Issues in Evaluation

1. Issues in Evaluation Gail M. Cheramie, Ph.D., UHCL Region 4 Summer Institute June 15, 2010

2. FIE • You are conducting a Full and Individual Evaluation (FIE) not just an evaluation for a specific disability category; FIEs must be comprehensive enough to evaluate all areas of suspected disability • There is a difference between purposes and outcomes of evaluation • Purposes: describe present levels of functioning across several domains; identify strengths and weaknesses; make recommendations for intervention that would lead to improvement in the areas identified as weak/problematic • Outcomes: Diagnostic classification; Program/Intervention determination; Placement

3. Two Major Identification Issues • Methods of identification based on rule changes in IDEIA, 2004 have affected two major educational classifications: • Mental Retardation • American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities (AAIDD) - renaming MR to Intellectual Disability; new Adaptive Scale to come out this year – Diagnostic Adaptive Behavior Scale (DABS) • Learning Disability

4. Mental Retardation • Significantly subaverage intellectual functioning • Measured by standardized, individually administered test of cognitive ability • Overall test score is at least two standard deviations below the mean, when taking into consideration the standard error of measurement of the test • Overall cognitive score has to be at least 70, considering SEm. • If test has SEm of 4 or 5, could have overall score of 74 or 75 and be MR

5. Mental Retardation • Concurrently exhibits deficits in at least two of the following areas of adaptive behavior • Communication, Self-Care, Home Living • Social/Interpersonal Skills • Use of Community Resources, Self-Direction • Functional Academic Skills • Work, Leisure, Health, and Safety • No specific score noted in law about adaptive behavior. • Deficit? Defined by age expectations • Moderately Low or Low?

6. Cognitive Abilities and MR • Bergeron, R. & Floyd, R. G. (2006). American Journal on Mental Retardation, Vol. 111, No. 6, pp. 417-432. • Severe deficit in intellectual ability has been the pathognomonic sign of MR = overall “g” • Views have changed and tests have changed with focus on different facets of intelligence • Intelligence is a complex system, but not all parts equally important to overall system functioning (Parts=Broad and Narrow; System=General IQ)

7. Cognitive Abilities and MR • Degree to which an impaired cognitive ability lowers the functioning of the whole system depends on the affected ability’s centrality (relative importance to overall system functioning) • Assumption - flat profiles (minimal variability), but now that tests have expanded to include more broad and narrow abilities, MR profiles show variability

8. Cognitive Abilities and MR • As a group, MR lower scores on all CHC factors • In Bergeron & Floyd study, Means: Gc=62.2 Glr=59.1 Gv=79.6 Ga=77.5 Gf=63.2 Gs=63.9 Gsm=66.2 GIA=54.8 • MR arises from one or more impaired cognitive abilities with high centrality that lower the functioning of the whole system • Children with MR will not likely display a flat cognitive profile on comprehensive assessments of cognitive abilities, especially when measures vary in g loadings (e.g., Gc=.76, Gf=.78, Gv=.46)

9. Cognitive Abilities and MR • Increasing number of specific cognitive abilities measured by IQ tests and variation of scores muddies the waters of MR diagnosis • If IQ in diagnostic range and part scores higher, this does not mean that MR cannot be diagnosed • Consider MR from a systems perspective - describe the interrelated specific cognitive abilities and their contribution to overall system functioning

10. Issues • Adding MR to other disability classifications (e.g., AU, OHI) • MR for students under 6 • Type of test • Reliability & Validity & Basals • NCEC • Cross-Battery ≠ MR • RtI ≠ MR

11. Recap - MR

12. CASE STUDY

13. Learning Disability • Data that shows appropriate instruction and data-based documentation of progress • Does not achieve adequately for age or meet state-approved grade-level standards • Does not make sufficient progress …response to scientific, research-based intervention… • Exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both relative to age, grade-level standards, or intellectual ability …

14. Integrated Model: RtI + Processing 4 questions that will guide the accumulation of data to make the categorical decision: Is there a normative deficit in academic achievement? (this includes RtI data) Is there a pattern of cognitive strengths and weaknesses? Is there a relationship between the cognitive deficits and academic deficits? Is there evidence of functional impairment? Must consider all rule-outs including other disability categories Global general ability scores (FSIQ, GIA) not necessary for this model

15. Considerations for Final Conclusion • In the end, the determination of LD is professional judgment and the data accumulated will support/provide evidence for it, so must consider all rule-outs (e.g., language proficiency, lack of educational opportunity, another disability?) • Remember, LD can be comorbid with other classifications except MR.

16. Remember 3 Things • All G’s are involved in all learning – the extent to which each is involved will differ based on what is required for learning • Some G’s are more central and affect learning across all academic areas (e.g., Gc, Gf) • Within each G, specific narrow abilities are more directly related to specific academic skills – these narrow abilities need to be measured for LD patterns

17. Cheramie’s Issues - Flanagan’s Responses (11/09) • All G’s relate to all academic areas, so conceivably if Gc low, can be LD in anything… • “most of the research on the relationship between ability and achievement is at the narrow ability level” • Not all G’s are created equally; if Ga has different narrows, they may not be the narrows associated with the area of deficit • “We carefully select narrow ability measures based on the specific referral concerns for diagnostic purposes”

18. Cheramie’s Issues – Flanagan’s Reponses (11/09) • Cannot blindly accept a cluster average (example 83, 86, & 98 – program throws out 83, but clearly 83 & 86 closer than 98) • “limitation of interpretive guidelines…example clearly shows the need for clinical judgment” • List in cross-battery book just identifies reading, writing and math in general • “we are now working on…extensive and systematic review of the literature that will be organized according to the eight areas of SLD”

19. XBA in Perspective (Flanagan, et. al., December 2009) • www.crossbattery.com – under Downloads, Supplemental Files • XBA=used to measure range of cognitive and academic capabilities comprehensively; not a diagnostic method for SLD or any other ability-related educationally handicapping condition • When assessing for broad constructs, the specific narrow abilities that make them up are not necessarily of considerable importance; assume any combination of narrows that are qualitatively different if similar would represent the broad

20. XBA in Perspective (Flanagan, et. al., December 2009) • Narrow abilities represent greater specialization; certain circumstances under which greater focus on narrow abilities is warranted – e.g., memory, SLD • Narrow abilities should also be represented by at least two subtests; most IQ batteries do not contain multiple measures of the same narrow abilities, the cross-battery is approach is often necessary to measure narrow abilities adequately

21. XBA in Perspective (Flanagan, et. al., December 2009) • In XBA, outliers are not ignored and are always reported; they are either explained or other data are gathered to understand performance; when two or more measures do not converge as expected, an explanation or follow-up assessment is warranted • XBA guidelines should not be applied rigidly; should not be used as rigid cutoffs for diagnosis/classification purposes

22. Conducting the Evaluation • Goal is to select the most appropriate measures and be comprehensive and efficient • Step 1 starts with a thorough evaluation of the academic skill areas – Review of referral information, review of cumulative records, teacher and parent interviews, data on academic performance, intervention data, and achievement tests – this will determine the area(s) of suspected disability and if LD is suspected, then the most likely academic area for LD

23. Conducting the Evaluation • Step 2 involves selecting the cognitive battery/tests. Remember: • Do not want to use too many measures as you are adding variance • Need to measure the appropriate narrow abilities • Also may need to measure constructs such as executive function, orthographic processing, etc. • Select a core battery and the relevant tests to give and then supplement appropriately

24. Conducting the Evaluation • Step 3 involves relating the pattern of cognitive weaknesses to the academic deficit. This step will likely be done if you selected appropriately in Step 2; however, this step may involve supplementing the data collected (e.g., narrow abilities converge to = reliable weakness) • Step 4 – consider degree of impairment (concept of centrality may be important here if multiple areas affected but not MR) and ability to meet grade-level standards

25. CASE STUDY

26. LD Due Process Cases • Student v. Conroe ISD (2009) • TEA Docket #: 104-SE-0109 • Student v. Northwest ISD (2009) • TEA Docket #: 057-SE-1108

27. Northwest ISD • Student attended a private school • 2001 – NWISD conducted a comprehensive assessment at parent request; found not eligible so student remained at private school • Student enrolls in NWISD; Assessed for Dyslexia and met criteria; Began receiving services through 504 in 2nd grade • 2003 – Student diagnosed ADHD by physician and on medication

28. Northwest ISD • Student remained 504 eligible and had an Accommodation Plan; Passed TAKS in reading and math; failed writing in 4th grade • 2007 – several 504 meetings held to address concerns: poor spelling, not turning in or completing assignments. Student referred for FIE • FIE was prepared by a multidisciplinary team (Ed. Diag., 2 reg. ed. teachers, 1 spec. ed. teacher)

29. Northwest ISD • The processing model is now considered to be the “best practice” in evaluating for learning disabilities. • FIE addressed all 7 areas of the CHC model; reviewed diagnostic clusters of phonemic awareness, working memory, and cognitive fluency, considered achievement, and collected a broad variety of data from multiple sources.

30. Northwest ISD • Processing Speed – only deficit. Did not correlate with an academic weakness. Processing Speed deficits correlate with ADHD. Academic weaknesses – spelling, reading fluency. • Conclusion of FIE – not LD • ARD – 2008 –OHI for ADHD and IEP proposed to address needs; accommodations; Content Mastery

31. Northwest ISD • ARD ended in disagreement. Parent requested funding for private placement. District refused. Student withdrawn in Jan. 2008. • Private School uses “Schools Attuned Concepts” based on peer-reviewed research and strategies based on neurodevelopment and how learning occurs. A learning differentiated program. Class size of 12. Most kids are LD.

32. Northwest ISD • Private Evaluation by an Educ. Diag. was conducted in 2007, concurrently with FIE being done in NWISD. • Conclusions-LD based on dyslexia, dysgraphia, and a processing speed deficit. The private evaluation used the discrepancy model. • Student remains at private school. Teachers report many of the same concerns (attention, finishing and turning in assignments on time)

33. Northwest ISD • Was the 2007 FIE appropriate? • Listed IDEA requirements for evaluation. Found that the FIE met these requirements. • Should Student have been identified as LD? • Presents current LD definition. Student was meeting age and grade-level standards. Used processing model and processing speed deficit did not correlate with an academic area (written expression).

34. Northwest ISD • Petitioner’s expert used the discrepancy model in reaching an opposite conclusion. The credible evidence support the conclusion that …while still acceptable [discrepancy model] is no longer the state’s preferred criteria for determining a learning disability. Instead the “best practice” is the use of the psychological processes model. Because the school district used the … psychological processes model in reaching it’s conclusion…Petitioner did not reach burden of proving that student should have been identified…with a specific learning disability in written expression.