Assessing Reading Fluency as a Specific Learning Disability

1. Assessing Reading Fluency as a Specific Learning Disability Presented by:John Humphries, WI Department of Public Instruction Kathy Laffin, WI Department of Public Instruction March 5, 2007

2. Today’s Presentation • Overview of Reading Fluency – legal basis, definitions, instructional considerations • Assessment of Reading Fluency • Case Study • Resource: A Guide to Reading Fluency and the Assessment of SLD in IDEA 2004 at: http://www.dpi.wi.gov/sped/pdf/reading-fluency-draft.pdf

3. Reading Fluency – Legal Basis IDEA 2004: The definition of specific learning disability remains the same. Sec. 602(30): Specific learning disability.-- (A)In general.--The term `specific learning disability' means 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.

4. Reading Fluency – Legal Basis § 300.309 (a): The group . . . may determine that a child has a specific learning disability . . . if-- (1) The child does not achieve adequately . . . in one or more of the following areas . . . (i) Oral expression. (ii) Listening comprehension. (iii) Written expression. (iv) Basic reading skill. (v) Reading fluency skills. (vi) Reading comprehension. (vii) Mathematics calculation. (viii) Mathematics problem solving.

5. What is Reading Fluency? • Three interdependent, distinct elements accuracy – rate - prosody • A bridge between basic word decoding and comprehension • A necessary but not sufficient condition for comprehension

6. Components of Reading Fluency • Accuracy- the ability to decode words without error • Rate- a reflection of the automaticity of decoding that minimizes the taxing of working memory/attentional resources on decoding • Prosody- appropriate phrasing and expressiveness that aids comprehension Table I: Critical Aspects of Reading Fluency, pg. 5.

7. More about Prosody! • Consider public speaking The fluent reader chunks words into meaningful phrases and clauses in order to focus on meaning.

8. Things to Remember about Reading Fluency • Success in all 3 areas – accuracy, rate and prosody – is needed to proceed to good comprehension • Fluency can vary due to the kind of text, familiarity of vocabulary, background knowledge, number of sight words, and the amount of practice with a particular type of text • Fluency develops from many successful opportunities to practice.

9. Developing reading fluency • Researchers note that sufficient daily practice with reading is necessary for students to develop experience with reading, vocabulary and language • A key consideration in determination of specific learning disability in reading fluency is to determine whether a child has had the opportunity to become a fluent reader

10. Reading Instruction & Fluency • Most effective reading curricula directly and explicitly address fluency • Daily classroom reading instruction should avoid over-reliance on oral reading to improve fluency

11. Reading Instruction & Fluency Important Elements of Classroom Instruction that may help improve fluency: • Silent reading practice • Choral reading • Paired reading • Modeling • Consult reading teachers for other methods

12. Reading Instruction & Fluency • Fluency should not be confused with overemphasizing reading speed and losing meaning • All three aspects of fluency (rate, accuracy and prosody) should be taught explicitly • Reading rate develops with efficient decoding skills, opportunities for successful practice and learning to read with expression (Rasinski, 2004).

13. A fluent reader . . . “. . . moves beyond simple decoding to automatically recognize words, interpret text, and retain salient details of what has been read. . .” Rasinski, 2004

14. Assessing Reading Fluency & Applying WI Criteria for Specific Learning Disability

15. Assessing Reading Fluency • To assess rate and accuracy, can use a subtest, but a cluster score from a normative instrument is preferred • Assess prosody with qualitative measures • Use a standard score just as you would with any other area of SLD.

16. Assessing Reading Fluency • To assess rate and accuracy, can use a subtest, but a cluster score from a normative instrument is preferred • Use a standard score just as you would with any other area of SLD. Assess prosody with qualitative measures

17. Assessing Reading Fluency • Some Standardized Tests • KTEA 2 (Reading Fluency subscale) • WJ-III (Reading Fluency subtest) • Gray Oral Reading Test IV (Rate + Accuracy) • Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency • Others • Some Criterion-Referenced Measures • Texas Primary Reading Inventory • Qualitative Reading Inventory (QRI) • DIBELS

18. Table 2, pgs. 6-8, provide a list of potential assessment tools for reading fluency Important consideration - this list is neither exhaustive nor does it represent assessments endorsed by WDPI IEP teams are responsible for determining valid and reliable methods to complete a comprehensive child-specific evaluation Choosing Assessments of Reading Fluency

19. A caution about “Fluency”cluster scores • Be sure that the cluster or composite score used from a standardized assessment measures the one or more of the aspects of fluency identified in the reading research – rate, accuracy, prosody • Be a good test consumer – be sure to know what a “fluency” cluster or composite score measures in specific instruments

20. Assessing Reading Prosody • Identify a reliable rubric that accounts for all of the elements of reading prosody • Utilize multiple raters to increase reliability • Be sure raters are familiar with the range of fluent reading at the referred child’s grade level • See pg. 9 as an example of a rubric

21. Use Multiple Sources of Data • Accuracy and Rate • Prosody • Delays in reading comprehension or reading decoding as well, since fluency is considered the bridge between decoding and fluency.

22. Applied Case Study • Background on the student • Previous interventions • Assessment Data

23. Applied Case Study cont’d: WISC-IV Full Scale IQ SS = 105 Gray Oral Rdg Test IV (Gort IV) • Rate SS = 6 • Accuracy SS = 7 • Fluency (rate + accuracy) SS = 6

24. Applied Case Study cont’d: Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II (KTEA II) • Word Recognition Fluency SS = 76 • Decoding Fluency SS = 66 • Reading Fluency Composite SS = 71 (word recognition + decoding fluency)

25. Applied Case Study cont’d: Prosody Data: • 3 teachers completed a reading prosody rubric on a reading sample recorded during the assessment period. • Out of 16 possible points, the raters’ scores of 5 or 6 on the rubric were well below an average or low average student in the class

26. Applied Case Study cont’d: Applying current WI criteria for determining a specific learning disability Discrepancy Analysis: • Full Scale IQ (SS = 105) compared to achievement scores using regression analysis • GORT IV data utilized the regression analysis constructed with a mean of 10 and SD of 3, based on information in the GORT IV test manual. • Correlation was set at .62, SD for the IQ set at 15 and SD for the GORT IV set at 3. • Using the GORT IV the regression analysis indicated an achievement cut score of 7. John’s score on the GORT IV fluency composite was 6.

27. Applied Case Study cont’d: • Other discrepancy data – KTEA II data in the regression formula yielded a cut score of 83. John’s reading fluency composite of 71 also fell below this cut score. • Significant discrepancy was supported by two sources. • Additional SLD criteria elements: - Information Processing Deficit - Severe delay in classroom achievement in reading fluency • Determination of the IEP Team – John has a learning disability in reading fluency and a need for special education services.

28. When using significant discrepancy: • Assessments used must have sufficient reliability and validity • Score analysis must be done by thoroughly trained and licensed individuals • Discrepancy cut-scores are applied only on initial identification of SLD • Regression tables must be matched to the standard deviation and mean of the assessment given. • Determination of significant discrepancy is only one element of the analysis of SLD eligibility in Wisconsin.

29. Questions

30. Contact Information John P. Humphries, MSE, NCSP School Psychology Program Consultant WI Department of Public Instruction 125 South Webster St. P.O. 7841 Madison, WI 53707-7841 (608) 266-7189 Direct (800) 441-4563 Toll Free U.S. john.humphries@dpi.state.wi.us www.dpi.wi.gov

31. Contact Information Kathy Laffin Education Consultant, Specific Learning Disabilities and REACh Initiative WI Department of Public Instruction 125 South Webster St. P.O. 7841 Madison, WI 53707-7841 (608) 266-2841 Direct (800) 441-4563 Toll Free U.S. Kathleen.laffin@dpi.state.wi.us www.dpi.wi.gov