Milton J. Dehn, Ed.D., NCSP Schoolhouse Educational Services KASP 2014 Using a PSW Approach to Identify Students with Specific Learning Disabilities Milton J. Dehn, Ed.D., NCSP Schoolhouse Educational Services KASP 2014

Notice of Copyright 2014 This PowerPoint presentation and accompanying materials are copyrighted by Schoolhouse Educational Services, LLC. They are not to be reprinted, copied, or electronically disseminated without written permission. To obtain permission, email milt@psychprocesses.com.

Workshop Information Sources Essentials of Processing Assessment, 2nd Ed. Children’s Psychological Processes Scale (CPPS) Psychological Processing Analyzer (PPA) www.psychprocesses.com Intervention references Presenter Contact: milt@psychprocesses.com

Topics Processes to assess Processes and academic skills PSW Models Conducting a processing assessment Completing the processing analysis worksheet Identifying processing deficits with the PPA CPPS overview Processing interventions overview

The Need for Processing Assessment Part of a neuropsychological approach Not just for SLD but Autism, ADHD, TBI, etc. Neuroscience has increased our understanding of brain-learning relationships A deficit in a “psychological process” is part of federal and states’ SLD definitions Identification of processing deficits leads to more appropriate & effective interventions

Working Memory Example 10% of children have a WM deficit Of those in the bottom 10% percentiles, 80% will have significant learning problems A working memory deficit predicts LD with more than 80% accuracy WM predicts LD better than IQ, consistency predicts better than discrepancy WM evidence-based interventions

It’s About the “Why” The “why” matters Learning disabilities have a neurological basis Understanding the brain basis as to why a student has a learning disability is important Identifying processing deficits is a big part of answer the why question Assessment that answer some why questions benefits the learner even without placement or interventions

Processing Assessment and RTI Both value early identification When RTI fails, a processing deficit is probably the cause Addressing processing deficits makes academic interventions successful; example Much has changed/improved in regards to processing assessment and intervention

What are Neuropsychological Processes? Brain processes, operations, functions Whenever information is perceived, transformed, manipulated, stored, retrieved, expressed Include “cognitive” processes Whenever we think, reason, problem-solve There are basic and higher level processes Doesn’t include knowledge or achievement Learning and performance depend on these processes; they underlie academic skill acquisition There are social-emotional, sensory, and other processes that are not included for SLD assessment

Neuropsychological Processes are Not IQ, but they contribute to IQ “Abilities”; are the specific brain processes that underlie abilities More like aptitudes than abilities; aptitudes are more specific Not skills; skills and knowledge are the product of processes

Processes to Include in Assessment Broad processes composed of numerous subprocesses Consider subprocesses when a broad process is low Related to academic learning & performance Observable in the classroom They have evidence-based interventions

Processes for SLD Assessment Attention Auditory Processing Executive Functions Fine Motor Fluid Reasoning Long-Term Recall Oral Language Phonological Processing Processing Speed Visual-Spatial Processing Working Memory (WM)

Human Processing Limitations Human limitations Which processes does the chimp excel at?

Attention Types: Selective, focused, divided, sustained Necessary for learning and memory Attention deficits part of LD; ADHD/LD comorbidity Not necessarily ADHD (not enough symptoms) ADHD is more hyperactive/impulsive Inattentive type is more cognitive/learning problems Can use rating scales to assess attention Related to Executive Functions and Working Memory

Executive Functions Self-regulation of cognitive functions and psychological processes There are more than 30 exec processes Self-monitoring, self-regulation, and metacognition are part of EF Have a longer course of development Also have to do with classroom performance Can assess with rating scales

Long-Term Recall The focus is on the processes, not the amount of acquired knowledge Close connection with other processes and with academic learning in general Includes encoding, consolidation, storage, and retrieval Don’t need memory battery; can use scores from WJ and other scales

Working Memory Processing while retaining information Includes short-term memory Verbal, visual-spatial, & executive WM WM is a cognitive and executive process Scores from WJ, IQ, and other cognitive scales can be used An example of where CHC theory does not match up with neuropsychology; WJ IV has made an adjustment

Neuroanatomy of Processes

Neuroanatomy of Processes Most in more than one brain lobe Illustrates the interconnectivity of processes Most have specific structures within a lobe Processing speed is a function of interconnectivity; does not have a specific structure

Occipital Lobe Dedicated to vision and visual-spatial processing Receives sensory data from the thalamus Visual and spatial processing are separate Dorsal stream (upper) sends spatial information to parietal lobe Ventral stream (lower) sends visual information to temporal lobe

Temporal Lobe Auditory processing Long-term memory processing in the hippocampus Some visual processing Semantic memory storage

The Hippocampus

Parietal Lobe Integrates sensory information Language processing Phonological processing

Frontal Lobe The “output” lobe; others are input Executive functions---prefrontal cortex Working memory---prefrontal cortex Attentional control---prefrontal cortex Fluid reasoning Fine motor Oral expression No storage of long-term memories

Brain Lobes and STM & WM Frontal (Prefrontal Cortex): Executive WM Temporal: Episodic WM (especially during LTM encoding and retrieval) Parietal Lobes: Phonological STM and Verbal WM in language processing areas Occipital Lobes: Visuospatial STM and WM

The Evidence for the SLD-Processing Deficit Connection Meta-Analysis of 32 studies by Johnson et al. (2010) found “moderately large to large effect sizes (many close to one standard deviation of difference) in cognitive processing differences between groups of students with SLD and typically achieving students.” The processes included were: Working memory, short-term memory, phonological processing, processing speed, executive function, and language.”

The SLD-Processing Connection from Study with the CPPS LD subjects had significantly higher means on all 11 processes; about 1.5 SD difference Link

Processes and Academic Learning Psychological processes are like “aptitudes” Relations established through research Flanagan et al., & McGrew Swanson, Geary, and others For SLD look for academic area and related psychological processes to both be low See Table; useful for planning, interpretation, and diagnosis

Research Example: SLD by Processing Subtypes Visual-Spatial Deficits: Math calculation and math problem solving Processing Speed Deficits: Reading comprehension, written expression Working Memory Deficit: Math calculation, Written expression Attention: Written expression Source: Hain, Hale, Kendorski

The Origin of PSW IDEIA 2004 Federal Regulations define SLD as “a disorder in one or more of the basis psychological processes” First method: IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Second method: RTI The third method allowed for SLD identification using “alternative research-based procedures”

The Third Method Flanagan interpreted this as allowing the use of a “pattern of strengths and weaknesses” in achievement, cognitive abilities, or psychological processes, with an emphasis on psychological processes

SLD and PSW Assumption: a neurologically-based processing weakness underlies or “causes” learning disabilities (Hale & Fiorello, 2004) The occurrence of significant intra-individual processing weaknesses indicates SLD The “why” matters

Jack Naglieri’s Model

Concordance-Discordance Model From James Brad Hale Link Similar to Naglieri’s model Processing areas not significantly related to the academic area should be discordant: Processing strengths should be significantly higher than the academic weakness

CHC Model A process related to the academic deficiency is weak or deficient Unexpected underachievement: Process and academic deficit exist with otherwise normal ability Regarding strengths, at least some processes should be in the average range

PSW & SLD: The “Minds” Consensus Neurologically-based deficits underlie SLD There’s no SLD if there’s no processing deficit Some processes highly related with academic skills Processing deficits related to academic deficits SLD have average or near average cognitive ability Weakness should be normative & intra-individual Weakness: statistically significant and unusual PSW doesn’t mean there is a learning disability.

Dehn’s PSW Model Intra-individual processing weaknesses are statistically significant At least one process is a deficit (see definition) The processing deficit is related to the deficient academic skill Consistency between low process score(s) and the related low academic skill score Subtest scores must be unitary for a deficit There is at least one strength (or a processes that is in average range)

Dehn’s Definition of Deficit Normative weakness + intra-individual weakness = deficit Three reasons for deficit emphasis Both weaknesses together is statistically rare A deficit indicates an underlying neurological impairment Students with both kinds of weaknesses really need special ed.

Process Scores Allowed in Dehn’s Model The list of 11 processes Rating scales are included Composite scores preferred over subtests Achievement-like scores, e.g., verbal, crystallized intelligence, vocabulary excluded Some subtests are re-classified

CHC vs Dehn’s Model Dehn’s uses processes that have the highest relations with academic learning even if they are narrow processes Dehn has more specific criteria for using processing deficits to identify SLD Both use cross-battery analysis but Dehn offers IQ as a optional predictor IQ score more reliable than cross-battery mean

Single Battery Testing One battery is sufficient if it is comprehensive Examples: NEPSY-II, Woodcock-Johnson Cog. With NEPSY-II, use Dehn’s analysis worksheet With WJ, use the intra-cognitive discrepancy analysis table Link

Cross-Battery, Selective Testing Start with batteries you have Try to limit number of supplemental batteries Avoid redundancies Only selected subtests administered Two subtests or composites are ideal May include rating scales Use cross-battery analysis procedures

Cross-Battery, Selective Testing Test all processes important for academics with most attention to an in-depth assessment of hypothesized weaknesses Pick composites first See selective testing table Link See comprehensive list link from Essentials of Processing Assessment, 2nd Edition

Some Subtests are Classified Differently Through Task Analysis Consider definition of the process Consider factor analytic information What is the primary process being measured by the subtest? (not just input or output) Which primary process allows the examinee to successfully complete the task What the task is typically used to measure No such thing as “pure” subtest measure

Hypothesis Testing Approach Given academic deficiency, what are the most likely process deficits It’s “why” the child has a learning problem Include non-processes Must collect assessment data to “test” hypotheses Try to avoid “confirmatory bias” We all have weaknesses

Planning Processing Assessment Assess most major processes, especially those hypothesized to be deficits Don’t test areas that are clearly strengths Use the CPPS to reduce need to test Identify academic deficiencies Generate processing deficit hypotheses based on relations with academics Decide on assessment method Select tests and subtests, not entire batteries

Planning a Processing Assessment Complete the processing assessment planner on case study Consider concern; look at academic relations table; hypothesize which processes involved Consider non-processing hypotheses Fill in all processes tested by primary scale Find other scales to cover remaining processes See Partially Completed Example

Case Study Risk Factors Blood clot in umbilical cord Abusive father; stressful home environment ADHD Executive dysfunctions but very self-aware Speech/language delay and disorder Seizure disorder Severe word retrieval difficulties

Six-Year Old Case Study Concerns Learning colors, letters, and numbers Inconsistent performance Recognizing and generating rhyming words Reading difficulties Doesn’t remember directions Difficulty getting started on a task Word retrieval problems Math learning difficulties

Processing Analysis with Hand Computations Use composite scores from test manual whenever possible Convert all scores to standard scores Compute clinical scores by averaging Compute processing or memory mean or use IQ Calculate discrepancies Determine weaknesses and deficits Both kinds of weaknesses = a deficit Do pairwise comparisons Opposites and those closely related Example

Guidelines for Weaknesses & Deficits Deficit = both normative and intra-individual weakness Scores below 90 are normative weaknesses Below 85 if not using deficit approach Intra-individual strengths & weaknesses use 12 points Assumes composites/subtests have hi reliability Use 15 points if not using deficit approach

Non-Unitary Scores When standard score difference is greater than 22 points Something different is being measured or something is different about the task Investigate further with more testing if cannot be explained Don’t use a non-unitary process score for diagnostic purposes

Pairwise Comparisons For intervention planning, not diagnosis Pay most attention to: Opposites Those that are closely related A greater discrepancy is required for significance Significant when confidence intervals do not overlap

PSW SLD Criteria for Case Study Is there at least one deficit Is there at least one strength Is the intra-individual weakness statistically significant Are the scores unitary Does the deficit relate to the deficient skill Is there consistency between the process and achievement score (bands overlap)

When to Use IQ Instead of Cross-Battery Mean Okay to use IQ as predictor because it has high correlations with most processes Is technically more appropriate because it has known reliability and SEM Use when only weak processes tested Use when only a few processes tested Use when a legal challenge is anticipated

Using Dehn’s Automated Analysis Worksheet to Determine PSW Automated worksheet from Essentials of Processing, 2nd Edition

Psychological Processing Analyzer 2.1 and 3.0 Available at www.psychprocesses.com Identifies statistically significant strengths, weaknesses, deficits, and assets Can enter composite and/or subtest scores 11 psychological processes Takes scores (about 400 to choose from) from 50+ different scales: cognitive, achievement, rating, and processing

Psychological Processing Analyzer Composite and subtests are limited to those that are fairly direct measures Some are re-classified based on the primary demands of the task Use the mean of the process scores or IQ as predicted score Differences greater than critical values are intra-individual weaknesses

PPA Equations Converts all scores (except raw scores) to standard scores .01 or .05 level of significance Difference formulas based on reliability coefficients of composites/subtests Regression toward the mean Predicted score based on mean of other 10 Non-unitary scores are flagged Checks processes and achievement for consistency

PPA Report Pairwise comparisons also provided Results tables, graph and narrative Identifies academic areas associated with the identified deficits See demo and sample report

New Features with PPA 3.0 New tests such as WISC-V and WJ IV Will do cross-battery intra-achievement analysis Will select deficit processes and deficit academic skills that pair up (related) Check them for statistical consistency Longer narrative with definitions, etc.

Using Rating Scales for Processing Assessment Processing deficits are manifested through behaviors Behavior ratings can be used to measure processing abilities Research: rating scales just as valid if not more so for some processes Examples: BRIEF and other Executive Function Scales Also, the new CPPS

Children’s Psychological Processes Scale (CPPS) Overview Standardized teacher rating scale Ages 5-0-0 to 12-11-30 121 items across 11 subscales Entirely online, internet-web based Online administration time of 15 minutes Online scoring and report Author: Milton Dehn; published by Schoolhouse Educational Services, 2012 Measurement Consultant: Kevin McGrew

Main Uses of the CPPS To identify psychological (cognitive) processing weaknesses in children referred for a learning disability evaluation An additional source of data for diagnostic purposes Can be used as a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) analysis Covers processes not directly tested Progress monitoring Screening

CPPS Standardization 1,121 students rated by 278 teachers 128 communities in 30 states All data collected online Demographics match U.S. Census well Norms: 4 age groups (5-6; 7-8; 9-10; 11-12) Included children with disabilities

The CPPS Identifies Children with SLD LD subjects had significantly higher means on all subscales; about 1.5 SD difference The CPPS has high classification accuracy in regards to LD 37 LD subjects compared with matched controls Using CPPS GPA cutoff of 60 had 92% classification accuracy across 74 subjects

CPPS Processes Attention Auditory Processing Executive Functions Fine Motor Fluid Reasoning Long-Term Recall Oral Language Phonological Processing Processing Speed Visual-Spatial Processing Working Memory (WM)

CPPS Report Brief narrative, graph, and a table of scores Change-sensitive W-scores T-scores; percentiles; confidence intervals Intra-individual strengths and weakness discrepancy table T-score to standard score converter Example

CPPS Discrepancy Analysis Use discrepancy table to determine pattern of strengths and weaknesses Predicted score based on mean of other 10 Regression toward the mean included +/- 1.00 to 2.00 SD of SEE discrepancy options Strengths and Weakness labeling is opposite of discrepancy, e.g. “-” value = a strength Link

Diagnosing LD with the CPPS Look for pattern of strengths and weaknesses (discrepancy table) If intra-individual weaknesses are also normative weaknesses (T-scores of 60 and above), then they are deficits Same criteria as PSW model

Using Assessment Results to Plan an Intervention Select processing deficits and intra-individual weaknesses for intervention Normative weaknesses also appropriate Consider related processing weaknesses Consider executive and WM limitations Prioritize Individualize and differentiate

Interventions for Processing Weaknesses & Deficits Strengthen weakness if possible And utilize the strong areas more Use methods that involve other processes, more of the brain Principle: make the brain work, it gets better Also need accommodations that reduce the need to use the weak processes, especially when deficits are severe

See Summary Sheet with References More methods and references for WM and long-term memory Link

Metacognitive Component Applies to all processing interventions Teach child how process works Inform child of strengths and weaknesses Teach how to control the process Emphasize personal efficacy of intervention Teach conditional strategy knowledge: how, when, where, why

Attention: Self-Monitoring Teacher, or device carried by student, cues student at variable intervals, such as 5 minutes When cued, student marks monitoring sheet regarding behavior when cue occurred: 2-Completely on task; 1-Partially on task; 0-Completely off task When teacher is cueing, she also provides her rating alongside student’s; student receives bonus point when ratings match Set a points goal that student is working for, easy at first, then keep adjusting upward Link

Auditory Processing Same as interventions for CAPD Recoding auditory into visual information Visual representations should accompany verbal presentations Quiet environment Improve acoustics Fast ForWord Auditory trainers (individual sound systems)

Executive Functions: Planning Developing planning improves math performance Discuss benefits of plans Develop plans Verbalize them Implement them and evaluate

Fluid Reasoning Problem solving Categorizing Similarities and differences Games that require reasoning and recognizing relationships

Phonological Processing Phonemic awareness interventions very effective .86 effect size (the earlier the better) Oral at first, then with written material Rhyming; isolating phonemes; identifying phonemes; deleting phonemes; categorizing common phonemes; segmenting phonemes that comprise words; and blending phonemes into words

Processing Speed Video Games Visual-Spatial Processing None recommended

Long-Term Recall Dual encoding Elaboration Visual mnemonics

Dual Encoding Instructors should make it both verbal and visual or give students time to recode Instruct students to visualize verbal info. Instruct students to name/describe visual-spatial info. Increases the number of pathways available for retrieval

Verbal Memory Strategy: Elaboration Relate new info. with previous Facilitates encoding and LTM organization, consolidation, retrieval Teachers should provide for young child In-depth versus superficial processing Ties info. with appropriate schema Example: Asking and answering the “Why does this make sense” question

Visual Mnemonics For students with low verbal WM Link info to something already known that will not be forgotten; Act as a scaffold or bridge Creates associations and meaning Best when student creates images Interactive images best Ideal for those with verbal WM deficit Basic visualization without a mnemonic is also beneficial Link

Approaches to Improving WM Reduce the “cognitive load” imposed on the student (Tier I) Directly increase WM capacity through the use of training exercises (Tiers II and III) The student can make more effective use of existing WM capabilities by learning to use strategies (Tiers 1 – 3) Accommodations