What Factors Most Threaten the Validity of Test Performance?

1. Using the Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM v2.0) as part of a nondiscriminatory approach to psychoeducational evaluation of SLD. Webinar for Education Service Centers October 15, 2013 Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. St. John’s University Critical Examination of Current and Typical Methods of Assessment with English Learners:What works, what doesn’t, and why.

2. What Factors Most Threaten the Validity of Test Performance? Acculturative Knowledge Acquisition – Not Race or Ethnicity “When a child’s general background experiences differ from those of the children on whom a test was standardized, then the use of the norms of that test as an index for evaluating that child’s current performance or for predicting future performances may be inappropriate.” Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1991 Developmental Language Proficiency – Not Language Dominance “Most studies compare the performance of students from different ethnic groups…rather than ELL and non-ELL children within those ethnic groups….A major difficulty with all of these studies is that the category Hispanic includes students from diverse cultural backgrounds with markedly different English-language skills….This reinforces the need to separate the influences of ethnicity and ELL status on observed score differences.” Lohman, Korb & Lakin, 2008, p. 276-278.

3. Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures • IX. REDUCE BIAS IN TRADITIONAL TESTING PRACTICES • Exactly how is evidence-based, nondiscriminatory assessment conducted? • Modified Methods of Evaluation • Modified and altered testing • Nonverbal Methods of Evaluation • Language reduced assessment • Native Language Evaluation • Bilingual assessment • English Language Evaluation • Assessment of bilinguals

4. Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures • ISSUES IN MODIFIED METHODS OF EVALUATION • Modified and Altered Assessment: • “testing the limits:” alteration or modification of test items or content, mediating task concepts prior to administration, repeating instructions, accepting responses in either language, and eliminating or modifying time constraints may all help the examinee perform better, but violates standardization • “translator/interpreter:” use of a translator/interpreter for administration helps overcome the language barrier but also undermines score validity, even when the interpreter is highly trained and experienced; tests are not usually normed in this manner • alterations or modifications are perhaps most useful in deriving qualitative information—observing behavior, evaluating learning propensity, evaluating developmental capabilities, analyzing errors, etc. • a recommended procedure would be to administer tests in a standardized manner first, which will potentially allow for later interpretation, and then consider any modifications or alterations that will further inform the referral questions

5. Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures • ISSUES IN NONVERBAL METHODS OF EVALUATION • Language Reduced Assessment: • “nonverbal testing:” use of language-reduced ( or ‘nonverbal’) tests are helpful in overcoming the language obstacle, however: • it is impossible to administer a test without some type of communication occurring between examinee and examiner, this is the purpose of gestures/pantomime • some tests remain very culturally embedded—they do not become culture-free simply because language is not required for responding • construct underrepresentation is common, especially on tests that measure fluid reasoning (Gf), and when viewed within the context of CHC theory, some batteries measure a narrower range of broad cognitive abilities/processes, particularly those related to verbal academic skills such as reading and writing (e.g., Ga and Gc) and mathematics (Gq) • all nonverbal tests are subject to the same problems with norms and cultural content as verbal tests—that is, they do not control for differences in acculturation and language proficiency which may still affect performance, albeit less than with verbal tests • Language reduced tests are helpful in evaluation of diverse individuals and may provide better estimates of true functioning in certain areas, but they are not a whole or completely satisfactory solution with respect to fairness and provide no information about dysfunction in the most common areas of referral (i.e., reading and writing) or in mathematics

6. Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures • ISSUES IN NATIVE LANGUAGE EVALUATION • Bilingual Assessment: • refers to the assessment of bilinguals in a bilingual manner by a bilingual psychologist • the bilingual psychologist is in a position to conduct assessment activities in a manner (i.e. bilingually) that is not available to the monolingual psychologist even with the aid of interpreter • bilingual assessment is a relatively new research tradition with little empirical support to guide appropriate activities or upon which to base standards of practice • there are no truly “bilingual” tests or assessment protocols and not much is yet known about the performance of bilinguals on monolingual tests administered in the primary language • the relative lack of competent, trained, and qualified bilingual psychologists limits the chances that students will be evaluated in this way, especially in languages other than Spanish

7. Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures • ISSUES IN ENGLISH LANGUAGE EVALUATION • Assessment of Bilinguals: • refers to the assessment of bilinguals in a monolingual manner by a monolingual psychologist • extensive research exists regarding performance of bilinguals on tests given in English • goal is to reduce bias to maximum extent possible even through the use of tests given in English • testing in English allows for the use of systematic methods based on established literature and research for collecting and interpreting data in a nondiscriminatory manner (e.g., CHC Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix) • does not require that the evaluator speak the language of the child but does require competency, training and knowledge, in nondiscriminatory assessment including the manner in which cultural and linguistic factors affect test performance

8. Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Evaluation Methods and Evidence-based Practice Addressing issues of fairness with respect to norm sample representation is an issue of validity and dependent on a sufficient research base.

9. A Recommended Best Practice Approach for Using Tests with ELLs • Step 1. Assessment of Bilinguals – validate test scores (difference vs. disorder) • Select or create an appropriate battery that is comprehensive and responds to the needs of the referral concerns, irrespective of language differences • Administer all tests in standardized manner in English only, no modifications • Score tests and plot them for analysis via the C-LIM • If analysis indicates expected range and pattern of decline, evaluation ends, no disability is likely • If analysis does not indicate expected range or pattern of decline, apply XBA (or other) interpretive methods to determine specific areas of weakness and difficulty and continue to Step 2 • Step 2. Bilingual Assessment – validate disorder (cross-languageconfirmation) • Review prior results and create a select set of tests related to the areas where the suspected weaknesses or difficulties were noted • Select tests that are as parallel as possible to the original tests using one of 3 methods: • Native language test administered in the native language (e.g., WJ III/Bateria III or WISC-IV/WISC-IV Spanish) • Native language test administered via assistance of a trained interpreter • Informally translated test administered via assistance of a trained interpreter • Administer all tests in whatever manner necessary to ensure full comprehension including use of any modifications and alterations necessary to reduce barriers to performance • Observe and document approach to tasks, errors in responding, and behavior during testing • Analyze data both quantitatively and qualitatively to evaluate areas of weakness or difficulty • If areas of weakness do not match areas of weakness from Step 1 analyses, disability NOT likely • If areas of weakness match areas of weakness from Step 1 analyses, disability is likely, except for Gc • If testing of Gc in native language reveals better functioning than in English, use native language Gc score

10. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study WISC-IV/WJ III/WIAT-III XBA DATA FOR MAGDALENA WECHSLER INTELLIEGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN-IV Verbal Comprehension Index 76 Perceptual Reasoning Index 88 Working Memory Index 79 Vocabulary 5 Block Design 10 Letter-Number Seq. 6 Comprehension 7 Matrix Reasoning 8 Digit Span 7 Similarities 5 Picture Concepts 5 Processing Speed Index 94 Coding 9 Symbol Search 9 WECHSLER INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST-III Basic Reading94 Reading Comprehension 76 Written Expression 92 Word Reading 92 Reading Comprehension 76 Spelling 100 Pseudoword Decoding 98 Oral Reading Fluency 80 Sentence Composition 86 Essay Composition 93 WOODCOCK JOHNSON-III TESTS OF COGNITIVE ABILITY Auditory Processing 92 LT Storage/Retrieval 67 Auditory Attention 92 Visual Auditory Learning 69 Sound Blending 94 Retrieval Fluency 74

11. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Most important consideration is determination of student’s degree of “difference” regarding language development and acculturative acquisition

12. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Not supportive of expected pattern of decline, suggests cultural and linguistic factors are not primary 0

13. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Results not fully explainable by cultural and linguistic influences alone--other factor is present and affecting performance

14. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Possible Gsm problem Gc is in shaded range on C-LIM graph—indicates average development as compared to other English Learners and is NOT likely a problem area. Possible Gf problem Possible Gc problem?

15. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study

16. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study General Steps for Using the XBA DMIA in SLD Evaluations: • Select the tab that corresponds to the core battery used in the evaluation and enter all available data. Data from supplemental batteries should be entered on the corresponding battery first for analysis and may be entered afterwards on core battery tab. • Review analyses of cohesion and follow up recommendations. Where cohesion is listed as “need clinical judgment,” it will be necessary to determine if supplemental testing is needed to form a cohesive cluster. • Select subtests that require follow up and check appropriate boxes to transfer scores to CHC Analyzer for evaluation of composite. If available, manually enter supplemental subtest data for inclusion in evaluation of domain composites. • Evaluate broad ability domains and determine if data result in formation of composite scores for use in PSW-A. If not, consider supplemental testing.

17. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study DMIA recommends no follow up on any academic composites, however, further evaluation of Total Reading composite is recommended

18. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study • Grw-W – Writing ability falls within normal limits and does not appear to be an area of academic weakness • Grw-R – Reading decoding (SS=94) represents a narrow ability area of strength but Reading Comprehension and Fluency (SS=76) is a definite area of academic weakness

19. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study DMIA recommends follow up for PRI—not surprising since PRI is a Gf/Gv mixed index

20. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Use of clinical clusters indicates follow up recommendation for Gf and need for additional Gv subtest to create broad ability composite • The XBA DMIA v2.0 provides guidance regarding the cohesion of composite and cluster scores and whether follow up is necessary to bolster the measurement reliability and construct validity of the ability domain. • Scores can be easily transferred to the CHC Analyzer to evaluate the composition and interpretability of two to four scores within any given CHC broad ability domain.

21. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Use of clinical clusters indicates need for follow up (no composite formed) for Gf and need for additional Gv subtest to create broad ability composite

22. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study • For Gv – The WISC-IV Picture Completion subtest loads strongly on Gc, not just Gv. Thus, the WJ III Picture Recognition subtest makes better sense because it measures a different narrow (MV) ability and loads on only one broad ability (Gv). • For Gf – The WISC-IV Word Reasoning subtest is another measure of Induction and also loads strongly on Gc. Thus, the WJ III Analysis-Synthesis subtest makes better sense because it measures a different narrow (RG) ability and loads only one broad ability (Gf).

23. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study WISC-IV, WIAT-III, AND WJ III DATA FOR MAGDALENA WECHSLER INTELLIEGENCE SCALE FOR CHILDREN-IV Verbal Comprehension Index 76 Perceptual Reasoning Index 88 Working Memory Index 79 Vocabulary 5(75) Block Design 10(100) Letter-Number Seq. 6(75) Comprehension 7(85) Matrix Reasoning 8(90) Digit Span 7(85) Similarities 5(75) Picture Concepts 5(75) Processing Speed Index 94 Coding 9(95) Symbol Search 9(95) WECHSLER INDIVIDUAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST-III Basic Reading94 Reading Comprehension76Written Expression 92 Word Reading 92 Reading Comprehension 76 Spelling 100 Pseudoword Decoding 98 Oral Reading Fluency 80 Sentence Composition 86 Essay Composition 93 WOODCOCK JOHNSON-III TESTS OF COGNITIVE ABILITY Auditory Processing 92 LT Storage/Retrieval 67 Other Auditory Attention 92 Visual Auditory Learning 69 Picture Recognition 97 Sound Blending 94 Retrieval Fluency 74 Analysis-Synthesis 90

24. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Supplemental WJ III tests given for purposes of follow up now included in matrix

25. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Scores still not entirely explained by cultural and linguistic factors—indicates results continue to be valid and may be interpreted meaningfully

26. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study • Follow up for Gv indicates that performance resulted in a cohesive and valid cross-battery composite for Gv of 98 indicating that Visual Processing abilities are well within the average range. • Follow up for Gf indicates that performance on the WISC-IV Picture Concepts subtest appears to be an anomaly (perhaps due to the Gc content) and that a valid cross-battery composite for Gf can be formed between the other two subtests. This suggests that Fluid Reasoning ability is within the average range.

27. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study • Use of CHC Tab provides summary of broad ability composites for both cognitive and academic tests. • Data are now sufficient for the purposes of the PSW-A to evaluate SLD. • Use norm-based scores where available, use XBA composites as necessary. • Scores must be transferred to PSW-A by hand (sorry!).

28. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study General Steps for Using the XBA PSW-A in SLD Evaluations: • Enter required information, particularly grade. Move to g-Value data entry tab and enter a composite score for each of the seven broad ability domains and indicate if score represents “sufficient” ability for each domain. • Review g-Value and note whether additional information is needed to determine if it is indicative of average overall ability or not. If yes, continue to PSW-A data entry tab. • Enter required information on PSW-A data entry tab and make appropriate selections or accept default values. If an alternative to IA-e is desired, enter it here. For repeated analyses, select stricter probability level for analyses. • Review PSW-A tab. If data are missing, return to appropriate tab and enter data. When all data are entered, review pattern to determine if all criteria are met for indication of SLD. • Review recommendations and interpretive statements on PSW-A summary tab. Print summary pages as desired.

29. Enter actual/obtained Gc composite score as deemed appropriate from prior specified guidelines Step 1: Is the aggregate value for the “high/high” cell in the C-LIM within the selected difference band? (touches or exceeds the shaded area corresponding to the selected degree of difference range) YES NO Student is likely SLD, no further analyses necessary Indicate Gc ability as “sufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses Indicate Gc ability as “insufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses YES Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Step 2. Enter alternative IA-e score in PSW-A (e.g., nonverbal IQ/Index/Composite) and re-run PSW-A analyses YES Did the PSW-A indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? NO Step 3. Enter alternative Gc score that reflects minimum level of “average” ability, i.e., SS=90 and re-run analyses using IA-e Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Student is unlikely to be SLD and other possibilities should be considered, e.g., slow learner or intellectual disability as may be supported by additional evidence. Guidelines for Using PSW-A with ELLs Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

30. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Use of normative meaning (i.e., indicating that score is in the “not sufficient” range) for Gc will inappropriately attenuate g-Value for ELLs.

31. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Indicating Gc as “insufficient” for ELLs may result in a g-Value that will not permit further evaluation of SLD and unfairly suggests a lack of average overall ability

32. Nondiscriminatory Interpretation of Test Scores: A Case Study The Gc caveat for English Language Learners Because Gc is, by definition, comprised of cultural knowledge and language development, the influence of cultural and linguistic differences cannot be entirely separated from tests which are designed to measure culture and language. Thus, Gc scores for ELLs, even when determined to be valid, remain at risk for inequitable interpretation and evaluation. Much like academic tests of manifest skills, Gc scores do reflect the examinee’s current level of English language proficiency and acculturative knowledge. However, they do so as compared to native English speakers, not to other ELLs. This is discriminatory and comparison of Gc performance using a test’s actual norms remains unfair when assigning meaning to the value. It is necessary instead to ensure that both the magnitude and the interpretive “meaning“ assigned to the obtained value is done in the least biased manner possible to maintain equity. For example, interpretation of a Gc score of 76 for an ELL should be deemed “sufficient” because it falls within the expected range on the C-LIM when compared to other ELLs. Likewise, the magnitude of a Gc score of 76 is in the average range as compared to other ELLs as seen in the C-LIM. But such a score would become “deficient” relative to the norm sample where average scores are equal to 100. Thus, it may be necessary to use an alternative value to ensure that ELLs are not unfairly regarded as having either deficient Gc ability or significantly lower overall cognitive ability—conditions that may simultaneously decrease identification of SLD and increase suspicion of ID.

33. Nondiscriminatory Interpretation of Test Scores: A Case Study The Gc caveat for English Language Learners • To address these issues in as fair and equitable a manner as possible when using the PSW-A with ELLs, specific guidelines have been developed. These guidelines: • prevent the use of random, multiple analyses which would affect the rarity level in the PSW-A, • maintain the nature of the discrepancy comparisons consistent with theory and meaning of the composites, • provide a conservative and systematic mechanism for addressing fairness issues, and • limit the need for adjustments to a small and unique set of conditions. • The actual, obtained Gc score, regardless of magnitude or sufficiency, should always be reported, albeit with appropriate nondiscriminatory assignment of meaning, and used for the purposes of instructional planning and educational intervention.

34. Nondiscriminatory Interpretation of Test Scores: A Case Study Data Entry Guidelines for Using PSW-A with English Learners Procedural Steps for Nondiscriminatory Evaluation of SLD with PSW-A: • A declining pattern must NOT be evident in the C-LIM indicating no primary (only contributory) effect of culture and language; • The results have been deemed VALID via the C-LIM and may potentially support the presence of a disability; STEP 1: Enter the obtained standard score value for Gc and: • If the aggregate score in the "high/high" cell in the C-LIM does not touch and is below the shaded range in the graph, select "No" for Gc to indicate it is "not sufficient," or: • If the aggregate score in the "high/high" cell in the C-LIM touches or exceeds the shaded range in the graph, select "Yes" for Gc to indicate that it is "sufficient;“ • If the IA-e is calculated by the PSW-A (was SS > 85) and subsequent analysis with the PSW-A resulted in a pattern consistent with SLD, no further analyses are necessary; student is likely to be SLD. • If the IA-e is not calculated by the PSW-A (was SS < 85) and prevents further SLD analysis, move on to Step 2.

35. Enter actual/obtained Gc composite score as deemed appropriate from prior specified guidelines Step 1: Is the aggregate value for the “high/high” cell in the C-LIM within the selected difference band? (touches or exceeds the shaded area corresponding to the selected degree of difference range) YES NO Student is likely SLD, no further analyses necessary Indicate Gc ability as “sufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses Indicate Gc ability as “insufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses YES Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Step 2. Enter alternative IA-e score in PSW-A (e.g., nonverbal IQ/Index/Composite) and re-run PSW-A analyses YES Did the PSW-A indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? NO Step 3. Enter alternative Gc score that reflects minimum level of “average” ability, i.e., SS=90 and re-run analyses using IA-e Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Student is unlikely to be SLD and other possibilities should be considered, e.g., slow learner or intellectual disability as may be supported by additional evidence. Guidelines for Using PSW-A with ELLs Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

36. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Gc performance is slightly higher than the average score/range when compared to other English learners

37. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Use of actual SS with nondiscriminatory meaning provides less biased and fair interpretation of ability in area of Gc

38. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study The g-Value now reflects true and equitable estimate of overall cognitive ability and permits further evaluation of SLD.

39. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 1 However, for ELLs, even when Gc is determined to be “sufficient,” the IA-e may not be calculated because it remains below the minimum value of 85. In this case, it would be necessary to proceed directly to Step 2 since no further analysis of SLD can take place.

40. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 2 But in most cases, when Gc is determined to be “sufficient” and the actual value is used, the PSW-A will be able to calculate the IA-e which permits continuation of SLD evaluation. Most significant cognitive weakness entered first Related academic weakness entered here

41. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 2 In this case, data are not consistent with SLD pattern. However, this may be because the actual Gc score (SS=76) is attenuating the IA-e (SS=86). Further analysis should be conducted via Step 2 guidelines using an alternative IA-e score. If SLD was found at this point, no further analysis is necessary. Pattern of strengths and weaknesses not consistent with SLD

42. Enter actual/obtained Gc composite score as deemed appropriate from prior specified guidelines Step 1: Is the aggregate value for the “high/high” cell in the C-LIM within the selected difference band? (touches or exceeds the shaded area corresponding to the selected degree of difference range) YES NO Student is likely SLD, no further analyses necessary Indicate Gc ability as “sufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses Indicate Gc ability as “insufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses YES Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Step 2. Enter alternative IA-e score in PSW-A (e.g., nonverbal IQ/Index/Composite) and re-run PSW-A analyses YES Did the PSW-A indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? NO Step 3. Enter alternative Gc score that reflects minimum level of “average” ability, i.e., SS=90 and re-run analyses using IA-e Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Student is unlikely to be SLD and other possibilities should be considered, e.g., slow learner or intellectual disability as may be supported by additional evidence. Guidelines for Using PSW-A with ELLs Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

43. Nondiscriminatory Interpretation of Test Scores: A Case Study Data Entry Guidelines for Using PSW-A with English Learners Procedural Steps for Nondiscriminatory Evaluation of SLD with PSW-A: • A declining pattern is NOT be evident in the C-LIM indicating no primary (only contributory) effect of culture and language; • The results have been deemed VALID via the C-LIM and may potentially support the presence of a disability; • The IA-e was not calculated in Step 1 by the PSW-A (was SS < 85) and prevented further SLD analysis; STEP 2: Enter an alternative index or composite score (e.g., nonverbal) that best reflects overall ability, is SS > 85, and that is not affected by or relies on Gc ability and: • If subsequent analysis with the PSW-A resulted in a pattern consistent with SLD, no further analyses are necessary; student is likely SLD. • If subsequent analysis with the PSW-A did NOT result in a pattern consistent with SLD, and there is other evidence to support it, move on to Step 3.

44. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 1 Step 2: Use an alternative score that may be less affected by or doesn’t include Gc ability (e.g., a nonverbal index or composite). Entry of an alternate score will enable program to conduct calculations and analyses even when IA-e is not calculated. Minimum value for alternative score is SS>85

45. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 1 In this case, data are consistent with SLD pattern. Use of fairer estimate of overall ability demonstrates differences necessary to establish SLD. No further analyses required.

46. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 2 Step 2: If the alternative score is within the low average range, it may still provide an underestimate of true ability, particularly because the highest g-loaded ability (i.e., Gc) is not factored in. Minimum value for alternative score is SS>85

47. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study – Scenario 2 In this case, data are not consistent with SLD pattern possibly because the removal of Gc takes away the most important ability related to cognitive and academic functioning and does not provide a fair estimate of overall general ability. Further analysis should be conducted via Step 3 guidelines using an alternative Gc value. If SLD was found at this point, no further analysis is necessary. Pattern of strengths and weaknesses still not consistent with SLD

48. Enter actual/obtained Gc composite score as deemed appropriate from prior specified guidelines Step 1: Is the aggregate value for the “high/high” cell in the C-LIM within the selected difference band? (touches or exceeds the shaded area corresponding to the selected degree of difference range) YES NO Student is likely SLD, no further analyses necessary Indicate Gc ability as “sufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses Indicate Gc ability as “insufficient,” and conduct PSW analyses YES Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Step 2. Enter alternative IA-e score in PSW-A (e.g., nonverbal IQ/Index/Composite) and re-run PSW-A analyses YES Did the PSW-A indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? NO Step 3. Enter alternative Gc score that reflects minimum level of “average” ability, i.e., SS=90 and re-run analyses using IA-e Did the PSW-A Summary indicate a pattern consistent with SLD? YES YES Was the IA-e calculated by the PSW-A (SS > 85)? NO NO Student is unlikely to be SLD and other possibilities should be considered, e.g., slow learner or intellectual disability as may be supported by additional evidence. Guidelines for Using PSW-A with ELLs Step 1 Step 2 Step 3

49. Nondiscriminatory Interpretation of Test Scores: A Case Study Data Entry Guidelines for Using PSW-A with English Learners Procedural Steps for Nondiscriminatory Evaluation of SLD with PSW-A: • A declining pattern is NOT be evident in the C-LIM indicating no primary (only contributory) effect of culture and language; • The results have been deemed VALID via the C-LIM and may potentially support the presence of a disability; • The IA-e was not calculated in Step 1 by the PSW-A (was SS < 85) and prevented further SLD analysis; • Use of an alternative score (e.g., nonverbal index) resulted in a pattern of strengths and weaknesses that were not consistent with SLD; STEP 3: Enter an alternative, less biased score for Gc that reflects equitable meaning regarding relative performance and indicates minimum level of average ability (e.g., SS > 90), remove alternative nonverbal score from Step 2 (i.e., allow program to calculate the IA-e) and: • If the IA-e was not calculated by the PSW-A (was SS < 85) and prevented further SLD analysis, student is unlikely to be SLD. • If the IA-e was calculated by the PSW-A (was SS > 85) and subsequent analysis with the PSW-A resulted in a pattern consistent with SLD, student is likely SLD. • If the IA-e was calculated by the PSW-A (was SS > 85) and subsequent analysis with the PSW-A did NOT result in a pattern consistent with SLD, student is unlikely to be SLD.

50. Using the XBA Software in SLD Identification: A Case Study Step 3: Enter an alternative value for Gc that corresponds to the minimum score necessary for establishing average or better ability (i.e., SS=90). Conduct further analyses with this value but note that its use is limited to the PSW-A only in accordance with these guidelines and that the actual composite or index score for Gc should be used for evaluation of instructional intervention and current levels of performance.