Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model (PSW)

for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Identification

Jenny Ponzuric

www.jennyponzuric.com

Personal Learning Goal:

Takeaway:

1

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

Model for SLD:

Education Specialists

Jenny L Ponzuric, MA, LEP, ABSNP

• Specific Learning Disability• Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

Model• Choosing Strategies and Interventions

www.vcselpa.orgResources for Teachers and Staff

Pattern of Strengths & WeaknessesPSW Resources

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY

Federal Criteria: IDEA 2004Specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. 34 CFR 300.8

State Criteria: CA Education Code• The basic psychological processes include

attention, visual processing, auditory processing,sensory-motor skills, cognitive abilities includingassociation, conceptualization and expression.(2014 update)

• Added “phonological processing” to the list ofpsychological processes (2016 update)

2

Researchers say…• Dyslexia is an “isolated weakness in a sea

of strengths.”Shaywitz, 2008

Learning Disabilities are …• Neurologically-based processing problems that

interfere with learning basic skills such asreading, writing and/or math.

• Generally speaking, people with learningdisabilities are of average or above averageintelligence.

LDA of America

Learning Disabilities are not to be confused with…

• Learning problems which are primarily the result of:– Visual, hearing or motor handicaps– Intellectual disabilities– Emotional disturbance– Environmental, cultural or economic

disadvantages

LDA of America

SLD Identification• In CA, our education code allows for three

different models when examining the eligibilityfor special education under the classification ofSLD:1. Discrepancy Model2. Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI²)3. Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

PSW Overview

Federal Criteria: IDEA 2004(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancybetween intellectual ability and achievement fordetermining whether a child has a specific learningdisability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10)…(3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a childhas a learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10).

3

CA Education Code (2014): PSWa pupil may be determined to have a specific learning disability if…The pupil exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with 34 C.F.R. sections 300.304 and 300.305

Ventura County SELPA PSW Model1.Student exhibits a pattern of cognitive or processing

strengths, indicated by a pattern of abilities in theaverage or above ranges

2.Student exhibits both significant cognitive andacademic weakness(es)

3.A research-based link exists between the cognitiveand academic weakness(es)

4.The student requires special education to access thecore curriculum

#2: Significant Academic Weakness

• Standardized norm-referenced academic testing(WIAT, WJ, etc.)

• Other Data Sources– Grades– Teacher tests– Work Samples– Progress Monitoring

• Observation of Student

Assessment Best Practices• Examine the 8 academic areas identified in

Education code– The team is suspecting a learning disability

and there are 8 academic areas outlined inCA Education Code that the team mustexamine

Assessment Best Practices• Examine the 8 academic areas identified in

Education code

• K-TEA, WIAT, etc. has multiple subtests toadminister in many of the 8 academic areas– Know your reason for referral & dig deeper– Dig deeper when assessment results do not

align with reason for referral and other datasources

Academic AssessmentScenario #1• Standardized and non-standardized assessment

shows significant weaknesses– Examine cognitive strengths and weaknesses– Examine exclusionary factors– Possible SLD eligibility

4

Academic AssessmentScenario #2• Standardized assessment shows significant

weaknesses, but this is not backed up by non-standardized assessment– Determine possible reasons for low scores on

standardized testing– Possible use of other standardized assessment

tools– SLD eligibility to be discussed by team

Academic AssessmentScenario #3• Standardized assessment shows scores within the

average range but non-standardizedassessment data shows student is significantlybehind grade level expectations– Difference between nationally normed tests

and state standards– Look at other data sources and ask

Academic AssessmentScenario #3• Average standardized but failing in school

– Questions:– Other possible reasons for low grades/tests

(anxiety, attendance)?– How are grades determined (homework vs.

tests)?– History of learning difficulties?– Do you have multiple data sources?

Assessment Best Practices• The team needs to be able to analyze the data

before the IEP meeting– Need to have time to do further assessment or

gather additional data– Ideally, need to have the initial assessment

data to the psychologist well before the IEPdate

• Comprehensive• Organizational• Matrix of• Processing-• Achievement• Relations,• Evaluating• Significance

What is it?A tool to summarize the research on the strength (or lack thereof) of the link between the academic and processing areas.

#3: Research-based Link

Pre-referral and Post-assessment Strategies

& Interventions

5

CA Education Code (2014): SLDThe group…must consider…the pupil was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings…and data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals

RtI²/MTSS is strongly encouraged but not a requirement to move forward

with PSW• Encourage:

– Differentiated instruction– Research-based tiered interventions– Collection of data

Meeting the Student’s Academic Needs

• An academic deficit should be addressedthrough targeted academic interventions– A reading comprehension deficit needs

a research-based readingcomprehension program.

• Don’t forget to collect data

Intervention WebsitesName Content

National Center on RtI

“Instructional Interventions” tools chart

What Works Clearinghouse

3rd party research on different reading, writing, and math interventions from PK-HS

Best EvidenceEncyclopedia

Johns Hopkins University

Florida Center for Reading Research

Strategies and activities downloaded for free!

Using PSW to Determine Accommodations/Modifications

• Knowing your student’s pattern ofstrengths and weaknesses will guide yourchoices

6

Jenny Ponzuricwww.jennyponzuric.com

7

The

COM

PARE

S Ke

y

COM

PARE

S Ke

y of

Rat

ing

Sym

bols

for R

esea

rch

Asso

ciat

ing

Proc

essi

ng &

Ac

hiev

emen

t Are

as

Desc

riptio

n of

Rel

atio

nshi

p

Stro

ng c

onvi

ncin

g ev

iden

ce.

Rese

arch

show

s a st

rong

to v

ery

stro

ng re

latio

nshi

p, a

nd is

con

siste

nt.

Met

a-an

alys

es m

ay c

onfir

m th

e co

rrel

atio

n be

twee

n th

is pr

oces

sing

area

and

ach

ieve

men

t are

a.

Conv

inci

ng e

vide

nce.

O

ne o

r mor

e re

sear

ch st

udie

s or m

eta-

anal

yses

show

a st

rong

rela

tions

hip,

but

find

ings

may

be

inco

nsist

ent

or c

ontr

adic

tory

. A

reco

gnize

d ex

pert

in th

e fie

ld m

ay st

ate

in a

n ar

ticle

or a

text

book

that

ther

e is

a sig

nific

ant o

r rel

evan

t rel

atio

nshi

p, y

et c

urre

nt re

sear

ch m

ay n

ot fo

cus o

n th

e ex

plic

it co

nnec

tion.

An

fMRI

st

udy

may

show

act

ivat

ion

of a

bra

in a

rea

know

n to

be

asso

ciat

ed w

ith a

par

ticul

ar c

ogni

tive

proc

ess w

hile

en

gage

d in

a re

late

d ac

adem

ic ta

sk.

Part

ially

con

vinc

ing

evid

ence

. So

me

rese

arch

show

s a m

oder

ate

or re

leva

nt re

latio

nshi

p, b

ut fi

ndin

gs m

ay b

e in

cons

isten

t, co

ntra

dict

ory,

or

pre

limin

ary.

Unc

onvi

ncin

g ev

iden

ce.

Rese

arch

show

s a w

eak

rela

tions

hip,

and

/or i

s ane

cdot

al ra

ther

than

qua

ntita

tive,

and

/or l

acks

pee

r rev

iew

, an

d/or

has

few

or n

o bi

blio

grap

hic

cita

tions

.

∅N

o re

sear

ch fo

und

that

show

s eve

n a

wea

k co

rrel

atio

n as

of t

he p

ublic

atio

n da

te o

f thi

s doc

umen

t. If

a st

udy

was

foun

d th

at sh

ows “

no re

latio

n,”

this

stud

y is

cite

d in

the

anno

tate

d ve

rsio

n of

the

COM

PARE

S.

B9

8

Ove

rvie

w o

f the

CO

MPA

RES

Dire

ctio

ns fo

r use

: The

ove

rvie

w o

f the

CO

MP

AR

ES

doc

umen

t allo

ws

asse

ssm

ent t

eam

s a

quic

k gl

ance

at t

he s

treng

th o

f the

rese

arch

lin

k be

twee

n th

e pr

oces

sing

are

a an

d ac

adem

ic a

chie

vem

ent a

rea.

Ass

essm

ent t

eam

s ne

ed to

exa

min

e th

e sp

ecifi

c pa

ge n

umbe

r(s)

(whi

ch a

re lo

cate

d di

rect

ly to

the

right

of t

he ra

ting

sym

bol)

for t

he a

reas

of q

uest

ion

and

take

into

con

side

ratio

n th

e ot

her i

nfor

mat

ion

prov

ided

with

in th

e C

OM

PA

RE

S.

Proc

essi

ng

Area

Pr

oces

sing

Su

b-Ar

ea

Basi

c Re

adin

g Sk

ills

(Dec

odin

g)

Read

ing

Flue

ncy

Read

ing

Com

preh

ensi

on

Writ

ten

Expr

essi

on

Mat

h Ca

lcul

atio

n M

ath

Prob

lem

-So

lvin

g Li

sten

ing

Com

preh

ensi

on

Ora

l Ex

pres

sion

Audi

tory

Pr

oces

sing

Phon

olog

ical

Pro

cess

ing

B11

B11

B11

B11

B18

B18

B23

B23

Audi

tory

Mem

ory

B11

B11

B11

B11

B18

B18

B23

B23

Audi

tory

Pro

cess

ing

Spee

d *

B11

*B1

1*

B11

*B1

1*

B18

*B1

8

B2

3

B2

3

Audi

tory

Pro

cess

ing

B12

*B1

2

B1

2

B1

2 ∅

B1

8 ∅

B1

8

B2

3

B2

3

Visu

al-

Spat

ial

Proc

essi

ng

Visu

al-S

patia

l Pro

cess

ing

B13

B13

B13

B13

B19

B19

B24

∅

B24

Ort

hogr

aphi

c Pr

oces

sing

B13

B13

B13

B13

B19

∅

B19

∅

B24

∅

B24

Visu

al M

emor

y

B1

3

B1

3

B1

3

B1

3

B1

9

B1

9 ∅

B2

4 ∅

B2

4

Visu

al P

roce

ssin

g Sp

eed

B13

B13

*B1

3*

B13

*B1

9*

B19

∅

B24

∅

B24

Cogn

itive

Ab

ilitie

s

Asso

ciat

ion/

Mem

ory

B14

B14

B14

B14

B20

B20

B2

5

B2

5 Ra

pid

Nam

ing

Skill

s

B1

4

B1

4

B1

4

B1

4

B2

0

B2

0 ∅

B2

5 *

B25

Conc

eptu

aliza

tion

and

Flui

d Re

ason

ing/

Prob

lem

-Sol

ving

∅

B1

4 ∅

B1

4

B14

B14

B20

B20

∅

B25

∅

B25

Expr

essio

n

B1

5 ∅

B1

5

B1

5

B1

5 ∅

B2

0

B2

0

B2

5 *

B25

Lang

uage

Pro

cess

ing

(Cry

stal

ized

Know

ledg

e)

B15

B15

B15

B15

B20

B20

* B2

5 *

B25

Proc

essin

g Sp

eed

B15

B15

B15

B1

5

B2

1

B2

1

B2

6

B2

6 Ex

ecut

ive

Func

tions

B1

6

B16

B16

B16

B21

B21

B26

B26

Sens

ory-

Mot

or S

kills

Visu

al M

otor

, Fin

e M

otor

, Gr

apho

mot

or, S

enso

rimot

or

B1

7 ∅

B1

7 ∅

B1

7

B1

7

B2

2

B2

2 ∅

B2

7 ∅

B2

7

Sens

orim

otor

Mem

ory

B17

∅

B17

∅

B17

∅

B17

∅

B22

∅

B22

∅

B27

∅

B27

Sens

orim

otor

Spe

ed

∅

B17

∅

B17

∅

B17

*B1

7∅

B2

2 ∅

B2

2 ∅

B2

7 ∅

B2

7

Ora

l Mot

or/O

ral M

otor

Sp

eed

B17

B17

∅

B17

∅

B17

∅

B22

∅

B22

∅

B27

* B2

7

Atte

ntio

n†At

tent

ion

B17

B17

B17

B17

B22

B22

B28

B28

*Ple

ase

refe

renc

e th

e C

OM

PAR

ES

for s

peci

fic in

form

atio

n.U

pdat

ed 1

1/20

15† Pl

ease

refe

r to

page

B3

for a

dditi

onal

info

rmat

ion

rega

rdin

g A

ttent

ion.

B10

9

Top

10 L

ist

of

Acc

om

mod

ati

on

s

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

10

Stud

ent P

rofil

es

Students

Mar

k –

4th g

rade

r with

read

ing

deco

ding

an

d co

mpr

ehen

sion

diff

icul

ties

due

to

phon

olog

ical

pro

cess

ing

diffi

culti

es.

All

othe

r aca

dem

ic a

reas

are

with

in

expe

ctat

ion.

All

othe

r pro

cess

ing

area

s ar

e av

erag

e.

Mar

y –

6th g

rade

r with

diff

icul

ties

in

read

ing,

writ

ing,

and

mat

h.

Con

side

rabl

e di

fficu

lties

with

ver

bal

mem

ory

skills

. Sh

e is

als

o re

ceiv

ing

spee

ch/la

ngua

ge s

ervi

ces

for

expr

essi

ve la

ngua

ge d

efic

its.

Jack

– 1

0th g

rade

r with

atte

ntio

nal i

ssue

s. H

e is

sl

ow to

com

plet

e w

ork

beca

use

he is

eas

ily

dist

ract

ed.

Scor

es in

read

ing

and

writ

ing

are

fine,

bu

t he

cann

ot c

ompl

ete

wor

k w

ithin

giv

en ti

me

fram

es.

In m

ath,

he

stru

ggle

s w

ith m

ath

calc

ulat

ions

, mak

ing

num

erou

s “c

arel

ess”

erro

rs,

impa

ctin

g hi

s pr

ogre

ss w

hile

re-ta

king

Alg

ebra

I.

Top 10 List New Ideas

11

Suggestions & Strategies 

Fluid Reasoning/ Problem Solving Concerns

Compare new concepts to previously learned concepts (same vs. different) Use tools that help categorize objects and concepts to assist in drawing conclusions (graphic

organizers, concept maps) Seating with easy access to peer with strong reasoning skills Use manipulatives to demonstrate relationships

Crystalized Intelligence/ Language Processing Concerns

Capitalize on opportunities to build vocabulary (e.g. define words within instruction, word of theday, etc.)

Pair new word definitions with visuals Make use of materials such as dictionaries, thesauruses, and glossaries

Auditory Processing Concerns

Pause when delivering oral instruction to allow time for student to process auditory information Supplement oral instruction with written instruction Use guided notes/ graphic organizers Teach self advocacy (e.g. asking for information to be repeated/ clarified) Use visualization strategies when required to remember things. Provide guided notes

Long-term Storage and Retrieval Concerns

Use consistent instructional routines Teach memory strategies (i.e. verbal rehearsal to support encoding, mnemonics, etc.) Use multiple modalities for teaching new concepts (visual + verbal) to support dual recording Provide study guides and review sheets Teach efficient use of calendars Use visual reminders (e.g. post-its, color coded systems) Relate new information with previously learned concepts Extended time on tests

Fine Motor Concerns

Note taking reduction or assistance Consult with OT for materials and tools to support students Teach use of assistive technology (word processor, voice activation software)

12

Suggestions & Strategies 

Short-term Memory Concerns

Use elaborate rehearsal (associating new information with prior knowledge Teach visual mnemonics (imagery, pegwords, loci keyword methods) Review newly taught concepts often Provide lecture notes to supplement oral lectures (perhaps partially completed notes) Allow use of math-facts tables (e.g. multiplication) One task at a time

Processing Speed Concerns

Extended time Reduce quantity of work required (including homework) Preview important parts of text (end-of-chapter questions, title, subtitles, glossary) to facilitate

speed reading Teach outline strategies for note-taking Assist student with planning long-term projects

Visual Processing Concerns

Provide oral explanation for visual concepts Graph paper to assist with number alignment Preferential seating aimed at allowing the student to access visual materials Color-code information Support spatial concept comprehension through the use of hands-on activities and manipulatives

(e.g. using models to demonstrate the moon’s orbital path)

Attentional Concerns

State learning expectations before starting a lesson along with what materials will be needed “Chunk” directions into main steps Give student advanced notice if there will be a change to the typical schedule Allow student to test in a quiet location

Suggestions gathered from (1) Essentials of Processing Assessment (Dehn, 2013) and (2) Essentials of Planning, 

Selecting and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners (Mascolo, Alfonso & Flanagan, 2014). 

13