SLD Eligibility Review
Teresa Fritsch, Psy.S., NCSP
School Psychologist
fritsch.teresa@meridianschool.org
Purpose and Objectives
• Review SLD Evaluation Procedures
• Psychological Processing Models
Review from Psychological Processing:
Part 1 Webinar
• Universal screening and data collection
• Interventions provided to those students
struggling and below grade level
• Progress monitoring and data collection
• Referral to consider special education
evaluation
Academic Achievement Assessment
* Evidence of low achievement
* Performance significantly below the mean
on a cluster, composite, or 2 or more
subtests in the same academic area
(i.e. Word Attack and Letter-Word
Identification=Basic Reading Skills)
* Specific Learning Disability – not using
Broad scores
* Norm-referenced, standardized,
achievement assessment
Psychological Processing Review Con’t
• Psychological Processing evaluation
– Review and analyze all data already obtained
(Teacher and Parent input from referral meeting)
– Develop a theory and hypothesis
– Assess/Collect data and interpret results
– Determine if there is a link between psychological
processing area(s) and academic deficits
– Pattern of strengths and weaknesses
– Do the dots connect?
Sample SLD Eligibility Report
Section A: Do Any One of the Following Factors Contribute to the Student’s Learning Difficulty?
Directions: Please complete this section by carefully reviewing items 1 through 5 prior to considering SLD eligibility. Place a check in the
box marked “yes” or “no”. If “yes” was checked in items 1 through 5, use the text box provided below to provide additional narrative
information.
1. A visual, hearing or motor impairment
Yes
No
2. Cognitive impairment
Yes
No
3. Emotional disturbance
Yes
No
4. Environmental or economic disadvantage
Yes
No
5. Cultural factors
Yes
No
For any of the above factors marked “yes”, describe how the student’s performance is impacted and indicate if this factor is a
primary factor in the student’s learning difficulty.
Academic Area(s) of Concern
Directions: Place an “X” in the space below for each area of academic concern.
Basic Reading Skills
Oral Expression
Written Expression
Math Calculation
Reading Comprehension
Reading Fluency
Listening Comprehension
Math Problem Solving
1. Information shared by the parent(s)
Directions: In the text boxes below, describe the student’s strengths and weaknesses as related to the area of concern that were shared by the
parent(s).
Student Strengths: Student enjoys reading for fun and likes to do his math homework first thing.
Student Needs: Student hates to write and it’s like pulling teeth to get him to do any writing homework at home. He is
a terrible speller and half the time I’m not sure what he’s trying to tell me when he leaves a note.
4. Data that establishes that the core curriculum is effective for most students.
Directions: For each of the assessments, list the percentage of students within the student’s grade level who met grade-level performance
benchmarks (may include ISAT, IRI, Grade Level Curriculum Based Measures, other measures).
Name of
Assessment
Area Assessed
Date
Performance
Benchmark
Percentage of
Grade Level
Peers Meeting
Performance
Benchmark
ISAT
Language Usage
05/13/10
214 (Proficient)
79
AIMSweb
Correct Writing
Sequence (CWS)
09/2010
43 (50
percentile)
th
83
Percentage of
Disaggregated
Group Level
Peers Meeting
Performance
Benchmark
(if applicable)
Target Student
Performance
Level
202 (Below
Basic)
th
24 (16
percentile)
5. Document information that the student was provided with appropriate instruction in the general education setting by
qualified personnel prior to or as a part of the referral process in the academic area(s) of concern.
Core Instruction Provided
Duration
Academic
Area
EnglishWriting (7)
EnglishWriting (6)
Core Instruction
Write Source 2000 (Great
Source); Write Traits (Great
Source); Step Up to Writing
(Sopris West); Houghton Mifflin
Write Source 2000 (Great
Source); Step Up to Writing
(Sopris West); Houghton Mifflin
Total
(weeks)
Frequency
(how often
per week)
Intensity
(minutes per
session)
02/15/11
20
weeks
5 times/week
45 minutes
06/08/10
36
weeks
5 times/week
45 minutes
Begin
Date
(M/D/Y)
End
Date
(M/D/Y)
08/31/10
08/31/09
Intervention Provided
Academic
Area of
Concern
Expressive
Writing
Intervention
Learning Lab during which
Student was pre-taught and retaught writing strategies using
Step Up to Writing and Write
Traits. Practice spelling tests
using Spelling and Vocabulary
(Houghton Mifflin). Direct
instruction and practice on selfediting and use of graphic
organizers.
Begin
Date
(M/D/Y)
08/31/09
Duration
End
Date
(M/D/Y)
02/15/11
Total
(weeks)
56
weeks
Frequency
(how often
per week)
Intensity
(minutes per
session)
5 times/week
45 minutes
6. Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of
student progress during instruction and intervention for each academic area of concern. For students who are culturally
diverse and/or English Learners, progress documenting the student’s growth should be also compared against their
subgroup’s progress
Attach to the evaluation report, a copy of the student’s progress monitoring graph for each academic area of concern. The graph(s) must
include the aimline, trendline, decision points, student’s rate of improvement, and national or local norm for grade level peers. For
culturally diverse and English Learners, include comparisons to peer group progress.
Summary of the data demonstrating the student’s progress during instruction and intervention in the academic
areas of concern:
Student has participated in a general education English 7 class all year as well as a Learning Lab
class for point of need instruction. Student has been progress monitored in the area of written
expression, particularly Correct Writing Sequences (CWS), with AIMSweb probes. The student’s last
three scores were 21, 19, and 33 CWS, which is at the 7th percentile (median). The 50th percentile for
7th graders in the spring is a CWS score of 52. Student’s current average rate of improvement is -.01
CWS per week, which is below his expected growth of .50 per week. Student started off the year on
track to make the goal but has plateaued over the last couple of weeks. The Team will use test
results information to intensify or change the current interventions.
Directions: Mark the area(s) of concern with an “X” and provide evidence of low achievement. Complete the table by providing specific
assessment information as requested in the table for each are marked with an “X”.
Basic Reading Skills
Oral Expression
Written Expression
Math Calculation
Reading Comprehension
Reading Fluency
Listening Comprehension
Math Problem Solving
Area of
Concern
Written
Expression
Date
Name of Assessment
04/11/11
Woodcock Johnson III
Tests of Achievement
Subtest(s)/Composite/
Cluster
Written Expression =
SS
%ile
78
7
Evaluator/Title
Ms. Educator/ Special
Education Teacher
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information:
The Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Achievement is an individually administered academic assessment for
individuals between the ages of 2 to 90 years. The Written Expression cluster is composed of two subtests Writing Fluency and Writing Samples. Student scored below average on both subtests with a standard
score of 80 (at the 9th percentile) on the Writing Fluency subtest and a standard score of 74 (at the 4th
percentile) on the Writing Samples subtest. His overall Written Expression skills were below average with a
standard score of 78 (at the 7th percentile). He was tested in a quiet room, free from distractions and he
was on task and engaged during testing. He asked questions to clarify directions as needed. The scores
can be considered a valid assessment of Student's current performance.
Area of
Concern
Written
Expression
Date
Name of Assessment
Subtest(s)
SS
%ile
02/8/11
Test of Written
Language-Fourth Edition
(TOWL-4)
Contrived Writing =
Spontaneous Writing =
Overall Writing =
84
93
89
14
32
23
Evaluator/Title
Ms. Educator/Special
Education Teacher
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: The TOWL-4 is a sevensubtest, norm-referenced measure used to assess written expression for students between the ages of 9 to 17 years.
Student shows relative strengths in his Spontaneous Writing, which are his skills in style, contextual conventions, and
story composition, and in the Average range. His greatest difficulties were in the Contrived Writing, which includes
vocabulary, paragraph and sentence structure, capitalization, spelling and punctuation, and is Below Average. His
overall writing on the TOWL-4 is within the low average range with difficulties noted in contrived writing. Based on his
performance on both assessments, Student has a significant weakness in spelling, conventions (capitalization and
punctuation), and sentence structure which correlate with the Contrived Writing assessment of the TOWL-4. Student
demonstrated on-task behaviors and put forth good behavior on all tasks given to him for both assessment measures.
Test results are considered valid.
Various Models/Approaches to SLD Identification:
- Discrepancy-Consistency Approach Using PASS
Theory (Naglieri, Das, & Kirby)*
- RTI & Cognitive Hypothesis Testing (ConcordanceDiscordance Model) (Hale, Wycoff, & Fiorello)*
- Ability-Achievement Consistency Model (CHC
Theory) (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo)*
- Milton Dehn Model (Dehn)
* Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, 2011
Discrepancy-Consistency Approach
Significant
Difference(s)
Processing &
Achievement
Strengths
Achievement
Weakness(es)
Significant
Difference(s)
Processing
Weakness(es)
Similar Scores
Copyright Jack A. Naglieri, 2010
RTI and Cognitive Hypothesis Testing
Theory
1. Problem
5. Cognitive Strengths/Weaknesses
9 . Intervention Consultation
13. Continue/Terminate/Modify
Hypothesis
Interpretation
2. Intellectual/Cognitive Problem
6. Choose Related Construct Test
10. Choose Plausible Intervention
4. Interpret Psych. Processing
8. Interpret Constructs/Compare
12. Determine Intervention Efficacy
Data Collection
3. Administer/Score Intelligence Test
7. Administer/Score Related Construct Test
11. Collect Objective Intervention Data
Hale, J.B., & Fiorello, CA (2004)
Ability Achievement Consistency Model
(Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory)
•
Level I-A: Measurement of Specific Academic Skills & Acquired Knowledge
– Inter-Academic Ability Analysis (Stores of Acquired Knowledge)
• Math Calculation - Basic Reading Skills
- Reading Fluency
• Math Reasoning - Reading Comprehension - Written Expression
• General information*
- Oral Expression*
• Lexical Knowledge*- Listening Comprehension*
•
Level I-B: Evaluation of Exclusionary Factors – NOT Sensory Impairment;
NOT Mental Retardation; NOT Cultural Differences; NOT Language
Differences; etc…
Flanagan et al (2002, 2006, 2007)
Ability Achievement Consistency Model
(Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory)
•
•
•
•
Level II-A: Measurement of Broad Abilities/Processes and Aptitudes for
Learning-Inter-Cognitive Ability Analysis (Learning Efficiency)
• Gt, Gs, Gsm, Glr, Ga, Gv, Gf, and Gc*
Level II-B: Re-evaluation of Exclusionary Factors
Level III: Evaluation of Underachievement – Integrated Ability Analysis
• Below Average Aptitude-Achievement Consistency within an otherwise
normal ability profile
Level IV: Evaluation of Interference with Functioning (deficits are normative)
• The identified deficits significantly interfere with academic achievement
or other daily activities requiring these skills (e.g., reading, writing, math)
Evidence of a Processing Strength or Weakness
Milton J. Dehn, Ed.D.
Spring 2010
• Both intra-individual and normative scores to be considered
a strength or weakness
•A low score in a process is not necessarily a deficit indicative
of LD, unless it’s also an intra-individual weakness
–Example: very low IQ have inherent processing problems
–Although Dehn defines intra-individual and normative scores by certain
values, the Idaho SLD policy looks for the preponderance of evidence to
support the eligibility decision.
Process
Test/Battery
Name
Subtest/Factor
Name
Subtest
Scores
Factor
Score
IQ/Mean
Difference
From Mean
Normative
S or W
Ipsative
S or W
**Information regarding the directions for the Processing Analysis Worksheet can be found in Dr. Dehn’s book.
Deficit
or Asset
Basic
Reading
Skills
Reading
Comprehension
Reading
Fluency
Math
Math
Calculation Problem
Solving
Written
Expression
Crystallized
Intelligence
Crystallized
Intelligence
Perceptual
Speed
Fluid
Reasoning
Fluid
Reasoning
Crystallized
Intelligence
Auditory
Processing
Short
Term/Working
Memory
Long-Term
Storage
Crystallized
Intelligence
Crystallized
Intelligence
Short
Term/Working
Memory
Long-Term
Storage &
Retrieval
Long-Term
Storage &
Retrieval
Phonological
Processing
Short-Term/
Working
Memory
Short
Term/Working
Memory
Processing
Speed
Processing
Speed
Fluid Reasoning
Crystallized
Intelligence
Processing
Speed
Processing
Speed
Fluid
Reasoning
Short-Term/
Working
Memory
Auditory Processing
Visual
Processing
Visual Processing
Attention
Executive Function
Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007, Dehn, M., 2009, and McGrew 2009
Auditory
Processing
Section D: Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses in Psychological Processing Skills
That Impact Learning
Processing
Area
Short-Term/
Working
Memory
(Gsm)
Date
Name of Assessment
02/02/11
Wide Range
Assessment of Memory
and Learning-Second
Edition (WRAML-II)
Composite/Cluster/
Subtest
Verbal Memory =
Visual Memory =
Attention/Concentration=
General Memory =
Working Memory =
SS
%ile
Evaluator/Title
88
91
88
85
83
21
27
21
16
13
Mrs. Helpful/School
Psychologist
02/09/11
Woodcock Johnson III
Tests of Cognitive
Working Memory =
78
7
Abilities
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: The WRAML-2 is an
individually administered assessment for individuals between the ages of 5 and 85+ years and is used to measure
various aspects of a student's memory and learning. Student shows average skills on both subtests for Visual Memory
with a scaled score of 9 on Design Memory and a scaled score of 8 on Picture Memory. On the Verbal Memory
subtests, Student shows average skills on the Story Memory subtest with a scaled score of 9 but more difficulties with
the Verbal Learning with a scaled score of 7, with an overall Verbal Memory score in the Low Average range. Student's
memory span (Attention/Concentration) is also within the Low average range with a standard score of 88, which is at the
21st percentile. Student shows much stronger recognition abilities with scores all within the Average range, standard
scores of 96, which are at the 39th percentile. His scores on the Working Memory subtests were split with stronger skills
noted on the Verbal Working Memory subtest than on the Symbolic Working Memory subtest. Similar results were seen
on the WJ III COG's Working Memory subtests.
The Working Memory aspects of the Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG) refer to the ability
to hold information in immediate awareness while performing a mental operation on the information. The two subtests
that comprise this cluster area are Numbers Reversed and Auditory Working Memory. Student scores significantly
higher on the Auditory Working Memory subtest (standard score of 90) than he does on the Numbers Reversed subtest
(standard score of 74). The discrepancy in these scores is very similar to the discrepancy noted above with the
WRAML-2 subtests of working memory, which indicate that Student struggles significantly with the aspects of working
memory which are more random, non-meaningful, and smaller in units. These working memory deficits have a direct
correlation with the difficulties Student is having in his written expression, particularly with the mechanics and
conventions of writing. Student put forth good effort on both tests and was very thoughtful in his responses; therefore
test results are considered valid.
Processing
Area
Crystallized
Intelligence
(Gc)
Date
Name of Assessment
02/09/11
Woodcock Johnson III
Tests of Cognitive
Abilities
Composite/Cluster/
Subtest
Comprehension/
Knowledge =
SS
%ile
Evaluator/Title
92
31
Mrs. Helpful/School
Psychologist
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: The ComprehensionKnowledge aspect of the WJ III COG refers to the breadth and depth of a student's acquired knowledge of a culture and
the effective application of this knowledge. There are two subtests that comprise the Comprehension-Knowledge cluster
of the WJIII and they are Verbal Comprehension (measures lexical knowledge) and General Information (range of
general knowledge); Student scores similarly on both subtests with a standard score of 93 on Verbal Comprehension
and 92 on General Knowledge. Student’s overall Comprehension-Knowledge standard score is a 92, which is at the
31st percentile and in the Average range. Student worked cooperatively and politely with this examiner throughout the
entire evaluation; therefore test results are considered valid.
Processing
Date
Name of Assessment
Composite/Cluster/
SS
%ile Evaluator/Title
Area
Subtest
Auditory/
02/09/11
Woodcock Johnson III
Phonemic Awareness =
110
74
Mrs. Helpful/School
Phonological
Tests of Cognitive
Psychologist
Processing
Abilities
(Ga)
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: The Phonemic Awareness
cluster of the WJIII COG includes the knowledge and skills related to analyzing and synthesizing speech sounds and
consist of two auditory processing subtests - Sound Blending and Incomplete Words. Student scores within the high
average and average range on both of these subtests, with stronger skills noted in Sound Blending (standard score of
114; 82nd percentile) than in Incomplete Words (standard score of 95; 38th percentile). His overall score in this cluster
area is within the High Average range, with a standard score of 110 (74th percentile). Student listened carefully to each
prompted and was very thought in his responses; test results are considered valid.
Processing
Area
Processing
Speed (Gs)
Date
Name of Assessment
02/09/11
Woodcock Johnson III
Tests of Cognitive
Abilities
Composite/Cluster/
Subtest
Processing Speed =
SS
%ile
Evaluator/Title
83
13
Mrs. Helpful/School
Psychologist
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: The Processing Speed parts
of the WJ III measures an individual’s ability to perform automatic cognitive tasks, particularly when measured under
pressure to maintain focused attention. Student struggled on both subtest related to Processing Speed – Visual
Matching and Decision Speed – with standard scores in the Below Average range (84 and 81, respectively). His overall
processing speed ability is within the Below Average range indicating a normative weakness in this area. Processing
Speed does have a direct correlation to written language skills; therefore Student’s difficulties in this psychological
processing area are directly impacting his expressive writing skills. Student put forth good effort on both subtests;
therefore test results are considered valid.
Processing Date
Name of Assessment
Composite/Cluster/
SS
%ile Evaluator/Title
Area
Subtest
Fluid
Reasoning
(Gf)
02/09/11
Woodcock Johnson III
Tests of Cognitive
Abilities
Fluid Reasoning =
97
41
Mrs. Helpful/School
Psychologist
Description of assessment measure, validity statement, and interpretive information: Fluid
Reasoning of the WJ III COG refers to mental operations that a student uses when faced with a relatively novel task that
cannot be performed automatically. There are two subtests that make up the Fluid Reasoning cluster of the WJ III, and
they are Concept Formation and Analysis-Synthesis. Student scores were similar on these two subtests with a standard
score of 93 at the 32nd percentile on Concept Formation and a standard score of 102 at the 55th percentile on AnalysisSynthesis. Student's overall score in Fluid Reasoning is within the Average range, with a standard score of 97, at the
41st percentile. He put forth good effort on all tasks given to him demonstrating average energy and attention. Test
results are considered valid.
Key Elements of Psychological Processing:
* Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses
* Normative Weaknesses must link to academic
deficits
* Summarize information in Section G; bring
the story together; connect the dots
www.idahotc.com
Training and Technology for Today’s Tomorrow
• Supported By:
• Website to link school
professionals and
parents with special
education training
opportunities and
resources across the
state
– Idaho State
Department of
Education (ISDE),
Special Education
• Project Team:
– Cari Murphy
– Shawn Wright
Statewide Special Education Technical
Assistance (SESTA)
Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies, BSU
Gina Hopper,
Associate Director
ginahopper@boisestate.edu
208.426.4363
Carol Carnahan,
Statewide Consultant
carolcarnahan@boisestate.edu
208.426.3257
www.sde.idaho.gov/site/isee
Contact Us
Teresa Fritsch, School Psychologist, Meridian School
District, fritsch.teresa@meridianschools.org
Carol Treat, School Psychologist, Post Falls School District,
ctreat@sd273.com
Richard Henderson, Director of Special Education, SDE,
rhenderson@sde.idaho.gov