Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Definition of Dyslexia Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia: Utilizing the Pearson Poor or Dyslexia Toolkit Dys Inadequate

TEDA Conference Dyslexia December 2019 Words or Lexis Language Anise Flowers, Ph.D. [email protected]

Dyslexia Identification

Symptoms Causes/Correlates

1 2 3 Phonological Lack of Processing Speed Pre-reader Reader Processing response to difficulties difficulties treatment Rapid Automatic Associative • Alphabet Writing • Word Reading/Decoding Naming Memory • Phonics/Letter Knowledge • Reading Fluency • Spelling Auditory Working Long-term Storage and Retrieval • Written Expression Memory • Reading Comprehension < Orthographic Listening Processing Comprehension

Dyslexia Identification Dyslexia Identification

Risk Factors Dyslexia Guidelines in Texas - 2018

• Family History

• Language Impairment/ Poor Receptive Vocabulary

Dyslexia Identification 6

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 1 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

TX Handbook: Dyslexia Difficulties Dyslexia or LD in Reading? . Students identified as having dyslexia typically Depends upon experience primary difficulties in phonological awareness, including phonemic awareness and • Where you live manipulation, single-word reading, reading fluency, • How the terms are defined and spelling. . Consequences may include difficulties in reading comprehension and/or written expression. . These difficulties in phonological awareness are unexpected for the student’s age and educational level and are not primarily the result of language difference factors. . Additionally, there is often a family history of similar difficulties. 8 7

History of Dyslexia Despite claims to the contrary, it is incontrovertible that there are many people •Dates back to 19th century as “word who struggle to learn to read (decode) for blindness” reasons other than poor teaching. While • “Dyslexia” first used in 1887 by an this condition is widely known as dyslexia, ophthalmologist achieving a clear, scientific, and consensual • Professionals now see dyslexia as understanding of this term has proven Language-based elusive. – But public still defines as a Visual The Dyslexia Debate problem Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014

9 10

UNEXPECTED?

• Definitions often include “unexpected poor The belief that those with dyslexia are high- performance” functioning poor readers, rather than those – Difficult to define unexpected who represent the full continuum of – Based on intelligence testing? Or failure to intellectual ability, has continued to persist respond to intervention? despite all evidence to the contrary. • Shaywitz says within a “sea of strengths” – But some poor readers have flat cognitive The Dyslexia Debate profiles Elliot & Grigorenko, 2014 – Certainly not everyone with dyslexia is gifted… • IQ does not appear to predict which poor readers will be successfully remediated

11 12

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 2 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

General Agreement on Cognitive Deficits in Dyslexia

• Importance of phonological awareness, • Primary: Phonological deficit especially in the early years • Also have been researched: • Importance of early intervention for reading difficulties –Rapid Naming – Working Memory • Instruction should be structured, comprehensive, and individualized – Auditory processing – Visual processing – Highest effect sizes for early intervention (1st grade) and smaller group sizes – Lack of evidence for visual/auditory training, visual-motor activities, vision therapy, tinted lenses, biofeedback, fatty acids

13 14

General Agreement on Dyslexia is often synonymous with

• Importance of phonological awareness, Reading Disability especially in the early years Reading Disorder • Importance of early intervention for Learning Disability in Reading reading difficulties Specific Reading Disability Specific Reading Difficulty • Instruction should be structured, comprehensive, and individualized Sometimes used to refer to a more specific – Highest effect sizes for early intervention (1st grade) and smaller group sizes group of poor decoders – Lack of evidence for visual/auditory training, visual-motor activities, vision therapy, tinted lenses, biofeedback, fatty acids

Facebook Survey of School Psychologists: Facebook Survey of School Psychologists: Tell me your thoughts on “Dyslexia” vs Tell me your thoughts on “Dyslexia” vs “SLD in Reading.” “SLD in Reading.”

DYSLEXIA VS SLD Same thing Medical term Different  I get so tired of the discussion of dyslexia vs. SLD vs. learning disability vs. Reading disability. #samething

 To me it's like saying hypertension vs. high blood pressure. Or broken bone vs fractured bone

17 18 40 Respondents

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 3 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

US DOE Oct 2015 US DOE Oct 2015

• https://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/id ea/memosdcltrs/guidance-on-dyslexia-10- • Under the IDEA and its implementing regulations 2015.pdf “specific learning disability” is defined, in part, as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding • The purpose of this letter is to clarify that or in using language, spoken or written, that may there is nothing in the IDEA that would manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do prohibit the use of the terms dyslexia, mathematical calculations, including conditions dyscalculia, and dysgraphia in IDEA such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, evaluation, eligibility determinations, or IEP minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and documents. developmental aphasia.” See 20 U.S.C. §1401(30) and 34 CFR §300.8(c)(10) (emphasis added).

Why is it more desirable to have dyslexia Qualifying for Special Education than a reading disability? 1. Student has an IDEA disability condition • Dyslexia is a meme 2. Student has a need for special education –Unit of cultural transmission and related services –Meme survives because it’s easy to understand, communicate & remember Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) = .Not because it is true, useful, or potentially adapting the content, methodology, or harmful delivery of instruction to address the unique needs of the student that result »The Dyslexia Debate from the disability

Phonological vs Orthographic Types of Reading Difficulties Processing • Phonological processing disorder and orthographic R = D X LC processing disorders refer to the particular brain processes at work in people who experience difficulty when they read. Strong Language Weak Language Comprehension Comprehension • An individual who has a phonological processing disorder will have difficulty Strong Word Typical Reader Hyperlexic Reading perceiving and manipulating the phonemes that would enable them to Weak Word Dyslexic or Mixed Reading “hear” the sounds of the words they Reading Compensator Difficulty read.*

• * Shaywitz, S. (2003) Overcoming Dyslexia: A new and complete science-based program for reading problems at any level. New York: Knopf • http://www.cullinaneducation.com/learningdifferences_Dyslexia.html

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 4 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Phonological vs Orthographic Learning Disorders Reading: Subtypes Processing • Orthographic processing involves 1. Phonological Dyslexia recognizing and remembering the spatial 2. Orthographic orientation and sequence of language symbols. When individuals with 3. Mixed Phonological-Orthographic orthographic processing disorders attempt to read, their brains have trouble perceiving 4. Language and/or processing the direction and 5. Comprehension deficit sequence of written language. 6. Fluency subtype

1. LD Reading Subtype: Phonological 2. LD Reading Subtype: Orthographic • Phonological is the core deficit • Have difficulty in using the visual-lexical route • Have difficulty mentally representing the to reading and writing words. sound patterns of the words in their • Instead, the phonological route to lexicon is language used – Causes great difficulty in using the phonological • Tend to sound words out letter by letter, over route to reading and spelling relying on sound-symbol relationships. • Over-rely on visual and orthographic cues • Pseudoword reading is typically better than while reading real word or exception word reading because • May memorize whole words as a strategy non-words are usually phonetically decodable for word recognition • Sometimes referred to as surface dyslexia, • Sometimes referred to as dysphonetic or visual form dyslexia or dyseidetic dyslexia phonological dyslexia.

3. LD Reading Subtype: Mixed 3. LD Reading Subtype: Mixed Phonological and Orthographic Phonological and Orthographic • More frequently occurring than either Phonological or Orthographic • Strong in Listening Comprehension • Causes great difficulty in using the phonological – Learn better with direct instruction and route to reading and spelling, as well as difficulty in experiential learning using the visual-lexical route to reading and writing • Mixed LD reading is manifested in words weaknesses in: • Causes severe impairment in learning to read – Phonological Processing – They have no usable key to the reading and –Decoding spelling code, and seemingly arbitrary error patterns are often observed. –Word Reading • Difficulty mentally representing sound patterns of – Reading Fluency, and words in language – Spelling

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 5 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

5. LD Reading Subtype: 4. LD Reading Subtype: Language Comprehension • Have problems with both Oral and Written • A specific comprehension deficit is sometimes language referred to as hyperlexia. • Referred to as Oral and Written Language • Hyperlexia can refer to Learning Disability (OWL-LD), – Students who exhibit poor language (Grammatical) Specific Language comprehension skills and exceptional word Impairment (SLI or G-SLI), or Language recognition and decoding skills OR Learning Disability (LLD) – Students with poor language comprehension and relatively good basic reading skills • Students with OWL-LD show particular • Have difficulty with listening comprehension and difficulty processing grammar and syntax. reading comprehension – Read accurately and fluently, but fail to grasp the meaning of what they have read

6. LD Reading Subtype: Reading Fluency Dyslexia Assessment Workflow • Students with poor reading fluency due to a naming speed deficit typically have adequate phonological processing skills • Able to read and decode words accurately, but they read connected text very slowly • Reading fluency deficits cannot be identified until word-reading skills are acquired; however, naming speed deficits may be identified earlier. • Specific deficits in naming speed have been shown to impede reading fluency.

TX Dyslexia Handbook 2018 Pearson Dyslexia Toolkit Suspicion of Dyslexia or a Related Disorder What type of instruction is needed?

 Standard protocol dyslexia instruction OR  Specially designed instruction under IDEA  defined under IDEA as “adapting . . . the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction”  Must address the unique needs of the child that result from the child’s disability and must ensure access to the general curriculum so that the child can meet the state’s educational standards (34 C.F.R §300.39(b)(3)).

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 6 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Referrals Two Types of Assessment from Sattler

Suspicion of  Focused = “detailed evaluation of a specific Dyslexia or a Evaluate under area of functioning Related Disorder IDEA AND the Need for  504 Evaluation (Dyslexia) Special Education Services =  Diagnostic = “detailed evaluation of a child’s strengths and weaknesses in several areas Suspicion of Evaluate under such as cognitive, academic, language, Dyslexia or a 504 behavioral, emotional and social functioning” Related Disorder =  Full Individual and Initial Evaluation (FIIE)

37 38

TX Dyslexia Handbook (unchanged) TX Dyslexia Handbook (unchanged) Areas for Assessment Areas for Assessment Academic Skills Possible Additional Areas  Letter knowledge (name and associated sound)  Vocabulary  Reading words in isolation  Listening comprehension  Decoding unfamiliar words accurately  Verbal expression  Reading fluency (both rate and accuracy are assessed)  Written expression  Reading comprehension  Handwriting  Spelling  Memory for letter or symbol sequences (orthographic processing) Cognitive Processes  Mathematical calculation/reasoning  Phonological/phonemic awareness  Phonological memory  Rapid naming of symbols or objects  Verbal working memory  Processing speed

39 40

Dyslexia Assessment Dyslexia Assessment

PAL-II Other WRMT-III KTEA-3 WIAT-III Phonological YCTOPP2 Phonological Y Y Y (within Early Awareness Awareness Reading Skills) Rapid Naming Y CTOPP2 Rapid Naming Y Y NO Letter Y Letter Yes Y (within Letter Y (within Early Knowledge Knowledge & Word ID and Reading Skills) qualitatively) Decoding Y Decoding Y Y Y Word NO Word YYY Recognition Recognition Fluency Y GORT-5 Fluency Y (passages) Y (sight words, Y (passages) TOWRE-2 nonsense words, silent) Spelling Y Spelling NO YY Reading Y GORT-5 Reading Y (sentences) Y Y Comprehension Comprehension

41 42

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 7 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Do you screen cognitive ability for 504 evaluations? What tests do you use?

Pearson Level B assessments:

504 KBIT-2 Person with a disability Ravens-2 LD under IDEA

8 Areas of Specific Approaches to Pattern of Strengths Learning Disability (SLD) and Weaknesses Analysis in IDEIA: • The “3 Major Models” • Basic Reading Skills (BRS) Most prominent research‐based • Reading Comprehension (RC) • Concordance‐discordance method (C‐DM; Hale • Reading Fluency (RF) & Fiorello) • Math Calculation (MC) • Discrepancy/consistency method (Naglieri) • Math Problem Solving (MPS) • Flanagan DD‐C Model for SLD • Written Expression (WE) . Also • Oral Expression (OE) . Dehn’s PSW model • Listening Comprehension (LC) . C‐SEP

KTEA3 OR WIATIII PSW Assessment Dyslexia Index Scores -Purposes

• Cognitive tests • Screening • Achievement tests Cognitive Strength • Results differentiate between individuals with and without dyslexia.

• Brief administration time & clinical sensitivity

• Identify which students require more frequent progress monitoring, more intensive instruction or intervention, or a comprehensive Cognitive Achievement psychoeducational evaluation. Weakness Weakness

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 8 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

KTEA3 Dyslexia Index scores Dyslexia Index Scores -Purposes

• Identify risk for dyslexia in Kdg – 12th grade or ages 5 through 25 • Evaluation • The KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index scores can serve as a • Obtain Dyslexia Index score in 20 minutes or starting point for a more comprehensive less psychoeducational test battery. • If the Dyslexia Index results suggest that further testing is necessary, administer the KTEA–3 • A single score such as the Dyslexia Index is Comprehensive Form not sufficient to diagnose dyslexia. Rather, a diagnosis of dyslexia is based on a • All standard scores from the Dyslexia Index convergence of evidence gathered from subtests can validly be applied to a more extensive multiple sources. assessment using the KTEA–3 Comprehensive

KTEA3 Dyslexia Index scores Predictors of Dyslexia: Early Grades Breaux, K. C., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2016). Essentials of KTEA– • Two Dyslexia Index scores are provided for the 3 and WIAT–III assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. KTEA–3: one for grades K–1, and another for • Best Diagnostic Predictors: grades 2–12

• Each of these Dyslexia Index scores are obtained • Letter knowledge (name/sound) by administering three subtests from either Form A • Rapid automatic naming or Form B of the KTEA–3 • Phonological awareness • The materials needed to administer and score the (Kirby, Parrila, & Pfeiffer, 2003; Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004) Dyslexia Index subtests are available as part of the KTEA–3 Comprehensive Form

KTEA3 Dyslexia Index scores Predictors: Later Grades Breaux & Lichtenberger (2016)

• Best Diagnostic Predictors: • Decoding fluency • Text reading fluency

Not measures of phonological awareness and rapid automatic naming

(Schatschneider & Torgesen, 2004).

53 54

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 9 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Dyslexia Index Score Interpretation

WIAT3 Dyslexia Index scores At-Risk KTEA3 Dyslexia Index scores Classification Accuracy

WIATIII Dyslexia Index scores Classification Accuracy

Dyslexia Index Scores: Features and Benefits

• Useful as a quick dyslexia screener that can also • Excellent reliabilities (.90s) at every age/grade contribute to a more in-depth subsequent evaluation • Strong clinical sensitivity using the KTEA-3 or WIAT-III (without re-administering • Administration times range from 12-20 minutes for those subtests) each score • Included in each of the Dyslexia Index Manuals: • Composite structures are based on clinical data as well • Dyslexia Index composite norms tables, reliability, as a strong empirical foundation and validity data • Results are easy to interpret: 6 categories of Risk for • Score Computation Form and Graphical Profile Dyslexia (ranging from very low to very high) (reproducible forms for hand scoring) • Manual provides recommendations for next steps • Interpretation guidance and recommendations for • Response Booklet pages for Spelling subtest (applies next steps to Grades 2-12+ scores) are included as reproducible • Manual can be found in Q-interactive or Digital forms Assessment Library

59 60

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 10 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

KTEA3 and Subtests/Composites Measuring Orthographic Recommended for Dyslexia Testing Processing • The KTEA-3 Orthographic Processing Composite (SP + KTEA-3: LNF + WRF) subtests involve processing orthographic Orthographic Processing Composite – Spelling, Word representations by retrieving them from LTM (Spelling) Recognition Fluency, and Letter Naming Facility or recognizing/naming them with automaticity (WRF+ LNF). Associational Fluency subtest • In this way, it involves both the receptive (reading) and expressive (spelling) components of orthographic Sound-Symbol Composite - Phonological Processing processing. and Nonsense Word Decoding

• The Orthographic Processing Composite score produced large effect sizes for the SLD and language disorder clinical groups.

Letter Checklist Directions

Letter Checklist

Letter Checklist Letter Checklist

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 11 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

5 New Subtests • Phonological awareness WIAT4 • Orthographic fluency Features • Decoding fluency WIAT4 & Dyslexia • Sentence writing fluency • Orthographic choice (Q‐i August 2020 only)

• Automated Scoring of Essay Composition • Dyslexia Index Scores in every kit!

Reading PAL-II Subtests Domain Subtest Process Assessment of the Learner Phonological Pseudoword Decoding Decoding Morphological Find the True Fixes Virginia Beringer, Ph.D. Decoding Morphological Decoding An integrated assessment Fluency Silent Reading Sentence Sense and intervention package Fluency

Writing Subtests Reading-RelatedSubtests Domain Subtest Domain Subtest

Handwriting Alphabet Writing Orthographic Coding Receptive Coding Expressive Coding Dysgraphia! Copying Task A Phonological Coding Rhyming Copying Task B Syllables Orthographic Spelling Word Choice Phonemes Narrative Compositional Compositional Fluency Rimes Fluency Morphological/Syntactic Coding Are They Related? Expository Note Taking and Expository Note Taking and Does It Fit? Report Writing Report Writing Sentence Structure Cross-Genre Compositional and Expository Writing Verbal Working Memory Letters Words Sentences: Listening

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 12 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Reading-Related Subtests (cont.) Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Domain Subtest RAN/RAS RAN–Letters • Available in Q‐Global with a KTEA3 or WIATIII subscription; or a DALS license RAN–Letter Groups • Evaluates patterns of performance that are RAN–Words consistent with research‐supported learning RAS–Words and Digits disability (LD) subtypes Oral Motor Planning • Summarizes how a child fits each subtype and Finger Sense provides recommendations for additional testing Finger Localization • Includes a description of intervention Finger Recognition characteristics & recommendations of research‐ supported instructional programs

Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Purpose: What it is and isn’t • • Provides targeted intervention suggestions based on research‐supported LD subtypes. • • Does not identify or diagnose SLD • Does not address difficulties attributed to SLD exclusionary criteria (e.g., sensory impairment, intellect. disability, ELL, emotional/behavioral issues

Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes

10 hallmark indicators: skills/abilities that define 7 reading‐related subtypes or differentiate between subtypes • Phonological • Orthographic Cognitive ability Phonological processing • Mixed Phonological‐Orthographic RAN Non‐word reading • Language (OWL‐LD, SLI, LLD) Orthographic coding Word recognition • Comprehension Spelling Reading comprehension • Fluency/Naming speed Listening comprehension Reading fluency • Global

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 13 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Step 1 5 ancillary indicators: skills/abilities that are used to tailor recommendations. Select the area(s) of intervention for the student: Handwriting legibility Auditory verbal WM ✓ Reading & speed {dysgraphia} Processing speed ✓ Spelling Verbal comprehension Perceptual reasoning & reasoning

Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Step 2 Step 3: Generate Report Determine the relative skills & abilities for Report components: Description of subtype Orthographic each of the hallmark and ancillary indicators Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Suggestions for Intervention • Indicate if the skill is a weakness or a strength General Approach • Consider 2 or more sources of information when Naming Speed {if RAN is a weakness, discuss as double‐deficit} rating each skill/ability Language Processing: Phonological Processing, Vocabulary Basic Reading • Enter additional data in the open fields Reading Comprehension Reading Fluency Spelling Handwriting {if handwriting legibility/speed is a weakness} Examples of Evidence‐Based Programs

Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes Intervention Guide: MEGHAN Essentials to remember

• The focus is intervention,Orthographic not diagnosis • The skill profile relies on judgment, not calculation • Interventions are not guaranteed, expect some trial‐and‐error

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 14 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Example Report: Meghan

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 15 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

Examples of Evidence‐based Programs Case Study – John Background Information • Currently: 12 years, 5 months, 6th grade • Preschool history of expressive & receptive language delays • In 4th grade, diagnosed with ADHD, Inattentive type and dysthymic disorder • Sixth grade teacher has concerns about academic performance in reading and writing

Developed in collaboration with Gail Cheramie, Ph.D.

Academic History

• John was identified as at-risk in both reading and writing at the end of 4th grade and placed in the FCI Fluid Fountas & Pinnell Leveled Literacy Intervention SS 93 Crystallized (LLI) program. Continued in the program through Index 5th grade, but made poor progress. • Currently his reading in DRA3 is at Level 30 and Overall, John demonstrates well‐ developed cognitive/intellectual ability, should be at Level 60. reasoning, and problem‐solving skills • John did not pass the STAAR in 4th and 5th grades. as indicated by the Fluid Crystallized Index standard score of 93 in the • John’s teacher indicates very poor reading average range. comprehension and he failed reading in 5th grade (report card grade=64).

KABC-II NU Scores Additional Tests

Scale Scaled Index Standard Score Score • Gs: WISCV PSI = 86 Number Recall 9 • Coding = 7 Word Recall 8 Sequential/Gsm 91 • Symbol Search = 8 Rover 12 Block Counting 7 Triangles 6 Simultaneous/Gv 97 • Ga: CTOPP-2 = 82 Atlantis 9 • Elision = 6 Rebus 9 Learning/Glr 94 • Blending words = 8 Story Completion 8 Pattern Reasoning 10 Planning/Gf 93 • Phoneme Isolation = 6 Verbal Knowledge 10 Riddles 9 Knowledge/Gc 97

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 16 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

KTEA-3: Achievement PSW-A Data Summary Standard Cluster/Test Composite Range Score*

Letter &Word Recognition 79 Below average

Reading Comprehension 80 Low average Reading Composite 79 Below Average

Written Expression 76 Below average

Spelling 74 Below average

Written Language Composite 75 Below average

Math Concepts and Applications 84 Low average

Math Computation 94 Average Math Composite 86 Low average

CONCLUSIONS PSW Analyses: LW Recognition

• All data converge to indicate that John displays a significant academic deficit in Basic Reading Skills. • John has several cognitive strengths including short-term memory (Gsm), long-term storage and retrieval (Glr), fluid reasoning (Gf), and crystallized knowledge (Gc). • He has specific weaknesses in visuospatial processing (Gv:Vz), phonetic coding (Ga:PC), and processing speed (Gs)

CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS

• John’s weakness in phonetic coding is directly • John’s overall level of intellectual ability falls related to his deficit in Basic Reading Skills. within the average range (KABC-II • The deficit in phonological processing reflects Composite=93; FCC=94), and his academic difficulty with the phonological skills of achievement in reading is unexpected. segmentation and manipulation of phonemes • The cognitive weakness is domain specific. (phonemic awareness). • John does meet the criteria for a learning • These deficits affect the acquisition of basic disability (LD) in Basic Reading Skills based on reading skills and lead to difficulties in decoding this pattern of strengths of weaknesses. unfamiliar words and recalling sound-symbol associations for letter patterns. • BUT WHAT IF WE WANT TO ADDRESS • John’s spelling skills are also affected by this DYSLEXIA? deficit.

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 17 Unraveling the Mystery of Dyslexia 11/14/2019 TEDA December 2019

KTEA-3: Achievement Dyslexia Assessment Areas

Standard  Letter knowledge Cluster/Test Composite Range Score*  Direct measurement of this skill was not performed. John knows Phonological Processing 81 Low average all letters and associated sounds. Such items are included at the Nonsense Word Decoding 68 Average onset of subtests, and John’s basal was above this level. Listening Comprehension 83 Low average  Reading words in isolation Letter Naming Facility 86 Below average  Decoding unfamiliar words accurately  KTEA‐3 Letter & Word Recognition=79, Nonsense Word Sound Symbol 71 Below average Decoding=68. Low to low average standard scores indicate Decoding 72 Below average significant difficulties in word decoding (Decoding High Risk for Dyslexia Index Score 71 Dyslexia Composite=72).  Reading fluency (both rate and accuracy are assessed)  WIATIII Oral Reading Fluency = 79

104

Dyslexia Assessment Areas John & Dyslexia

 Reading comprehension John demonstrates the primary academic skill  KTEA‐3 Reading Comprehension=80. John’s comprehension was characteristics of dyslexia: Difficulty reading words in directly affected by his inability to read words. isolation; Difficulty accurately decoding unfamiliar  Spelling  KTEA‐3 Spelling=76. words; Difficulty with oral reading (slow, inaccurate, or  Phonological/phonemic awareness labored); and Difficulty spelling. He displays a  KTEA3 Phonological Processing 81, CTOPP Phonological weakness in phonological awareness which is Awareness cluster=82. Lower scores were obtained in presumed to be the causative or underlying factor in segmenting and manipulating sounds in words. A deficit in the reading deficit. This pattern does exist within phonological awareness is viewed as the hallmark of reading adequate ability to learn and is unexpected. Therefore, disability or dyslexia. John meets the TEA criteria for the condition of  Rapid naming of symbols or objects dyslexia.  KTEA3 Letter Naming Facility= 86

105 106

Anise Flowers, Ph.D. Pearson Clinical Assessment 18