How are we going to identify children
with special needs and how are we
going to intervene once they are
identified?
Daniel C. Miller, Ph.D., NCSP
NASP President, 2003-04
Current State of Affairs
•
•
•
•
No Child Left Behind Implementation
Pending IDEA reauthorization
Education budget short falls in states
Storage of school psychologists
Current Buzz Words in Education
• Performance-based accountability
• Empirically-based (evidencebased) intervention strategies
• RTI - response to intervention
Performance-based Accountability
• Permeates training standards for educators
(including school psychologists)
• Permeates the public schools via
competency-based district-wide testing. Highstakes testing becomes the norm.
• Very little evidence (longitudinal empirical
base) that shows success of criteria (tests) for
prediction of future success.
• Psychometric properties of large scale
assessments are suspect at best or non
existent.
Empirically-based
intervention strategies
• Excellent face validity to the use of
empirically-based intervention strategies. We
all want to use interventions that have been
proven to effective?
• What constitutes an effective intervention?
• Does one published study constitute
effectiveness? Does 2, or 3?
• What about the limits of generalizability?
RTI - response to intervention
• In response to problems with the
discrepancy approach some have
argued for a “Response to Intervention”
approach
– “Children who fail to respond to empirically
validated treatments implemented with
integrity might be identified as LD”
(Gresham, 2002, p. 499).
RTI advocates argue that the current
system is:
•
•
•
•
•
focused on eligibility not instruction
a wait-to-fail model
not a valid way to identify LD
Focused on the ATI concept
Assessment of processing is psychometrically
suspect and largely irrelevant to the
identification of LD
• Many LD students had bad instruction
• Eligibility process is expensive
• Not working because teams ignore
established classification criteria
Kovaleski & Prasse (2004)
• The Dual Discrepancy Format for SLD
identification
– Part 1: Low academic performance
– Part 2: Poor response to appropriate
instruction
Kovaleski & Prasse (2004):
Part I: Low academic achievement
The student must be significantly below samegrade peers
Shinn (2002) notes that a 2.0 grade level
discrepancy is a typical index that identifies
a significant academic deficiency.
BUT… Shinn’s 2.0 grade level discrepancy
is also a “wait to fail model” because you
can’t be behind by two years until you are
in at least second grade
Kovaleski & Prasse (2004):
Part I: Low academic achievement
The student must be significantly below samegrade peers:
This is based on a discrepancy from gradelevel performance without reference to an
assessment of the student’s ability level
(i.e., IQ).
BUT…The grade equivalent method has
many well known psychometric problems.
Kovaleski & Prasse (2004):
Part I: Low academic achievement
• Advocates argue for RTI curriculum-based
measurement (CBM) approach
– Determine the student’s discrepancy from grade
peers by comparing the performance on CBM
measures (e.g., oral reading fluency) with norms
from the student’s school or school district
Local Norms
• Advantage
– Local norms are good at telling where the child is
in relation to the smallest comparison group – the
child’s classroom
• Disadvantage
– Local norms only tell where the child is in relation
to the smallest comparison group – the child’s
classroom
– Change the classroom and the score changes
– Change the school and the score changes
The same Reading score
of 55 =
112 ( above average)
92 (average) or 84 (well
below average)
Data collected from the
Fairfax County Public
Schools, Virginia
(Naglieri, 2004)
Conclusions on Low
Achievement
• Wide variety exists between schools in the
same school district
• A child may be “failing” in one class but doing
“well” in another
• Local norms are useful to determine how the
child compares to the rest of the class
• Determining SLD on local norms will yield
considerable inequities
• National norms are necessary
Kovaleski & Prasse (2004):
Part II: Poor response to appropriate
instruction
• The student performs poorly to carefully
planned and precisely delivered instruction.
• The data are developed through ongoing
progress monitoring on a critical academic
measure during the course of an individually
designed intervention.
• The use of CBM as an ongoing performance
measure (usually through data collected twice
per week) is recommended.
Does an increase in counts
mean improvement is real?
• Visual examination of changes in rate are
only sufficient to demonstrate some change
• Changes over time is helpful for instructional
decision making
• Changes over time do not necessarily mean
the child has reached a level that is
consistent with normative expectations
• Standardized test results provide the more
accurate assessment of a child’s progress
Kovaleski & Prasse (2004) Article
Summary
• Response to intervention appears to be
a promising alternative to the traditional
IQ-achievement discrepancy model for
identifying students with learning
disabilities while improving classroom
instruction.
• Evaluation of the overall impact of this
approach is recommended.
RTI – A Proven Alternative?
• RTI may be a reasonable way to find children
who are doing poorly.
• RTI problems
– Local norms do not provide consistency.
– Increases in performance can be misleading.
– There is no evidence that RTI is effective for LD
identification.
– RTI is inconsistent with the definition of SLD
(disorder in basic psychological processes).
RTI Conference (Dec. 2003)
Kavale’s presentation
• Increases in rate of learning alone are not
sufficient.
• Success is not well defined in the RTI model.
• There are not clear definitions or cut scores to
indicate failure to respond to intervention.
• RTI is a good first step.
• RTI is not sufficient for identification (Neither is LD
discrepancy alone sufficient).
• A thorough analysis of the unique learning needs
of children is needed.
RTI Conference (Dec. 2003)
Kavale’s presentation
• The definition of LD has been ignored.
• There is no connection between the definition of
SLD and the method of RTI.
• SLD is more than just reading failure but RTI has
been limited to reading fluency.
• RTI is not sufficient for identification of LD.
• “a formal evaluation is absolutely necessary” or
inappropriate conclusions may be reached
because reading failure can be caused by
depression, emotional / behavioral disorders,
anxiety disorders, ADHD, etc.
CEC’s Position on RTI
The use of research-based interventions in
early reading offers a real opportunity for
more at risk students, including many with
LD, to acquire needed beginning literacy
skills. However, the use of scientific researchbased intervention cannot determine whether
a child is or is not learning disabled. Instead,
students who do not display meaningful gains
and who appear to be unresponsive to
intervention are candidates for referral for
special education evaluation.
NASP Recommendations to Congress
(April, 2003)
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
NASP Recommendations to Congress
(April, 2003)
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
NASP Recommendations to Congress
(April, 2003)
QuickTime™ and a
TIF F (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
Maintaining definition and eliminating discrepancy
formula are consistent with LD Round Table recs.
NASP Recommendations to Congress
(April, 2003)
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
NASP Recommendations to Congress
(April, 2003)
Sch. Psychs
could be key players
in Tier 1 as well!
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
NASP Recommendations to Congress
(April, 2003)
• RTI is a part, but not the only method.
• Comprehensive evaluation is required
for identification of SLD.
• Assessment of cognitive processes can
and should be used.
Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004)
• The definition of SLD is:
– “… a disorder in 1 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.”
• Neither the discrepancy model or RTI
evaluates basic psychology processes.
Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004)
• The method of RTI is disconnected from the
definition of SLD.
• Therefore, “Establishing a disorder in the
basic psychology processes is essential for
determining SLD”.
• Practitioners have ignored this approach to
identification and used discrepancy formulas.
Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004)
• Processing measures of today are very
different than those of the 1970s.
• Tests that we specifically developed to
measure basic psychological processes
should be used:
– “changing the focus from the content of the test
items (e.g, auditory, visual) to the underlying
psychology processes may be the key to
understanding … individual children” (p. 13)
Summary
• RTI is an adequate, but not sufficient
way to assess the child’s academic
level
– Local norms are misleading
– Graphs may imply improvement but
standardized normative values should be
used to validate informal measures
• RTI could have utility in Tier 1
Summary
• Reauthorization Bills, Roundtable Consensus
Report, NASP documents say use more than
one methodology
• The most defensible way to identify SLD is
through a comprehensive evaluation that
includes basic psychological processes (SLD
definition) in addition to other data (e.g., RTI,
achievement test data, measures of emotional
status, etc.)
So what can a school psychologist do?
• Respect the theoretical diversity in the field.
• Validate and cross-validity on a small scale
before we adopt wholesale public policy
changes.
• Stay tuned….the debate continues.
Resources/References
• American Academy of School Psychology. Statement
on Comprehensive Evaluation for Learning
Disabilities. February, 2004.
• Hale, J.B., Naglieri, J. A., Kaufman, A. S., and
Kavale, K. A. (2004). Specific learning disability
classification in the new Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act: The Danger of Good Ideas. The
School Psychologist, 58(1), pp 6-13.
• Naglieri, J. (2004) IDEA Reauthorization and
Cognitive Assessment. Presentation at the Illinois
Association of School Psychologists, March, 2004.
Resources/References
• Web Resources and References on IDEA
Reauthorization and LD Reforms
http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/ldreferences.htm
l
• NRCLD’s Responsiveness to Intervention
Symposium December 4-5, 2003 speaker’s papers
and power point presentations:
http://www.nrcld.org/html/symposium2003/index.html
Presenter
Daniel C. Miller, Ph.D., NCSP
NASP President (2003-04)
Professor, Director, School Psychology Graduate
Training Programs, Texas Woman’s University
1156 Point Vista Road
Corinth, Texas 76210
danielcmiller@earthlink.com
http://homepage.mac.com/danmiller1/web/