flanagan webinar for wiley 3 22 10

A Theory- and Research-based Approach to SLD Identification: Integrating RTI with Cognitive

Assessment Data

Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D.

St. John’s University

Yale Child Study Center, School of Medicine

Presentation Outline The Field of School Psychology is Polarized on What Constitutes “Comprehensive”

Assessment for SLD Identification

The Crux of the Debate is the Utility of Cognitive and Neuropsychological Tests for

SLD Identification and for Guiding Intervention Selection and Development

RTI and Cognitive Assessment are Complimentary

Contemporary Cognitive Assessment Differs from Traditional Cognitive Assessment

Tier II Interventions Work for Many, But Not All Students

Tier II Nonresponders Should Receive a Comprehensive Evaluation That Includes

Cognitive Assessment – Necessary to identify a disorder in one or more basic

psychological processes and necessary for Differential Diagnosis

Rather than using the traditional ability-achievement discrepancy method or an RTI-

only approach to SLD identification, a “Third Method” Approach should be used

Relevance of a “Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses” for SLD Identification

“Third Method” Approaches Integrate data from RTI with Other Data Sources

Assessment for Intervention – Linking Cognitive Assessment Data to Intervention

Conclusions and Questions

Why Is This The Question?

Cognitive Assessment for SLD Identification:

The Field of School Psychology is Polarized

Communiqué (2008)

Cognitive Assessment

Traditional Atheoretical assessment and interpretive

approaches (e.g., some subtest analysis approaches)

Limited to no attention paid to neuropsychology literature

Ability-Achievement Discrepancy

Wechsler V-P Dichotomy

g

VIQ PIQ

Traditional Cognitive Assessment

FSIQ

VerbalAbility

NonverbalAbility

1930s to the late 1990s

Cognitive Assessment

Contemporary Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory Flexible Battery Approaches School Neuropsychology Alternative research-based methods for identifying

patterns of cognitive strengths and deficits

g

Gf Gc Ga Gv Gsm

Glr Gs

Gf Gq Gsm Gv Ga Gs CDS GrwGc Glr

Flu

id

Inte

llig

ence

Cry

stal

lize

d

Inte

llig

ence

Qu

anti

tati

veK

now

led

ge

Sh

ort-

Ter

mM

emor

y

Vis

ual

P

roce

ssin

g

Au

dit

ory

Pro

cess

ing

Lon

g-T

erm

Ret

riev

al

Pro

cess

ing

Sp

eed

Cor

rect

Dec

isio

n S

pee

d

Rea

din

g/W

riti

ng

B

road

(Str

atu

m I

I) N

arro

w(S

trat

um

I)

69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll (1993)

Cattell-Horn Gf-Gc Theory

Figure by McGrew; originally printed in McGrew & Flanagan (1998)

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.

New York: Cambridge University Press

A Landmark Event in Understanding the Structure of Intelligence

Carroll’s (1993) Three-Stratum Theory of Cognitive Abilities

GGeneral

Intelligence

FluidIntelligence

CrystallizedIntelligence

GeneralMemory &Learning

BroadVisual

Perception

BroadAuditory

Perception

BroadRetrieval

Ability

BroadCognitiveSpeediness

ProcessingSpeed

(RTDecisionSpeed)

G

ener

al(S

trat

um

III

)

Bro

ad(S

trat

um

II)

Nar

row

(Str

atu

m I

)

69 narrow abilities found in data sets analyzed by Carroll

Gf Gc Gy Gv Gu Gr Gs Gt

Figure by McGrew; originally printed in McGrew & Flanagan (1998)

Carroll’s Research-based Conclusions About the Cattell-Horn Model

“The Cattell-Horn model...is a true hierarchical model covering all major

domains of intellectual functioning...among available models

it appears to offer the most well-founded and reasonable approach to an acceptable theory of the structure

of cognitive abilities”

Carroll (1993)

An Integration of the Gf-Gc and Three-Stratum Theories of

Cognitive Abilities

Based largely on McGrew’s analyses in 1997-1999

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 n ow .

M ath.A ch.

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

(G q )

L anguageD evelop.

L exicalK now l.

L isteningA bility

G en eralIn fo.

In fo.aboutC ulture

G en eralS cienceIn fo.

G eographyA ch.

C om m.A bility

O ralP roduction& F luency

G ram.S ens itivity

F oreignL anguageP rofic iency

F oreignL anguageA ptitude

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

(G c )

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 n glishU sageK n owledge

R e ad ingS p e ed

R e a d in g a ndW r it ing

(G rw )

M emoryS pan

L earningA bilities

W orkingM emory

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 erceptualIntegra tion

L engthE stimation

P erceptualIllusions

P erceptualA lterna tions

Im agery

V isu alP r oc e ss ing

(G v )

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. toA ud. S tim .D istortion

M emoryfor SoundP atterns

G eneralS nd. D iscrim .

T emporalT racking

M usicalD iscrim . &Judgement

M ainta ining& JudgingR hythm

S nd-Intens ityD urationD iscrim .

S nd-F req.D iscrim .

H earing &S peechT hreshold

A bsoluteP itch

S oundL ocalization

A u d ito ryP r oc e ss ing

(G a )

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

Idea tionalF luency

A ssoc.F luency

E xpress ionalF luency

N amingF acility

W ordF luency

F iguralF luency

F iguralF lexibility

S ens itivity toP roblems

O riginality/C reativity

L earningA bilities

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

(G s )

S im pleR eactionT ime

C hoiceR eactionT ime

M entalC omparisonS peed

C orrectD ecisionS peed

D e cis io n/R e ac t ion

T im e /S p e ed(G t)

Contemporary Cognitive Assessment Based on CHC Theory

10 Broad Abilities and Over 70 Narrow Abilities

Integrated Model First Published in Flanagan, McGrew, & Ortiz (2000)

THE WJ III(WOODCOCK, MCGREW, & MATHER, 2001)

The first in a flurry of test revisions that represented

advances unprecedented in assessment fields

Contemporary Cognitive Assessment

SB5 (2003) – Based on CHC theory

KABC-II (2004) – Based on CHC theory and Luria

DAS-II (2007) – Based on CHC theory

g

Gf Gc Ga Gv Gsm

Glr Gs

Contemporary Cognitive Assessment

WISC-IV (2003) – CHC terminology (e.g., Fluid Reasoning, Working Memory) and CHC approach to interpretation (Flanagan & Kaufman, 2004, 2009)

WAIS-IV (2008) – CHC terminology and interpretive approach (Kaufman & Lichtenberger, 2009)

Picture Completion

Similarities

Vocabulary

Comprehension

Information

Block Design

Picture Concepts

Matrix Reasoning

Digit Span

Letter-Number

Arithmetic

Coding

Symbol Search

Gc

Gv

Gsm

Gs

.74

.51

u1

u2

u3

u4

u6

u7

u8

u9

u10

u11

u12

u13

u14

Chi-Square = 186.185df = 83

TLI = .982CFI = .986

RMSEA = .035SRMR = .026AIC = 260.185

Hierarchicalcomplex 3b total

Standardized estimates

g

fu2

fu1

fu3

fu4

Word Reasoning

u5

Cancellation

u15

Gf

fu5

Figure 6

Keith et al. (2006)

Summary of Relations between CHC Abilities and Specific Areas of Academic Achievement (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, &

Mascolo, 2006)

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.

See McGrew and Wendling (in press) for an extension of this work

Comparison tables may be found in: Flanagan & Alfonso (in press). Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Subtypes of Reading Disability (Fiefer, in press)

(1) Dysphonetic Dyslexia – difficulty sounding out words in a phonological manner (Ga-Phonetic Coding; Gsm-Memory Span, Working Memory)

(2) Surface Dyslexia – difficulty with the rapid and automatic recognition of words in print (Glr-Naming Facility; Gv-Orthographic Processing; Gs-Perceptual Speed; Gc-Vocabulary Knowledge)

(3) Mixed Dyslexia – multiple reading deficits characterized by impaired phonological and orthographic processing skills. It is probably the most severe form of dyslexia. (Multiple CHC abilities or processes involved; attention and executive functioning)

(4) Comprehension Deficits – the mechanical side of reading is fine but difficulty persists deriving meaning from print (Gf-Induction, General Sequential Reasoning; Gc- Language Development; attention and executive functioning)

Correspondence Between Diagnosis

and Treatmentas syndromes/disorders become more discretely defined, there may be a greater correspondence between diagnoses and

treatment

Kratochwill and McGivern's (1996; p. 351)

Individual Differences ARE Important

Why do some children fail to respond?

Perhaps because interventions are being applied “blindly” as a one size fits all method without understanding whether or not specific cognitive deficits exist

Individual Differences ARE Important

“A neuropsychological process that is important to reading skills development is working memory – it is a crucial process for early reading recognition and later reading comprehension. One must assess it if one is to develop the most appropriate method of intervention (Teeter et al., 1997).”

“Given the findings from the neuroimaging and neruopsychological fields of deficient performance on measures of working memory, processing speed, auditory processing ability, and executive functions, evaluation of these skills is necessary to determine the most appropriate program to fit the individual child’s need.”

Semrud-Clikeman(2005)

Individual Difference ARE Important

“The danger with not paying attention to individual differences is that we will repeat the current practice of simple assessments in curricular materials to evaluate a complex learning process and to plan for interventions with children and adolescents with markedly different needs and learning profiles.” (Semrud-Clikeman, 2005)

“Nonresponders” provide sound evidence that one size DOES NOT fit all.

Comprehensive Evaluations (That Include Assessment of Cognitive Functions) Are Necessary

for Nonresponders

Cost – Benefit Do Tier III interventions work? Would it make sense to gather more

information about Tier II nonresponders prior to implementing Tier III interventions?

For a copy of this White Paper, contact James (Brad) Hale, Ph.D. at: [email protected]

Expert Panel Consensus For Using Intensive RTI to Meet the Needs of Children with SLD

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percent

Item #8 Increasing intervention intensity in a multi-tier response to intervention model will meet the academic and psychosocial needs of all children with SLD

Hale et al. 2010 Expert Panel White Paper (N = 58)

NAPSA Practitioner Survey

05

101520253035404550

Strongly Disagree

Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree

Percent

Increasing intervention intensity in a multi-tier response to intervention model will meet the academic and psychosocial needs of all children with SLD

McHale-Small NAPSA Survey (N=680; Administrators; Practitioners; Specialists)

Response at Tier II?

Responder?

YES, Return to Tier 1Regular Education and Progress Monitoring

NO, ComprehensiveEvaluation and Problem-solvingto Redirect Intervention

NO, Tier III Intervention

OR

Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz (in press); Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Dynda (2008); Hale & Fiorello (2004)

Mathes and Colleagues (2005) Provided Tier I and Tier II intervention to

struggling first-grade readers in six schools Severe difficulties in phonological awareness,

letter-sound correspondence, and word reading

Three conditions Tier I classroom instruction only (n = 92) Tier I plus Tier II intervention (consisting of

Proactive Beginning Reading Instruction; Mathes et al., 1999; n = 83)

Tier I plus Tier II intervention (Responsive Reading Instruction; Denton & Hocker, 2006; n = 80)

Reported in Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, and Anthony, 2007

Tier II Intervention

Tier I instruction plus daily 40-minute, small group interventions for about 30 weeks in the first grade (groups of 3 students to one teacher)

Six certified teachers who received about 42 hours of professional development delivered by the developers of the programs they used Responsive Reading Instruction Proactive Beginning Reading Instruction

High levels of fidelity were achieved by intervention teachersReported in Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, and Anthony, 2007

Results of Tier I and Tier II Intervention

Of the 255 students who received Tier I and II interventions, only 22 were reading below average (below benchmark) at the end of the intervention period Below 30th percentile on WJ III Basic Reading

Skills 87 students did not reach a common oral

reading fluency benchmark 40 WCPM by end of 1st Grade

14 students were identified for Tier III intervention based on primarily on availability (Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis, 2006; Mathes and colleagues, 2005).


Tier III Intervention 16-week intervention provided daily in

groups of two students to one teacher First 8 weeks students received the Phono-

Graphix program (McGuiness et al., 1996) two hours daily

Followed by 8 weeks of the Read Naturally program (Ihnot et al., 2001) one hour daily

Six teachers were well trained in intervention programs

Students response to Tier III intervention was highly variable


65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

Pre-Test Post-Test PG Post-Test RN

Assessment Phase

WJ

III:

Bas

ic R

ead

ing

Sk

ills

Sta

nd

ard

Sco

re

1234567891011121314

Benchmark30th Percentile

Key: PG = Phono-Graphic Phase; RN = Read Naturally Phase (From An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447-466. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn. [2007]. Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.)

Results of a Tier 3 Intervention Phase

Important Consideration The education community must ask whether it

is important and reasonable to expect that even students with severe reading difficulties can be taught to read competently, closing the gap with their peers (Denton, Fletcher, Simos, Papanicolaou, & Anthony (2007).

Can we help more children if we understand them better via a comprehensive evaluation?

Response to InterventionResponder?

YES, Regular EducationInstruction and

Progress Monitoring

NO, ComprehensiveEvaluation and Problem-solving

for Differential Diagnosis and Intervention Selection or Modification

Criteria for SLD met?

YES, Eligible forSpecial Education Services?

Implement ModifiedIntervention and Progress Monitoring

In LRE

NO, Continued Problem Solving;

Implement Modified Intervention and Progress

Monitoring

Flanagan, Fiorello, & Ortiz (in press); Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Dynda (2008); Hale & Fiorello (2004)

A Comprehensive Evaluation , that Includes Cognitive Assessment, is

Necessary for Tier II Nonresponders

COGNITIVE STRENGTH

Average or higher abilities and processes;

May also include strengths in academic

skills

ACADEMIC WEAKNESS/FAILURE

Academic Skills/Knowledge Deficits

COGNITIVE WEAKNESS/DEFICIT

Cognitive Ability or Processing Disorder

Statistically significant difference between cognitive integrities and circumscribed cognitive ability or processing deficit(s)

Cognitive deficit(s) is specific, not general or pervasive, because overall cognitive ability is

at least average

No Statistically significant Performance Difference (constructs

are related empirically )

Statistically significant difference between cognitive integrities and academic skill

deficit(s)

Academic deficit(s) is unexpected, not expected, because overall cognitive ability

is at least average

Consistent/Concordant

Discre

pant

/Disc

orda

nt Discrepant/Discordant

Flanagan, Fiorello, and Ortiz (in press); Hale, Flanagan, and Naglieri (2008)

Common Components of Third Method Approaches to SLD Identification

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

(Cross-Battery Assessment or other Flexible Battery Approaches May be Necessary to Measure All Important Abilities and Processes)

Gc Gc Ga Ga Gs Gs Gsm Gsm Glr GlrImportant Broad

CHC Cognitive

Constructs

LD VL PC US P MW MA NAImportant

Narrow CHC CognitiveConstructs

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

Flanagan et al. Operational Definition of SLD A “Third Method” Approach

Flanagan, Alfonso, and Mascolo (in press). In Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Wiley

Continued on Next Slide

Flanagan et al. Operational Definition of SLD A “Third Method” Approach

Flanagan, Alfonso, and Mascolo (in press). In Flanagan & Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification. Wiley

Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________

KABC-II and KTEA-II Data

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

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

Gsm Broad/Narrow ClusterWord Order__ ( )Number Recall_ ( ) WJ III Working Mem. (__)

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

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

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

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

Glr/Gs Broad/Narrow ClusterAssoc. Fluency_____(___)Naming Facility____(___)WJ III Gs Cluster__ (___)

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

Pattern of empirically or logically related cognitive

and academic deficits establishes basis for

satisfying criterion of “below average aptitude-achievement consistency”

Pattern of generally average cognitive

abilities and processes establishes basis for

satisfying criterion of “an otherwise normal

ability profile”

Gc Broad/Narrow ClusterExpressive Vocab. ( )Verbal Knowledge ( )_______________( )

Historical Concept of Intra-Individual Discrepancies

Domain-Specific

Unexpected Underachievement

Name:_____________________ Age: ____ Grade: ____ Examiner:____________________ Date: ___________

KABC-II and KTEA-II Data

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gc Broad/Narrow ClusterExpressive Vocab. ( )Verbal Knowledge ( )_______________( )

GENERAL Learning Difficulty

DOMAIN-GENERAL

EXPECTED Underachievement

(aka “Slow Learner”)

On the Flanagan et al. and Kavale and Forness Operational Definitions of SLD…

These operational definitions provide an inherently practical method for SLD identification that carries the potential for increased agreement

about the validity of SLD classification

Kavale, Holdnack, & Mostert (2005, p. 12)

The Importance of Assessing Cognitive Abilities and Processes and Academic Skills…

By identifying specific targets for remediation, the possibilities for truly

individualized intervention are increased significantly.


The Value of Assessing Cognitive Abilities and Processes…

Even if a student never enters the special education system, the general education teacher,

the student’s parents, and the student him- or herself would receive valuable information regarding why there was such a struggle in acquiring academic content, to the point of

possibly needing special education


What is a Specific Learning Disability?IDEA Definitions and Practices

• Discrepancy between “ability” and “achievement” (typically using cut-off points and global IQ)

• Failure to respond to scientific research-based intervention• May permit the use of other alternative research-based

procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10) (OSERS Final Regulations-8/06)• Flanagan and colleagues• Hale and Fiorello• McCloskey• Naglieri• Feifer and Della Tafano• Berninger• Geary

Determining Specific Learning Disability

All value RTI approach; All consider RTI data in the diagnostic process

On Third Method Approaches

Della Tofallo (2010; pp. 180-181) – RTRI or Response to the Right Intervention

Make no mistake…integrated models [third method approaches] of identifying (and serving) students with LDs do not arrive prepackaged along with dozens of studies touting their “scientific validation.” However, they are evidence-based because they emanate from the marriage of a collective body of knowledge that has been acquired through research in the fields of neuroscience, pedagogy, assessment, and intervention.

“At the current state of scientific knowledge, it is only through a comprehensive evaluation of a student’s cognitive and psychological abilities and processes that insights into the underlying proximal and varied root causes of [academic] difficulties can be ascertained and then specific interventions be provided targeted to each student’s individual needs, a process long advocated”

From Reynolds and Shaywitz (2009)

Diagnostic Impressions Following a Comprehensive Evaluation/Third Method Approach

Bob’s academic difficulties in reading and writing have persisted despite being exposed to quality instruction and intervention over a prolonged period of time. These difficulties could not be explained by global cognitive impairment, social-emotional problems, cultural and linguistic differences, sensory-motor difficulties, lack of motivation, environmental disadvantage, or a health-related impairment. Rather, Bob exhibited specific and circumscribed weaknesses in cognitive areas that are known to be related to difficulties in reading and writing, namely short-term memory, retrieval ability, phonological processing, and possibly associative memory. Thus, while Bob has the ability to think and reason like most children his age, as demonstrated by his performance in the cognitive areas of Fluid Reasoning, Comprehension-Knowledge, and Visual-Spatial Thinking, he possesses specific and related cognitive and academic deficits that are consistent with a diagnosis of Specific Learning Disability (SLD).

Failure To Respond to quality instruction and interventionGlobal Ability at least Average; Low Achievement UnexpectedExclusionary Factors ruled out as primary reason for underachievement

Meets third method criteria; “pattern of strengths and weaknesses”

Domain-specific weaknesses/deficits in cognitive areas that are related empirically to achievement weaknesses

Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (in press). RTI Data and Cognitive Assessment are Both Useful for SLD Identification and Intervention Planning. In N. Mather & L. E. Jaffe (Eds.), Expert Psychological Report Writing. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Learning Disability Quarterly, Volume 31, Summer 2008

LINKING ASSESSMENT TO INTERVENTION

RTI at Tiers I and II

Mascolo and Flanagan (2008)

Tier I Screening At-risk in Reading

Decoding Fluency Comprehension

Tier II Treatment Protocol Reading Recovery

•StudentsAmyBelindaCarl

Reading Recovery Results

Amy, Belinda, and Carl are making some gains in Reading Recovery

No appreciable change in reading performance

Tier II “nonresponders” Need for a

comprehensive evaluation that includes cognitive assessment


INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES ARE IMPORTANTOne Size Does Not Fit All

Regular Ed Teacher

Special E

d Teach

er

Diagnosticia

n

Parents and

Other School Personnel

CHILD

School Environment

Home and Community

Instructional Planning is Complex and Requires a Team of Experts

Mu

ltiple

Data

Sou

rces

Kn

ow

led

ge o

f an

d A

ccess to

Ap

pro

pria

te R

esou

rcesMascolo and Flanagan (2008)

Linking Assessment to Intervention

Requires good instruments Well trained clinicians Well trained teachers and special

educators A mechanism in place for bringing data

together to problem-solve in an attempt to offer the most effective instruction and interventions to children


Intervention Types Need to differentiate between

Direct Interventions (remediation) Accommodations Compensation Instructional/Curricular Modifications

Intervention: any technique, product, or approach that intends to address directly an identified area of weakness through remediation

Accommodations: any technique or support that intends to alleviate the symptomatology associated with an identified area of weakness (e.g., circumventing the impact of a processing speed weakness via extended time - - the symptom is not “Gs deficit” – that’s the problem; the symptom is “unfinished assignments” - - when you extend time you alleviate the symptom and assignments are completed.

Compensation: strategies taught to a student that he or she is expected to apply independently to by pass weaknesses


Different Cognitive Ability Profiles Suggest Different Interventions

Amy’s cognitive testing shows a significant deficit in phonetic coding – she doesn’t know how to translate symbols into sounds

Ga deficit impacts her fluency – labored reading Lack of decoding and fluency impacts comprehension Intervention should focus on Phonemic Awareness – Remediate

Ga

Different Cognitive Profiles Suggest Different Interventions


Gc deficit – language deficit Comprehension is poor b/c of low Gc Poor vocabulary – needs to re-read to gain meaning, which

impacts fluency Intervention should focus on vocabulary development –

Remediate Gc-VL, KO Accommodation of extended time due to a global Gs deficit



Gsm deficit Decoding is poor – he cannot hold the complete phonemic string in mind long

enough to say the word Comprehension is poor because he needs to allocate all memory space decoding

words and therefore cannot focus on meaning Fluency is impaired because he must re-read the text to gain meaning Intervention should focus on developing a sight word vocabulary Carl needs to be taught compensatory strategies to assist with poor Gsm (text

previews; guided notes; one comprehension question at a time)



Different Cognitive Ability Profiles Suggest Different Interventions

All had same academic deficits

(decoding, comprehension, fluency)

All made slow gains with

Reading Recovery

All had different patterns of cognitive

strengths and weaknesses

Reading Recovery – allocating time

to areas that do not need to be

trained

Not enough explicit instruction in

main problem area because the

intervention was not tailored


Amy’s Intervention

No need to focus on comprehension and fluency Amy needs phonemic awareness training


Belinda’s Intervention

No need to focus on decoding Belinda needs to focus on building her vocabulary She will also benefit from strategies/adaptations

to build fluency


Carl’s Intervention

No need to focus on comprehension or fluency Carl needs sight word reading and memory

strategies


http://www.multilit.com.au/

RTI-Only Camp

No evidence that your method is effective and leads to positive outcomes for children

Lack of documented effectiveness is not the same as documented ineffectiveness

Failure to Prove is not Proof of Failure (Braden et al., 2009)

We are just beginning to do the research – using current instruments, current theory, current methods

Look for upcoming special issue of JLD, Cognitive and Neuropsychological Assessment Data That Inform Educational Intervention (Guest Edited by Hale & Fuchs)

School Psychologists are Scientist-Practitioners

Third method approaches then arrive to you “with a call to duty – the duty of the scientist- practitioner to engage simultaneously in both practice and research calculated to evaluate current practice in order to guide future practice.”

Della Tofallo (2010; p. 180) – RTRI or Response to the Right Intervention

Conclusions

“To Test or Not To Test” is the Wrong Question

Rather than Abandoning our Best Tools, Practitioners Need to Learn How to Integrate

Assessment for Intervention into their Practice and Evaluate the Effectiveness of their Recommendations for Children with SLD

“In an ever-changing world, psychological testing remains the flagship of applied

psychology”

Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological Assessment, 8 (4), 341-349.

flanagan webinar for wiley 3 22 10

Documents

cognitive assessment

cognitive assessment

utility of cognitive

human cognitive abilities

chc approach

comprehensive assessment

mcgrew flanagan

assessment fields