1. SLD Eligibility Review Teresa Fritsch, Psy.S., NCSP School Psychologist fritsch.teresa@meridianschool.org

2. Purpose and Objectives Review SLD Evaluation Procedures Psychological Processing Models

3. Review from Psychological Processing: Part 1 Webinar Universal screening and data collection Interventions provided to those students struggling and below grade level Progress monitoring and data collection Referral to consider special education evaluation

4. * Evidence of low achievement * Performance significantly below the mean on a cluster, composite, or 2 or more subtests in the same academic area (i.e. Word Attack and Letter-Word Identification=Basic Reading Skills) * Specific Learning Disability – not using Broad scores * Norm-referenced, standardized, achievement assessment Academic Achievement Assessment

5. Psychological Processing Review Con’t Psychological Processing evaluation –Review and analyze all data already obtained (Teacher and Parent input from referral meeting) –Develop a theory and hypothesis –Assess/Collect data and interpret results –Determine if there is a link between psychological processing area(s) and academic deficits –Pattern of strengths and weaknesses –Do the dots connect? Sample SLD Eligibility Report

15. Various Models/Approaches to SLD Identification: - Discrepancy-Consistency Approach Using PASS Theory (Naglieri, Das, & Kirby)* - RTI & Cognitive Hypothesis Testing (Concordance- Discordance Model) (Hale, Wycoff, & Fiorello)* - Ability-Achievement Consistency Model (CHC Theory) (Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo)* - Milton Dehn Model (Dehn) * Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification, 2011

16. Discrepancy-Consistency Approach Significant Difference(s) Significant Difference(s) Achievement Weakness(es) Processing Weakness(es) Processing & Achievement Strengths Similar Scores Copyright Jack A. Naglieri, 2010

17. RTI and Cognitive Hypothesis Testing Theory Hypothesis Data Collection Interpretation 1. Problem 5. Cognitive Strengths/Weaknesses 9. Intervention Consultation 13. Continue/Terminate/Modify 2. Intellectual/Cognitive Problem 6. Choose Related Construct Test 10. Choose Plausible Intervention 3. Administer/Score Intelligence Test 7. Administer/Score Related Construct Test 11. Collect Objective Intervention Data 4. Interpret Psych. Processing 8. Interpret Constructs/Compare 12. Determine Intervention Efficacy Hale, J.B., & Fiorello, CA (2004)

18. Flanagan et al (2002, 2006, 2007) Ability Achievement Consistency Model (Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory) Level I-A: Measurement of Specific Academic Skills & Acquired Knowledge – Inter-Academic Ability Analysis (Stores of Acquired Knowledge) Math Calculation- Basic Reading Skills- Reading Fluency Math Reasoning- Reading Comprehension- Written Expression General information*- Oral Expression* Lexical Knowledge*- Listening Comprehension* Level I-B: Evaluation of Exclusionary Factors – NOT Sensory Impairment; NOT Mental Retardation; NOT Cultural Differences; NOT Language Differences; etc…

19. Ability Achievement Consistency Model (Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory) Level II-A: Measurement of Broad Abilities/Processes and Aptitudes for Learning-Inter-Cognitive Ability Analysis (Learning Efficiency) Gt, Gs, Gsm, Glr, Ga, Gv, Gf, and Gc* Level II-B: Re-evaluation of Exclusionary Factors Level III: Evaluation of Underachievement – Integrated Ability Analysis Below Average Aptitude-Achievement Consistency within an otherwise normal ability profile Level IV: Evaluation of Interference with Functioning (deficits are normative) The identified deficits significantly interfere with academic achievement or other daily activities requiring these skills (e.g., reading, writing, math)

20. Evidence of a Processing Strength or Weakness Milton J. Dehn, Ed.D. Spring 2010 Both intra-individual and normative scores to be considered a strength or weakness A low score in a process is not necessarily a deficit indicative of LD, unless it’s also an intra-individual weakness –Example: very low IQ have inherent processing problems – Although Dehn defines intra-individual and normative scores by certain values, the Idaho SLD policy looks for the preponderance of evidence to support the eligibility decision.

21. ProcessTest/Battery Name Subtest/Factor Name Subtest Scores Factor Score IQ/MeanDifference From Mean Normative S or W Ipsative S or W Deficit or Asset **Information regarding the directions for the Processing Analysis Worksheet can be found in Dr. Dehn’s book.

22. Basic Reading Skills Reading Comprehension Reading Fluency Math Calculation Math Problem Solving Written Expression Crystallized Intelligence Perceptual Speed Fluid Reasoning Crystallized Intelligence Auditory Processing Short Term/Working Memory Long-Term Storage Crystallized Intelligence Short Term/Working Memory Long-Term Storage & Retrieval Phonologi- cal Processing Short-Term/ Working Memory Short Term/Working Memory Processing Speed Fluid ReasoningCrystallized Intelligence Processing Speed Fluid Reasoning Short-Term/ Working Memory Auditory Processing Visual Processing Auditory Processing Attention Executive Function Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2007, Dehn, M., 2009, and McGrew 2009

26. Key Elements of Psychological Processing: * Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses * Normative Weaknesses must link to academic deficits * Summarize information in Section G; bring the story together; connect the dots

27. www.idahotc.com www.idahotc.com Training and Technology for Today’s Tomorrow Website to link school professionals and parents with special education training opportunities and resources across the state Supported By: –Idaho State Department of Education (ISDE), Special Education Project Team: –Cari Murphy –Shawn Wright

28. Statewide Special Education Technical Assistance (SESTA ) Center for School Improvement & Policy Studies, BSU Gina Hopper, Carol Carnahan, Associate Director Statewide Consultant ginahopper@boisestate.edu ginahopper@boisestate.edu carolcarnahan@boisestate.edu carolcarnahan@boisestate.edu 208.426.4363 208.426.3257

29. www.sde.idaho.gov/site/isee

30. Contact Us Teresa Fritsch, School Psychologist, Meridian School District, fritsch.teresa@meridianschools.orgfritsch.teresa@meridianschools.org Carol Treat, School Psychologist, Post Falls School District, ctreat@sd273.com ctreat@sd273.com Richard Henderson, Director of Special Education, SDE, rhenderson@sde.idaho.gov rhenderson@sde.idaho.gov