Integrating Learning Disabilities Assessment Models

1. Integrating Learning Disabilities Assessment Models to Best Serve Students Richard D. Baer, Ph.D. Effective Instructional Materials & Systems Utah LD Test Selection Committee, Chair rd_baer@msn.com 435 757-7372 NASP 2014 Annual Convention Washington DC April 4, 2013

2. LD Defined • Term coined by Sam Kirk in 1963 • Focus on children with normal intelligence who were having difficulty learning to read. • Discrepancy between reading achievement predicted from intelligence and actual reading achievement • Definition

3. LD Defined • Biologically based – Minimal Brain Dysfunction • Rare • Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA) • Inputs – vision, hearing, • Processes • Outputs – verbal, written

4. LD Defined • Maze tracing • Balance beam walking • Didn’t work

5. LD Defined • Public Law 92:142, The Education of All Handicapped Children Act (1975) • (A) In general • The term ‘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 imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations. • (B) Disorders included • Such term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. • (C) Disorders not included • Such term does not include a learning problem that is primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

6. LD Defined • Implementing Rules for PL 94:142 • Sec.300.541 Criteria for determining the existence of a specific learning disability • (a) A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if-- • (1) The child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, when provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age and ability levels [Close to RTI]; and

7. LD Defined • (2) The team finds that a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in • one or more of the following areas-- • (i) Oral expression; • (ii) Listening comprehension; • (iii) Written expression; • (iv) Basic reading skill; • (v) Reading comprehension; • (vi) Mathematics calculation; or • (vii) Mathematics reasoning. • (viii) Reading Fluency

8. LD Defined • (b) The team may not identify a child as having a specific learning disability if the severe discrepancy between ability and achievement is primarily the result of-- • (1) A visual, hearing, or motor impairment; • (2) Mental retardation; • (3) Emotional disturbance; or • (4) Environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. • (CFR 34, Part 300, Subpart E)

9. Severe Discrepancy Measurement • No national formula • States were left to decide • Four approaches • Deviation from grade level • Expectancy formulas • Standard score comparison • Regression models - correct

10. Special Education Programs Work Group on Measurement Issues in Learning Disabilities • Cecil Reynolds – 1984

11. Special Education Programs Work Group on Measurement Issues in Learning Disabilities • When the rules and regulations for PL 94-142 were being developed, many experts testified in the Office of Education hearings, wrote numerous papers, and were convened for discussion and debate. When the results of these hearings, papers, and debates were examined, the reason for the discrepancy emphasis of the PL 94-142 definition becomes clear. The only consensus of this “thing” called learning disability, was that it resulted in a major discrepancy between what you expect academically of learning disabled children and the level at which they were actually achieving. (Reynolds, 1984-85, p. 452, bold added for emphasis)

12. IDEA Reauthorization 2004 • School districts can choose: • Severe discrepancy • Response to [scientific, research-based] intervention • Other scientific based methods (patterns of strengths & weaknesses) • Some combination

13. RTI Elements • Tiered Instruction • High quality regular classroom instruction • Small group, different curriculum, etc. • More intensive instruction, assessment & special education

14. RTI Upside • Elevates pre-referral intervention • Students succeed academically • Students avoid special education stigma • Special education resources saved for students with disabilities

15. RTI Difficulties • Tiers > students with low achievement • Eliminate other disability, environmental, cultural, & economic disadvantage • Traditionally LD = unexpected low achievement • Under RTI LD = unexpected & expected low achievement = severe discrepant students & slow learners • More students in special education • Change of definition • Are children LD if they do respond or if they don’t?

16. RTI Difficulties • Expected/unexpected low achievement distinction doesn’t matter – Both groups learn the same.

17. RTI Difficulties • National Reading Panel (2000) • Both groups benefit from phonemic awareness and phonics training – decoding, word reading. • We don’t know if there are differences in reading fluency and comprehension. • Research is needed.

18. RTI Difficulties • Joe Torgesen & Colleagues (1997) • Group of students: • Word reading skills improved by phonological awareness & phonics instruction • Does not improve orthographic reading and reading comprehension • 2-5% of population traditionally defined as LD who do not respond to phonological awareness and phonics instruction.

19. RTI Difficulties • Other LD achievement areas • Oral Expression • Listening Comprehension • Written Expression • Mathematics Calculation • Mathematics Reasoning • Premature to conclude no difference in learning by expected & unexpected low achievers

20. RTI Difficulties • Do we have scientific, research-based interventions? • Practical considerations: • Regular education initiative • Training • Treatment fidelity • Levels, criteria, procedures

21. RTI Difficulties • It makes no more sense to conclude, solely on the basis of low achievement, that students are LD than it would to conclude they are intellectually disabled or deaf or autistic, etc. Low academic achievement is a given in special education qualification. Additional criteria are needed to determine disability category.

22. Severe Discrepancy Criticisms • SD is a wait to fail model • Some young children do show SD • Administrators can adjust cutoff criteria • Achievement measures can be improved • Finding a student does not qualify for Sp. Ed. does not preclude helping

23. Severe Discrepancy Criticisms • Not clear all students benefit from early intervention. Some may need compensatory education. • Wait to fail is emotionally loaded. • No more appropriate than labeling RTI “rush to fail” or “watch them fail”.

24. Severe Discrepancy Criticisms • SD models are not reliable & valid. Some are. • SD models do not inform instruction • They are not suppose to • An audiological examination does not tell us how to teach children who are Deaf

25. Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses • SD is a pattern of strengths & weaknesses • This is what Kirk tried that didn’t work • Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment: Second Edition, Hoboken NJ: John Wiley & Sons

26. Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses • Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of intelligence • General Intelligence (“g”) • Broad Abilities • Narrow Abilities

27. Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses • 10 Broad Abilites (Flannagan et al. 2007) • Fluid Intelligence • Quantitative Knowledge • Crystalized Intelligence • Reading & Writing • Short Term Memory • Visual Processing • Auditory Processing • Long-Term Storage & Retrieval • Processing Speed • Decision/Reaction Time/Speed • Now expanded to 16 (9 for everyday practice)

28. Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses • 75 Narrow Abilities • Fluid Intelligence • General Sequential Reasoning • Induction • Quantitative Reasoning • Piagetian Reasoning • Speed of Reasoning • Now expanded to 80 (35 for everyday practice)

29. Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses • The hope; • Identify strengths & weaknesses • Play to strengths & remediate weaknesses • Better school achievement

30. Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses • Difficulties • What abilities underlie what achievement difficulties? • What abilities are remediable? • What abilities are not remediable? • What do we do when abilities are not remediable?

31. Patterns of Strengths & Weaknesses • Difficulties • What patterns of strengths & weaknesses represent learning disabilities? • Severe discrepancy is a pattern of strengths & weaknesses. It’s the pattern Kirk used to define learning disability. • Given all the trouble we have had trying to agree on how to measure the difference between IQ and achievement scores when and how will we come to consensus regarding 16 broad and 80 narrow abilities.

32. Everything & Nothing • LD is • Severe discrepancy – many formulas • RTI – many things • Pattern of strengths & weaknesses – what patterns? • Other • Combination • If LD is defined in many ways it becomes many things and therefore not one thing.

33. Conclusion • RTI is great for improving pre-referral intervention. • It doesn’t tell us if a child has a learning disability.

34. Conclusion • Patterns of strengths & weaknesses • Didn’t work for Kirk • No generally agreed upon pattern (s) • Research needed • Premature as an assessment model • Neuropsychology may need to be considered

35. Conclusion • Done correctly SD, in combination with exclusionary criteria (instruction, other disability, environmental, cultural, & economic disadvantage), is a psychometrically sound method for identifying LD that preserves historical definition and provides for consistency from state to state and district to district.

36. Due Process/Litigation Zirkel, P. A. (2010). The legal meaning of specific learning disability of special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, May/June 2010, p 63-67. • 1980 – 2006: 90 hearing/review officer and court decisions around LD qualification: • Schools won 80% claiming student did not qualify • Most frequent decision factor was SD (n=68) • Second most frequent factor was need for special education (n=31)

37. Due Process/Litigation • 2006-10: 18 hearing/review officer and court decisions around LD qualification • Schools won 17 cases claiming student did not qualify • Relatively strict reliance on SD • RTI conspicuously absent • RTI may emerge in the future

38. Utah Rules • An LEA may use one of the following methods for determining a student’s eligibility under the specific learning disability category: • A process based on the students response to scientific, research-based intervention • Identification of a sever discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement • A combination of (a) and (b)

39. Estimator • Software to assist with severe discrepancy calculation. • www.estimator.srlonline.org/ • rd_baer@msn.com • 435 757-7372

40. Homepage

42. SD/IQ Yes or No • National Center for Learning Disabilities • Position on Determination of Specific Learning Disabilities • A comprehensive evaluation must not include the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement, as there is extensive evidence of conceptual and statistical flaws in this approach.

43. SD/IQ Yes or No • Jack Fletcher – Identifying Learning Disabilities in the Context of Response to Intervention: A Hybrid Model (http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/ld/identifyingld) • Two meta-analysis • Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. School Psychology Review, 29, 102-119. • Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., LeDoux, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2002). Validity of IQ-discrepancy classifications of reading disabilities: A meta-analysis. American Educational Research journal, 39, 469-518.

44. SD/IQ Yes or No • Fletcher • Poor achievement & failure to respond to intervention are inclusionary markers. • IQ discrepant & nondiscrepant poor readers don’t differ in prognosis, cognitive skills related to reading, or instructional response. IQ is irrelevant. • Major psychometric problems: • Small measurement error • Math & reading normally distributed • Others

45. SD/IQ Yes or No • 2 Meta-analyses • Little difference in outcomes for discrepant and nondiscrepant low achieves

46. SD/IQ Yes or No • Swanson, H. L. (2008). Neuroscience in RTI: A Complementary Role. In Neuropsychological Perspectives on Learning Disabilites in the Era of RTI: Recommendation for Diagnosis and Treatment (Elaine Fletcher-Janzen & Cecil R. Reynolds Eds) Hoboken NJ, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. • Reviewed 2 meta-analysis & related literature

47. SD/IQ Yes or No • Swanson’s review: • A third meta-analysis. Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Lipsey (2000) did find robust differences between discrepant and nondiscrepant poor readers across a variety of measure (mean ES = .61). • Hoskyn & Swanson (2000) – Verbal IQ mediates effect sizes.

48. SD/IQ Yes or No • Swanson’s review: • Stuebling et al. (2002). IQ accounts for .47 to .58 of variance in reading. • Relation of IQ to treatment outcomes is understudied • IQ predicts treatment outcome, e.g. IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers have lower treatment ES than nondiscrepant poor readers. • “…IQ has relevance to any policy definition of LD.”

49. SD/IQ Yes or No • Measurement Issues • Reynolds, C. R. (1984-85). Critical measurement issues in learning disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 18 (4), 451-476. • Kavale, K. A. (undated). Discrepancy Models in the Identification of Learning Disabilities. Downloaded 10/28/13http://www.nrcld.org/resources/ldsummit/kavale.pdf .

50. SD/IQ Yes or No • Kavale Conclusion • Discrepancy is an important and legitimate concept applied to LD… Although subject to debate about statistical and psychometric properties, discrepancy calculation can be made adequate and defensible for use in LD identification.