1 / 76

Purpose of the Refresher Training

CCCCO Learning Disabilities Eligibility & Services Model (LDESM) Refresher Training Araksya Arutyunyan , PsyD Krystle Taylor, M.S., CRC April 12, 2019. Purpose of the Refresher Training. Confirm best practices Review of the LDESM since Title 5 revisions Address LD-related questions.

rene
Download Presentation

Purpose of the Refresher Training

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. CCCCOLearning Disabilities Eligibility & Services Model (LDESM) Refresher Training Araksya Arutyunyan, PsyDKrystle Taylor, M.S., CRCApril 12, 2019

  2. Purpose of the Refresher Training • Confirm best practices • Review of the LDESM since Title 5 revisions • Address LD-related questions

  3. Assumptions About Participants • All certified LD Specialists • All trained in the most recent assessment instruments • Our pace is set for those already working within the LD field and our community colleges

  4. Overview of the LD Eligibility & Services Model • Eligibility Components • Procedures in the LDESM • Updates to assessment batteries • Updates to CARS-W

  5. Eligibility Components • Intake Screening • Measured Achievement (OPTIONAL) • Ability Level • Processing Deficit AND/OR • Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancy • Eligibility Recommendation

  6. Procedures in the LDESM • Primary Procedures • Secondary Procedures • Professional Certification • Evaluation of Prior Documentation

  7. Assessment and Validity Issues As a reminder… • Procedural Validity • Ensures that the test or procedure chosen for evaluating the student is the best measure of the skill or ability to be assessed • Administration Validity • Did anything occur in the course of administering the procedure which would invalidate the results?

  8. Examiner Guidelines & Code of Fair Testing Practices • Qualifications of Examiners • Maintenance of Test Security • FERPA; students under age 18 • Selecting Appropriate Tests • Interpreting Scores • Code of Fair Testing Practices • Informing Test Takers

  9. Intake Screening Component • Student understanding of assessment: • Complete Consent Form • Completion of the Intake Interview • LD Specialist reviews Intake Interview with student and provide strategies for improvement • Evaluate Prior Documentation (as appropriate) • Proceed to appropriate component

  10. Intake Interview • Most important assessment tool in LDESM • Intake Interview provides opportunity to: • Gather in-depth information about student • Provide immediate strategies for improvement • Consider/rule out alternative explanations • Establish hypotheses • Evaluate prior documentation (if applicable) • LD Specialist should be the individual to review the ISER with the student • Current ISER is from 2016

  11. Intake Interview continued… • The ISER 2016 version has a couple revisions: • Expanded question #4 related to challenges in specific academic areas • Addition of Life Skills and Work History

  12. Intake Interview continued… Best practices… • The Intake Interview is unquestionably the most important part of the assessment battery. • Establishes rapport with student and LD Specialist • Gathers the experiences and educational exposure of the student • Begins the identification of strategies to immediately help the student • Rules our alternative explanations for difficulties • If co-morbidity exists, then either rule out LD or pursue both • Helps establish a hypothesis about appropriate test selection

  13. Intake Interview Implementation Issues As a reminder – • Implementation issues: Should I test someone with a psychological disability? • Watch presentation Kim/Dr. Brooke Choo gave at CAPED • Should I test someone who is Deaf or Hard of Hearing? • Watch presentation Dr. Brooke Choo/Monica Collins gave at CAPED! • Interworks Institute/DSPS Solutions • http://dspssolutions.org/ Should I test someone for whom English is a second language?

  14. Component Checks Completed for each component of the LDESM: • Select procedure • Complete procedural validity check • Complete selected procedure • Complete administration validity check • Calculate scores for chosen scales • Determine if student’s performance meets the criterion • Proceed to appropriate component

  15. Ability Level Component • Primary Procedures • Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (WAIS-IV) (2008) • Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities (2014) • Criterion > 85

  16. Ability Level Component: WAIS-IV • Using the WAIS-IV: • Select from FSIQ, VCI, PRI, GAI • Criteria Scores ≥ SS 85 (SEM Can be used)

  17. Sample WAIS-IV

  18. Sample WAIS-IV • The WAIS-IV SEM table can be found on page 2 of the Score Report print out.

  19. Ability Level Component: WJ-IV Cog • The following clusters may be used: • GIA • Gf-Gc Composite

  20. Ability Level Component: WJ-IV Cog

  21. Ability Level Component • Secondary Procedures (Criterion > 85) • Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) (1958) • Use CARSW CCC norms • Directions and scoring forms in your manual • WJ IV Oral Language • Broad Oral Language • Oral Language • Oral Expression • Batería Woodcock-Muñoz—IV: Pruebas de HabilidadCognitiva

  22. Intellectual Disability (ID) Criteria • The students documentation indicates the following criterion have been met: • Significant limitations both in intellectual functioning and adaptive behavior that affect and limit the student’s ability to access the educational process • The disability originated before the age of 18

  23. Intellectual Disability (ID) Eligibility • The disability may be verified by using documentation from a referring agency and may be reported in the Intellectual Disability category by meeting one of the five standards: • _________ A. This student has an earned standard score less than or equal to 70 on a professionally accepted ability assessment. OR

  24. Intellectual Disability (ID) Eligibility • _________ B. The student has an earned standard score of 84 or below and at least one of the seven following indicators is documented. • History of special education • History of sheltered or supported employment • History of unemployment or limited entry level employment • Dependent / semi-independent living environment • Client status with the State Department of Rehabilitation • Client status with the Regional Center • Academic skill deficiency

  25. Intellectual Disability (ID) Eligibility OR • _________ C. The student has an IEP or other documentation that indicates the student has ID. OR • ________ D. The student is a client of the Regional Center and is reported as having ID. OR • _______ E. The student is a client of the Department of Rehabilitation and is reported as having ID.

  26. Intellectual Disability (ID) Verification • ID verification form in your manual (p. 64 of revised manual) • Remember - Our criteria is different from Intellectual Disability (ID) per DSM criteria and societal standards • Want to know more? Watch video posted on Interworks Institute/DSPS Solutions website of the presentation Brooke, Patti and Adam gave at CAPED on DDL/Intellectual Disabilities: • http://dspssolutions.org/

  27. Processing Deficit Component • Identifies specific deficits in the ability to acquire, store, retrieve, or express information • Distinguishes students with learning disabilities from students who are under-achieving or low-achieving for other reasons • This is most indicative of a learning disability • This is what is most correlated with the learning problems *And/OrOptionwith Aptitude-Achievement (next slide)

  28. Processing Deficit and Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancy And/Or Option • Change from 2016: Addition of And/Or consideration between processing deficit and aptitude/achievement discrepancy in decision making • Came about after years of concern in our field that: • Some students we test clearly have LD but don’t meet the numbers • Don’t qualify because don’t have both processing deficit and aptitude/achievement discrepancy • The CSUs moved to this consideration because a small number of students had ameliorated the aptitude/achievement discrepancy through the years with accommodations and strategies • Processing deficit primary consideration as this shows the disability

  29. Processing Deficit and Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancy And/Or Option • This option is never automatic: • Statistically would “over identify” students as LD. • Like Professional Certification, this is the exception to the rule and rarely used • Requires defensible professional judgement • Used only when overwhelming rationale exists • The strong rationale must be documented in Eligibility Record notes • Alternative explanations ruled out • Have years of academic difficulty past/present only explained by LD, for example: • Had non-special education intervention in K-12 • Instructor referred and reports strong attendance, effort in class, all work turned in, yet continues to struggle • Used tutoring, instructor office hours, strategies yet still struggling • Processing problems may have been observed during testing, but did now show in the data

  30. Processing Deficit Component • Primary Procedures • Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV • Criterion based on values in tables (in Manual) • See comparisons allowed (WMI-PSI can’t be only one) • Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Cognitive Abilities • Criterion > -1.3 SD Difference • Secondary Procedures • Batería Woodcock-Muñoz—IV: Pruebas de HabilidadCognitiva • Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities: Phonemic Awareness and Working Memory Clinical Cluster Scores

  31. Sample Processing Deficit Component – WAIS-IV • PRI SS 121 – VCI SS 91 = 30 point difference • Per the criterion score table, the criterion score for this student is 10 points • Student meets the Processing Deficit Component

  32. Sample Processing Deficit Component – WJ-COG • Only the highlighted CHC Factors can be used • Criterion Score -1.3 SD Difference • Make sure score report setting is set to 1.3 SD • Student meets the Processing Deficit Component – Fluid Reasoning

  33. Sample Processing Deficit Component – WJ-COG • Second table that can be used • Only the highlighted CHC Factors can be used • Criterion Score -1.3 SD Difference • Make sure score report setting is set to 1.3 SD • Student does NOT meet the Processing Deficit Component

  34. Aptitude-Achievement Discrepancy and Breadth of Assessment • A comprehensive achievement battery must be administered • A comprehensive achievement battery includes tests which measure current academic functioning in: • Reading (decoding as well as comprehension) • Mathematics • Written language • As well as timed and untimed functioning .

  35. Selecting Achievement Tests Best practices… • Review Intake – what weaknesses were presented? What does the transcript and current course difficulties show? • Give math, reading, writing and fluency clusters/composites to identify skill areas of strengths and weaknesses • During testing note behaviors that identify skills used to approach each test, rate, attention to detail, and error patterns

  36. Achievement Testing

  37. Aptitude - Achievement Discrepancy Component • Discrepancy procedure steps: • Determine the difference score • If using WJ IV COG. & ACH tests, locate discrepancies in Dashboard • For all other comparisons, use the reference tables from your manual • Determine criterion value • Determine if student’s performance meets the criterion • Use of the And/Oroption must be used with caution

  38. Aptitude - Achievement Discrepancy Component • Primary and Secondary Aptitude Measures • Same as in Ability Component • Primary Achievement Procedures: • Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement (WJ IV ACH) (2014) • Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-III (WIAT-III) (2009) • Wide Range Achievement Test 5 (WRAT 5) (2018) • Degrees of Reading Power (DRP) (1989) • Nelson-Denny Reading Test Forms I and J (2018) • Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project (MDTP) Algebra Readiness (1986 and 1990), Elementary Algebra (1986), and Intermediate Algebra (1986)

  39. Sample Aptitude - Achievement Discrepancy Component – WJ IV

  40. Aptitude - Achievement Discrepancy Component • Secondary Achievement Procedures • BateríaWoodcock-Muñoz—IV: Pruebas de Aprovechamiento

  41. Aptitude - Achievement Discrepancy Component Best practices… • Selections for aptitude-achievement comparisons should be based on the nature of the referral and the specific areas of difficulty that are apparent in the student’s work/grades • For comparisons to be accurate, the LD specialist should plan the student's testing carefully in order to address specific difficulties

  42. Aptitude - Achievement Discrepancy ComponentImplementation Issues • On WJ IV COG – using the GIA (may be more difficult to meet this comp. than using the WAIS IV because it is an average that contains their processing deficit too) • WAIS IV: Pick their cognitive strength to compare to their achievement weakness • Start with their verbal and nonverbal reasoning skills (VCI or PRI) and compare that to their ach. weakness per area of intake complaint (i.e. math difficulty)

  43. Breadth Related toAptitude - Achievement Discrepancy Component • Assessing the breadth of skills is critical to help the student with their learning in an area of weakness • If a student complains about difficulties in math, you can give an extended math assessment • Your selection for the Aptitude - Achievement Discrepancy Component must (ideally) make sense, be logical– it’s NOT just the largest difference score

  44. Eligibility Recommendation Component • Make eligibility determination • Complete Eligibility Record • Document educational limitations, recommended accommodations and strategies to improve learning • Sign recommendation

  45. Eligibility Recommendation Component • Collect data • Intake Interview/Transcript • Standardized Assessments • Examiner Observations & Anecdotal Records • Weigh data • Objectivity, reliability, breadth of assessment • Frequency of occurrence, qualitative features • Relation to suspected deficits • During the intake, you must rule out alternative explanations and/or include co-morbidity

  46. Educational Limitations • Production of class notes, homework assignments and other written requirements • Processing of visual classroom materials, texts, and other printed materials • Processing of auditory lecture, discussion and other orally presented information • Taking and/or concentrating on exams under standard conditions • Planning appropriate classes and/or completing registration process • Self-advocating with instructors, counselors, and others regarding special needs • Completing course requirements without individual or group tutoring • Completing graduation requirements • Other

  47. Educational Limitations as Connected to Assessment • Production of class notes, homework assignments, other written requirements (WMI, PSI, auditory processing, Writing Fluency, Writing subtests) • Processing of visual classroom materials, texts, and other printed materials (PSI, visual processing, reading subtests) • Processing of auditory lecture, discussion and other orally presented information (WMI, auditory processing & attention, oral lang.) • Taking and/or concentrating on exams under standard conditions • Planning appropriate classes and/or completing registration process • Self-advocating with instructors, counselors, and others regarding special needs (RARE – only when you think you cannot teach the student self-advocacy skills) • Completing course requirements without individual or group tutoring • Completing graduation requirements (basically never based on assessment alone)

  48. ACCOMMODATIONS & STRATEGIES* • Calculator and/or Multiplication Tables (WM, PRI, Fluid Reasoning, math fluency, calculation) • Word Processor/Speech to Text (spelling, writing samples) • Adaptive Computer Technology (PSI, reading subtests) • Note Taking Assistance (VCI, WMI, PSI, writing fluency, possibly reading subtests) • Alternative Examination Formats • Extended Time (identify amount, typically start with 1.5 time) • Distraction Reduced Setting • Oral or Taped Examination Administration • Other

  49. ACCOMMODATIONS & STRATEGIES* • Alternative Text Format (RFB&D, e-text, etc.) (reading) • Scribe (more common for a mobility disability, rare for LD) • Tape Recorded Lectures(WMI, auditory processing & attention, writing fluency) • Tutoring in (subjects and should already be occurring) * • Reduced Course Load (needed less with new insurance ruling)* • Registration Assistance (priority registration) • Learning Strategies Training (but identify strategies now)* • Peer Study Groups* • Acquiring knowledge of and assistance from college and community resources (list)* • Other (list – specific courses for example)*

  50. Measured Achievement Component (OPTIONAL) • Primary Procedures • Woodcock-Johnson IV Tests of Achievement • Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – III • Wide Range Achievement Test 5 • Degrees of Reading Power • Nelson-Denny Reading Test Forms I and J • Mathematics Diagnostic Testing Project • Criterion > 81

More Related