情报和智商测试课件

,Click to edit Master title style,Click to edit Master text styles,Second level,Third level,Fourth level,Fifth level,*,IDEIA, SLD, RTI, and Cognitive Assessment,Jack A. Naglieri, Ph.D.,Professor of Psychology,Center for Cognitive Development,School Psychology Program Director,George Mason University,Fairfax, VA 22030,:/,1,IDEA Reauthorization,Topical outline,IDEIA and forthcoming regulations,A look at the Law,Response to intervention,Local comparison groups,Measurement of improvement,Research and reviews,A cognitive approach to assessment,Connecting LD definition with assessment of “basic psychological processes,2,IDEA Reauthorization,Topical outline,IDEIA and forthcoming regulations,A look at the Law,Response to intervention,Local comparison groups,Measurement of improvement,Research and reviews,A cognitive approach to assessment,Connecting LD definition with assessment of “basic psychological processes,3,IDEIA 2004 Law,Individuals with Disabilities,Education Improvement Act of 2004,4,IDEA Reauthorization,The IDEIA and the,No Child Left Behind Act,have encouraged a reexamination of how school psychologists function,There have been many meetings of researchers, practitioners, and professional organizations and articles written which discuss how to improve the system, especially for LD diagnosis,5,IDEA Reauthorization,Reexamination of,the role of the school psychologists is good for the evolution of the field,how to improve diagnosis of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) is particularly important,how to reduce over-representation of minority children in special education is also needed,6,IDEIA,What are some of the details of the new Law?,7,IDEIA 2004 Law,RTI may be used AS A PART of the evaluation but not as sole method,IQ achievement discrepancy no longer required,8,IDEIA 2004 Law,“use a variety of assessment tools,“not use any single procedure,“assess cognitive factors,9,IDEIA 2004 Law,non discriminatory assessments,valid and reliable assessment,10,IDEIA Law Summary,Ability achievement discrepancy is no longer required (not disallowed),A variety of assessment tools required,The use of any single measure or assessment as the sole criterion for determining SLD is,not permitted,Assessments must not be discriminatory on racial or cultural basis,Definition of SLD remains,11,IDEIA 2004 Law,Definition of SLD remains the same,12,SLD Definition in Both Bills,The definition of SLD has not changed,“The term specific learning disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.,13,Reactions to IDEIA,Anticipation of the Regulations that follow,14,15,Align the definition of SLD with the classification criteria,Replace discrepancy with pattern of strengths and weaknesses and cognitive abilities impacting achievement,16,17,18,SLD & Cognitive Processing,Connecting the dots,19,Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004),20,Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004),The definition of SLD is,“ a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.,Neither the discrepancy model or RTI evaluates basic psychology processes,21,Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004),The method of RTI is disconnected from the definition of SLD,“Establishing a disorder in the basic psychology processes is essential for determining SLD,Practitioners have ignored this approach because of limited availability of good measures of processing,Times have changed,22,Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004),Processing measures of today are very different than those of the 1970s,Tests that we specifically developed to measure basic psychological processes should be used,Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children 2,nd,Edition,Cognitive Assessment System,23,Hale, Naglieri, Kaufman, & Kavale (2004),Defining intelligence as processing,leads to smaller race and ethnic differences than traditional IQ tests,Yields excellent prediction to achievement,Provides sensitivity to the cognitive disorders seen in many exceptional children,Has demonstrated relationships to intervention,Naglieri, J. A. (2003). Current advances in assessment and intervention for children with learning disabilities. In T. E. Scruggs and M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.),Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities Volume 16: Identification and assessment (pp. 163-190). New York: JAI.,24,What is Next?,Current status as of March 2005,Regulations which are interpretations of the law are being written,Input on the regulations was due by Feb 28, 2005,We need to learn about the strengths and weakness of the options,RTI which may be included,Assessment of basic psychological processes which needs to be assessed,25,IDEA Reauthorization,Topical outline,IDEIA and forthcoming regulations,A look at the Law,Response to intervention,Local comparison groups,Measurement of improvement,Research and reviews,A cognitive approach to assessment,Connecting LD definition with assessment of “basic psychological processes,26,Alternatives to ability achievement discrepancy,Response to Intervention,27,IDEA Reauthorization,Topical outline,IDEA reauthorization,The problem of LD identification,Response to intervention,Local comparison groups,Measurement of improvement,A cognitive approach to assessment,28,RTI Advocates Argue,The current system is,focused on eligibility not instruction,Many LD students had bad instruction,not a valid way to identify LD,a “wait-to-fail model,Focused on the ATI concept,Assessment of processing is psychometrically suspect and largely irrelevant to the identification of LD,Eligibility process is expensive,Not working because teams ignore established classification criteria,Gresham, F.M. (2001). Response to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities, White paper presented for the Learning Disabilities Summit, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education, August, 2001.,29,Response to Intervention and SLD,A summary of the method and researchers response to RTI,30,Kovaleski & Prasse (2004),The dual discrepancy format for SLD identification,Part 1: Low academic performance,Part 2: Poor response to appropriate instruction,31,Kovaleski & Prasse (2004) Part 1,Low academic performance,The student must be significantly below same-grade peers,Shinn (2002) notes that a 2.0 grade level discrepancy is a typical index that identifies a significant academic deficiency,This is based on a discrepancy from grade-level performance without reference to an assessment of the students ability level (i.e., IQ),32,Assessing Academic Performance,Low academic performance (continued),BUT Shinns 2.0 grade level discrepancy is also a “wait to fail model because you cant be behind by two years until you are in at least second grade,BUTThe grade equivalent method has many well known psychometric problems,ANDdifferences in curriculum can influence who is behind,33,Kovaleski & Prasse (2004) Part 1,Low academic performance (continued),Advocates argue for RTI as a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) approach,Reading fluency is overemphasized,The students discrepancy is determined in relation to classmates by comparing the performance on CBM measures with,norms from the students school or school district,34,Assessing Academic Performance,Local Norms,Advantage,Local norms are good at telling where the child is in relation to the smallest comparison group the childs classroom,Disadvantage,Local norms only tell where the child is in relation to the smallest comparison group the childs classroom,Change the classroom and the score changes,Change the school and the score changes,35,The Problem with Local Norms,Fairfax County Schools,36,Fairfax County Elementary,Reading scores were obtained for all 69 elementary schools in Fairfax County Public Schools,The schools were ranked on reading scores,The 10,th, 35,th, and 59,th,ranked schools were selected,School based standard scores were computed,Reading score standard score (mean 100, SD of 15) were computed and compared across schools,37,The same Reading score of 55 yields a standard score of 112 (above average) for a child in Herndon Elementary School but a score of 92 (average) in Columbia Elementary School and a score of 84 (well below average) in Flint Hill Elementary School.,38,Local Norms for Inner City Schools,Scores based on a national norm group indicate these children are low,39,Local Norms for Inner City Schools,Standard scores based on a national norm group indicate these children are low,Standard scores based on local mean,falsely,describe half the children with national scores below 85 as OK,40,Local Norms,How effective is a local norm?,It calibrates a child based on a comparison to the classroom, school, or school district,Is it consistent across classrooms?,By definition NO,Is it consistent across schools?,By definition NO,Is it consistent across districts?,By definition NO,Local norms provide an,inconsistent,unit of measurement,41,Fairfax County Elementary,Conclusions on Local Norms,Local norms are useful to determine how the child compares to the rest of the class and for instructional planning,A wide variety can exist between schools in the same school district,A child may be “failing in one class but doing “well in another,Determining SLD on local norms will yield considerable inequities especially for minority groups,42,Kovaleski & Prasse (2004) Part 2,Poor response to appropriate instruction,The student performs poorly to carefully planned and precisely delivered instruction,The data are developed through ongoing progress monitoring on a critical academic measure during the course of an individually designed intervention,The use of CBM as an ongoing performance measure (usually through data collected twice per week) is recommended,43,Does an increase in counts mean improvement is real?,Good news can be relative,44,Rates of Improvement,An Achievement Example,45,Rates of Improvement,Vocabulary Growth,Meaning vocabulary growth average increase is 2,500 words per year (McCormick, 1998),A child needs to learn about 2,500 words per year to keep up with peers,But a child can learn more words every year and still fall behind,46,Rates of Improvement-Vocabulary,47,Improvement or Deterioration?,50% increase in number of words per year expressed as standard scores in relation to normal growth rate,50% increase in number of words learned per year,48,Rates of Improvement,Visual examination of changes in rate are only sufficient to demonstrate change from baseline,Changes over time are helpful for instructional decisions,Aim lines based on local norms are misleading,49,Conclusions Regarding Kovaleski & Prasse (2004),The dual discrepancy format: Low academic performance and Poor response to instruction,50,Conclusions on Dual Discrepancy,Changes over time do not necessarily mean the child has reached a level that is consistent with normative expectations,Competency levels can be set so low, and “improvement defined by such small steps, that apparent improvement may be better described as showing Illusory Validity,51,Conclusions on Dual Discrepancy,RTI may be a reasonable way to find children who are doing poorly in class,RTI problems,Local norms do not provide consistency,Increases in performance can be misleading,52,What do Researchers say about RTI?,Advantages, disadvantages, claims, and inconsistencies,53,NRCLD Conference on RTI (Dec 03),54,RTI Conference Vellutino (2003),RTI Advocates have argued that IQ scores are unrelated to childrens response to intervention,Therefore IQ tests are irrelevant,Vellutino especially has made this claim and provided a report of his research,55,Full Scale IQ scores (Vellutino),Effect Size = .6,FSIQ,56,Full Scale IQ scores,Wechsler FSIQ,From: Case, Speece,& Molly (2004). Validity of Response to Intervention.School Psychology Review, 32,557-582.,Effect size = 1.0,57,RTI Conference - Vaughn,Sharon Vaughn described a study of the 3 Tier model,Reading fluency was measured,From K to 3,rd,grade, 20% of the children did not benefit from intervention they are considered SLD,School psychologist were not included at any level,It took,THREE YEARS,to identify these children,Wait to fail !,The study identified,20% of the sample,That is a large percentage of the sample,Conclusion: the hope that RTI offers faster identification of LD and reduces the numbers of children found was not achieved,58,RTI Conference - Gerber,Michael Gerber,- The costs of RTI,He estimated that the cost for TRI for grades K-3 for the first year of a national scale implementation was $2,033,228,291,The 2003 Federal Appropriations for NCLB (Title II, Part A) is $1,780,825,000,The cost is $252,403,291 more than the allocation!,59,RTI Conference - Kavale,Success is not well defined in the RTI model,Increases in rate of learning alone are not sufficient,There are not clear definitions or cut scores to indicate failure to respond to intervention,RTI is a good first step,SLD is more than just reading failure but RTI has been limited to reading fluency,60,RTI Conference - Kavale,The definition of LD has been ignored,There is no connection between the definition of SLD and the method of RTI,RTI is not sufficient for identification of LD,“a formal evaluation is absolutely necessary or inappropriate conclusions may be reached because reading failure can be caused by depression, emotional / behavioral disorders, anxiety disorders, ADHD, etc.,61,RTI Conference,- Scruggs (2003),R,TI reading interventions should be used in general education to assure high-quality instruction and provide alternatives to special education placement,LD identification should be accomplished on the basis of strict adherence to criteria for identification which as commonly known, has not been followed in many parts of the country,62,RTI Conference - Mastropieri,The RTI model is too focused on reading decoding and ignores other areas such as reading comprehension, math, science, etc.,Implementation of RTI at middle and high school levels seems unlikely,This is particularly important given the number of students who are currently identified at the middle and early high school level,63,RTI Conference - Mastropieri,The RTI movement is an attempt to change regular education,Earlier attempts to change regular education emanating from special education have failed,RTI is too limited to meet the diverse needs of SLD children,SLD is more than reading decoding or reading fluency,Too much emphasis on phonics,64,RTI Conference - Mastropieri,She asked “Where is the solid research base providing scientific evidence for optimal instructional methods and materials across all grade levels and all curriculum levels?,The reading methods are described as “scientifically based but where is the science?,65,Research on RTI,Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P, & Young, C. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications fro the learning Disabilities Construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171.,66,Fuchs, et al., (2003),Ohios Intervention Based Assessment,IBA combines a behavioral problem-solving approach with collaborative consultation,Behavioral definition of the problem,Baseline data are collected,Behavioral definition of the problem,Goals are set,Intervention plan implemented,Compare student to baseline,67,Fuchs, et al., (2003),Telzrow,et al., 2000 evaluated the IBA program,329 schools were involved,“The present study suggests that reliable implementation of problem solving approaches in schools remains elusive,They did not find evidence of reliable and consistent implementation,68,Fuchs, et al., (2003),Pennsylvanias Instructional Support Teams (IST),Collaborative problem solving that provides prereferral intervention like Ohio,Composition of team is a little different,IST uses curriculum-based assessment,Baseline, a goal is set, intervention planned,50 day limit,If no success, multidisciplinary evaluation possible,69,Fuchs, et al., (2003),Pennsylvanias Instructional Support Teams (IST),Kovaleski et al., (1999) studied the impact of IST and found the students showed better progress than students in non-IST schools,But, according to Fuchs “time on task and task completion and comprehension are only indirect academic measures (p. 162),70,Fuchs, et al., (2003),Heartland (Iowa) and Minneapolis four level model,Teacher and parents try to fix problem,Teacher and Building Assistance Team select, implement, & monitor intervention,Behavioral problem solving used to refine or redesign the intervention,Special educational assistance is considered,71,Fuchs, et al., (2003),“Although the Minneapolis Public Schools (2001) report that, “The problem-solving model has undergone considerable evaluation we found few published or unpublished evaluations; none in peer-reviewed journals.,The report described school wide reading gainsbut no data were presented,72,Fuchs, et al., (2003),CONCLUSION #1,Evaluations of collaborative problem solving “have generally failed to produce persuasive evidence that classroom-based interventions (1) are implemented with fidelity and (2) strengthen students academic achievement or improve classroom behavior (p. 163),73,Fuchs, et al., (2003),CONCLUSIONS #2 & 3,There is insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of RTI approaches in Ohio and Pennsylvania and especially in versions used in Heartland and Minneapolis (p. 166),“More troublingis that these largely untested procedures are the basis ofRTIwhich is being considered as a replacement for IQ-achievement discrepancy,74,Fuchs, et al., (2003),CONCLUSION #4,The absence of evidence weakens the assumption that RTI provides feasible, timely, and effective interventions (p. 166).,Proponents of RTI as an alternative means of LD identification must sill prove that their problem-solving approach is worthy of the descriptor “scientifically based (p. 167),75,RTI Pros and Cons,RTI may be a reasonable way to find children who are doing poorly in class,RTI problems,Local norms do not provide consistency,Increases in performance can be misleading,There is no evidence that RTI is effective for SLD identification,RTI is inconsistent with the definition of SLD,RTI is not well supported by research,76,Information from NASP,77,IDEA Reauthorization & RTI,Other issues,78,IDEA Reauthorization & LD,Assessment is defined as a process of gathering information from a variety of sources, using a variety of methods that best address the reason for evaluation.,79,IDEA Reauthorization & LD,Select assessment methods that include multiple sources of informationproceduresand settings,80,IDEA Reauthorization & LD,Not limited to any single methodology or theoretical framework,Comprehensive and address educational, cognitive, and mental health needs,Multidimensional,NASP endorses assessment practices that are:,81,IDEA Reauthorization & LD,All approaches to assessment are used in ways consistent with their scientific base,This includes norm and performance based, standardized and functional assessments; intelligence, cognitive processing, social-emotional, academic skills, etc,82,IDEA and Cognitive Assessment,Topical outline,IDEA reauthorization,The problem of LD identification,Response to intervention,Local comparison groups,M