part 2 in the sas-e clinician’s toolbox decoding the psychoeducational assessment 1
TRANSCRIPT
1
Part 2 in the SAS-E Clinician’s Toolbox
Decoding the Psychoeducational Assessment
2
Overview
• You shouldn’t have to be a professional psychologist to read a psycho-ed. . .– But it helps
• What do most local psycho-eds contain?• What should they contain?• Meet some of my friends
– Johnny, age 5– Janey, age 12– Sandy, age 14– Sally, age 7
3
Comparison: The Engine of Assessment
• Same-aged peers• Own abilities
• Across tasks• Academic potential vs. achievement
4
Report Sections• Identifying info• Reason for referral• Background• Observations / Interview • Test Results• Summary• Recommendations
5
Step 1: Student Ability• What is intelligence?
– Academic potential • How far a child will likely go in school
• How is it usually measured?– WISC-IV (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth edition)
– Stanford Binet V– Occasionally Woodcock Johnson III Cognitive
• Most reports – ‘70’s style – 2 or 3 pages about the test not the kid– Percentiles sprinkled about– See Johnny (next slide)
6
Johnny - Ugh
The good newsSome are two
pages long
7
Now meet Janey – age 12
8
Step 2: Student Skills• What is academic achievement?
– Skills student has acquired through schooling• How is it measured?
– WIAT-III (Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition)
– Woodcock Johnson III Achievement Scales– WRAT-IV (Wide Range Achievement Test – Fourth Ed.)
• Most reports – 70’s style – 2 or 3 pages about the test– Percentiles sprinkled about– No formal comparison with potential– See Johnny Part 2 (next slide)
9
Johnny Part 2 - Ugh
The bad news• Failed to compare
potential to achievement
• Johnny actually doing a little better than verbal reasoning would predict
10
• Percentiles - purple• Age & grade equivalents (relate only to that domain, should not be
generalized) - orange• Formal comparison to potential - blue
Hello again Janey – age 12
11
Meet Sally – age 7 with LD
• Formal comparison to potential - blue– Gap between potential & achievement in some areas of reading
12
Many ways to define LD• Outdated: letter reversals – early now disproven hallmark• Outdated: “ACID” profile - poor WISC arith’c, compre’n, info, digit span
– Cool name but later research didn’t hold up
• Achievement score under 80 (9th percentile)– BUT what if their IQ is 80?
• Verbal vs. performance IQ gap– Is Nonverbal LD just social + spatial deficits? – BUT V & P often differ widely but do OK in school (hidden unreferred’s)– AND many V = P but child still underperforms
• Most common now: potential vs. achievement (slides above)– Can digest differences among abilities & underperformance
13
Step 3: If gap between potential & achievement, find out why• Most commonly, measures of:
– Phonological processing– Memory– Executive function (mental gymnastics, planning)
• Vast majority of reports don’t bother & so:– Fail to go beyond teacher’s impressions– Miss crucial learning problems– Can’t give good recommendations
• See Sally Part 2 (next 2 slides)
14
Hello again Sally – age 7 with LD
15
Hello again Sally – age 7 with LD
16
Step 4: Parent & Teacher Ratings
• What is measured?– Behaviour & emotion, general coping– Attention
• How is it measured?– CBCL (aka Achenbach) or BASC-II– Connors 3
• Most reports – Give a long list of average, at risk, clinically significant– Some give no interpretation– See Sandy Part 2 (next slide)
17
Sandy Part 2 - Ugh
18
• Most get ratings from home and school– Some compare across settings
• Should give concerns with: – What likely drives those behaviours or emotions– Implications
• See Sally Part III (next slide)
Step 4: Parent & Teacher Ratings
19
Hello again Sally – age 7 with LD
20
Step 5: Summary & Recommendations
• Coding– School & parent decision– Only “severe” codes (40’s) confer extra $$$
• Code 54 (learning disability) does not (hence rare follow-up)• Coding Criteria http://education.alberta.ca/media/825847/spedcodingcriteria.pdf
• Diagnosis– If evidence of a diagnosis in the data, should diagnose– Rationale should be outlined– Criteria easily available online
• Recommendations should:– Be specific to the child – Flow from data in report
21
Standard• IQ & Achievement• Long paragraphs about the
test not the kid
• Long lists of “average, at risk”; no interpretation
• Long recommendations with no priorities
• Vague diagnosis• No diagnosis despite
evidence of one
Quality• IQ & Achievement • Crisp results about kid• For LD, follow-up measure
• Interpret results
• Targeted & relevant recommendations
• Differential diagnosis
What should a Psycho-Ed buy you?-
