1. 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

2. 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,

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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11. 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

12. 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)

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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. Neuroanatomy of Processes

19. 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

20. 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

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

22. The Hippocampus

23. Parietal Lobe Integrates sensory information Language processing
Phonological processing

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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.”

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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”

31. 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

32. 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

33. Jack Naglieri’s Model

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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.

37. 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)

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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

44. 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

45. 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

46. 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

47. 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

51. 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

52. 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

53. 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

54. 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)

55. 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

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

57. Psychological Processing Analyzer 2.1 and 3.0
Available at
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

58. 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

59. 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

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

61. 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.

62. 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

63. Children’s Psychological Processes Scale (CPPS) Overview
Standardized teacher rating scale
Ages to
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

64. 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

65. 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

66. 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

67. 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)

68. 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

69. 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
+/ to 2.00 SD of SEE discrepancy options
Strengths and Weakness labeling is opposite of discrepancy, e.g. “-” value = a strength
Link

70. 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

71. 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

72. 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

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

74. 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

75. 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

76. 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)

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

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

79. 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

80. Processing Speed Video Games Visual-Spatial Processing
None recommended

81. Long-Term Recall
Dual encoding
Elaboration
Visual mnemonics

82. 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

83. 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

84. 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

85. 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