Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Model (PSW)
and English Learners
Jenny Ponzuric [email protected]
Nadia Villapudua [email protected]
Online Resources:
Ventura County SELPA PSW Procedural Manual can be found at www.vcselpa.org
At the top of the page, choose Resources for Teachers and Staff Choose the Pattern of Strengths & Weaknesses tab Click on PSW Resources and Brochures
Additional electronic handouts for this presentation can be found at http://tinyurl.com/PSW-CASP16
If you are unable to view the individual documents correctly,o Click on the download icon at the top (arrow pointing down)o Add the documents to your personal Google Drive (blue button at top
right)
Personal Learning Goal:
Takeaway(s):
1
The
COM
PARE
S Ke
y
COM
PARE
S Ke
y of
Rat
ing
Sym
bols
for R
esea
rch
Asso
ciat
ing
Proc
essi
ng &
Ac
hiev
emen
t Are
as
Desc
riptio
n of
Rel
atio
nshi
p
Stro
ng c
onvi
ncin
g ev
iden
ce.
Rese
arch
show
s a st
rong
to v
ery
stro
ng re
latio
nshi
p, a
nd is
con
siste
nt.
Met
a-an
alys
es m
ay c
onfir
m th
e co
rrel
atio
n be
twee
n th
is pr
oces
sing
area
and
ach
ieve
men
t are
a.
Conv
inci
ng e
vide
nce.
O
ne o
r mor
e re
sear
ch st
udie
s or m
eta-
anal
yses
show
a st
rong
rela
tions
hip,
but
find
ings
may
be
inco
nsist
ent
or c
ontr
adic
tory
. A
reco
gnize
d ex
pert
in th
e fie
ld m
ay st
ate
in a
n ar
ticle
or a
text
book
that
ther
e is
a sig
nific
ant o
r rel
evan
t rel
atio
nshi
p, y
et c
urre
nt re
sear
ch m
ay n
ot fo
cus o
n th
e ex
plic
it co
nnec
tion.
An
fMRI
st
udy
may
show
act
ivat
ion
of a
bra
in a
rea
know
n to
be
asso
ciat
ed w
ith a
par
ticul
ar c
ogni
tive
proc
ess w
hile
en
gage
d in
a re
late
d ac
adem
ic ta
sk.
Part
ially
con
vinc
ing
evid
ence
. So
me
rese
arch
show
s a m
oder
ate
or re
leva
nt re
latio
nshi
p, b
ut fi
ndin
gs m
ay b
e in
cons
isten
t, co
ntra
dict
ory,
or
prel
imin
ary.
Unc
onvi
ncin
g ev
iden
ce.
Rese
arch
show
s a w
eak
rela
tions
hip,
and
/or i
s ane
cdot
al ra
ther
than
qua
ntita
tive,
and
/or l
acks
pee
r rev
iew
, an
d/or
has
few
or n
o bi
blio
grap
hic
cita
tions
.
∅N
o re
sear
ch fo
und
that
show
s eve
n a
wea
k co
rrel
atio
n as
of t
he p
ublic
atio
n da
te o
f thi
s doc
umen
t. If
a st
udy
was
foun
d th
at sh
ows “
no re
latio
n,”
this
stud
y is
cite
d in
the
anno
tate
d ve
rsio
n of
the
COM
PARE
S.
2
Ove
rvie
w o
f the
CO
MPA
RES
Dire
ctio
ns
for
use
: Th
e o
verv
iew
of
the
CO
MP
AR
ES
do
cum
ent a
llow
s a
sse
ssm
en
t tea
ms
a q
uic
k gl
an
ce a
t the
str
en
gth
of
the
rese
arc
h
link
be
twe
en
the
pro
cess
ing
are
a a
nd
aca
dem
ic a
chie
vem
ent
are
a.
Ass
ess
men
t te
ams
nee
d to
exa
min
e th
e sp
eci
fic p
age
num
be
r(s)
(w
hic
h a
re lo
cate
d d
irect
ly t
o t
he
rig
ht
of t
he r
atin
g sy
mb
ol)
for
the
are
as
of q
ue
stio
n a
nd
take
into
co
nsi
dera
tion
the
oth
er
info
rma
tion
p
rovi
de
d w
ithin
th
e C
OM
PA
RE
S.
Proc
essi
ng
Area
Pr
oces
sing
Su
b-Ar
ea
Basi
c Re
adin
g Sk
ills
(Dec
odin
g)
Read
ing
Flue
ncy
Read
ing
Com
preh
ensi
on
Writ
ten
Expr
essi
on
Mat
h Ca
lcul
atio
n M
ath
Prob
lem
-So
lvin
g Li
sten
ing
Com
preh
ensi
on
Ora
l Ex
pres
sion
Audi
tory
Pr
oces
sing
Phon
olog
ical
Pro
cess
ing
96
96
96
96
103
103
108
108
Audi
tory
Mem
ory
96
96
96
96
103
103
108
108
Audi
tory
Pro
cess
ing
Spee
d *
96
* 96
*
96
* 96
*
103
* 10
3
10
8
10
8
Audi
tory
Pro
cess
ing
97
* 97
97
97
∅
10
3 ∅
10
3
10
8
10
8
Visu
al-
Spat
ial
Proc
essi
ng
Visu
al-S
patia
l Pro
cess
ing
98
98
98
98
104
104
109
∅
109
Ort
hogr
aphi
c Pr
oces
sing
98
98
98
98
104
∅
104
∅
109
∅
109
Visu
al M
emor
y
98
98
98
98
10
4
10
4 ∅
10
9 ∅
10
9
Visu
al P
roce
ssin
g Sp
eed
98
98
* 98
*
98
* 10
4 *
104
∅
109
∅
109
Cogn
itive
Ab
ilitie
s
Mem
ory
99
99
99
99
105
105
11
0
11
0 Ra
pid
Nam
ing
Skill
s
99
99
99
99
10
5
10
5 ∅
11
0 *
110
Conc
eptu
aliza
tion
and
Flui
d Re
ason
ing/
Prob
lem
-Sol
ving
∅
99
∅
99
99
99
105
105
∅
110
∅
110
Expr
essio
n
10
0 ∅
10
0
10
0
10
0 ∅
10
5
10
5
11
0 *
110
Lang
uage
Pro
cess
ing
(Cry
stal
ized
Know
ledg
e)
100
100
100
100
105
105
* 11
0 *
110
Proc
essin
g Sp
eed
100
100
100
10
0
10
6
10
6
11
1
11
1 Ex
ecut
ive
Func
tions
10
1
101
101
101
106
106
111
111
Sens
ory-
Mot
or S
kills
Visu
al M
otor
, Fin
e M
otor
, Gr
apho
mot
or, S
enso
rimot
or
10
2 ∅
10
2 ∅
10
2
10
2
10
7
10
7 ∅
11
2 ∅
11
2
Sens
orim
otor
Mem
ory
102
∅
102
∅
102
∅
102
∅
107
∅
107
∅
112
∅
112
Sens
orim
otor
Spe
ed
∅
102
∅
102
∅
102
* 10
2 ∅
10
7 ∅
10
7 ∅
11
2 ∅
11
2
Ora
l Mot
or/O
ral M
otor
Sp
eed
102
102
∅
102
∅
102
∅
107
∅
107
∅
112
* 11
2
Atte
ntio
n†At
tent
ion
102
102
102
102
107
107
113
113
*Ple
ase
refe
renc
e th
e C
OM
PA
RE
S f
or s
peci
fic in
form
atio
n.
† P
leas
e re
fer
to p
age
88
for
addi
tiona
l inf
orm
atio
n re
gar
din
g A
tten
tion.
3
CO
MPA
RES
for C
alifo
rnia
’s F
ive
Proc
essi
ng A
reas
, Sub
-Are
as, a
nd A
cade
mic
Are
as
Proc
essi
ng
Area
Su
b-Ar
ea
Bas
ic R
eadi
ng S
kills
(a
ka R
eadi
ng D
ecod
ing
) R
eadi
ng F
luen
cy*
Rea
ding
C
ompr
ehen
sion
W
ritte
n La
ngua
ge
*S
tud
ies
by
McG
rew
& W
end
ling
(20
10),
Ben
son
(20
08),
an
d E
vans
et
al (
200
1) s
ugge
st t
hat
ther
e is
a d
irect
rel
atio
nsh
ip b
etw
een
bas
ic r
ead
ing
ski
lls (
e.g.
,de
cod
ing)
and
re
adin
g f
lue
ncy.
The
refo
re,
wh
ere
sig
nifi
canc
e is
fou
nd
betw
een
a p
roce
ssin
g ar
ea a
nd b
asic
rea
ding
ski
lls,
it m
ay
be p
oss
ible
to
infe
r a
rela
tions
hip
betw
een
tha
t pr
oces
sing
are
a a
nd r
ead
ing
fluen
cy,
eve
n if
the
rese
arch
was
not
exp
licitl
y ex
amin
ing
prof
icie
ncy
in r
eadi
ng f
lue
ncy.
In
add
itio
n, r
eadi
ng f
lue
ncy
initi
ally
has
a s
tro
ng e
ffec
t on
rea
ding
com
preh
ensi
on b
ut t
hat
effe
ct is
red
uced
with
ag
e (B
enso
n 20
08)
.
Audi
tory
Pr
oces
sing
(G
a)
Dev
elop
men
tal
Not
e1 : A
udito
ry
proc
essi
ng
mat
ures
ear
ly,
afte
r gr
adua
l de
velo
pmen
t.
Phon
olog
ical
Pro
cess
ing
(incl
udin
g ph
onem
ic
awar
enes
s an
d so
und
disc
rimin
atio
n, p
hone
tic
codi
ng, p
hono
logi
c m
emor
y)
Dev
elop
men
tal N
ote1 :
Pho
nolo
gic
al P
roce
ssin
g m
atur
es e
arly
aft
er g
radu
al
deve
lopm
ent.
See
als
o “M
emor
y” u
nder
“C
ogn
itive
Ab
ilitie
s.”
See
al s
o “M
emor
y”
unde
r “C
ogn
itive
A
bilit
ies.
”
Ratin
g of
3 fo
r you
nger
st
uden
ts, b
ut fo
r old
er
stud
ents
typi
cally
oth
er
fact
ors i
mpa
ct re
adin
g co
mpr
ehen
sion,
so ra
ting
wou
ld b
e 1
See
also
“M
emor
y” u
nder
“C
ogni
tive
Abili
ties.
”
See
also
“M
emor
y” u
nder
“C
ogni
tive
Abili
ties.
”
Aud
itory
Mem
ory,
Aud
itory
Sh
ort-T
erm
Mem
ory,
Aud
itory
W
orki
ng M
emor
y, V
erba
l M
emor
y, V
erba
l Wor
king
M
emor
y, P
hono
logi
cal
Mem
ory,
Pho
nolo
gica
l Sho
rt-
Term
Mem
ory
Dev
elop
men
tal N
ote1 :
Wor
king
Mem
ory
mat
ures
late
af
ter
grad
ual d
evel
opm
ent.
See
als
o “M
emor
y” u
nder
“C
ogn
itive
Ab
ilitie
s.”
See
als
o “M
emor
y”
unde
r “C
ogn
itive
A
bilit
ies.
”
See
also
“M
emor
y” u
nder
“C
ogni
tive
Abili
ties.
”
See
also
“M
emor
y” u
nder
“C
ogni
tive
Abili
ties.
”
Aud
itory
Pro
cess
ing
Spee
d S
ee “
Pro
cess
ing
Spe
ed”
an
d “R
api
d N
amin
g S
kills
” un
der
Cog
nitiv
e A
bilit
ies
sect
ion.
See
“P
roce
ssin
g S
pee
d”
and
“Ra
pid
Nam
ing
Ski
lls”
und
er C
ogn
itive
A
bilit
ies
sect
ion
.
See
“P
roce
ssin
g S
pee
d”
and
“Ra
pid
Nam
ing
Ski
lls”
und
er C
ogn
itive
A
bilit
ies
sect
ion
.
See
“P
roce
ssin
g S
pee
d”
and
“Ra
pid
Nam
ing
Ski
lls”
und
er C
ogn
itive
A
bilit
ies
sect
ion
.
4
Table of Contents
Section
Acknowledgments…….…………………………………………………………………………..i
1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………1 2. Federal and State Criteria …………………………………………………………………......3
3. Specific Learning Disability Definition ………………………………………………………10
• Differentiating an Intellectual Disability (ID), General Learning Difficulty (GLD) and a Specific Learning Disability (SLD)………………………………...…….…….12
• What a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) is vs. What SLD is not……….……….13
4. Research to Support the Ventura County SELPA PSW Assessment Model……………14 • Comparison of the California Discrepancy Model and the Ventura County PSW
Model for SLD Identification……………………………………………………….….17
5. Overview of Model ……………………………………..………………………………………18 • Ventura County Model for Specific Learning Disability (SLD) Eligibility & Pattern
of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) Model Overview………………………...…19
6. Pre-Referral Guidelines…..……………………………………………………………………20 • Ventura County Office of Education RtI2 Forms A, B, C and D…………………...25 • Ventura County Recommended Model—Response to Instruction (RtI2) and
Intervention Multi-Tiered Systems of Support………………………………………31 • Ventura County RtI2 Implementation Self-Assessment Tool……………………...40
7. Evaluation Planning as a Team………………………………………………………….……55
• SLD Planning Worksheet for Multidisciplinary Assessment Teams……………...58 8. Evaluating Academic Strengths and Weaknesses…………………………………….……60
• Guidelines for Cut-off Scores…………………………………………………………62 • Academic Assessment Tools…………………………………………………………63 • Observation Checklists………………………………………………………………..67
9. Evaluating Processing Strengths and Weaknesses…………………..……………………70
• Cross-Battery Assessment Overview by Dr. Vincent Alfonso…………...............72 • Dehn’s Processing Strengths and Weaknesses Model Assessment Overview
by Dr. Milton J. Dehn……………………………………………………………….…76 • Processing Definitions Aligned with California Ed. Code………………………....80 • Comprehensive Organizational Matrix of Processing-Achievement Relations,
Evaluating Significance (COMPARES)………………………………………..……85
10. Ruling out Exclusionary Factors………………………………………………………….…137 • Exclusionary Factors Worksheet……………………………………...……………139
5
11. Specific Populations ………………………….…………………………………………...…140 • English Learners……………………………………………………………………..141 • African American Students………………………………………………………….142 • Private School/ Home School/ Independent Study Students……………………143
12. Triennial/Reevaluation Assessments…………………………………………….…………144
• SLD Triennial/Reevaluation Assessment Flow Chart…………………………….146 Appendix……………………………………………………………………………..…………………147 A. Forms:
• Specific Learning Disability Eligibility Summary: Using a Pattern of Strengths and Weakness (PSW) Model……………………………………………………….149
• Specific Learning Disability Eligibility Summary: Using a Pattern of Strengths and Weakness (PSW) Model- Instructions………………………………………..152
• Psychoeducational Assessment Report For SLD Identification using Ventura County SELPA PSW Model.........................................................…....155
References ……………………………………………………………………………….……………160
6
VENTURA COUNTY Special Education Local Plan Area
(SELPA)
Mary E. Samples, Assistant Superintendent
“GUIDELINES FOR ASSESSMENT FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION OF
ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS”
Contact Person: Regina Reed
Director, Personnel Development
2012
7
1. Pre-Referral Interventions........................................................................................... 6 2. Assessment Considerations .....................................................................................10 3. Assessment Areas
A. Background Information ...............................................................................15 B. Speech and Language ................................................................................18 C. Cognitive .........................................................................................................30 D. Academics .....................................................................................................37 E. Behavioral and Social/Emotional ................................................................40 F. Self-Help and Vocational .............................................................................51 G. Non Standardized Assessment ....................................................................53
4. Documentation .........................................................................................................55 5. Appendices
A. Facts About Second Language Acquisition.. ...........................................59 B. Spanish Phonology ........................................................................................61 C. Normal Speech & Language Development of English/Spanish
Speaking Children .........................................................................................65 D. Skill Area Proficiency Level Description (for CELDT), California
Department of Education ............................................................................72 E. Background Data for English Learners (ELs) for Problem-Solving Team 79 F. Prereferral Interventions for ELs, Catherine Colier, 1988 ..........................84 G. Key Questions for English Learners (ELs) .....................................................86 H. Guidelines for use of an Interpreter ............................................................88 I. Parent Interview Questions for ELs ...............................................................93
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8
Meeting the Needs of English Learners with Disabilities Resource Book
By
Jarice Butterfield
Santa Barbara County SELPA
On Behalf of the SELPA Administrators of California Association
Appreciation also goes to the following persons who provided feedback and contributions to the content of this resource book:
Trena Spurlock, Pomona SELPA Director /Committee Co-Chair Nancy Snodgrass, Bilingual SPED Resource Teacher Turlock Unified School District
Dr. Sue Balt, Riverside County SELPA Executive Director / Committee Member Dr. Michael Gerber, Professor, University of California Santa Barbara
Sheila Levy-Craven, SLP, Retired SELPA Director / Committee Member Dr. Pedro Olvera, Azusa Pacific University
Lino Gomez-Cerrillo, Bilingual Psychologist & Azusa Pacific University Alan Houser, Pajaro Valley Unified School District SELPA / Committee Co-Chair
Sherry Herrera, Retired ABC Norwalk La Mirada SELPA Director Troy Fennell, California Department of Corrections SELPA Administrator
This resource book provides regular and special educators information and resources regarding best practices and regulatory requirements for identifying, providing services, and reclassifying English Learners with disabilities. This publication was designed and written to provide the most current and accurate information in regard to English Learners and Special Education known to date in the State of California. It is distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the SELPA Administrators of California is engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional service. If legal advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of an appropriate professional should be solicited.
Approved December 3, 2010; Revision Approved March 1, 2012; June 6, 2014
9
Table of Contents Section I: Introduction
Background Information
Intended Audience
Overview of Second Language Acquisition
Review of Laws and Regulations Governing Instruction for English Learners
Section II: Assessment, Identification, and Programs for English Learners
California’s Statewide Assessment System
Assessment of English Learners in California
Identification of English Learners
California’s English Language Development Standards
Instructional Programs and Methodology for English Learners in California
Curriculum and Instruction for English Learners
Staff Certification Requirements for Teaching English Learners
Frequently Asked Questions
Section III: Interventions for English Learners Prior to Referral to Special Education
Pre-Referral Interventions for English Learners
Best Practices for Promoting Reading Literacy in English Learners
RtI / MTSS for English Learners
The Role of Problem Solving Teams in the Pre-Referral Process
Frequently Asked Questions
Section IV: Assessment and Identification of English Learners for Special Education
Learning Disabilities versus Language Difference
Legal Requirements for Assessment of English Learners
Assessment of EL Students for Special Education
Use of Interpreters for Assessment
Components of the Assessment Report for ELs
Determining Eligibility for Special Education
Frequently Asked Questions
Section V: Development of the IEP for English Learners with Disabilities
Development of Linguistically Appropriate IEPs
Required IEP Components for EL Students
Decisions Regarding CELDT and the IEP
Linguistically Appropriate Goals and Objectives
10
IEP Accommodations and Modifications
Other Legal Requirements Related to IEPs of English Learners
Frequently Asked Questions
Section VI: Programs and Services for English Learners with Disabilities
Collaboration Between Special and General Education
Programs and Services for EL Students with Disabilities
Sample Elementary School ELD /SPED Service Delivery Models
Sample Secondary School ELD /SPED Service Delivery Models
Instructional Strategies / ELD for ELs with Disabilities
Frequently Asked Questions
Section VII: Reclassification of English Learners with Disabilities
Understanding Reclassification of English Learners
Issues Related to the Reclassification of EL Students with an IEP
Application of the Four Criteria to Students with Disabilities
Sample Reclassification Scenarios
Frequently Asked Questions
References
Appendices
A. ELD Programs / Curricular Materials and Resources A1. What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) EL Reading Programs A2. Publishers Listing Programs as Appropriate for ELD A3. The CDE Approved AB 1802 English Learner Supplemental Materials List (2010) A4. The CDE EL Approved Core and Intervention Programs and Current List of
Instructional Materials for Programs, Grades Kindergarten through Eight (2008) A5. Resources for Working with EL Students
B. Resources B1. The CDE English Learner Test Variations, (2014) B2. Sample Annual Title III Parent Notification Letter B3. Excerpts from English Learners and the Common Core Standards B4. Proficiency Level Descriptors for California English Language Development Standards
(2014) C. Office of Civil Rights Communication Regarding English Learners D. Sample EL Documents
D1. Sample EL / SPED Reclassification Checklist D2. EL / SPED Reclassification Worksheet D3. IEP Team Checklist for English Language Learners D4. Comparison of Language Differences versus Disabilities
11
*The
test
s abo
ve a
re g
ener
al g
uide
lines
. Al
way
s use
info
rmed
pro
fess
iona
l jud
gmen
t.
* Fo
llow
you
r Dist
rict p
roto
cols
& p
roce
dure
s, u
nles
s the
y ar
e di
scrim
inat
ory
Pr
ofile
#1
Prof
ile #
2 Pr
ofile
#3
Prof
ile #
4 Pr
ofile
#5
Prof
ile #
6 Pr
ofile
#7
Prof
ile #
8 Pr
ofile
#9
CALP
PR
OFI
CIEN
CY
(L1)
Nat
ive
→
(L
2) S
econ
d →
CA
LP
Lim
ited
(1-2
) Li
mite
d (1
-2)
CA
LP
Emer
ging
(3)
Lim
ited
(1-2
)
CA
LP
Flue
nt (4
-5)
Lim
ited
(1-2
)
CA
LP
Lim
ited
(1-2
) Em
erge
nt (3
)
CA
LP
Emer
gent
(3)
Emer
gent
(3)
CA
LP
Flue
nt (4
-5)
Emer
gent
(3)
CA
LP
Lim
ited
(1-2
) Fl
uent
(4-5
)
CA
LP
Emer
gent
(3)
Flue
nt (4
-5)
CA
LP
Flue
nt (4
-5)
Flue
nt (4
-5)
PO
SSIB
LE
ASSE
SSM
ENT
M
ODA
LITY
↓
Non
verb
al
↓
Non
verb
al
and
poss
ibly
in
L1
↓
Asse
sses
in
nativ
e la
ngua
ge
↓
Non
verb
al a
nd
poss
ibly
in L
2
↓
Non
verb
al
and
poss
ibly
in
L1
& L
2
↓
Asse
ss in
na
tive
lang
uage
and
po
ssib
ly L
2
↓
Asse
ss in
se
cond
la
ngua
ge
↓
Asse
ss in
se
cond
la
ngua
ge o
r po
ssib
ly L
1 &
L2
↓
Asse
ss in
se
cond
la
ngua
ge o
r po
ssib
ly
L1
& L
2
FORM
AL A
SSES
SMEN
T TO
OL
RECO
MM
ENDA
TIO
NS
*U
se in
form
ed p
rofe
ssio
nal j
udgm
ent
LAN
GU
AGE
PRO
FICI
ENCY
W
MLS
-R N
U
WJ I
V- O
L
Bat
ería
III
B
VAT-
NU
CO
GN
ITIV
E-
PSYC
HOLO
GIC
AL
PRO
CESS
ING
KABC
-II
UN
IT 2
Le
iter-
R TO
NI-4
DA
S-II
MVP
T-3
TVPS
-3
Beer
y VM
I
KABC
-II
UN
IT
Leite
r-R
TON
I-4
DAS-
II
MVP
T-3
TVPS
-3
Beer
y VM
I
Bate
ria C
OG
TA
PS-3
:SBE
KABC
-II
UN
IT 2
TO
NI-4
Le
iter-
R DA
S-II
M
VPT-
3 TV
PS-3
Be
ery
VMI
KABC
-II
UN
IT 2
TO
NI-4
Le
iter-
R DA
S- I
I M
VPT-
3 TV
PS-3
Be
ery
VMI
Bate
ria C
OG
BVAT
NU
Ba
teria
CO
G
TAPS
-3:S
BE
MVP
T-3
TVPS
-3
Beer
y VM
I
WJ I
V CO
G N
U
KABC
-II
WIS
C-V
Beer
y VM
I W
RAM
L-2
BVAT
NU
W
J IV
COG
NU
Ba
teria
CO
G
KABC
-II
Beer
y VM
I W
RAM
L-2
BVAT
NU
W
J IV
COG
NU
Ba
teria
CO
G
KABC
-II
WIS
C-V
Beer
y VM
I W
RAM
L-2
12
Case Study: Mary – Background Information
Mary is a 5th grade student at your school. She has been attending your school since kindergarten. She
was born in the US, but parents were both born in Mexico and immigrated to the US 15 years ago. At
home, parents speak Spanish with Mary and her two older siblings. Mary speaks English at school and
with her brother and sister, and speaks Spanish mainly with her parents and grandparents, who also live
in the home.
Mary has been struggling for many years with reading. The school has provided intervention both
during the school day as well as during the after‐school program, when available for her grade level.
Despite all of the intervention, she continues to struggle.
When she began attending Kindergarten, the school assessed her primary language (IPT) as well as her
English (CELDT). Similar to the CELDT, the IPT scores on a 5‐point scale with 5 being the highest score.
Her primary language score was a 2 and her initial CELDT was a 2 overall. She has made slow but steady
progress in her Listening and Speaking skills, with 4th grade scores being a high 3 in listening and a low 3
in speaking; however, her Reading and Writing scores consistently alternate between scores of 1 and 2.
Mary showed early signs of reading difficulties, with difficulties remembering the letter sounds, which
impacted her blending of sounds. While she has learned these skills slowly, her reading is still very slow
and she struggles to respond to comprehension questions when she has to read the words on her own.
Her reading difficulties are also impacting her math homework, as she struggles to accurately read the
word problems for homework.
Parents have been in attendance at all SST meetings (2nd and 4th grades). They are also very worried
about her reading, as her two older siblings did not show the same difficulties at school. They cannot
help her with her homework, but they make sure she attends all of the intervention programs that have
been made available. They also encourage her older sister to help her with her homework.
Parents wrote a letter 10 days ago requesting testing, with the assistance of the 5th grade teacher. They
expressed concern about dyslexia and the SST decided to move forward with assessment.
13
Mary’s Assessment Scores
K-ABC-2 Subtest Standard
Score
Sequential Processing 72 -Number Recall 4 -Word Order 5 -Hand Movements 8 Planning Ability 95 -Story Completion 9 -Pattern Reasoning 9 Learning Ability 80 -Atlantis 7 -Rebus 5 Delayed Recall 75 -Atlantis Delayed 6 -Rebus Delayed 4 Simultaneous Processing 92 -Rover 8 -Triangles 7 -Block Counting 8 Knowledge 80 Verbal Knowledge 8 Riddles 7
WJ-IV COG Subtest
Standard
Score
Cognitive Processing Speed 91 -Letter-Pattern Matching 90 -Pair Cancellation 95 Auditory Processing 100 -Phonological Processing 108 -Nonword Repetition 87
14
Mary’s Assessment Scores
VMI-6 Subtest
Standard
Score
VMI 95 -Visual Perception 95 -Motor 90
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test – Third Edition (WIAT-III): Standard Score READING COMPOSITES/SUBTESTS Basic Reading Composite 85 Word Reading 84 Pseudoword Reading 88 Reading Comp/Fluency Composite 77 Reading Comprehension 78 Oral Reading Fluency 75 MATH COMPOSITES/SUBTESTS Mathematics Composite 96 Math Problem Solving 95 Numerical Operations 100 Math Fluency Composite 100 Math Fluency- Addition Math Fluency –Subtraction Math Fluency - Multiplication
105 93 99
WRITTEN LANGUAGE COMPOSITE/SUBTESTS Written Expression Composite 89 Essay Composition 90 Sentence Composition 89 Spelling 93 Oral Language 87 Listening Comprehension 90 Oral Expression 85
BASC-3 Parent Teacher Attention Problems 45 47 Executive Functioning 45 48
15
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Tier 1 ‐ Low/Low
Tier 2 ‐ Low/M
oderate
Tier 3 ‐ Mod
erate
Tier 4 ‐ Mod
erate/High
Tier 5 ‐ High/High
DIFFERE
NCE
LEV
EL FOR EV
ALUAT
ION:
C‐LIM Sum
maryGraph
for a
ll Te
stScore Data: Tiered An
alysis
Grade:
CASP
Sam
ple
10 yea
rs 3 m
onth(s)
510
/15/20
16Date:
Age:
Nam
e:
C‐LIM M
atrix
Print C
‐L Tiered Graph
C‐LIM In
dex
Cultu
re‐O
nly Graph
Lang
uage
‐Only Graph
Cultu
re‐Lan
guage Graph
Slig
htly
Diffe
rent
Mod
erat
ely
Diffe
rent
Mar
kedl
y Di
ffere
nt
Use
Gifte
d Sc
ale
Thi
s pa
ge w
as g
ener
ated
by
the
X-B
AS
S v
1.3
Cop
yrig
ht 2
017
Ort
iz, F
lana
gan
and
Alfo
nso.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
16
Steve’s Assessment Scores
WJ-IV COG Subtest Standard
Score Comprehension-Knowledge 77 -Oral Vocabulary 79 -General Information 77 Fluid Reasoning 89 -Number Series 90 -Concept Formation 87 Short-Term Working Memory 85 -Verbal Attention 80 -Numbers Reversed 89 Cognitive Processing Speed 91 -Letter-Pattern Matching 85 -Pair Cancellation 95 Auditory Processing 83 -Phonological Processing 80 -Nonword Repetition 85 Long-Term Retrieval 80 -Story Recall 75 -Visual-Auditory Learning 83 Visual Processing 94 -Visualization 97 -Picture Recognition 90
VMI-6 Subtest Standard
Score
VMI 95 -Visual Perception 95 -Motor 90
17
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Tier 1 ‐ Low/Low
Tier 2 ‐ Low/M
oderate
Tier 3 ‐ Mod
erate
Tier 4 ‐ Mod
erate/High
Tier 5 ‐ High/High
DIFFERE
NCE
LEV
EL FOR EV
ALUAT
ION:
C‐LIM Sum
maryGraph
for a
ll Te
stScore Data: Tiered An
alysis
Grade:
Steve CA
SP12
yea
rs 4 m
onth(s)
710
/15/20
16Date:
Age:
Nam
e:
C‐LIM M
atrix
Print C
‐L Tiered Graph
C‐LIM In
dex
Cultu
re‐O
nly Graph
Cultu
re‐Lan
guage Graph
Lang
uage
‐Only Graph
Slig
htly
Diffe
rent
Mod
erat
ely
Diffe
rent
Mar
kedl
y Di
ffere
nt
Use
Gifte
d Sc
ale
Thi
s pa
ge w
as g
ener
ated
by
the
X-B
AS
S v
1.3
Cop
yrig
ht 2
017
Ort
iz, F
lana
gan
and
Alfo
nso.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
18
Nam
e:
Grade
: 5
Date:
10/15/20
16Ag
e:
80 95 75 72 92 100
91 85 78 75 90
Grw
‐R
BRS
Grw
‐R
RC
Grw
‐W
RF
Grw
‐W
WE
W W W
WIA
T-I
II B
asic
Rea
din
g S
kill
s (B
RS
) T
est
Co
mp
WIA
T-I
II R
ead
ing
Co
mp
reh
ensi
on
(R
C;G
rw-R
:RC
) S
ub
test
WIA
T-I
II O
ral
Rea
din
g F
luen
cy (
RF
;Grw
-R:R
S)
Su
bte
st
Grw
‐W
WE
10 yea
rs 3 m
onth(s)
Mary CA
SP
Ga Gs
Gc Gf
Gv
S S
WJ
IV C
OG
Co
gn
itiv
e P
roce
ssin
g S
pee
d (
Gs:
P)
Tes
t C
om
p
Gc* Gf
0.64 93 72
WJ
IV C
OG
Au
dit
ory
Pro
cess
ing
(G
a) T
est
Co
mp
Glr
Gsm Gv
Ga Gs
W W
S
WIA
T-I
II E
ssay
Co
mp
osi
tio
n (
WE
;Grw
-W:W
A,E
U)
Su
bte
st
KA
BC
-II D
elay
ed R
ecal
l (G
lr:M
A)
Tes
t C
om
p
KA
BC
-II P
lan
nin
g (
Gf)
Tes
t C
om
p
KA
BC
-II S
equ
enti
al (
Gsm
:MS
) T
est
Co
mp
S S S
KA
BC
-II K
no
wle
dg
e (G
c:V
L)
Tes
t C
om
p
KA
BC
-II S
imu
ltan
eou
s (G
v) T
est
Co
mp
CHCAB
ILITY DOMAINS
S&W In
dicator
g‐Va
lue
SCORE
Composites or subtest scores designated
as weakn
esses may be usedto
represent acad
emic deficits in
PSW
‐Aan
alyses (bottom rightoval in theDD/C
model). Only oneacad
emic weakn
ess at a tim
e is evaluated
relative toa cogn
itive weakn
ess an
d gen
eral ability, b
ut an
y area
may be selected
in turn to examineother
patternsof strengthsan
d weakn
esses on the PSW
Analyzer tab
.
CHC Co
mposites designated
as strengths are used for computation of the g‐Value an
d FCC (top oval in the
DD/C m
odel) an
d those
designated
as weakn
esses are used for computation of the ICC (bottom left oval in
the DD/C m
odel). W
hen
a domain contains a strength and a weakn
ess, the strength is used in
calculation of
the g‐Value/FC
C and the weakn
ess is used in
the calculation of the ICC.
Area
s of w
eakn
ess b
elow
form
the Inhibitin
g Co
gnitive
Com
posite
(ICC).
ACHIEVE
MEN
T/SLDDOMAINS
SCORE
Area
s of stren
gthbe
low
are lik
ely consistent
with
theindividu
al'sov
erall
gene
ral ability.
Area
s of w
eakn
ess b
elow
may be used
as
acad
emic deficits
in th
eDD/C m
odel.
Area
s of stren
gth be
low
form
the Facilitating
Cogn
itive
Com
posite
(FCC
)
2a. Facilitatin
g Co
gnitive
Compo
site
(FCC
)Represents an individual's overall general ability
(based on strengths) and is used to evaluate
differences relative to a specific of pattern of
cogn
itive an
d academ
ic wea
knesses .
2b. A
lternative Co
gnitive Com
posite (A
CC)
You m
ay enter an
alternative value if desired
or when
the FC
C is not believed to be the best estimate of
general ability .
1. g‐Value
:Th
e g‐Value reflects overall cogn
itive ab
ility based
on
the CHC abilities ju
dged by the evaluator to be strengths.
The g‐Value is in
terpreted according to thelikelihoo
d that an in
dividual possesses at least average overall
3. In
hibitin
g Co
gnitive Com
posite (ICC
)Rep
resents an aggregate of an
individual's overall
weakn
esses an
d is used to evaluate consisten
cy and the
relationship betwee
n cogn
itive an
d academ
ic
weakn
esses. If there is only one cogn
itive weakn
ess, the
4. Frequ
ency of D
ifferen
ce ‐Overall Streng
th to
Cog
nitiv
e Wea
kness
Select level to be used for determining if the size of a difference is in
freq
uen
t or uncommon. D
efau
lt
value is 5% and is adjusted
for test unreliability. A m
ore conservative or liberal value may be selected
. If
multiple comparisons are mad
e, a stricter value may be ap
propriate.
Data Organ
izer
XBA An
alyzer
Inde
xStart
WISC‐V
WAIS‐IV
WPP
SI‐IV
WIAT‐III
SB5
WJ IV CO
GWJ IV OL
WJ IV AC
HKA
BC‐II
KTEA
‐3DAS
‐IICA
S2
PSW Ana
lyzer
SelectingPS
W Scores
Cross‐Ba
ttery As
sessmen
t Softw
are System
(X‐BAS
S®v1
.2)
PSW‐A
Data Su
mmary
Concep
tualization by
D.P. Flana
gan, S.O. O
rtiz, V
.C. A
lfonso; Program
ming by
S.O. O
rtiz and
A.M
. Dyn
daCo
pyrig
ht ©
201
5 Samue
l O. O
rtiz, D
awn P. Flana
gan & Vincent C. A
lfonso. All Righ
ts Reserved
Diffe
renc
e oc
curs
abo
ut 1
0% o
f the
tim
e in
the
gene
ral p
opul
atio
n (v
ery
liber
al v
alue
, inc
reas
es fa
lse p
ositi
ve ra
te--
not r
ecom
men
ded)
Diffe
renc
e oc
curs
abo
ut 5
% o
f the
tim
e in
the
gene
ral p
opul
atio
n (d
efau
lt an
d re
com
men
ded
valu
e, b
est f
or s
tand
ard
anal
yses
with
com
posit
es a
nd re
liabl
e te
sts)
Diffe
renc
e oc
curs
abo
ut 1
% o
f the
tim
e in
the
gene
ral p
opul
atio
n (v
ery
stric
t val
ue, b
est f
or m
ultip
le c
ompa
rison
s or
test
s w
ithlo
w re
liabi
lity)
Thi
s pa
ge w
as g
ener
ated
by
the
X-B
AS
S v
1.2
Cop
yrig
ht 2
015
Ort
iz, F
lana
gan
and
Alfo
nso.
All
righ
ts r
eser
ved.
19
Nam
e:
Age:
Grade
: 5
Date:
g‐Va
lue =
0.64
Diff
eren
ceC
ritic
al V
alue
Diff
eren
ceC
ritic
al V
alue
YE
S, C
ON
SIS
TE
NT
*Use of G
c as a cog
nitiv
e processing
wea
kness m
ay only be
defen
sible whe
n it represen
tslang
uage
processes (e
.g., CM
, LS), rathe
r tha
n stores of a
cquired kn
owledg
e (e.g., VL
, K0).
Mary CA
SP10
yea
rs 3 m
onth(s)
10/15/20
16
7595
8596
19.8
212
.65
LIK
EL
YM
OD
BR
SG
lr
93
16.7
010
.59
No
, no
t u
nex
pec
ted
un
der
ach
ieve
men
tY
es, d
om
ain
sp
ecif
icY
ES
YE
S
FC
C =
Is th
e differen
ce statis
tically sign
ificant?
Cogn
itive Stren
gths
The value here is either the Facilitating Cogn
itive
Composite (FC
C) or a user‐en
tered Alternative
Cogn
itive Composite (ACC).
Thesm
all box on the left in
this section addresses the first componen
t of the criterion through
consideration of the degree to which the mea
ning of the
scores is consisten
t based
on their respective m
agnitudes (e.g., are they both in
dicative of a wea
kness relative to m
ost peo
ple?). The sm
all box on the righ
t ad
dresses the second componen
t through
evaluation of the extent to which the cogn
itive wea
kness, either collectively (e.g., via the ICC) or individually, is
empirically related
to the acad
emic wea
kness, as suggested by mainly correlational resea
rch. R
elationships that are LOW suggest that the cogn
itive
wea
kness may not be a contributory factor in the acad
emic wea
kness. However, in all cases, clin
ical ju
dgm
ent should be exercised. The larger box directly
above yields a decision with respect to the consisten
cy criterion based
on consideration of both the magnitude of the reported
and selected cogn
itive an
d
acad
emic wea
knesses an
d the strength of the relationship betwee
n them
.
Isun
derachievemen
t une
xpected?
Using the FC
C as the predictor, if the difference b
etwee
n
Actual and Predicted specific academ
ic perform
ance
equals or exceed
s the Critical V
alue, then
thesize of the
difference is unusually large an
d in
freq
uen
t an
d
underachievemen
t is unexpected.
Cogn
itive
Wea
kness
If calculated, the Inhibiting Cogn
itive Composite (ICC)
is selected below by defau
lt. You m
ay select a
different area
of cogn
itive wea
kness from the drop
down m
enu for an
alysis.
Acad
emic W
eakn
ess
The first wea
kness in the list is selected by defau
lt.
You m
ay select a different area
of acad
emic
wea
kness from
the drop down m
enu for an
alysis.
Are wea
knesses d
omain specific?
Usingthe FC
C as the predictor, if the difference
betwee
n Actual and Predicted specific cogn
itive
perform
ance equals or exceed
s the Critical V
alue, then
the size of the difference is unusually large an
d
infreq
uen
t an
d the wea
kness is domain specific.
A "YES" in
these boxes indicates that the difference betwee
n the
FacilitatingCogn
itive Composite (FC
C or alternative) and the Actual
cogn
itive or the Actual academ
icwea
kness score is statistically significan
t at a 95% level o
f probab
ility (one‐tailed; assumes the cogn
itive/acad
emic
wea
kness is < cogn
itive aggregate).
Actual
Predicted by
Actual
Predicted by
Crit
ical
val
ue s
et a
t 5%
Crit
ical
val
ue s
et a
t 5%
p< .05
S&W In
dicator
Inde
xStart
PSW‐A Data Su
mmary
Cross‐Ba
ttery As
sessmen
t Softw
are System
(X‐BAS
S®v1
.2)
Dua
l‐Discrep
ancy/Con
sisten
cy M
odel: P
SW Ana
lyses for SLD
Concep
tualization by
D.P. Flana
gan, S.O. O
rtiz, V
.C. A
lfonso; Program
ming by
S.O. O
rtiz and
A.M
. Dyn
daCo
pyrig
ht ©
201
5 Samue
l O. O
rtiz, D
awn P. Flana
gan & Vincent C. A
lfonso. All Righ
ts Reserved
Strengths
(FCC)
Strengths
(FCC)
Both W
eakn
esses?
Supp
ortin
g Ac
adem
ic Stren
gths
Areas listed
in the drop down m
enu above have bee
n
iden
tified
as acad
emic stren
gths for the individual.
Data Organ
izer
XBA An
alyzer
WISC‐V
WAIS‐IV
WPP
SI‐IV
WIAT‐III
SB5
WJ IV CO
GWJ IV OL
WJ IV AC
HKA
BC‐II
KTEA
‐3DAS
‐IICA
S2
Is th
ere a BE
LOW AVE
RAGE ap
titud
e‐achiev
emen
t con
sisten
cy?
Strength of
Relationship
SelectingPS
W Scores
g‐Va
lue
Thi
s pa
ge w
as g
ener
ated
by
the
X-B
AS
S v
1.2
Cop
yrig
ht 2
015
Ort
iz, F
lana
gan
and
Alfo
nso.
All
right
s re
serv
ed.
20
The Psychological Processing Analyzer (PPA) conducts a cross-battery analysis of psychological processing test scores, analyzes achievement test scores for strengths and weaknesses, and compares achievement scores with related processing scores. The PPA can be used to determine a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) in both achievement and psychological processes. Statistically significant intra-individual scores are identified for this purpose. When an examinee has both a below average score and an intra-individual weakness, that psychological process or academic skill is labeled as a deficit. When an examinee has both an above average score and an intra-individual strength, that psychological process or academic skill is labeled as an asset.
Definitions of Psychological Processes
Attention includes self-inhibitory processes that allow one to focus, sustain, and divide attention. Difficulties with attentional control are associated with poor academic productivity and with deficient mathematics achievement.
Auditory Processing consists of the processes involved in perceiving, analyzing, synthesizing, and discriminating speech and other auditory stimuli. Auditory processing has strong relations with language and literacy skills.
Executive Functions regulate behavior and cognitive functions during purposeful, goal-directed, problem-solving. Well-developed executive functions are most important for applied academics, such as reading comprehension, mathematics reasoning, and written expression. Academic productivity, such as completing homework, also depends on adequate executive processes.
Fine Motor processes, such as motor planning, are involved in the control and coordination of small muscle movements that occur in the fingers. Fine motor skills affect penmanship, which in turn influences written expression and academic performance.
Fluid Reasoning includes problem solving and deductive and inductive reasoning. Fluid reasoning plays an important role in higher-level, applied academics, such as reading comprehension and mathematics reasoning.
Verbal Long-Term Recall is the delayed recall of new verbal learning and the efficient retrieval of previously acquired verbal knowledge. All aspects of academic learning and performance depend heavily on verbal long-term recall.
Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall is the delayed recall of new visual-spatial learning. This type of memory is associated with daily functioning, reading, and mathematics learning and performance.
Oral Language includes the linguistic processes that allow one to communicate effectively, such as the ability to construct meaningful sentences. Oral language development has a strong influence on the acquisition of literacy.
PPA Version 5.1.0 Report
Student's Last Name: Casp Student's First Name: Mary
Age: 10 School: Amazing Grade: 5th Teacher: Mrs. Exellent
Examiner: Me Dates of Evaluation: 10/15/2016
Page 1
21
PPA Version 5.1.0 Report
Student's Last Name: Casp Student's First Name: Mary
Age: 10 School: Amazing Grade: 5th Teacher: Mrs. Exellent
Examiner: Me Dates of Evaluation: 10/15/2016
Page 2
Phonological Processing involves the awareness and manipulation of phonemes, the smallest units of speech that are used to form syllables and words. Basic reading and writing skills, as well as the development of oral expression and listening comprehension, depend heavily on the development of phonological processing.
Verbal Working Memory manipulates and transforms verbal information that is being held in short-term memory or has been retrieved from long-term memory. Verbal working memory capacity has strong relations with language and literacy skills.
Visual-Spatial Working Memory manipulates and transforms visual-spatial information that is being held in short-term memory or has been retrieved from long-term memory. This type of memory is associated with daily functioning and with mathematics learning and performance.
22
PPA Version 5.1.0 Report
Student's Last Name: Casp Student's First Name: Mary
Age: 10 School: Amazing Grade: 5th Teacher: Mrs. Exellent
Examiner: Me Dates of Evaluation: 10/15/2016
PSW Among Processes
Mary appears to have average psychological processing aptitudes in Attention, Executive Functions, Fine Motor, Fluid Reasoning, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, and Visual-Spatial Processing. In contrast, Mary has below average process scores in Auditory Processing, Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall, and Verbal Working Memory.
When a process score is significantly different from the predicted score for that process, an intra-individual strength or weakness is indicated. Mary has a significant intra-individual weakness in Verbal Working Memory. The intra-individual weaknesses that can be considered a deficit include Verbal Working Memory.
Differences Between Related Processes
The table labeled 'Pairwise Comparisons of Related Processes' identifies processes that have weaknesses relative to the specific processes they are paired with. These pairwise strengths and weaknesses should not be used for specific learning disability diagnosis. Rather, the table provides in-depth information that should be used for interventions or treatment planning. Only closely related processes are included in the table.
PSW Among Academic Skills
Mary appears to have average academic skills in Mathematics Calculation, Mathematics Problem Solving, Written Expression, and Listening Comprehension. In contrast, Mary has below average academic skills in Basic Reading Skills, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, and Oral Expression.
When an achievement score is significantly different from the predicted score for that skill, an intra-individual strength or weakness is indicated.
Page 3
23
PPA Version 5.1.0 Report
Student's Last Name: Casp Student's First Name: Mary
Age: 10 School: Amazing Grade: 5th Teacher: Mrs. Exellent
Examiner: Me Dates of Evaluation: 10/15/2016
Page 4
Consistency Between Achievement Scores and Process Scores
When one or more of the processes that strongly influence the development of a specific area of achievement are intra-individual weaknesses, the examinee is likely to have a deficiency in that achievement area. The “Consistency Between Achievement Scores and Process Scores” table compares academic skills and psychological processes that are highly related. Consistency between an achievement score and a process score is indicated by a “No” in the “Significant Difference” column. Consistency between a process score and a related area of deficient achievement provides support for a diagnosis of a specific learning disability. A process score that is significantly lower than a related area of deficient achievement is also evidence for specific learning disability. When a process score is significantly higher than a deficient area of achievement, the deficiency in achievement cannot be attributed to a weakness in that particular process. The following Achievement and Process scores are consistent:
Basic Reading Skills Auditory Processing, Processing Speed, Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall
Reading Fluency Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall
Reading Comprehension Auditory Processing, Verbal Working Memory, Visual-Spatial Long-Term Recall, Visual-Spatial Working Memory
Mathematics Calculation Attention, Executive Functions, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed, Visual-Spatial Processing, Visual-Spatial Working Memory
Mathematics Problem Solving Executive Functions, Fluid Reasoning, Processing Speed, Visual-Spatial Working Memory
Written Expression Attention, Auditory Processing, Executive Functions, Fine Motor, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, Verbal Working Memory
Oral Expression Executive Functions, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, Verbal Working Memory
Listening Comprehension Auditory Processing, Executive Functions, Phonological Processing, Processing Speed, Verbal Working Memory
24