WJ IV NASP 2014 workshop: Variation and comparison procedures & PSW models in SLD by Dr. Nancy Mather


Published on

Part 3 of 3 part WJ IV introduction workshop at NASP 2014 in Washington DC.

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • would change “ability” to academic knowledge.
  • WJ IV NASP 2014 workshop: Variation and comparison procedures & PSW models in SLD by Dr. Nancy Mather

    1. 1. The WJ IV and SLD: Use of the Discrepancy and Variation Procedures National Association of School Psychologists February 19, 2014 Nancy Mather, Ph.D., University of Arizona
    2. 2. Test 4: Letter-Pattern Matching NEW New test Timed test (3-minute limit) Use Response Booklet Begin with Sample A and Practice Test Measures important Gs ability, perceptual speed • Provides a measure of orthographic processing • • • • • Gs-P (Perceptual Speed)
    3. 3. Orthography • The writing system of a language, including the spelling patterns • Students with reading and writing disabilities tend to have weaknesses in the automatic recall of spelling patterns • Good readers and spellers will quickly note the matching pair, as it is a common English spelling pattern (e.g., th, oa) and the others are not (e.g., ao, hx).
    4. 4. Test 3: Segmentation NEW • A measure of phonetic coding, an aspect of Auditory Processing (Ga) • Combines with Blending to form the Phonetic Coding cluster The two most important phonological awareness abilities: • Blending: pushing speech sounds together (underlies using phonics for reading) • Segmentation: pushing sounds apart (underlies breaking apart sounds for spelling)
    5. 5. Segmentation • Compound Words • Syllables • Phonemes (single speech sounds) (Sample test item deleted for test security reasons)
    6. 6. Achievement: What’s New? • 7 new tests • Oral Reading, Reading Recall, • Word Reading Fluency NEW • Number Matrices • Science, Social Studies, Humanities • 8 new clusters • Reading, Reading Comprehension-Extended, Reading Fluency, Reading Rate • Written Language • Mathematics • Brief Achievement, Broad Achievement
    7. 7. Test 12: Reading Recall NEW • A measure of reading skill that contributes to the Reading Comprehension cluster • Can compare to Story Recall in WJ IV COG (Sample item deleted for test security reasons)
    8. 8. Test 15: Word Reading Fluency NEW (Sample test item deleted for test security reasons) • A measure of reading skill that contributes to the Reading Rate cluster • Timed test: 3 minutes
    9. 9. Examples of Useful WJ IV Comparisons Word Attack  Blending/Segmentation Story Recall  Reading Recall Oral Vocabulary  Reading Vocabulary Oral Comprehension Passage Comprehension
    10. 10. Three Procedures that can Contribute Information for SLD Identification in the US (IDEA, 2004) • Ability-achievement discrepancy • Response to intervention (RTI) • Alternative research-based methods (e.g., a pattern of strengths and weaknesses- PSW approach)
    11. 11. The primary purpose for testing should be to find out more about the problem, not to just get a score. Dr. R. W. Woodcock
    12. 12. Two Types of Discrepancies/Variations that Have Been Used in SLD Identification • Discrepancies between overall ability or oral language and specific academic performance • Variations among abilities: a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (intra-individual variations)
    13. 13. Two Basic Concepts of SLD • Unexpected Underachievementacademic performance is below what would be predicted based upon one’s other cognitive and/or academic abilities • Expected Underachievement- academic performance is in line with cognitive/linguistic weaknesses- the weakness(es) predict the poor academic performance
    14. 14. Cognitive Strengths(e.g., language, reasoning) Cognitive Weaknesses (e.g., phonological awareness, processing speed)  Unexpected Underachievement Intact academic performance in academic areas not affected by the disability (e.g., mathematics, science)  Poor decoding and spelling performance, slow reading rate Expected Underachievement
    15. 15. Discrepancies and Variations Two types of comparison procedures: Discrepancies: a score is used to predict performance in an area; predicted score is based on score of the predictor (e.g., GIA) Variations: a comparison of abilities to identify a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (fits with PSW approach); predicted score based on a set of other abilities
    16. 16. Discrepancy Options Five different ability/achievement discrepancy procedures help compare abilities to current levels of achievement. • • • • • GIA/Achievement Scholastic Aptitude/Achievement Gf-Gc/Achievement/other abilities Broad Oral Language/Achievement Academic Knowledge/Achievement
    17. 17. GIA/Achievement Discrepancy Compares general intellectual ability to current levels of achievement or oral language to determine if a significant difference exists. Requires: • GIA (COG Tests 1-7) • Any or all achievement clusters • Can include up to 4 Oral Language clusters – – – – Oral Language Broad Oral Language Oral Expression Listening Comprehension
    18. 18. General Intellectual Ability (GIA) WJ IV COG Tests 1-7 represent one of seven CHC factors: Test 1 Oral Vocabulary--Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) Test 2 Number Series--Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Test 3 Verbal Attention--Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm) Test 4 Letter-Pattern Matching--Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs) Test 5 Phonological Processing--Auditory Processing (Ga) Test 6 Story Recall--Long-Term Retrieval (Glr) Test 7 Visualization--Visual Processing (Gv)
    19. 19. GIA/Achievement Discrepancy Procedure COMPARISONS STANDARD SCORES Actual Predicted Difference GIA/Achievement Discrepancy Procedure* BRIEF ACHIEVEMENT 95 95 0 BROAD ACHIEVEMENT 96 96 0 READING 91 96 -5 BROAD READING 91 96 -5 BASIC READ SKILLS 92 96 -4 READING COMP 91 96 -5 READING COMP-EXT 92 96 -4 READING FLUENCY 87 96 -9 READING RATE 89 97 -8 DISCREPANCY Significant at PR SD + or – 1.50 SD (SEE) 49 54 33 31 34 31 36 19 23 -0.02 +0.10 -0.44 -0.49 -0.41 -0.51 -0.37 -0.86 -0.74 GIA score is 95. No significant discrepancies. No No No No No No No No No
    20. 20. Scholastic Aptitudes • designed to predict performance in the nearterm • may be useful in estimating quickness of response to intervention • designed to represent the concept of “expected underachievement”
    21. 21. Some abilities are more important than others… Reasoning (Gf) Oral language (Gc) Processing speed Short-term memory Phonological awareness Rapid automatized naming (RAN)
    22. 22. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities •Requires COG Tests 1, 2, 8, 9 •Compares Gf-Gc composite to current levels of achievement or oral language abilities or other cognitive abilities to determine if a discrepancy exists. •Determines the presence of significant strengths or weaknesses between an individual’s more complex abilities (fluid reasoning and comprehension-knowledge) and achievement as well as other abilities (cognitive or oral language).
    23. 23. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities Can include: • 10 additional COG clusters • Any or all ACH clusters • 2 OL clusters • Auditory Memory Span (1 COG test, 1 OL test) Especially helpful when individuals have a lowerlevel processing deficit that lowers the estimate of general intelligence or when using a PSW model for SLD identification.
    24. 24.  Gf-Gc Composite Cognitive Abilities  Oral Language  Achievement
    25. 25. Indicates possible patterns of strengths and weaknesses Math (Gq) Regressionbased predictions that Gf+Gc Writing account for Composite (Grw) (predictor) regression-tothe-mean (and Other CHC how it varies as a cog abilities function of age) and produce Oral Lang. abilities “real” discrepancy norms Conceptual summary of WJ IV Gf+Gc strength and Reading (Grw) weakness comparison procedure and options
    26. 26. Consideration of Different Abilities In homogenous samples of young adults, “…measures in which there is much emphasis on speediness correlate near zero, perhaps negatively, with tests that require solving difficult problems” (p. 91). Source: Horn, J. L., & Blankson, A. N. (2012). Foundations for better understanding of cognitive abilities. In D. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.). Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed.) (pp. 73-98). New York: Guilford.
    27. 27. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities • Useful in gifted, gifted/SLD, and SLD evaluations • Useful in cases of traumatic brain injury or other neuropsychological difficulties • Can be used as a substitute for the GIA when core cognitive processes, such as processing speed, working memory, etc. are discrepant from reasoning and knowledge. • Useful within a PSW model to explore the pattern of strengths and weaknesses
    28. 28. Gf-Gc/Other Abilities COMPARISONS STANDARD SCORES DISCREPANCY Actual Predicted Difference PR SD Interpretation at + or – 1.50 SD (SEE) Gf-Gc Composite/Other Ability Comparison* S-TERM WORK MEM (Gwm) 89 111 -22 3 -1.84 Weakness COG PROCESS SPEED (Gs) 92 107 -15 12 -1.17 -PERCEPTUAL SPEED 88 108 -20 6 -1.52 Weakness AUDITORY PROCESS (Ga) 79 111 -32 0.4 -2.67 Weakness L-TERM RETRIEVAL (Glr) 81 111 -30 1 -2.33 Weakness VISUAL PROCESSING (Gv) 104 109 -5 35 -0.39 -NUMBER FACILITY 90 110 -20 6 -1.59 Weakness COGNITIVE EFFICIENCY 91 111 -20 6 -1.54 Weakness COG EFFICIENCY (Ext) 87 111 -24 3 -1.96 Weakness *This procedure compares the WJ IV Gf-Gc Composite cluster score to other selected clusters. Uses Gf-Gc Composite as the predictor. In this case, the composite was 120. Score changes because of regression to the mean and the correlation between the Gf-Gc composite and the other ability.
    29. 29. Gf-Gc/Achievement COMPARISONS STANDARD SCORES Actual Predicted Difference DISCREPANCY PR SD Interpretation at + or – 1.50 SD (SEE) Gf-Gc Composite/Other Ability Comparison* BRIEF ACHIEVEMENT 95 BROAD ACHIEVEMENT 96 READING 91 BROAD READING 91 BASIC READING SKILLS 92 READING COMP 91 READING COMP-EXT 92 READING FLUENCY 87 READING RATE 89 115 115 115 114 112 114 115 111 110 -20 -19 -24 -23 -20 -23 -23 -24 -21 2 3 1 2 3 2 1 2 4 -2.05 -1.81 -2.24 -2.11 -1.86 -2.14 -2.30 -2.07 -1.74 Gf-Gc composite = 120. Many significant discrepancies noted. Weakness Weakness Weakness Weakness Weakness Weakness Weakness Weakness Weakness
    30. 30. Gf+Gc cognitive ability and WJ IV cluster Gf Gc Gf-Gc Composite (Predictor) Achievement domains and WJ IV clusters Other broad/narrow cognitive abilities and processing abilities and WJ IV clusters Gwm Gs Ga Glr Gv Grw Gq ST Wrk Mem (&Ext) Cog Prc Spd Aud Proc LT Retrieval Visual Proc Reading Math Brd Rdg Brd Math Aud Mem Sp Perc Spd Phon Cod Bas Rdg Sk Rdg Cmp (& Ext) Math Calc Sk Math Pr Solv Rdg Flu Brd Wr Lng Rdg Rate Bas Wrt Sk Wr Lng Wr Exp Cognitive Efficiency (& Ext) Sp Lex Acc Phn-Grp Kn
    31. 31. Ability/Achievement Comparison Procedure Predictor Clusters for Comparison All WJ IV ACH clusters Broad Oral Language 7 in reading 4 in math 4 in writing 5 special purpose Is achievement commensurate with oral language ability?
    32. 32. Verbal Ability as the Estimate of Reading Potential By the end of elementary school: “ Children should be able to comprehend, or construct, the meaning of what is being read at a level consistent with their general verbal ability” (p.55). Source: Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15, 55-64.
    33. 33. Academic Knowledge/Achievement Comparisons • Academic Knowledge is used as a predictor of achievement; full length tests of Science, Social Studies, and Humanities that are administered orally – Strong measure of Gc – Good predictor of academic ability • All other achievement clusters can be compared to Academic Knowledge • Helps determine if reading, writing, and math are discrepant from the Academic Knowledge cluster
    34. 34. Regulations IDEA 2004, August 14, 2006 §300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits consideration of: The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to intellectual development, that is determined by the team to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability.
    35. 35. The current Federal IDEA Definition of SLD (34 C.F.R. 300.8): Specific Learning Disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
    36. 36. Benefits of PSW Approach (a) aligns the identification process with the concept of SLD and the definition; (b) identifies the reason or reasons why a student is struggling; and, (c) helps inform the selection of appropriate accommodations and instructional methodologies.
    37. 37. Cognitive Testing “The nature of a tier 3 referral makes it imperative that the specific cognitive strengths and weaknesses of the student and their impact on learning and production be clearly specified” (p. 870). Source: McCloskey, G., Whitaker, J., Murphy, R., & Rogers, J. (2012) Intellectual, cognitive, and neuropsychological assessment in three-tier service delivery systems in schools. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.)., Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 852890). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
    38. 38. Variation Options Four different variation procedures to help document an individual’s unique pattern of strengths and weaknesses: • Intra-cognitive • Intra-achievement • Academic Skills, Academic Fluency, and Academic Applications clusters • Intra-oral language
    39. 39. Intra-Cognitive Variation Procedure Strengths and weaknesses among cognitive abilities • Intra-cognitive based on COG Tests 1—7 • Optional tests that may be included: –All remaining COG tests (Tests 8-18) –Oral Language tests (Tests 1-8) –ACH Test 13: Number Matrices
    40. 40. Intra-Cognitive Variation Procedure STANDARD SCORES DISCREPANCY Interpretation at VARIATIONS Actual Predicted Difference PR SD + or – 1.50 SD (SEE) Intra-Cognitive Variations Oral Vocabulary^ 109 93 16 93 +1.45 Number Series^ 114 92 22 97 +1.84 Verbal Attention^ 85 97 -12 16 -1.01 Letter-Pat Match^ 89 97 - 8 27 -0.61 Phono Process^ 84 97 -13 13 -1.14 Story Recall^ 82 98 -16 10 -1.29 Visualization^ 103 95 8 71 +0.55 ^Core test for calculation of intra-cognitive variations. -Strength ------ Requires Tests 1-7. Average of the other 6 used as the predictor for the remaining tests.
    41. 41. Intra-Cognitive (Extended) Variation Procedure VARIATIONS STANDARD SCORES DISCREPANCY Interpretation at Actual Predicted Difference PRSD + or – 1.50 SD (SEE) Intra-Cognitive (Extended) Variations COMP-KNOWLEDGE (Gc) 124 FLUID REASONING (Gf) 109 S-TERM WORK MEM (Gwm) 89 COG PROCESS SPEED (Gs) 92 AUDITORY PROCESS (Ga) 79 L-TERM RETRIEVAL (Glr) 81 VISUAL PROCESSING (Gv) 104 93 91 97 97 97 98 96 31 18 -8 -5 -18 -17 8 99 96 24 33 6 9 74 +2.52 +1.75 -0.70 -0.44 -1.58 -1.35 +0.64 Strength Strength --Weakness --- Includes additional tests beyond 1-7 and can also include tests from Tests of Oral Language. PERCEPTUAL SPEED VOCABULARY¤ ORAL LANGUAGE+ 100 88 110 93 97 93 7 -9 24 17 93 71 +0.56 -0.71 +1.45 -- ---
    42. 42. Intra-Achievement Variation Procedures • Two options Intra-Achievement using Tests 1-6 • Test 1. Letter Word Identification • Test 2. Applied Problems • Test 3. Spelling • Test 4. Passage Comprehension • Test 5. Calculation • Test 6. Writing Samples Intra-Achievement using 3 clusters: • Academic Skills • Academic Fluency • Academic Applications
    43. 43. Intra-Achievement Variation Procedures • Additional tests can be added to procedures • Compares performance on one test or cluster to average performance on other tests or clusters • Provides information about examinee’s strengths and weaknesses within academic areas • Helps pinpoint a pattern of strengths and weaknesses
    44. 44. Academic Skills/Academic Fluency/ Academic Applications When ACH Tests 1 through 6 and 9 through 11 are administered, a cross-domain comparison is made. • Academic Skills cluster is compared to a predictor score from the Academic Applications and Academic Fluency clusters; • Academic Applications cluster is compared to Academic Skills and Academic Fluency clusters; • Academic Fluency cluster is compared to a predictor score from the Academic Skills and Academic Applications clusters.
    45. 45. Some related WJ IV speed or fluency clusters are automatically included in this variation procedure when the appropriate tests are also administered. The WJ IV COG Cognitive Processing Speed (Gs), Perceptual Speed (P), and the WJ IV ACH Reading Rate clusters are also compared to the same “other” score as Academic Fluency (Academic Skills/Academic Applications)
    46. 46. Extended Time • Slow perceptual speed • Slow Academic Fluency • Slow Reading Rate In contrast to: • Higher Gf-Gc Composite • Higher Oral Language • Higher Academic Knowledge
    47. 47. “It was as if he were driving in a NASCAR race in first gear while everyone else was cruising along in fifth gear” (Lindstedt & Zaccariello, 2008) (pp. 195-196). Source: Lindstedt, K., & Zaccariello, M. J. (2008). A tale of two assessments: Reading Fluency. In J. N. Apps, R. F. Newby, & L. W. Roberts (Ed)., Pediatric neuropsychology case studies: From the exceptional to the commonplace (pp. 191-199). New York, NY: Springer.
    48. 48. Intra-Oral Language Variation Procedure Required Tests 1-4 1. Picture Vocabulary 2. Oral Comprehension Compares each test to the average of the other 3. 3. Segmentation 4. Rapid Picture Naming Can add in OL Tests 5-8 and COG tests: COG 1: Oral Vocabulary COG 5: Phonological Processing COG 12: Nonword Repetition
    49. 49. Dr. Alan Kaufman … there is a demand for the comprehensive assessment to drive intervention. This is the way it has always been, and this is the way it will always be because the referral questions for children with SLD have always asked, What is wrong? And how can we help? These questions demand differential diagnosis, a large part of which is determined by the cognitive abilities present in the individual child (p. 211). Source: Kaufman, A. S., Lichtenberger, E. O., Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Kaufman, N. L. (2005). Essentials of the K-ABC-II Assessment. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
    50. 50. Comprehensive evaluations that include both cognitive and achievement testing are needed to fully understand the nature and severity of the SLD, identify the pattern of strengths and weaknesses, and select appropriate accommodations and interventions.
    51. 51. Diagnosis and Instruction “Diagnosis must take second place to instruction, and must be made a tool of instruction, not an end in itself.” Source: Cruickshank, W.M. (1977). Leastrestrictive placement: Administrative wishful thinking. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 10, 193-194.