

happening, not WHY (especially at Tier III)

7

Comprehensive Assessment

• Can give us a better sense of the WHY?– CHC, PASS, CHT, etc.

• Is NOT Discrepancy Analysis• It is invasive• Is no longer trying to find ‘g’• Should be based on research and

confirmatory data.• Based on contemporary research

8

9

Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a Single Approach,

Consider an “Open Mind” Proposal

• Understand the benefits and limitations of RTI (Special Issue of Learning and Individual Differences; Compton, 2008)

• Understand that the “promise of RTI swamps the evidence” for it at this time (Speece & Walker, 2007, p. 287)

• Understand the benefits and limitations of contemporary cognitive assessment (Flanagan, Kaufman, Kaufman, & Lichtenberger, 2008)

• Understand that Tier II nonresponders are not well understood in terms of a) how they differ from responders; and b) the types of treatments/interventions that may be more or less successful for them (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2008)

• Consider “third option” approaches to SLD Identification (Hale, Flanagan, & Naglieri, 2008; McCloskey, 2007)

5.29.08 – Flanagan Webinar; Pearson Education, Inc.

10

Rather than Debating and Limiting Ourselves to a Single Approach,

Consider an “Open Mind” Proposal

• Entertain the idea that RTI and cognitive assessment can occur on a continuum

• Try not to blame psychological tests, but rather the people who use them inappropriately

• Understand that you must do what your state requires for SLD identification but you can add to those requirements in a manner that approaches best practices (Zirkel, 2008)

• Understand that neither RTI nor any other approach to SLD identification is a panacea – so don’t endorse any approach as a cure-all

• Entertain the idea that a balanced approach may be the best approach at this time


5.29.0811

President’s Message

“I would hope that the goal here is to expand the methods of assessment available to the practitioner and not to limit them. It seems possible that these two very valuable approaches can be utilized along a continuum of collecting information about a child that would culminate in a very clear and comprehensive evaluation that would be of value to all.”

Huff, L. (2005, February). President’s Message. NASP Communique, 33, 2-3.


12

The American Educational System Structure

K-12 Education

Gifted

SPED

Migrant

ESL

At-Risk

Title I

•Turfdom

•Conflicting Programs

•Lack of coordination

•bureaucracy for sake of bureaucracy

•Student grouping not instructionally based

•Rigidity, rules

•Redundancy

Gen. Ed.

13

School Psychologist and Speech Language Pathologists

Speech Language Pathologist

SCHOOL

PSYCHOLOGIST

•Turfdom

•Lack of coordination

•Redundancy

14

Shared office, separate lives

• For many initial evaluations, the school psychologist and the speech language pathologist are asked to do an assessment

• The assessments often happen in isolation of one another

• Little to no discussion about what abilities are to be tapped

• Every kid, no matter what the issue, gets the same battery of tests

• The SP and SLP share results at CSE as separate voices rather than one.

15

Shared Office, Separate lives

• SLP’s and SP’s will do the same tests without knowing it

• We report on the same issues without reading each others report

• Expect parents and teachers to consolidate our findings

• Reports are filled with numbers and not information

• Multiple reports connected by a staple.

16

ASHA Guidelines for Assessment

and Evaluation• Assessment should be based on multiple sources of

information to obtain a comprehensive picture of the child's functioning. (Division of Early Childhood, 2007)

• No single measure can provide sufficient information; therefore, assessment data should reflect multiple perspectives (ASHA, 2000)

• In addition to the use of various tools, assessment practices should include consultation with team members. (ASHA, 2005, 2008b)

Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)

ASHA Guidelines for Assessment and Evaluation• Emphasize the importance of professionals

working as a team for assessment and service provision (DEC, 2007)

• Assessment should provide information to inform program planning and intervention decisions. – go beyond the determination of eligibility for

services to include the gathering of information

that will be useful in making decisions for effective intervention planning. (ASHA, 2005)

17Hebbeler & Rooney (2009)

Traditional System Issues

CASE 1:

THIRD GRADERREADING DIFFICULTY

WISCWIAT

18


CASE 2:

SEVENTH GRADERWRITING DIFFICULTY

WISCWIAT

19


CASE 3:

FIRST GRADERMATH DIFFICULTY

WISCWIAT

20

21

Traditional System issues• Little emphasis on early intervention and prevention

– False Positives and False Negatives

• IQ-Achievement Discrepancy – BAD– (Identifying CHC Abilities, using consistency GOOD!)

• IEP’s did not implement scientifically based instruction– Start program in September, find out if effective in May

• Overrepresentation of cultural/linguistic minorities in special education

• Stop Retention and Social Promotion

• More concern about being in compliance than child’s educational success – THE FORGOTTEN GOAL

• Within Student vs. Within System– Darn those lazy kids. I sat them in the room for a half hour and nothing

happened.

Traditional Systems Issue

THIRD GRADE REFERRAL

22

23

BREAKING NEWS

THE EARLIER THE INTERVENTION

THE LOWER THE RISK

OF ACADEMIC DIFFICULTY

IN THE FUTURE

24

Related to Traditional Assessment?

• Inconsistencies in Identification

1988 27 % of identified children in Utah were ED,the ED rate in CA was 2.5 % of identified childrenForness & Kavale, 1990

• Huge Increases in Identification

From 1976 to 2002 the classification of children with specific learning disabilities increased 300%President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education July 1, 2002

25

Related to the Traditional Model?

• Reading Failure

80% of of those with SLD (40-53% of all Sp Ed students) are there because they haven’t learned how to read

• Cultural Bias African American

students are twice as likely as whites to be labeled MR and 50% more likely to be designated as emotionally disturbed

(A New Era 2002, Gresham, 2002)

26

Related to the Traditional Model?

• 6 million children currently in special education

• Federal funding is 8.5 billion dollars

• Placement in special education programs most often result in little gain or negative outcomes

(A New Era 2002)

27

Over thirty years of research has provided

support for the termination of discrepancy

as a way of identifying learning disabilities

28

Validity – If discrepancy is true then…..

•Learning disability is result of unexpected low achievement.

•Also implies that children with unexpected low achievement (LD) are distinct from expected low achievement (i.e., low achievement and low intelligence).

Assessment: Past & Future

Traditional Model– Definitional

Concerns– Discrepancy

based models– Wait to fail– Disconnection of

assessments

Model of the Future– Preventative approach– Validated Models– Response to

Intervention– CHC XBA (putting the

why in RTI)– Comprehensive

Evaluations29

IDEIAWhat are some of the details

of the Federal Law?

30

RTI may be used AS A PART of the evaluation… but not as sole method

IQ achievement discrepancy no longer required

31

“use a variety of assessment tools”

“not use any single procedure”

“assess cognitive factors”

32

non discriminatory assessments

valid and reliable assessment

33

IDEIA 2004 LawDefinition of SLD

remains the same

34

New York’s Response

35

36

NYS Learning Disability Definition

Past and Present

A student with a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which manifests itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, neurological impairment, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia. The term does not include students who have learning problems which are primarily the result of visual, hearing or motor handicaps, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. A student who exhibits a discrepancy of 50 percent or more between expected achievement and actual achievement determined on an individual basis shall be deemed to have a learning disability [**language repealed**]

ALRIGHT ALREADY!

TALK ABOUT CHC!

37

Any Overall or Global Score

• What is it?• What is it made of?• Does it really mean anything?• Does it mean anything in relation to

intervention?• It’s the parts that make the whole• It’s the parts that will identify the

strengths and weaknesses that impact upon learning

38

Breaking up is not so hard to do

• It is using research can we identify the parts of ‘g’ that impact learning

• Through the CHC model we can identify the subtests that measure various parts of ‘g’

• Through Cross Battery, we can create a full evaluation that connects the pieces which can describe the whole child.

39

The CHC Cross-Battery The CHC Cross-Battery ApproachApproach

• Definition:The CHC Cross-Battery Approach is a

time-efficient method of intellectual assessment that allows practitioners to measure validly a wider range (or a more in-depth but selected range) of cognitive abilities than that represented by any one intelligence battery in a manner consistent with contemporary psychometric theory and research on the structure of intelligence.

40

G eneralS equentialR easoning

Induction

Q uantitativeR easoning

P iagetianR easoning

S peed ofR easoning

F lu idI n te l lig en ce

(G f)

M ath.K now.

M ath.A ch.

Q u a n ti ta t iveK n o w le d ge

(Gq )

L anguageD evelop.

L exicalK now l.

L isteningAbility

G eneralInfo.

Info.aboutC ulture

G eneralScienceInfo.

G eographyA ch.

C om m.Ability

O ralP roduction& F luency

G ram.S ensitivity

F oreignL anguageP rofic iency

F oreignL anguageAptitude

C ry s ta l l iz edI n te l lig en ce

(Gc )

R e ad ingD e c od ing

R e ad ingC o m p .

V e rb alL a n g u a g eC o m p .

C lo zeA b i l i ty

S p e l lingA b i l i ty

W r it ingA b i l i ty

E nglishU sageK nowledge

R e ad ingS p e ed

R e a d in g a ndW r it ing

(G rw )

M emoryS pan

W orkingM emory

L earningAbilities

S h o r t-T e rmM e m o ry

(G sm )

V isualiza tion

S patialR ela tions

V isu alM e m o ry

C losureS peed

F lexibilityof C losure

S patialS canning

S erialP erceptualIntegration

L engthE stimation

P erceptualIllusions

P erceptualA lternations

Im agery

V isu alP r oc e ss ing

(Gv )

P h o n . C d g .:A n aly s is

P h o n . C d g .:S y n th e s is

S peech S nd.D iscrim .

R es. toAud. S tim .D istortion

M emoryfor SoundP atterns

G eneralS nd. D iscrim .

T emporalT racking

M usicalD iscrim . &Judgm ent

M ainta ining& JudgingR hythm

S nd-Intens ityD ura tionD iscrim .

S nd-F req.D iscrim .

H earing &S peechT hreshold

AbsoluteP itch

S oundL oca lization

A u d ito ryP r oc e ss ing

(Ga )

A s so c .M e m o ry

M n g fu l.M e m o ry

F reeR e ca llM e m o ry

IdeationalF luency

Assoc.F luency

E xpress ionalF luency

N amingF acility

W ordF luency

F iguralF luency

F iguralF lexibility

S ensitivity toP roblems

O rigina lity/C reativity

L earningAbilities

L o n g -T e rmS to r a g e &R e tr iev al

(G lr )

P erceptualS peed

R ate-of-T est Taking

N um berF acility

S emanticP rocess ingS peed*

P r oc e ss ingS p e ed

(Gs )

S im pleR eac tionT ime

C hoiceR eac tionT ime

M entalC omparisonS peed

C orrectD ec isionS peed

D ec is ionS p e ed /

R e a ct io nT im e(Gt)

Italic indicates abilities that were not included in Carroll’s three-stratum model but were included by Carroll in the domains of knowledge and achievement. Bold indicates abilities that are placed under different CHC broad abilities than in Carroll’s model. These changes are based on the Horn-Cattell model and/or recent research (see Flanagan, McGrew & Ortiz, 2000; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; McGrew, 1997; McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). *Semantic Processing Speed was previously classified under Gt consistent with Carroll (1993). However, recent data analysis from WJ III now suggests that it may be a narrow Gs ability instead (see Woodcock et al., 2001). See Appendix B for more detailed information regarding both the broad and narrow abilities.

Bro

ad

Stra

tum

II

Nar

row

St

ratu

m I

Figure 2.2 The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities (CHC Theory)

Flanagan, D.P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2001). Essentials of cross-battery assessment. New York: Wiley &

Sons.

41

One Battery Does Not Fit All

• Given that no individual battery contains sufficient indicators of all of the major CHC abilities, a cross battery approach has been developed to bridge the gap between theory and practice.

• Do more than simply choose another battery and give the whole darn thing. Be specific.

42

• The breadth and depth of knowledge of a culture

• The ability to communicate one’s knowledge (especially verbally)

• The ability to reason using previously learned knowledge or procedures

• Originally described as “crystallized intelligence”

• “Jeopardy” players have waaaay too much Gc.

• Includes Listening Skills and Oral Communication.

Gc Gc Comprehension-KnowledgeComprehension-Knowledge

43

•Novel reasoning and problem solving that depend minimally on learning and acculturation

•Ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems that often include novel information or procedures

•Induction & deduction are hallmarks of Gf

•Impacts math reasoning, reading comprehension, higher level thinking

•The first few times you do Soduku, you are using your Fluid Reasoning. After you learn the trick, it becomes crystallized knowledge (Gc)

Gf Gf Fluid ReasoningFluid Reasoning

44

•Ability to store information and fluently retrieve it later

•Ability to retrieve from file cabinet

•Not to be confused with acquired stores of knowledge (Gc)

•There has to be an intervening event. Can mean retrieving information learned several seconds earlier.

•Not long term memory

•Includes Rapid Naming, Meaningful Memory, Associative memory

•All contestants on Jeopardy have good Gc, but those who are more effective at retrieving the info do better.

Glr Glr Long-term (Storage &) RetrievalLong-term (Storage &) Retrieval

45

•Ability to analyze, synthesize, & discriminate auditory stimuli

•Ability to perceive and discriminate speech sounds that may be presented under distorted conditions

•Not to be confused with an “auditory learner” or how well someone hears. Can be hearing impaired and still have good Ga

•Includes Phonemic Awareness

Ga Ga Auditory ProcessingAuditory Processing

46

Is it All About Phonological Processing?

• “In the area of reading, a model suggesting that phonological deficits fully account for reading problems in virtually all children is now being amended (Snowling, 2008)”

• “Today, we are witnessing many children whose phonological skills have been remediated, and remediated well, and who continue to struggle to read fluently and with comprehension (Shaywitz, Morris, & Shaywitz, 2008)”

From Shaywitz and Reynolds (2009)47

•Ability to apprehend and hold information in immediate awareness and then use it within a few seconds

• 7 chunks of information (+ /– 3)

• Working Memory and Memory Span

•Working Memory is key in most academic areas.

Gsm Gsm Short-term MemoryShort-term Memory

48

•Ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under pressure to maintain focused attention

• Attentive speediness

•Usually measured by tasks that require rapid cognitive processing but little thinking

•Card sorting, game of Perfection

Gs Gs Processing SpeedProcessing Speed

49

•Ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize and think with visual patterns

•Ability to store and recall visual representations

•Fluent thinking with stimuli that are visual in the “mind’s eye”

•Not to be confused with a “visual learner” or how well does someone see. Can be visually impaired and still have good Gv

Gv Gv Visual-Spatial ThinkingVisual-Spatial Thinking

50

Supporting Evidence for CHC theory

• Structural – Evidence from over 50 years of factor analytic studies

• Outcome Criterion – Evidence of differential relationships between diff. CHC abilities and external outcomes (i.e. reading, occupation, math, etc.)

• Neurocognitive – Links between CHC measures and neurological functioning

• Heritability – Differential heritability for different CHC abilities (i.e. Spatial relations vs. Visual Memory)

• Developmental – Different patterns of growth and decline across the life span (i.e. Gc vs. Gsm)

51

IQ – Not so smart

• What is it?• What is it made of?• Does it really mean anything?• Does it exist?• Does it mean anything in relation to

intervention?• IQ can no longer mean Wechsler FSIQ• It’s the parts that make the whole• It’s the parts that will identify the strengths

and weaknesses that impact upon learning

52

THE WISCAND CHC

FULL

SCALE

IQ

(FSIQ)

Verbal

Comprehension

Index

VCI

Perceptual

Reasoning

Index

PRI

Working Memory Index

WMI

Similarities

Vocabulary

Comprehension

WISC-IV Composition INDEX SUBTESTS CHC

Processing Speed Index

PSI

Information

Word Reasoning

Matrices

Picture Concepts

Block Design

Picture Completion

Arithmetic

Digit Span

Letter Number Sequencing

Cancellation

Symbol Search

Coding

GcGcGcGcGc

Gf

Gc/Gf

Gv

Gv/Gc

Gsm

Gs

Gq

Gsm

GsGs

SO WHY DO A CHC EVAL

• Almost all new versions of cognitive batteries are based in CHC– Stunning since CHC came out only 10 years ago

• Don’t waste time with unnecessary tests between our two evals and within our individual evals.

• Shooting with the LIGHTS ON• Legally defensible. Less lawsuits. • Parents and educators actually understand our

reports and appreciate knowing why the child is struggling. Empowering for everyone!

55

Cross Battery is THEORY/RESEARCH

focusedNOT

KIT FOCUSED

REMEMBER: USE THEORY AND RESEARCH TO DETERMINE ELIGIBILITY. 56

Let’s go through the steps!

57

Presumption of Normalcy

•Assessment should be driven by presumptions of normalcy rather than pre-conceptions of dysfunction.

• In the absence of any gross physiological trauma or developmental dysfunction, and given a history of appropriate and sufficient instruction and opportunity to learn, it is expected that an individual undergoing LD assessment will perform within normal limits on WJ III tests (i.e., standard scores of 90 to 110, inclusive). 58

STEP 1: REASON FOR

REFERRAL• Individualize your assessment batteries.

– Don’t give WISC/WIAT/TOLD to every single kid who is referred.

• Know what cognitive/language abilities impact the specific academic concern

• Rule out exclusionary factors

59

60

Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Processes and Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006) see also Kevin McGrew’s website: www.iapsych.com

CHC Ability

Reading Achievement

Math Achievement

Writing Achievement

Gf Inductive (I) and general sequential reasoning (RG) abilities play a moderate role in reading comprehension.

Inductive (I) and general sequential (RG) reasoning abilities are consistently very important at all ages.

Inductive (I) and general sequential reasoning abilities is related to basic writing skills primarily during the elementary school years (e.g., 6 to 13) and consistently related to written expression at all ages.

Gc Language development (LD), lexical knowledge

(VL), and listening ability (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with age.

Language development (LD), lexical knowledge (VL), and listening abilities (LS) are important at all ages. These abilities become increasingly more important with age.

Language development (LD), lexical knowledge (VL), and general information (K0) are important primarily after age 7. These abilities become increasingly more important with age.

Gsm Memory span (MS) is important especially when

evaluated within the context of working memory.

Memory span (MS) is important especially when evaluated within the context of working memory.

Memory span (MS) is important to writing, especially spelling skills whereas working memory has shown relations with advanced writing skills (e.g., written expression).

Gv Orthographic Processing May be important primarily for higher level or

advanced mathematics (e.g., geometry, calculus).

Ga Phonetic coding (PC) or “phonological

awareness/processing” is very important during the elementary school years.

Phonetic coding (PC) or “phonological awareness/processing” is very important during the elementary school years for both basic writing skills and written expression (primarily before age 11).

Glr Naming facility (NA) or “rapid automatic

naming” is very important during the elementary school years. Associative memory (MA) may be somewhat important at select ages (e.g., age 6).

Naming Facility (NA); Associative Memory (MA) Naming facility (NA) or “rapid automatic naming” has demonstrated relations with written expression, primarily the fluency aspect of writing.

Gs Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important

during all school years, particularly the elementary school years.

Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important during all school years, particularly the elementary school years.

Perceptual speed (P) abilities are important during all school years for basic writing and related to all ages for written expression.

Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD Patterns: Example of Hypothesized CHC Domain-Specific LD Patterns: Ages 6-8Ages 6-8

GcCrystallized Intelligence

GsmShort-TermMemory

Gs ProcessingSpeed

Ga Auditory Processing

Glr Long-TermRetrieval

Basic Reading Skills

ReadingComp


GsmShort-TermMemory

Gs ProcessingSpeed

Ga Auditory Processing


Gf Fluid Intelligence


GsmShort-TermMemory

Gs ProcessingSpeed

Math Reasoning

Basic Math Skills

Gf Fluid Intelligence

GsmShort-TermMemory

Gs ProcessingSpeed


61

STEP 2: CHOOSE A CORE

BATTERY• If you need an overall g, you have to do

all the core tests. If not, then you can just do the ones that are related to the reason for referral.

• Not all cognitive batteries address the same cognitive areas. Need to know what the tests are actually measuring.

62

Broad WISC-IV KABC-II WJ III COG

Gf Picture Concepts (I)Matrix Reasoning (I)Word Reasoning (I)

Pattern Reasoning (I, Gv-Vz)Story Completion (I, RG, Gc-

K0)

Concept Formation (I)Analysis Synthesis (RG)

Gc Similarities (LD & VL), Vocabulary (VL)

Comp. (K0), Picture Concepts (K0)

Picture Completion (K0)Information (K0), Word

Reasoning (VL)

Riddles (VL, LD, Gf-RG)Expressive Vocab. (VL)Verbal Know. (VL, K0)

Verbal Comp. (VL & LD)General Info. (K0)

Ga -- See KTEA-II Incomplete Words (PC:A)Sound Blend. (PC:S)Auditory Att. (US/U3, UR)

Gv Block Design (SR)Picture Completion (CF)

Conceptual Thinking (Vz, Gf-I)Block Counting (Vz, Gq-A3)Face Recog. (MV), Triangles

(SR, Vz)Rover (SS, Gf-RG, Gq-A3)Gestalt Closure (CS)

Spatial Relations (Vz & SR)Picture Recognition (MV)

Gsm Digit Span (MS & MW)Letter-# Sequencing (MW)

Word Order (MS, WM)Number Recall (MS)Hand Mvmts. (MS, Gv-MV)

Memory for Words (MS)Numbers Rev. (MW)Auditory Work. Mem.(MW)

Glr -- Atlantis (MA & L1)Rebus (MA)Atlantis Delayed (MA, L1)Rebus Delayed (MA, L1)

Visual Aud. Learning (MA & MM)

Vis.-Aud. Delayed (MA)Retrieval Fluency (FI & FA)Rapid Pic. Nam. (NA)

Gs Coding (R9)Symbol Search (P & R9)Cancellation (P & R9)

See KTEA-II Fluency tests Visual Matching (P & R9)Decision Speed (R4)

Gq Arithmetic (A3) See KTEA-II

Evaluation of Cognitive Abilities Mascolo (2004). Published in Flanagan & Kaufman (2004) Essentials of WISC-IV Assessment. Wiley

63

The Step-by-Step CB Approach

• Identify the CHC abilities that are represented adequately on the core battery– Review the CHC Cross-Battery

Worksheets

• Identify the CHC abilities that are not represented or are underrepresented on the core battery and select tests to approximate/ensure adequate representation of these abilities 64

Guiding PrinciplesGuiding Principles

Broad or Narrow test interpretation?

Ind

uct

ive R

eas.

Ded

uct

. R

eas.

Ind

uct

ive R

eas.

Ind

uct

ive R

eas.

Gf

I RG I

GfBattery A contains twoqualitatively differentindicators that can becombined to represent abroad ability cluster

Battery B contains twoqualitatively similarindicators that can becombined to represent anarrow ability cluster

Broad

Narrow

65

STEP 3: CHOOSE A

SUPPLEMENTAL• Identify the Absence or

Underrepresentation – Supplement your core with subtests

from another battery (Hence the title CROSS BATTERY)

• Find Supplemental tests •keep the number of batteries to a minimum

(preferably two)

• Use confidence bands to identify what has been measured 66

This is where SP and SLP can get together and see what should be done next.

How can we supplement rather than duplicate

67

CHC Abilities Related to Basic Reading Skills and Reading Comprehension in Children Ages 6-8 Years

Gc Gc Ga Ga Gs Gs Gsm Gsm Glr GlrImportant Broad

CHC Abilities

LD VL PC US P MW MA NAImportant

Narrow CHC Abilities

Rid

dle

s

Ver

bal

Kn

ow.

KABC-II

KTEA-II

Non

. Wrd

Dcd

Ph

on. A

war

e.

Tim

ed N

WD

Wor

d O

rder

Atl

anti

s

RA

N

Tim

ed W

rd R

ec

WJ

III

WM

Clu

ster

Co-normed

Flu

ency

Reb

us

Supplemental

CT

OP

P

WJ

III

Au

d. A

tten

t.

= Strongest and most consistent significant relation

= Consistent significant relation

WJ

III Gs

Clu

ster

68

STEP 4: MAKE SCORES COMMUNICATE

• Convert Scaled Scores into Standard Scores

• See handout

• If crossing batteries, find Cluster Average.– Need to understand Confidence Intervals

• If the Cluster score on one battery adequately measures a Broad Ability, use that score rather than averaging.

69

STEP 5: INTERPRET TOGETHER

• Combine our perspectives, knowledge, and clinical understandings to better understand the child.

• Are we talking a language deficit or a cognitive deficit or both?– To heck with IEP DIRECT

• It’s time to be detectives.

• Follow the clues/data

• Confirmatory data should support any conclusions.

70

Look at CONSISTENCY

NotDISCREPANCY

71

Integrated Ability Analysis (Flanagan et al., 2002)

-1 SEM 68 %

+1 SEMSubtests = + 7Confidence Bands: Clusters = + 5

Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____

Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________ KABC-II and KTEA-II Data

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Glr Broad/Narrow ClusterRebus_____________(___)Atlantis_ __________(___)__________________(___)

Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( ) _______________(___)

Gv Broad/Narrow ClusterRover _ __( )Triangles_______ ( )_______________( )

Gf Broad/Narrow ClusterStory Comp.__ ( )Pattern Reasoning ( _)_______________ ( )

Ga Broad/Narrow ClusterNonsense Wd Decod( )Phonol. Awareness_( ) ________________(___)

Grw Broad/Narrow ClusterReading Composite( )Sound Symbol ( ) Reading Fluency__(_ _)

40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160

Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)_________________(___) 72


-1 SEM 68 %


Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____


40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160







40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160


Phonological Deficit

Rapid Naming Deficit

Lexical Deficit

Fletcher et al., (2002). Fletcher et al., (2002).

Subtypes of reading disability based on phonological awareness (PA), rapid naming (RN), and vocabulary skills.

Working memory is not depicted, but would also be a subtyping dimension

SubtypePA Only

SubtypePA & RN

SubtypePA & RN,Lex GlobalLanguage

SubtypeRN Only

CHC domain

Ga

Glr/Gs

Gc

Gsm

75

Assessment of Diverse Children:Dimensions of Standardized Tests Related to

Bias• Tests are culturally loaded:– the majority of tests used by psychologists were developed and

normed in U.S. and inherently reflect native anthropological content as well as the culturally bound conceptualizations of the test developers themselves. Many tests require specific prior knowledge of and experience with mainstream U.S. culture

• Tests require language (communication):– linguistic factors affect administration, comprehension,

responses, and performance on virtually all tests. Even nonverbal tests that reduce oral language requirements continue to rely on effective communication between examiner and examinee in order to measure optimal performance

• Tests vary on both dimensions:– Tests vary significantly with respect to the degree that they are

culturally loaded as well as the degree of language required

Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand

Low Moderate High

Flanagan & Ortiz (2001)

76

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Bias in Test Validity and Interpretation (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001)

Pattern of Expected Performance of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Children

LOW MODERATE HIGH

LO

W

PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED

INCREASING EFFECT OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE

MO

DE

RA

TE

HIG

H

INCREASING EFFECT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCE

PERFORMANCE MOST

AFFECTED(COMBINED EFFECT OF CULTURAL &

LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES)

DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND

DE

GR

EE

OF

CU

LT

UR

AL

LO

AD

ING

77

DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND

DEGREE

OF

CULTURAL

LOADING

LOW MODERATE HIGH

LOW

Matrix ReasoningCancellationHand MovementsFace RecognitionPattern ReasoningTrianglesAtlantisAtlantis – DelayedRebus - Delayed

Block DesignSymbol Search Digit SpanCodingBlock CountingRoverNumber RecallRebus

Letter-Number Sequencing

MODERATE

ArithmeticPicture ConceptsWord OrderConceptual Thinking

HIGH

Picture CompletionGestalt Closure

InformationSimilaritiesVocabularyComprehensionWord ReasoningStory CompletionExpressive VocabularyRiddlesVerbal Knowledge

*The culture-language classifications for the WISC-IV and KABC-II are preliminary. Expert consensus studies are underway.

Culture and Language Matrix developed by Flanagan and Ortiz (2001) and found in Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment. Wiley

78

CHC Culture-Language Matrix Worksheet (Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001)

Name of Examinee: _________________________ Age: _______ Grade: _______ Date: _____________

DE

GR

EE

OF

CU

LT

UR

AL L

OA

DIN

G

DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMANDLOW MODERATE HIGH

LOW

Test Name: Score:___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______) ___________________________(______)___________________________(______) Cell Average = ______


Test Name: Score:__________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______) __________________________(______)__________________________(______) Cell Average = ______

MODERATE




H IGH




79

Let’s talk

about how to

talk to our speech language

colleagues

Why Combine

• SLPs measure many of the same abilities SPs do– eg. Short Term Memory - Digits forward– Makes sense as the Broad Abilities impact learning– Don’t repeat testing

• Share different expertise and perspective on data.– Accuracy of diagnosis– Accuracy of intervention/intervention development

Saving Time• Reduce number of subtests administered

– Based on referral– Based on research

• Report Writing– No more staple – Comprehensive Report– Combine results and perspectives– Parents don’t have to mix and match

• Feedback or IEP meetings– Stop saying the same thing in different

languages

LET’S

TALK

ABOUT

Speech and Language Batteries

Test of Language Development- Primary &

Intermediate Versions: Fourth Edition(TOLD-4)

• designed specifically to assess children’s receptive and expressive spoken language competences

• Published in 2008• Ages 4-0 through 8-11; 8-0 through 17-11• 6 core subtests, 3 supplemental (Primary

Version)• 35 minutes to 50 minutes administration time• normative sample characteristics based on

sample conformed to U.S. 2005 school-age population census data

Rationale• assess children’s expressive and receptive

competencies in the major components of linguistics

• identify children who are significantly below their peers in language proficiency

• determine children’s specific strengths and weaknesses in language skills (composite indexes are Listening, Organizing, Speaking, Grammar, Semantics, and Spoken Language)

• document children’s progress in language as a consequence of special intervention programs

TOLD-P:4 subtest organization

Linguistic Systems

Linguistic

Features

Listening

(receptive)

Organizing (integrating-mediating)

Speaking

(expressive)

Semantics Picture

Vocabulary

Relational

Vocabulary

Oral

Vocabulary

Syntax Syntactic

Understanding

Sentence

Imitation

Morphological

Completion

Phonology Word

Discrimination

Phonemic Analysis

Word

Articulation

TOLD-I:4 subtest organization

Linguistic Systems

Linguistic

Features

Listening

(receptive)

Organizing (integrating-mediating)

Speaking

(expressive)

Semantics Picture

Vocabulary

Relational

Vocabulary

Multiple Meanings

Grammar Morphological Comprehension

Word Ordering Sentence Combining

Semantic Subtests

“…study of the meaning of language; relationship between language and thought.”

(P/I) Picture Vocabulary (Gc-VL)(P/I) Relational Vocabulary (Gc-LD)

(P) Oral Vocabulary (Gc-VL)(I) Multiple Meanings (Gc-VL/LD)

Syntactic/Grammar Subtests

“…the structure of the language (order and organization among words that determine the relationships between sound patterns and meaning through the formation of sentences).

(P) Syntactic Understanding (Gc LS)(P) Sentence Imitation (Gsm MS)

(I) Sentence Combining (Gc LD; Gsm MW)(I) Morphological Completion (Gc MY)

(I) Morphological Comprehension (Gc MY)(I) Word Ordering (Gc LD)

Phonological Subtests

“…the sound system of language (most important component is phonemics, the study of significant speech sounds).”

(P) Word Discrimination (Ga US/U3)(P) Phonemic Analysis (Ga PC:A)(P) Word Articulation (Ga PC:S)

RedundancyWJ-III

WISC-IV/WIATIII

TOLD-P:4 Time to Administer

Picture Vocabulary Picture Vocabulary 5 min.

Vocabulary Oral Vocabulary 10 min.

Receptive Voc (WIAT III) Syntactic

Understanding

connected

Sentence Mem (wiat iii) Sentence Imitation 5 min.

Auditory Attention Word Discrimination 10 min.

Sound Awareness Phonemic Analysis 10 min.

Word Articulation

Similarities Relational Vocabulary 10 min.

Morphological Completion

Test of Auditory Processing Skills – 3rd

Edition(TAPS-3)

• Published in 2005• Ages 4-18• 9 subtests; 1-hour administration• Normed on 2,000+ students• Individual subtest scores & cluster

scores

Rationale

• Provide the information necessary to assess the auditory processing related to cognitive and communicative aspects of language

• Assess the auditory skills necessary for the development, use, & understanding of language

• Ability to comprehend auditory information

Three Major Indices

I. Basic Phonemic Skills (3 subtests)– Assessment of basic phonological

abilities

II. Auditory Memory (4 subtests)– Measures basic memory processes

III. Auditory Cohesion (2 subtests)– Higher order skills

Basic Phonemic Skills

“Provide quick assessments of very basic phonological abilities that allow one to discriminate between sounds within words, segment words into morphemes, and blend phonemes into words”

• Word Discrimination (Ga-US/U3)• Phonological Segmentation (Ga-PC:A)• Phonological Blending (Ga-PC:S)

Overall, a strong measure of Ga

Auditory Memory

“Measures basic memory processes, including sequencing”

• Number Memory Forward (Gsm-MS)• Number Memory Reversed (Gsm-MW)• Word Memory (Gsm-MS)• Sentence Memory (Gsm-MS)

“Basic memory” is really Gsm, and primarily Memory Span

Auditory Cohesion

“Higher order linguistic skill that requires the student not only to understand exactly what is said, but also to be able to use inferences, deductions, and abstractions to understand the meaning of a passage”

• Auditory Comprehension (Gc-LS)• Auditory Reasoning (Gc-KO)

Not so much “reasoning” as it is Gc

RedundancyWJ-III/WISC-IV TAPS-3 Time to Administer

Sound Blending Phonological Blending 10 min.

Auditory Attention Word Discrimination 10 min.

Numbers Reversed Number Memory Reversed

5 min.

Memory for Words Word Memory 5 min.

Sound Awareness Phonological Segmentation

10 min.

Sentence Mem (WIAT III) Sentence Memory 5 min.

Auditory Comprehension

Auditory Reasoning

Digit Span Numbers Forward 5 min.

Redundancy for CELF-4WJ/WISC/WIAT CELF -4 Time to Administer

Understanding Directions

Concepts/Following Directions

10 min.

Sentence recall Recalling Sentence 5 min.

Similarities Word Classes 10 min.

Picture Vocab Expressive Voc 5 min.

Vocabulary Word Definitions 10 min.

Story Recall Understanding Spoken Paragraph

10 min.

Sound Awareness Phonological Awareness

10 min.

Retrieval Fluency Word Associations 5 min.

Digit Span Number Rep 1 & 2 5 min.

Broad CELF – 4 TOLD 4Primary and Intermediate

TAPS 3

Gf Word ClassesSemantic Relationships

Gc Sentence Assembly (LD, MY)Expressive Vocabualry (VL)Word Classes: Exp/Rec (VL,

LD, Gf-I)Word Definitions (VL)Sentence Structure (LS)Word Structure (LS)Formulated Sentences (OP)Concepts/Follow Direction (LS,

Gsm-MS)Semantic Relationship(LS,

Gsm-MW, Gf-I,)

Generals (LD)Picture Vocabulary (LD,VL)Sentence Combining (LD)Relational Vocabulary (LD)Oral Vocabulary (VL)Grammatical Understanding

(LS, LD)Malapropisms (MY, VL)Grammatic Comprehension

(MY)Grammatic Completion (MY)

Auditory Reasoning (K0, LD)

Ga Phonological Awareness (PC:S) Phonemic Awareness (PC:A)Word Discrimination (BR)

Phonological Blending (PC:A)Word Discrimination (BR)

Gv

Gsm Familiar Sequence (MS, MW)Number Repetition (MS)Recalling Sentences (MS, Gc-

LD)Number Repetition Backward

(MW)

Word Ordering (MW, Gc-LS)Sentence Imitation (MS)

Number memory Forward (MS)

Sentence Memory (MS, Gc-LD)

Word Memory (MS)Number Memory Reversed

(MW)

Glr Word Associations (MA)Rapid Automatic Naming (NA)

Gs

MAJOR SPEECH LANGUAGE BATTERIES

WIAT-III Listening Comprehension

• Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse.

• Two testlets make up whole Standard Score– Receptive Vocabulary: Identify picture

corresponding to a spoken word

– Oral Discourse Comprehension: Listen to narrative & answer questionUnderstanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF)

Picture Vocab (TOLD)

Auditory Comprehension (TAPS)

WIAT III: Oral Expression

• Measures listening comprehension at the level of the word, sentence and discourse.

• Three testlets make up whole Standard Score– Expressive Vocabulary (Gc): Provide a

definition -

– Oral Word Fluency (Glr): Name words in a specific category

– Sentence Repetition (Gsm): Repeat a sentence verbatim

Sentence Memory (TAPS)Recalling Sentences (CELF)

Word Associations (CELF)

LET’S

LOOK

AT

A REPORT

Conclusions

• CHC and RtI should be used in concert• SLP’s and SPs use similar measures• SLP’s and SPs can combine knowledge

and experience to better interpret data, allowing for more specific diagnosis and recommendations.

• End the worry about getting an overall ‘g’

• Be theory/research based, not kit based

References

• Cross Battery Assessment – http://www.crossbattery.com/

• Dumont and Willis - ATDR– http://alpha.fdu.edu/~dumont/psychology/ATDR.htm

• Kevin McGrew’s Intelligence Corner– http://www.iqscorner.com/

• Andrew Shanock, Ph. D., NCSP– [email protected], 518-337-4843

http://www.crossbattery.com/

http://alpha.fdu.edu/~dumont/psychology/ATDR.htm

http://www.iqscorner.com/

mailto:[email protected]

How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists ( or how to collaborate besides...

Documents

Transcript of How CHC links School Psychologists with Speech Language Pathologists ( or how to collaborate besides...