10/20/2016
1
Quickly and Reliably Screen Students for Language/Literacy Disorders—including Dyslexia
Michele A. Anderson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
WELCOME
• Webinar Housekeeping Document– Download from the “Handouts” pane– Download at bit.ly/screen-with-TILLS
• 10% Brookes Publishing Discount– Use code TILLSWEB10– Good thru November 17, 2016
• Not valid with any other offers or discounts• ASHA CEUs
– Provided in partnership with Maryland Speech-Language Hearing Association
• Questions? – Type them into “Questions” pane– Email: [email protected]
10/20/2016
2
Disclosure/Acknowledgments
• Grant R324A100354 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences to Western Michigan University. Note that opinions in this presentation are those of the authors and not the U.S. government.
• Many graduate students, colleagues, test administrators, teachers, parents and students contributed to this research
• As co-author of the TILLS SLS, Michele Anderson expects to receive royalties.
Goals for the Webinar
• Participants will be able to list two psychometric criteria to consider when choosing a language/literacy assessment screening tool.
• Participants will be able to explain how to interpret TILLS SLS screening results which indicate an increased likelihood of a disorder—including dyslexia—and the need for further assessment, or those for whom RtI services may be appropriate.
10/20/2016
3
Why do we need a screening tool?
Why do we need a screening tool?
Limited Time Limited Resources
10/20/2016
4
cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00
Ways to Categorize Language Skills
Oral Written
cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00
Expressive Receptive
Ways to Categorize Language Skills
10/20/2016
5
Quadrant Model
Good listening comp + sentence formulation
when talkingLow reading decoding +
fluency + spelling + word inflection when
writing
Average in both
Low Reading + Low Oral Language
High sound/word skills and surface reading
Good Reading Decoding + Poor Comprehension
Sentence/Discourse Ability
Sound/Word Ability
Dyslexia(Spoken > Written)
Specific Comprehension Deficit(Written > Spoken)
Spoken + Written Disorder
Normal Language(Written = Spoken)
(Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely, 2013)
DWord
Recognition
COral Language
Comprehension
RReading
Comprehension
Pattern of DyslexiaListening comprehension > Reading comprehension
(Badian, 1999; Stanovich, 1994)
VocabularyPart of C
Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986)Simple View of Reading Redux (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012)
N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016
10/20/2016
8
Section One: 12-items
• Descriptive statements
• 7 pt Likert-like scale• Rate the student
“compared with other students of the same age”
• Items 1-8 linguistic• Items 9-12 cognitive-
social
Results of EFA
10/20/2016
9
Section Two: Ability checkmark section
• Gardner (1983)-theory of multiple intelligences
• Linguistic and nonlinguistic items
• Mutually exclusive between first set (easeist) and second set (hardest)
Section Three: Open-ended Question
• Allows a wide variety of responses
• Prioritizes area of concern
• Comparison across informants may reveal themes
10/20/2016
11
Using the SLS-3 Purposes
• screening for dyslexia and other language/literacy disorders;
• gathering input from teacher, parent, and student perspectives to contribute to planning; and
• promoting home-school communication for students with and without language/literacy concerns.
Purpose 1: Screening
10/20/2016
12
Using the SLS-how to score
Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLSMultiple sourcesCo-norming Student Rating Scale
Correlation between Items 3-4 and Sound/Word Composite:Teachers = .671** Parents = .595**
10/20/2016
13
Purpose 1: Screening/Re-screening
May not have failed but concern-RtI?
Monitor progress to RtIby re-screening
Purpose 1: Screening
Not Just for Early Elementary Grades
Catts, Compton, Tomblin, & Bridges, 2012
10/20/2016
14
Purpose 2: Multi-informant Perspectives
• Required by IDEA (2004)
• Helps educational teams document concerns
• Parents contribute as part of the team
Purpose 3: Home-School Communication
10/20/2016
15
Predictive Validity
Teachers• Are 2 or more ratings <5?à High sensitivity93% of 69 students with LLD identified accurately as having problems
Parents
• Are all (but 1) ratings >5? àHigh specificity90% of 206 students with NL identified accurately as nothaving problems
• Are 2 or more ratings <5?à Good sensitivity85% of 239 students with LLD identified accurately as having problems
• Are all (but 1) ratings >5? àGood specificity83% of 1065 students with NL identified accurately as not having problems
Concurrent ValidityTable 8. Correlation Coefficients Providing Evidence for Concurrent Validity Based on Correlations of Combinations of SLS Ratings by Teachers, Parents, and Students with Student Performance on Related Sections of the TILLS or the Total TILLS Standard Score
NT
Pearson r for
Teachers
NP
Pearson r for
Parents
NS
Pearson r for
Students
SLS items 3,4 (Sound/Word Items) with Sound/Word Composite on TILLS
330 .671** 1810 .595** 677 .299**
SLS items 1,2,5-8 (Sent/Discourse Items) with Sentence/Discourse Composite on TILLS
322
.720**
1762
.570**
668
.302**
SLS items 1-8 (Language/Literacy Factor) with Total TILLS
321
.752**
1749
.613**
663
.329**
SLS items 9-12 (Cognitive/Social Factor) with Total TILLS
323 .536** 1762 .336** 677 .078*
SLS items 1-12 (Total SLS) with Total TILLS
318 .725** 1736 .572** 652 .279**
NT = Number of teachers in each analysis; NP = Number of parents in each analysis; NS = Number of students in each analysis; SLS = Student Language Scale; TILLS = Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills; ** p < .001, p < .05
10/20/2016
16
Reliability-12 item scale
Omega• Teachers .96• Parents .94• Students .84
Coefficient Alpha• Teachers .96• Parents .93• Students .84
Intra-rater Reliability
10/20/2016
17
Purpose 1 screening for dyslexia
Case Studies
8;9 Grade 3 BoyNo IEP In our Language Literacy Risk (LLR) group:
RtI services for Reading Fluency 30 min, 1X/day, 5 days/week21st %ile on Star Reading77 SS, 6th %ile on WRMT Word Attack
Should he be tested/identified?
10/20/2016
19
Grade 3 boy (age 8;9)
8;9 Grade 3 Boy
¡ Core subtests§ Vocab Aware§ NW Spell§ NW Read§ WE-Discourse
Sound/word 53
Sentence/discourse 63
Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?
10/20/2016
20
8;9 Grade 3 Boy
Good listening comp & sentence formulationLow reading
decoding & fluency & spelling
High in both?
Low in both?
High sound/word skills and surface
reading?Low comprehension
in listening and reading?
Sentence/Discourse Ability
Sound/Word Ability
Example of isolated focus on Reading Fluency
It was fine but there were many other problems
Not classic dyslexia
Could say:Dyslexia + Language Dis:
Vocab Delayed Story RetellSocial Comm
7;10 Grade 2 GirlNo preschool servicesPositive family history of reading problemsHas an IEP with reading decoding and fluency goalsLD as primary eligibility (Reading)No S/LI as secondary eligibility – Should there be?
10/20/2016
21
Teacher and Parent SLS for 7;10, Grade 2
Parent SLSGen Ed Teacher SLS
Grade 2 girl (age 7;10)
10/20/2016
22
7;10 Grade 2 Girl
Sound/word 50Sentence/discourse 71
¡ Core subtests§ Vocab Aware§ Phoneme Aw§ NW Rep
Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?
7;10 Grade 2, Girl
Good listening comp & sentence formulationLow reading
decoding & fluency & spelling
High in both?
Low in both?
High sound/word skills and surface
reading?Low comprehension
in listening and reading?
Sentence/Discourse Ability
Sound/Word Ability
LD as primary eligibility (rdg).Also gets help in class (co-taught by special edteacher and other assignments read to her).
Reading decoding and fluency goals on IEP.
Should there be goals related to oral language?Written expression and spelling?
10/20/2016
23
Summary
• Useful for screening individual or large groups of students across the school-ages
• Minimal costs in teacher or student time and district money
• Evidence supports predictive validity as shown by high sensitivity/specificity for teachers and good for parents
• Good internal consistency and factor structure• Good intra-rater and test-retest reliability• Qualitatively important to collaborative planning