Using the CPPS to Evaluate Children with Learning Problems Dr. Milton J. Dehn Schoolhouse Educational Services www.psychprocesses.com

Children’s Psychological Processes Scale (CPPS) Facts Standardized teacher rating scale Ages 5 – 12 121 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

Uses of the CPPS Screening LD Evaluations Identifies need for intervention Predicts academic skills development Useful in planning comprehensive assessment LD Evaluations Identify psych processing deficits Pattern of strengths and weaknesses Measure progress during interventions Through the use of change-sensitive W-scores

What is psychological processing? Brain processes, operations, functions Any time mental contents are operated on When information is perceived, transformed, manipulated, stored, retrieved, expressed Whenever we think, reason, problem-solve Can’t learn and perform without processing Learning depends on these processes Doesn’t include knowledge or academic skills

MN Processing Criteria “The child has a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes which includes an information processing condition that is manifested in a variety of settings by behaviors such as inadequate …. (next slide)

MN Processing Criteria ….acquisition of information; organization; planning and sequencing; working memory, including verbal, visual, or spatial; visual and auditory processing; speed of processing; verbal and nonverbal expression; transfer of information; and motor control for written tasks.” (Can include other processes not listed.)

What is a Processing Disorder? Disorder: A group of symptoms involving abnormal behaviors A disorder involves deficits Deficit: A lack or shortage of something Weakness: Lacking normal ability A processing disorder impairs academic learning Not many official processing disorders E.g. CAPD, aphasia, amnesia, dyspraxia

Evidence for a Processing Disorder and SLD Diagnosis It’s not specific to one environment A normative weakness (below average score) Intra-individual: score is significantly weaker than predicted from discrepancy analysis Best if it’s an intra-individual weakness and a normative weakness (this is a deficit; these are rare) It’s impacting academic learning The low psychological processes and low academics have research-based links The linked process and academic skills both have low scores (consistency approach)

Processes and Academic Learning Psychological processes are like “aptitudes” Relations established through research Flanagan et al. McGrew’s review of research The influence of processes varies by age Look for academic area and related psychological processes to both be low See Table

Psychological Processes Measured by the CPPS Attention Auditory Processing Executive Functions Fine Motor Fluid Reasoning Long-Term Recall Oral Language Phonological Processing Processing Speed Visual-Spatial Processing Working Memory General Processing Ability (Composite)

CPPS Processes Significantly Related With Types of Academic Learning

Characteristics of CPPS Processes Brain-based Interrelated Necessary for academic learning They underlie academic performance They are broad processes Observable in classroom

Attention In classroom: Necessary for learning Attention deficits part of LD; not necessarily ADHD Types: Selective, focused, divided, sustained The problem is attentional control & lack of inhibition On CPPS, links to Executive Functions and Working Memory Lowest Item: “Is noisy and disruptive in class” Highest Item: “Has difficulty dividing attention between two tasks”

Auditory Processing Ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, and discriminate auditory stimuli, mainly speech In classroom: Perceiving and comprehending instruction; being able to understand words with background noise Lowest item: “Has difficulty associating a voice with the correct person” Highest item: “Has difficulty understanding instruction when there is background noise”

Executive Functions Management of cognitive functions and psychological processes Effectiveness depends on self-monitoring, self-regulation, and metacognition Has a longer course of development More to do with classroom performance than learning of academic skills Lowest item “Has difficulty adapting to changes, such as a change in routine” Highest item: “Does not notice errors in schoolwork”

Fine Motor Hits developmental plateau by age 7 On CPPS, has weaker relations with cognitive processes in general but has strong relations with academics On CPPS, pairs up with visual-spatial process. Lowest item: “Has difficulty picking up small objects with thumb and forefinger” Highest item: “Has difficulty staying between the lines when printing or writing”

Fluid Reasoning Deductive, inductive reasoning, especially with novel materials Has a longer course of development More important for applied academics Lowest item: “When given clues, does poorly at guessing the answer” Highest item: “Has difficulty solving unfamiliar problems”

Long-Term Recall Close connection with other processes and with academic learning in general Includes encoding, consolidation, storage, and retrieval RAN is part of Lowest item: “Has difficulty remembering nursery rhymes or stories” Highest item: “Has difficulty recalling information during tests”

Oral Language Not the content (vocabulary) or receptive language but the oral expression processes Lowest item “Substitutes or omits vowel and consonant sounds when speaking” Highest item: “Has difficulty paraphrasing when speaking”

Phonological Processing Processing of phonemes, e.g. blending Phonemic awareness is part of Lowest item: “Has difficulty identifying the first sound in a word” Highest item: “Has difficulty sounding out unknown words when reading”

Processing Speed How quickly information flows through the processing system; a matter of efficiency Too slow: info. lost, process not completed Lowest item “Is slow to perform, relatively easy, well-learned tasks” Highest item: “Takes a long time to complete a worksheet”

Visual-Spatial Processing The ability to perceive, analyze, synthesize, manipulate and think with visual patterns A strength in most LD cases Weak relations with all academics; more of a “threshold” process Lowest item: “Has difficulty matching things that look alike” Highest item: “Becomes confused when figures are rotated or reversed”

Working Memory Processing while retaining information On CPPS includes short-term memory Both verbal and visual Lowest item: “Loses place when counting” Highest item: “Has difficulty organizing information when writing”

General Processing Ability (GPA) Based on average of all process scores Emerges from factor analysis; similar to concept of general intelligence Processes function in an inter-related fashion Most processes contribute to any given behavior, task On CPPS defined as “the underlying efficiency of automaticity of processing”

CPPS Standardization 1,121 students rated by 278 teachers 128 communities in 30 states Entirely online Demographics match U.S. Census well Scores were weighted Included children with disabilities Demographics details Link

Item Selection Two rounds of piloting W-scores indicate wide ability range Skewed distributions common Rasch item analysis Exploratory factor analysis to check subscale alignment

Reverse Scoring Relative to achievement & cognitive tests High scores mean high difficulty and low ability All items stated negatively Inconsistent ratings when positively stated items were tried

Norms and Scores 4 age groups (5-6; 7-8; 9-10; 11-12) Boys have more processing problems No sign. sex differences in fluid reasoning, phonological, and visual-spatial Norms not divided by sex Link Combined sex norms better for identification T-scores derived from linear transformation of actual standardization distribution

W-Scores Used in item analysis, development of scoring system, and in reports Mean of 500 at age 10; SD of roughly 20 Converts ordinal rankings into equal intervals More precise measurement Gradient with smaller steps More sensitive to changes, progress Use when re-evaluating student with CPPS

Reliability Internal consistency subscale reliability ranges from .88 to .98 Link .99 on Total Score Inter-rater reliability Range of .21 to .90 Median coefficient of 76.5

Validity: Developmental Evidence Skewed distributions because Very few children have processing problems Fewer processing problems in older children Most processes fully develop early Teachers rate relative to that grade level Dev. changes observed in younger children Changes observed in upper half of problem distribution Link See Range W values used to arrange items in order

Correlations with Achievement High correlations with WJ III Achievement Test scores Link The broader the achievement score, the higher the correlations Correlation of .66 between teacher’s overall ranking of academic skills and CPPS GPA Parent education level and CPPS GPA is .33

Correlations with WJ III COG Fewer correlations than achievement Link All CPPS processes have sign. correlations with Cognitive Fluency (ability to quickly and fluently perform cog. tasks) Most CPPS scales expected to link with WJ III COG tests do, except attention, processing speed, and working memory Also, discriminant evidence

Correlations with BRIEF CPPS Attention, Executive Functions, and Working Memory have the highest correlations with all BRIEF scales and a sign. correlation with every BRIEF score CPPS Attention and EF mostly are >.70 indicating they measure same domains as BRIEF Link Other CPPS scales correlate with BRIEF metacognitive scales but not behavioral

Factor and Cluster Analysis A general factor; all subtests load on General processing ability (GPA) may reflect processing efficiency or automaticity Link Second factor is Attention, EF, sometimes WM: Self-Regulatory Processes Third factor is Fine Motor and Visual-Spatial: Visual-Motor processes Link Results fairly consistent across age groups

Diagnostic Utility for LD 37 LD subjects with broad demographics Compared to matched controls, LD subjects had significantly higher means on all subscales Link The CPPS has high classification accuracy in regards to LD Using CPPS GPA cutoff of 60 has 92% classification accuracy across 74 subjects

CPPS Administration Online rating scale 12-15 minutes for teachers to complete Can print free paper copy and enter later Must answer all items Responses: Never, Sometimes, Often, Almost Always This file is stored until accessed for report More than 1 teacher rater is recommended

CPPS Report Brief narrative A 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

Multiple Raters Expect differences Compare scores on the graphs Is the profile similar but one teacher’s scores are consistently higher than others Significantly different when confidence bands do not overlap How are the teachers’ experiences with the student different? If 3 raters, give most creditability to middle rater

Diagnosing LD with the CPPS Use a T-score of 60 or above on the GPA Use discrepancy table to determine pattern of strengths and weaknesses Predicted score based on mean of other 10 Use +/- 1.00 SD of discrepancy as criterion Non LD also have a pattern Link Weaknesses should link to evidence-based achievement relations Link

Case I Background 5th grade, 12 year old male History of struggling with Math & Wr Lang Received tutoring and extra help at school Not placed for LD after eval. 2 years prior Average IQ Doesn’t meet ADHD diagnostic criteria Seems immature

Case I CPPS Scores Attention 70 Auditory Processing 51 Executive Functions 55 Fine Motor 63 Fluid Reasoning 64 Long-Term Recall 61 Oral Language 61 Phonological Processing 53 Processing Speed 58 Visual-Spatial Processing 48 Working Memory 63 General Processing Ability 60

Case I WJ Cog Scores Comp-Knowledge 97 *a close match with CPPS LT Retrieval 86* Vis-Spatial 93* Auditory Proc 97* Fluid Reasoning 103 Process Speed 82 ST Memory 90 Phonemic Aware 103* Working Memory 87* Broad Attention 90 Cognitive Fluency 85

Case I WJ III ACH Broad Reading 91* Broad Math 89** Broad Wr Lang 86** Math Calc Skills 90** Writ Exp 85** *Has strong CPPS related processes **Has weak CPPS related processes

Case I Conclusions From a processing perspective, could qualify for LD Does not because IQ-Ach discrepancy not severe enough Nevertheless, struggles because of processing problems

Case II Background 7 year old, first grade male 1st grade teacher reported many concerns: attention, math difficulties, losing things, slow to start, slow to complete work Good at art, visual-spatial, behavior Reported concerns to parent History: needed oxygen at birth No health or developmental problems

CPPS Case Study II Attention 69 Auditory Processing 69 Executive Functions 65 Fine Motor 53 Fluid Reasoning 66 Long-Term Recall 73 Oral Language 64 Phonological Processing 65 Processing Speed 70 Visual-Spatial Processing 65 Working Memory 72 General Processing Ability 68

Case II WJ III COG Scores Comp-Knowledge 84 LT Retrieval 101 Vis-Spatial 110 Auditory Proc 122 Fluid Reasoning 98 Process Speed 96 ST Memory 112 Phonemic Awareness 108 Working Memory 93 Broad Attention 99 Cognitive Fluency 83

Case II WJ III ACH Brief Reading 85 Broad Math 69* Brief Writing 80 (-1.49) Math Calc Skills 67* *More than 2.00 SD’s of discrepancy below ability

Case II BRIEF Scores Inhibit 49 Shift 50 Emot Control 43 BRI 47 Initiate 67 Working Memory 72 Plan/Organize 72 Org of Materials 57 Monitor 49 MI 64 GEC 58

Case II WRAML2 Scores Verbal Memory 108 Visual Memory 85 Attention/Concentration 88 General Memory 91 Verbal Recognition 105 Visual Recognition 84 General Recognition 94 Delayed Recall Average 10 (mean for subs)

Case II Discussion Compare CPPS results with other test results What are the consistencies What are the inconsistencies Does he have a learning disability? Does he have ADHD? (Disregard intervention requirement)

Selective, Cross-Battery Testing Assess areas based on concerns, not on what a test has to offer Mix tests/batteries to cover all the areas Limit to 2 or 3 batteries Should be normed about the same time Avoid redundancies Ideally, 2 subtests per process Analyze results together by computing a cross-battery mean or using IQ

Dehn’s Approach to Cross Battery Not limited to CHC factors in Flanagan and Ortiz method Includes processing factors that are important for learning of academic skills Analyze scores at the factor (two-subtest) level whenever possible Use a hand computation analysis sheet

Selective Testing Not necessary to administer entire battery Focus most on hypothesized deficits Know the factors/subtests that measure processes Apply a cross-battery approach See selective testing table for cog. & ach. Link

Using CPPS Results to Guide Standardized Testing The WJ III COG is a good match Other broad scales, such as memory Use selective testing table Sample all processing areas but especially weak and borderline areas CPPS processes with scores above 60 should be sampled with at least 2 subtests

Using the CPPS to Measure Progress Use W-Scores Have a mean of 500 at age 10 Standard deviations vary (about 20) 4-5 W-score points for every 1-2 T-score points A change of 20 points can be considered statistically significant

Using the CPPS to Plan an Intervention Select processes with scores above 60 (weaknesses) Prioritize if too many Look for strengths (scores below 40) to counterbalance weakness

References Dehn, M. J. (2006). Essentials of Processing Assessment. Wiley Publishing. (a revision of this book will be out spring 2013) Dehn, M. J. (2012). Children’s Psychological Processes Scale, Professional Manual. Schoolhouse Educational Serivces

CPPS Purchasing Information Found at www.psychprocesses.com