Assessment and Intervention in School Psychology

Incremental Validity

2011-11-15T10:35:00.000-08:00

I have talked previously a little bit about factor analysis and the arguments that go back and forth about which method is better and what the results actually mean for us on the ground interpreting a test. But there is another concept that I have not discussed before and that is incremental validity.

You see almost every test we administer is hierachical in nature meaning, there is usually some kind of full-scale score with index scores below that and in some cases even another level such as subtest scores. This makes sense for the average IQ test however, even behavior rating scales have this same structure. Think about the BASC-2, there are composite scores as well as index scores.

While most manuals and test authors tell us to interpret all of these scores as if they are equally meaningful, there are some problems with this approach. The first has to do with construct validity, which gets into the whole FA debate. The basic jist is that the test author has to prove that each index or subtest score can stand alone and be interpreted. They also have to demonstrate that these scores account for some kind of additional meaningful variance beyond the full-scale, and this is incremental validity. You see all of these lower scores are compiled to create the full scale score or index. So what you actually are doing is double interpreting the same data in a sense. Now this is fine if we can demonstrate that parsing apart the full scale into various unique units (e.g. indexes or factors) provides us with additional predictive variance that is missed when we interpret the full scale alone. The problem is most studies out there show that with IQ tests, they don't. I will try and post some articles later on but the take away is that school psychologists should really think about all the time and money they may be wasting on these enormous IQ batteries that get bigger with each revision. The question is how much utility are you getting out of those

Compliance v. Outcomes

2011-11-15T10:18:00.000-08:00

It has been a while since I posted and in the intervening time that I have spent working as a school psychologist there has been a question that has continually popped up in my mind when working on cases. That question is essentially, where did we go wrong in special education? I mean the intent was clearly there and you certainly can see the monetary investment that a lot of districts have made in their programs (although many would argue that there certainly can be more there). However, despite these investments, the data on special education outcomes as a whole continues to be abysmal. Now I have to be clear here, SPED is quite good for most kiddos with profound impairment. The problem is that those kiddos make up a very small majority of the students who are in SPED. The vast majority of kiddos in SPED fall under the category of mild impairment and are usually eligible under LD or OHI for ADHD.

The whole idea behind SPED for these kids is that they receive quality remedial and compensatory interventions to scaffold their academic skills so that they close that gap between them and the expected performance in their general education classroom. Here is where we see the failure because on average, this kiddo in SPED actually gets worse....not better! This leads us to the distinction between compliance and outcomes. All of this regulatory effort over the past two decades has been focused on compliance (e.g. getting your IEP completed). Although the intent of congress was to move more toward outcomes when they merged IDEA with NCLB in 2004, there is still no requirement in the law with respect to outcomes in SPED. So unlike your neighborhood school, which is held accountable for student outcomes under NCLB (barely, but that is a whole different topic), a district SPED can get in trouble for not completing paperwork correctly but not if a child makes absolutely no tangible progress in 8 years in said program for their specific disability classification. That is unless you as a parent can prove that the district implemented an IEP program that was not intended to be beneficial to your child.......almost impossible to do with existing case law. Something seems wrong with this picture.

Whatever happened to the paradigm shift?

2010-08-06T18:37:00.000-07:00

It is hard to believe that it has been almost a decade sense Reschly and Ysseldyke (2002) published their seminal chapter in BP IV calling for a fundamental paradigm shift within the field of school psychology. The chapter has since been utilized as a foundational document in the data-based decision making, RtI, and service reform movement and in my opinion it outlines everything that most informed school psychologists think that school psychology should be. The chapter essentially draws the distinction between low inference and high inference practice and asks what are the implications for getting it wrong in our field. Given that what we do for a living entails making a lot of high stakes decisions about kids (or in most cases, submitting information that can be used for such decision making), it seems logical that our practice should at least be informed by science and not questionable superstition. The authors urged all practitioners to evaluate their practice and called for drastic reform within the field. Yet, almost a decade later the the field remains largely unchanged despite a few states which utilized the reform movements of 2001-2005 to change practice standards (i.e. RtI, behavior analysis, etc.). Our journals and conferences continue to be dominated by discussions about the value of (fill in the blank) assessment and new methods for finding learning styles patterns and other nonsense that is essentially the same old ATI debate version 2010. New snake oil salesman talk about improved tests that are rendered fail proof as the result of advanced psychometric technologies yet, they continue to use subtests and measurement devices which date back to the alpha and beta tests of WWI. So the question has to be asked as seminal voices like Yssedyke, Shinn, and Reschly head off into retirement, whatever happened to the paradigm shift; and given the resistance we have seen over the past decade, can such a shift ever be realized?

10 Things I love About Being a School Psychologist

2010-04-01T17:46:00.000-07:00

I have noticed that this has become a bit f a cathartic exercise for me where I get to vent my professional frustrations out, which can paint a pretty bleak picture of what it is that I actually do for a living. In fact, pretty much every conversation between school psychos revolves around what is wrong with the profession, schools, and education in general. I really do love what I do and I think that every school psychologist should take some time to think about the good things about our profession (heaven knows we need to sometimes). So here is my proverbial top 10 list:

10. The ability to finally encounter statistics without fear (it only took 4 classes).

9. Working in an environment where you can be heavily educated but without pretense; except for those trips to the district office.

8. Encountering colleagues and researchers who are truly brilliant and challenge your thinking and your practice to become better.

7. As much as some of your kiddos are a pain in the you know what, most of them are a blast to be around.

6. Parents who are truly appreciative of the work that you try to do for them; on the flip side, administrators who have your back for those parents that don't.

5. Every day having the opportunity to help a child.

4. Getting the opportunity to reshape current practice so that school psychologists are more involved in daily instructional practices and less involved in traditional assessment witchcraft.

3. Having a job which requires you to think about learning on a day to day basis gives you a whole new appreciation for the ability to do so.

2. Challenging the status quo within public education.

1. Everyday getting to play the role of lawyer, administrator, teacher, counselor, school psycho, surrogate parent, social worker, and correctional officer. Every kid's dream.

CASP Convention 2010

2010-03-27T14:35:00.000-07:00

A little late for a convention wrap-up but a lot has happened since CASP in March. First, i must admit that I, along with many others, was a little apprehensive about this years convention given the keynotes that were billed and the conflict on dates with NASP in Chicago. I was a little disappointed with last year's conference (see previous post) and was skeptical that this year's was going to be better. Honestly, the only reason I even went was because I was a presenter.

With that, I have to give a big shout out to SCASP for putting together a well-run program at a quality venue that was a pleasant surprise. There was virtually no corporate feel this year...given that all of the big names and vendors were hawking their products and "research" at NASP and there was a bigger focus on student and state-wide faculty research and projects that gave the convention a very academic feel (which I think is the purpose of the whole thing). So overall a big thumbs up to all involved with the project.

Job Search Shenanigans

2010-03-27T14:14:00.001-07:00

First, I am happy to report that I have been very fortunate to land a position as school psychologist in a school district during this recession, which as a first-year SP is somewhat of a minor miracle. On the downside, I was given a lay-off notice the same day I signed my contract because the district board had just voted to lay-off all non-permanent staff (see me); but I am pretty sure I am coming back.....but who knows. I do have some thoughts about the job search process and maybe some advice for those about to enter the market for the first time as I just completed my first go around as a trainer of school psychos at the graduate level.

The first thing I would say is get in touch with some psychs who currently work in the district or have previously worked in the district if you can. Get a feel for what really goes on in the district. The standard interview is all smokescreen where everyone embodies the Lake Wobegon effect (i.e. our department is great, always has been, and we are embody best practices in all, etc.), direct contact with current employees is where you will find out what reality looks like on the ground.

The second thing that I would say is that with the recession there is just some flat out shenanigans going on in districts advertising positions knowing that the new hire is going to be layed off and not telling them during the interview process. I even interviewed for a 4 week substitute position where they wanted me to complete over 20 evaluations for a psych who was going on maternity leave...and to do this they were going to pay a daily rate for a substitute teacher (which coincidentally was a quarter of the advertised rate for the same position in a district a couple of miles away at the time). The crazy thing is someone actually took that job and is probably ready to kill themselves right about now.

The third things to be prepared for is waiting......and then waiting some more. You would be surprised at how long it takes the HR beast to turn around an application for a position that needs to be filled "immediately." I don't want to name any names but a certain school has a job opening that has yet to be filled in almost 9 months. On top of that you have to navigate around these obtuse policies like one district that flew a full-time position and then reduced it to 60% after the closing date and then e-mailed everyone that applied to re-apply for the new 60% position, as their application materials on file would no longer suffice. Another district has flown a part-time position twice in the last 6 months and has notified applicants after the position has closed each time (after a 6 week period) that the district wouldn't be able to fund the position at the time. Methinks that districts should look no further then their own HR departments first when considering remedies for deficits and incompetence.

A parting thought, I know that it is desperate out there and that jobs are scarce. However, the reality is that you are only going to be as good as the system that you work in supports you. If you take the first job you get offered and come into a system that is completely dysfunctional (see substitute position listed above), your going to hate your job, hate the kiddos you work with, and have one foot out the door to begin with.

End of the internship blues

2009-12-07T23:33:00.000-08:00

So it is official I am now a full fledged school psychologist! Although because I am in California also means I am now unemployed. I thought that I was going to stay on in my district but due to union issues and other shenanigans that I don't understand it didn't work out in the end. I am a little bit disappointed that I will not get to see the RTI program through at my school site but I trust it is in good hands. There really is no reason for me to post anymore until I land a position somewhere. So consider this my form of silent protest against the system!

Kindergarten

2009-10-02T18:33:00.000-07:00

Helping Children Transition Into Kindergarten
Entering kindergarten is a big step for any child. Parents can help children adjust by anticipating their needs and preparing them for their new school environment. Ideally transition efforts should start the spring prior to your child’s entrance into kindergarten. Most schools have a day where parents can bring their children in for a visit and for the parents to learn more about the school. The goal is to familiarize your child and yourself with the teacher, classroom, and school; provide the teacher opportunities to “get to know” your child and plan more effectively before he becomes a member of the class; and provide opportunities to become acquainted with the new teacher, class and school policies and procedures, as well as future classmates and their parents. This will, in turn, help the classroom teacher be ready for your child.
What to do before your child begins Kindergarten:
Set up an initial meeting with the teacher. Although this can take place at school, home visits give your child the chance to meet the new teacher in his own environment. This can reduce anxiety later and strengthen the sense of home-school connection, and allow the teacher the opportunity to get a firsthand sense of your child’s home environment.
If possible, plan a visit to the new school that includes spending time with the teacher, exploring the classroom, and playing on the playground.
Let the teacher know about your child’s interests and strengths. Be specific. It will help the teachers know how to engage your child in the early weeks.
Share any concerns or special considerations regarding your child, such as certain fears or food allergies.
Use pictures and/or stories to familiarize your child with their new classroom, school and teacher.
Be sure your child is in good physical and mental health. Schedule doctor and dental checkups early. Discuss with the pediatrician any concerns you have over your child’s emotional or psychological development. The doctor can help determine if concerns are normal, age appropriate issues or that require further assessment. Children benefit if potential issues are identified and addressed early. (See “Considerations Regarding Children With Special Needs below)
If your child has attended preschool, encourage communication between Kindergarten and preschool teachers, particularly if the child has special needs or particular issues coping in the classroom.
How to collaborate with the school once your child begins Kindergarten:
Don’t over-react if the first few days are a little rough. Young children in particular may experience separation anxiety or shyness initially but teachers should be trained to help them adjust. If your child cries at drop off, remain calm and positive. Do not linger but rather reassure your child that he will be okay and that you will be back soon. If your child has a negative reaction for a long period of time, meet with the teacher and school psychologist to develop a plan for transition time.
During the first few weeks of school, teachers and parents should share information about how they think the child is adjusting to school. Email is often an effective way to communicate.
If possible, volunteer in the classroom at least periodically throughout the year. Doing so helps children feel that their school and family life are linked. Being in the classroom is also a good way to develop a relationship with your child’s teacher and classmates, and to get firsthand exposure to their classroom environment and routine. Most kindergarten teachers welcome even occasional parent help.
Check your child’s backpack daily for notes and fliers. These include important information and communication from the school.
Supporting learning before and after your child begins Kindergarten:
Establish a schedule at home and stick to it. Children benefit from structure and this can help them better adjust to Kindergarten schedule.
Work with your child on content related to colors, numbers, letters, etc. It is important to make the experience fun and playful. Preschool and Kindergarten teachers are excellent resources for ideas. Additional resources are listed below.
Provide experiences with books, rhyming, singing, coloring, cutting, paying attention, sharing and sitting. Again, preschool and Kindergarten teachers can provide suggestions for fun and interesting ways to provide these experiences. The resources list below can also help with ideas.
Find out what the Kindergarten classroom routines are and regularly discuss them with your child. When appropriate, practice the routines by acting them out at home. For example, you can help your child practice waiting his turn, raising his hand, asking to go the bathroom, and asking a classmate to play.
Plan to spend extra quiet one-on-one time with your child during the first weeks. Keep the family schedule as simple as possible to allow for your child’s adjustment needs.
Arrange play dates with a new friend (or friends) from school. Strengthening social bonds with classmates helps your child build a sense of familiarity and comfort level in school.
Limit television and videogame time and increase book experiences.
Be aware of differences in children’s development and avoid making comparisons to siblings and other children.
Considerations Regarding Children With Special Needs
Transitioning to a Kindergarten that is governed by IDEA guidelines for eligibility and an Individual Education Plan (IEP) may require some adjustment. You will need to familiarize yourself with the law, the rights of your child, and the school’s particular procedures. Schools can help by providing clear information (in multiple languages) online and in print and making it easy for parents to contact the relevant staff (i.e., school psychologist). This information is often on the school’s website but, if not, call the main office and ask for office of special education or pupil services. Beginning this process prior to the start of school and with the goal of ongoing home-school collaboration is important.
Considerations Regarding Children who are English Language Learners
Children who are English Language Learners may need more time acclimating to the school setting. It is important for the school to provide parents with materials in their native language and to arrange for interpreters when they visit. If these are not yet available, parents should request them. Parents who do not speak English should also feel comfortable bringing a family member or friend to meetings to help interpret. Parents can also provide teachers with information about their culture and how the child will respond to the classroom. Parents are encouraged to continue speaking the family’s native language in the home.
Considerations Regarding Children Who Did Not Attend Preschool
Children who did not attend preschool may need additional time practicing a schedule and interacting with peers. More than one visit to the classroom may also be appropriate for these children.
Resources:
Books
Mrs. Bindergarten Gets Ready for Kindergarten, Joseph Slate & Ashley Wolff.
The Night Before Kindergarten, Natasha Wing & Julie Durrell.
Look Out Kindergarten, Here I Come! Nancy Carlson.
What Do We Say? What Do We Do? Vital Solutions for Children's Educational Success and Creating Positive Home School Connections, Dorothy Rich.Online Resources
Top 10 Signs of a Good Kindergarten: www.naeyc.org
Tools You Can Use: www.nea.org/parents/tools/index.html http://www.education.com/grade/kindergarten/

Back to school

2009-10-02T18:32:00.000-07:00

Back-to-School Transitions
Getting a new school year off to a good start can influence children’s attitude, confidence, and performance socially and academically. The transition from August to September can be a hurdle, even for children who are eager to return to class. Everyone must adjust to the change in levels of activity, structure, and pressures associated with school life. Parents can help their children and family manage the increased pace of life by planning ahead, being realistic, and maintaining a positive attitude. Here are a few suggestions to help ease the transition and promote a successful school experience.
Before School Starts
Be sure your child is in good physical and mental health.
Review all of the information sent by the school as soon as it arrives.
Mark important dates on your calendar, such as back to school night and deadlines for signing up for school clubs or handing in forms.
Keep copies of all your child’s health and emergency information for reference.
Re-establish bedtime and mealtime routines at least 1 week before school starts.
Encourage your child to ease into the learning routine with quiet games, puzzles, flash cards, coloring, or reading as early morning activities instead of watching television.
Visit school with your child, particularly if your child is young or starting in a new school.
Designate and clear a place for homework and studying.
Select a spot to keep backpacks and lunch boxes, as well as a place to put important notices and information sent home for you to see.
Freeze a few easy dinners so that meal planning and preparation will not add to household pressures during the first week of school.
The First Few Weeks
Clear your own schedule and be available to your children.
Be prepared for the return to school:
Make lunches the night before. Have older children help.
Set alarm clocks.
Leave plenty of extra time.
Be sure your child knows what to do after school including where to go or who to call if you are not home.
Send your child’s teacher a brief note letting the teacher know that you are interested in getting regular feedback on how and what your child is doing in school. Let them know the best way to contact you.
Familiarize yourself with all school professionals: the principal and front office personnel; school psychologist, counselor, and social worker; the reading specialist, speech therapist, and school nurse; lunchroom and playground aides; and the after-school activities coordinator.
Avoid over scheduling extracurricular activities.
Overcoming Anxiety
Do not overreact. Even if your child seems distraught at first, they will be fine.
Remain calm and positive. Model optimism and confidence for your child. Reassure them that you love them and will be there at the end of the school day.
Reinforce your child’s ability to cope. Give them a few strategies to manage a difficult situation on his or her own.
Help them identify and connect with at least one friend.
Volunteer in the classroom.
Get help if serious concerns arise. Contact the school to meet with your child’s teachers and school psychologist. They can offer support that will help identify and reduce the problem, as well as suggest resources within the school and community to help you address the situation.
Remember, children are wonderfully resilient. With your support and encouragement, they will thrive throughout their school experience.
Adapted from: “Back to School Transitions: Tips for Parents,” Ted Feinberg & Katherine C. Cowan, Helping Children at Home and School II: Handouts for Families and Educators, NASP, 2004. The full handout is available online at www.nasponline.org/families.

Evidence Based Comprehensive Assessment

2009-09-12T22:39:00.000-07:00

I just finished going over the new California RTI or RTI (squared) implementation guidelines for determining eligibility within a response to intervention model. Although that is the title, the bulk of the memo is spent on painting RTI (sorry Cali but you are not getting a squared from me just because you think it sounds hip and refreshing) as a general education model for closing the achievement gap. While RTI in some sense can be utilized for a global educational outcome such as this, one must differentiate between RTI for categorical decision making and RTI for general ed. instructional reform; for a brilliant summation of the ramifications of this check out a recent Communique article by Matthew Burns of the University of Minnesota. Essentially what the authors point out is that so much of the literature on RTI continues to extol it for general instructional reform and pre-categorical intervention purposes while there continues to be a gap and much confusion as it relates to defining what exactly is a comprehensive assessment at the end of such a model. The current California policy memo outlines a double deficit achievement requirement (deficit in achievement level and rate of learning), absent any evidence relating to the current federal rule outs. On face value this model seems to be a large step forward in bringing more evidence based assessment and intervention practices to the state however, a more careful read of the document reveals some disturbing additions.

First, in the introduction the panel lists some foundations for which the RTI model is based upon the first of which is that all students can and will learn if given the right instruction, this is followed up with the contradictory statement of one the three purposes of assessment in RTI, in order to determine what area's students cannot achieve in. I am not a rocket scientist but it would seam to me that if all children can learn there would be no reason to conduct this type of assessment.

More importantly, in outlining eligibility requirements for SLD in an RTI model the panel allows for an alternative method of assessment which is based on cognitive, academic, or other strengths and weaknesses present which relate to the achievement deficit. Validity issues aside, the key word is relate which is ripe for abuse. That means that if clinicians choose this option they must justify that the areas of cognitive weakness must naturally relate to the achievement area in question. However, why are we even discussing this, there is absolutely no credible research that demonstrates that such profile and index patterns are accurate in separating LD from non-LD students. I have thoroughly talked about the validity and reliability problems of indexes and subtest analysis in other posts. Also, ipsative profile analysis in general has been thoroughly debunked in the research for decades (see anything by Joe Glutting and others). The fact is that while profiles do exist, they are not clinically significant, see the base rates in your trusty manuals.

So once again, shame on you California way to continue to perpetuate unreliable assessment practices. The good news in all of this is that Mike Vanderwood did confirm to me in a personal communication that this is not in fact the RTI document that is slated to come out later this year. This CDE document was released by this panel over a year ago (talk about bureaucracy) and the things in it that I am highlighting here led to the creation of a separate panel. So I guess the good news is that the current policy recommendations are non-binding, which should be interesting to look at when the new, and hopefully better, memo is released later this year as to whether or not it has a procedural mandate for school districts embedded in it. If it doesn't then no matter how good it is there will be many districts that continue to resist reform.

Tier 2 Pilot Data

2009-09-01T10:59:00.000-07:00

Here is some of the final tier 2 data from last year that I promised to release. One of the unfortunate things that I found once school started this year was that as we were conducting universal screening for the first time (yeah for us), most of my kiddos DORF scores regressed back to baseline levels at the begining of tier 2. Now this is somewhat expected given all the research that shows that students in an intensive reading intervention gradually lose gains a couple of months after intervention ceases however, there are some sobering reminders for those implementing RTI because of all of the time, manpower, and fiscal resources that are out into tier 2 and tier 3 assessment and intervention. If they accomplish nothing more then to momentarily increase DORF scores with no other generalization of maintenance beyond a couple of months, how much can that do for a child that is reading three years behind grade level? It is not to say that RTI is a waste of time, to the contrary, it is a necessary step toward moving the field toward a more evidence based service delivery model. The real implications are on the research end where some advocates pontificate that RTI is a finished product (e.g. Tilly). This is nonsense; we need to continue to investigate intervention effectiveness and even the assessment piece of RTI so that we find the inherent flaws in the model so that we can continue to grow and progress toward that impossible ideal of a "perfect" model. Or as Kuhn (1996) puts it, it is only by our continued investigation of what we think we know that we create the conditions for paradigm shifts, otherwise we run the risk of turning the school psychology into a field of "nominal science."

Gender	Grade	Baseline	Intervention	ROI	Effect Size
Male	6	100	121	21	.58
Female	4	56	90	34	.94
Female	4	46	46	0	.00
Male	4	62	68	6	.16
Female	3	75	103	28	.77
Male	3	25	35	10	.27
Male	3	69	83	14	.38
Male	2	26	14	-12	-.33
Male	2	39	51	12	.33

California Releases Guidelines for RTI

2009-07-10T11:36:00.001-07:00

During a meeting with my doctoral advisor I spied a document from the California Department of Education on guidelines and recommendations for implementing RTI in California. So it finally appears that RTI (or something closely resembling it) has arrived statewide. Don't get too excited yet as this is a policy first draft that will almost certainly go through the bureaucratic process of being disseminated by interested stakeholders, revised several times, and eventually passed on to LEA's for individualized implementation. I am also sure that you can expect some vocal opposition from a few school psychologists who continue to believe that RTI will be the end of assessment and school psychological practice as we know it and other nonsense. I am getting a copy of the document as I read through it I will post anything that I find of import.

Thinking About Systems Change

2009-07-06T12:41:00.000-07:00

This is a good introductory short video by one of the key figures in the Florida RTI movement that has really been well conceptualized statewide. I cannot stress enough how important these first steps of planning are as practitioners begin asking these questions at their sites. My best advice is for psychologists to access as much of the literature as they can to see which roll-out model will work best in their environment. I think an important point that Dr. Batsche makes is that RTI is about reforming general educational service delivery, it is a new way of thinking. That is a little tough for school psycho's to get their head around because that is not what we are primarily trained in.

Can we measure Cognitive Processing?

2009-05-20T19:22:00.000-07:00

A question that I have continued to investigate as I am playing with assessment models and elements is the validity behind our historical construction of cognitive processing. There has been a gap in the literature regarding this issue that I think needs to be addressed, especially with the emergence of hierarchical models of cognition which encompass several broad "processing" abilities. It seems to me that historical views of processing (codified by LD definitions dating back to the 60's) stipulate that it is separate and distinct entity apart from general intelligence; otherwise why would we measure it? However, CHC research clearly demonstrates that Gv, Ga, and elements of attention account for some general factor variance in overall cognition. That is three of the four processing elements in traditional measurement (I am not counting association, conceptualization, and expression because I have no idea what they are or how to validly measure them, nor does anyone else for that matter), the only remaining is sensory-motor which may be accounted for as a specific ability but I am not sure (regardless, VMI has no construct validity as it accounts for more variance in language then it does in math or reading...see VMI-5 manual). So if you are using a CHC based cognitive instrument you are basing your full scale cognitive estimate on a model that doesn't differentiate traditional processing elements from overall ability. So again, we have stumbled into a large world of measurement confound as almost every broad assessment includes a reliable index of GV and auditory processing tests like the TAPS-3 load significantly on WISC-III full scale scores.

New Standards for Training

2009-05-20T19:21:00.002-07:00

Since beginning my current research binge on RTI and data based decision making over the past couple of months I have really started to notice significant differences in both content and structure of current school psychology training programs. In several conversations that I have had over the past year with colleagues who were enrolled at "RTI" based training programs it is apparent their training was much more focused on providing tools for instructional consultation, curriculum reform, academic intervention and fidelity, and evidence based decision making. While my "traditional" program, as well as other programs similar to it, were void of academic instruction and systems based delivery models. This training gap was bridged with courses focusing more on social/emotional assessment and intervention, clinical psychopathology, and cognitive processing. While it is clear that the recent NASP blueprints for training and practice are much better represented in the former model, I think it is important to understand the reasons for that. In my opinion, one of the really important changes from the previous blueprints edition was a deliberate attempt to circumnavigate any domain coverage specifying the neuropsychological constructs of learning.

The second edition listed "biological basis of learning" under the learning development and differences domain, which I interpret as a clear attempt to categorize the (then) emerging cognitive neuroscience trend in learning and performance. Unfortunately, as practitioner's, we now see that a decade or so later that this movement has not fulfilled its promise as a viable alternative from the discrepancy model in understanding and intervening in learning differences. I am planning a more through review of the school neuropsychology movement, suffice it to say there are several conceptual and measurement issues with this model, despite its intuitive intellectual appeal. To get back to the larger point, the third edition does not mention biological or neuropsychological underpinnings of learning within this domain of coverage.

The reason why this is so important is because it is clear that how we are trained is directly correlated to how we see learning and social problems. As a traditionalist I was trained to see problems (whether academic or social) as within-child deficits with clear biological underpinnings, and thus my role was conceptualized as that of a gatekeeper, responsible for determining whether or not a child met or did not meet eligibility standards. While those trained in RTI principals view "problems" primarily through a functional lens with specific focus on core academic deficits, for the purposes of determining how to best intervene to ameliorate those deficits. So we have to be careful to understand that the reason why a traditionalist has such a hard time understanding why an RTI proponent can approach a problem with certainty as to its environmental correlates, an RTI trained practitioner does not see the value in assessing for cause or subtype; it is simply a matter of training that creates a paradigm in which practitioner's are conditioned to see their instructional environments.

While I certainly think that all school psychologist's should be experts in psychometrics and measurement, the focus of such expertise should not be on administering assessments as much as determining what are valid and reliable assessment practices for the purpose of intervention. While training approaches that have a systems based foundation are clearly linked to better outcomes for students, relying on systems content alone will not adequately prepare a practitioner for service within a comprehensive RTI model. It is clear that in these emerging models of service delivery school psychologists will have to be prepared to intervene and consult directly on instructional decisions, as well as, validly and reliably assess multiple instructional environments within school settings. In order to do this, we have to become knowledgeable about best practices in core academic areas of teaching, a focus which is not present in most training programs. One exception to this (and their are certainly others) is the Ph.D. program at the University of Oregon which requires all graduates to specialize in a core content area of intervention (math or reading). I believe that this type of subspecialization is the right way to go for training in order for school psychologists to be relevant within the broader accountability and systems change movements within education today.

Diminshed Expectations, Diminshed Outcomes

2009-05-20T19:20:00.000-07:00

Since the re-authorization of IDEA in 1997 there has been a great deal of focus on individual student programming through goal setting, through IEP's and other standardized means. However, in practice these goals have become nothing more than procedures for case carriers and in most cases are not utilized in order to effectively drive curriculum. The Feds recognized this in 2004 when they effectively tied IDEA to NCLB, for the first time including exceptional students in the broad based accountability movement. In the past 7 years or so, the accountability measures have had little demonstrable effect on contemporary special education practice as evidenced by statistical measures that demonstrate that over 90% of all special education students will never be exited form categorical service.

So how do we correct this injustice? The former President's Commission on Special Education (2002) highlighted these issues in its report and offered broad reform recommendations focusing on general research and teacher training. The most forceful of these recommendations was for full RTI implementation........how's that working out for you California? For the most part we have addressed some of these concerns in ramping up teacher training requirements with new things like TPA'S, CBEST, CSET, and Praxis I and II. The feds created the what works clearing house to address research problems, which has had a big effect although I would argue that it hasn't yet been felt at the site level. And yet the problem still remains.

One area that has yet to be addressed has been at the practice level of special education goal writing. If IEP's are the lifeblood of the special education service model (and lord knows it has to be if parents are willing to hire David Boies in order to get one) then the goals are where the proverbial rubber meets the road. If you really want to measure effectiveness then you have to start holding case carriers responsible for the goals that they write.

We have all heard the stories of districts tha have "goal banks" in which generic goals are stored under different academic subject areas which can be cut and pasted to fit a specific child's IEP rubric. Not only is it not individualized but it doesn't take much imagination to figure out why they are not effective at remediating academic deficits. To be sure there is not a problem because children are failing to reach there goals, there is a problem because they almost certainly do. I have sat in almost a hundred IEP meetings at this point and I can count on one hand the times that a parent was notified that there child had failed to substantively meet the goals in their IEP. Almost every child meets their IEP goals yet when it comes time to share the achievement test scores or go over grades sure enough the student is still failing math or still has a delayed score in reading comprehension. Not once have I heard some one ask "if they met their goals then how come they didn't improve." The answer to that rhetorical question that I pseudo-imposed to myself is that we effectively move the goal post so that we never have to actual improve core deficits. Here are some examples of some IEP goals that I have come across just this year to back this up.

John will miss no more then 10 days of school this coming year.
John will ask clarifying questions when he doesn't know what to do on an assignment.
Cindy will copy letters of the alphabet with accuracy of 80%.
Cindy will utilize functional math skills using manipulatives.

Our fictional Cindy is a second grade student who does not yet know the alphabet and is functionally illiterate. Since alphabet mastery is a pre-first grade content standard in the state of California I am assuming that even if Cindy achieves this goal she will still be exponentially behind her grade level peers. The point is this, Cindy needed to know her letters yesterday, why not set a goal that can make some meaningful progress for her like CVC decoding. She may not reach this goal by the end of the year however, her progress towards it will leave her in a lot better place then if we were to focus on the lowest common denominator.

Non-Categorical Service Delivery

2009-05-20T19:19:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading an older book of edited chapters titled Special Education in Transition. While the book is not exactly a staple in most training programs, it is edited and authored by some pretty big names in the school psychology reform movement (Tilly, Reschly, Ysseldyke, Grimes, Good, Shinn etc.). This was one of the first titles that I surveyed after my conversion to RTI and I have to say that while it is a bit dated, there are some pretty powerhouse chapters in it that I think are relevant to every practicing school psychologist today. The book is edited and written from the more conservative "problem solving" viewpoint of alternative service delivery and as such may turn some potential readers away at the gate. While I tend to subscribe to the standard protocol approach myself I believe that there are some valuable things that we can learn from the problem solving crowd especially as it relates to viewing educational problems through a functional lens rather then a pathological one. While early chapters on school reform and data-based decision making are certainly compelling reads with good scientific referencing, the later chapters on functional alternatives to low-incidence disabilities and transitional service planning are a bit dry.

The central premise of the volume is to create a new service delivery paradigm by which special education is delivered through a non-categorical approach, regardless of the presenting problem (i.e. traditional labels like SLD, ED, Autism, MR, etc.). While at face value this argument seems simplistic, the authors go beyond the same tried arguments against labeling (social consequences, stigma) and present a critical case for evaluating what purpose labels serve. Essentially, labels serve a diagnostic purpose by which individuals can be separated into diagnostic categories for the purposes of effective treatment. Thus educational labeling emanates from the medical model where diagnosis are used to determine which treatments or medications should be prescribed.

While this model works in medicine (i.e. a person with a cold gets a different and more effective treatment then a person who is diagnosed with heart problems), it fails in education because the treatment options in special education are essentially the same for every student. While intuitively it makes sense that a child that is diagnosed with MR should receive different educational accommodations then a student who is LD, this is most often not the case. Research clearly shows that the only thing that differs from label to label is the level of intervention intensity rather then type of intervention (Kavale & Forness, 1999). Therefore, the authors conclude that labels often are utilized by educators as convenient excuses when children with special needs fail to reach educational goals and objectives in the classroom.

The authors posit that a label is only effective if it leads clinician's to discriminate between effective treatment options, in the absence of that they are worthless and should be scuttled for less stigmatizing options. Replacing the current eligibility process with a more functional approach that views educational problems through a social discrepancy lens (child is not meeting grade level expectations within a specific academic subject) is much more conducive to effective intervention as well as less stigmatizing. I highly recommend this book to anyone who continues to argue for the merit of current categorical service models of eligibility.

Book Review: Integrating Cognitive Neuropsychology with RTI

2009-05-12T23:56:00.000-07:00

Just finished reading Dr. Steven Feifer's book on integrating RTI with cognitive neuropsychology which is the precursor to his popular lecture series on the subject on conferences throughout the country. His assessment methodology is similar to the cognitive hypothesis testing procedures presented earlier by Hale and Fiorello (2005) although, in Feifer's model cognitive assessment is tailored more specifically to the referral concern (i.e. math or reading). He proposes that knowledge of a student's neuropsychological strengths and weaknesses will aide in both treatment and diagnostic validity. Essentially, once we know the academic deficit we then look for the cognitive correlates that are linked to the processing of that deficit to determine LD (phonological processing for reading and working memory for reading comprehension, etc.). At face value this methodology appears eerily similar to traditional intelligent testing and ipsative approaches that emphasize index and cluster score profiling. Feifer continues along this vane encouraging clinicians to administer cognitive assessments without giving any regard to full-scale scores. Despite the overwhelming evidence against such methods the model does seem to be getting a lot of attention as a welcome alternative for traditional "processing advocates" as a rejoinder to full-scale RTI assessment methods. It has also been helped by the growing popularity of the emerging school neuropsychology movement.

A couple of inconsistencies clearly stood out for me after I finished the book. The first was the reliance on the processing elements of the discrepancy model. While Dr. Feifer clearly stipulates that the traditional discrepancy model is dead, he builds his whole model around the cognitive processing elements of LD. Essentially, he claims that the model which gives us cognitive processing as a requirement for LD is dead yet a key element of that model is correct. It would seem to me that you can't have your cake and eat it to (denounce the discrepancy model in order to save face with the RTI and school reform crowd while continuing to rely on the element that has created the most confound within the discrepancy model). In fact, the problem with the discrepancy model from a scientific point of view is not necessarily the discrepancy hypothesis, as most RTI advocates would stipulate that LD kids are bound to have some form of a discrepancy between ability and achievement. At least the discrepancy model attempts to define the hallmark of LD which is "unexpected underachievement." However psychological processing is an element of the definition that was only operationalized by 7 states and has never been clearly established in the research (by the methods we use today) to enhance intervention outcomes or establish better diagnostic validity. Another shortcoming with Feifer's thesis is that while the "processing" elements of Reading are clearly established (phonological awareness and rapid naming) there is no consensus around any processing elements related to writing, reading comprehension, or math. More importantly, the author claims a comprehensive assessment using neuropsychological methodologies is needed for accurate diagnosis for eligibility after a child fails to respond to tiered intervention yet, he provides no operationalized construct for what constitutes a disability utilizing such methods. Essentially it is up to the clinician to determine which child gets an IEP based on their own interpretation of cognitive strengths and weaknesses as they relate to the referral concern. While I applaud Feifer for advocating for an RTI model of intervention before assessment, the assessment piece of the model appears to be a step back in terms of reliability.

As a whole the model never comes together as Feifer presents interventions for each academic area (i.e. Ladders to literacy and road to the code for reading) claiming that processing assessment will enhance intervention outcomes without providing a single intervention that can be tied to the assessment data he advocates for (save for the CTOPP). Essentially there is not an intervention listed that cannot be determined from giving an achievement test. Nor does Feifer present any evidence that shows that cognitive processing enhances our understanding of how children will respond to treatment.

While Feifer's book may intuitively appeal to many practitioner's because of its marketing as a "third way" between the current assessment dichotomy that exits in our field, it is nothing more then an attempt to legitimize tried pseudoscientific methods as real reform. Furthermore Feifer's methods are aimed to seduce the masses through intuition rather then science and serve as a step back in the movement towards evidence based assessment practices.

LD as a social construct

2009-04-06T12:52:00.000-07:00

Interesting lecture that I attended at a recent conference about the philosophical construct of learning disability. Dr. Deborah Webar, a Harvard University Psychologist, presented on the social construct of LD. Namely, that in other countries throughout the world there is no such thing as LD and LD is dependant on the fact that there is some inherent expectation of academic achievement within a society. One interesting little tidbit that she presented was that almost 90% of all children did not graduate from high school a century ago in this country which really makes one think about how far we have come as a society in a relatively short amount of time (historically speaking).

While I agree with the notion that LD is inherently a social construct she lost me with here next point which is essentially that RTI makes a leaping assumption that all children can learn, should learn, and will learn, if given the right conditions. Using the above point as a backdrop she essentially went on to conclude that RTI ignores the social construction of learning and that expecting all children to learn flies in the face of evolutionary data. Look, I stipulate that it is an impossible task to get all children to achieve at some arbitrary benchmark; statistics tells us that there will always be some outliers. However, using that excuse underachievement is not defensible for an educator or a psychologist. How would you like it as a teacher or a parent if you referred your child because of reading deficits and I came back with, "you know 80 years ago being illiterate was no big deal so just give it time, we are asking your child to do something very difficult, I am sure eventually they will come around."

I will agree though with the idea that LD as a whole is a social construction. Which makes me think more and more about the validity of the concept of true LD. After all this concept didn't even exist in the literature before Samuel Kirk and Bateman identified it in the 60's (although researchers back to Galton were writing about learning difficulties). More and more I am starting to think that LD is a nebulous construct which is utilized now to define within-child, biological immovable deficits as a reason to justify why we can't intervene rather then a discrepancy for which we can ameliorate through targeted intervention. Interesting stuff to think about....and I admit that whenever you start going with the constructionist stuff eventually you turn everything on to its head so I will stop here.

ADOS

2009-03-31T18:51:00.000-07:00

I just completed my ADOS training and was impressed by the coverage and scope of the assessment with some strong(er) technical qualities as compared to traditional measures used in autism assessment. I was really surprised at how easy it was to conceptualize in a matter of hours, I think that if you have some experience around the spectrum and you know what your looking for in diagnostic properties then it would be a worthwhile investment to pair up with the ADI-R for some really comprehensive, targeted, and ultimately reliable assessments. Drawbacks are cost (!) and some under-reported development and standardization techniques.

Interestingly while the ADOS was normed principally on a diagnosed sample, it avoids the confounding effect that is present in most rating scales that have this problem by focusing on low-threshold behaviors (Miller, 2009). Of course, there is subjectivity, but I think that can be overcome by the comprehensive training offered by WPS and if your really feeling frisky......the University of Michigan clinical training. Again, interesting stuff, really piqued my interest to explore the assessment development side of autism diagnosis, I feel it is an area that doesn't get a lot of attention.

Are we overfactoring?

2009-03-31T17:31:00.000-07:00

I have provided a link to a really interesting article that I think really raises some interesting questions about the current state of cognitive testing and overall test development (Frazier & Youngstrom, 2007). A key criteria for test validity in the modern assessment era is factor structure otherwise treated in most testing manuals as construct validity. Essentially the question that is asked is whether or not the theoretical structure of the test proposed by the authors holds up to rigorous statistical analysis (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997). So why is this important? Well, if the theory doesn't hold up then we don't have a valid way of explaining or operationlizing all the different test data that we get from an administration. Without test factors block design would be nothing more then timed building, rather then the sexy esoteric ways that it is operationlized in most tests (i.e. visual-spatial processing).

Now any seasoned psychologist is sure to have noticed that the cognitive assessments that are developed today are much more comprehensive with many more factors for interpretation and many more subtests to administer. Lets do a quick roll call:

Woodcock-Johnson III Cognitive: 20 subtests
WISC-IV: 15
SB-V: Verbal and Nonverbal split which each have 6 levels of 5 subtests each.
DAS-II: 15 subtests
WAIS IV: 15 subtests
KABC-II: 18 subtests
Leiter-R: 10 subtests

It seems trend in contemporary assessment although, the RIAS (6 subtests) and upcoming CAS2 ( same 12 subtest configuration) are bucking the underlying trend to get bigger and badder. The main culprit behind this movement (especially among re-standardizations of traditional verbal-nonverbal assessments) is the proliferation of the vaunted CHC theory of cognitive abilities. In fact I expect the updated AERA/APA assessment standards to have a new standard that goes something like this:

Standard 5.1
All forthcoming cognitive assessments should describe how CHC theory was utilized in order to develop and standardize said instrument. Regardless of whether or not the instrument has 2 or 20 subtests (preference given to 20). Any instrument that does not have the words CHC in its' manual is not to be considered valid.

Now of course I am joking but come on, it wouldn't be so funny if it weren't true!
The principle question posed in this article is whether or not the historical increase in factors represented in tests has been statistically significant, which they of course determined was correct and due to the over-reliance of CFA techniques in initial test development. Now I will admit that while I know more then most specialist level practitioners when it comes to factor analysis, I certainly do not know enough so I will try my best to simplify. CFA, in a crude oversimplification allows for a degree of variance in techniques that help the investigator form data to fit a model that has been proposed, essentially operating from an a priori investigative perspective. While EFA techniques are allow for theory to be driven post-hoc by the data. CFA allows for some complex rotations that can, at times (emphasis added), parse out underdeveloped factors to better suit a model. Contemporary assessments are filled with these underdeveloped factors (some more then most) and people much smarter then I debate till the sun goes down and then some about structure validity and such (for great examples see any factor research done on the CAS).

One of the other interesting things that the authors took a look at in this article is how well the CHC broad abilities are measured in some of these tests to see if we are really getting information that is valid and reliable enough for the great expense in administration time. One interesting thing that they did find was that most assessments run considerably longer then reported (surprise, surprise); with the full WJ-COG clocking in at over two and a half hours. The answer really was mixed from assessment to assessment. While almost every major intelligence test measures central constructs like gf, gc, and psychometric g well at this point (exceptions like the KABC and CAS noted) there was a lot of variability in less developed broad factors. While the WJ measured the most broad abilities well (reliability of .90 and above on each factor acceptable) there were a lot of broad abilities that did not meet that standard, some CHC factors with reliabilities as low as .79. Now of course the test authors encourage clinicians to interpret the WJ from a cluster standpoint (thinking ability, visual-spatial, working memory, etc.), however one does not have to give all 20 subtests to derive factor scores form the clusters. However we then have to ask the question of whether or not two subtests are a good enough sample for a cognitive ability? The authors think not, and propose that three is a requisite amount for adequate psychometric validity.

So what are the practical implications (this is a gross oversimplification of a fine article, but I am running out of room, and I really encourage everyone to read it on their own)? First, all contemporary cognitive assessments measure global intelligence (however it is conceptualized) very well with reliabilities all exceeding .90 and above. Where we get into trouble is with additional factors. Some tests measure more then others but all have some factors which aren't well supported. Second, we are contributing to the problem by creating a market in which a test cannot compete for share without being bigger and badder then the last edition or other contemporary measures. Third, as CHC and all of its broad abilities proliferate throughout instruments content sampling gets invariably watered down. Fourth, in order to adequately sample and reliably measure all the constructs required in CHC theory tests would have to become even more cumbersome then current and thus, prohibitively expense for wide-spread use.

As I am have stated before I am becoming more and more of a g purist, that is my bias. When I give a cognitive test I am looking for cognitive ability. If assessment professionals operated from this perspective then we would avoid a lot of the trouble that has already come from trying to conflate profiling with achievement patterns. Essentially, I believe we are asking too much of IQ tests. If you want to measure memory then give a valid memory test, phonological awareness, visual-processing, you know the deal (Reynolds, 2008). I think that intuitively we should know that a single test is not going to measure all of these abilities both reliably and validly. And if you are still unpersuaded then put your money where your mouth is and quit with the additional processing measures if you are a WJ fan! Next we move on to the remaining question of whether or not broad abilities matter at all from a treatment validity standpoint? Stay tuned.

The Value of Processing Assessment

2009-03-24T17:53:00.001-07:00

Processing assessment........the front line between the traditional and contemporary assessment camps. This particular area of assessment is steeped in so much confusion and hyperbole that if you ask five different school psychologists what it is, you are bound to get five different answers.

The confusion originates directly from the federal IDEA 2004 SLD eligibility criteria which lists the illustrious "deficit in one or more of the basic psychological processes" statement. Scholars like Mike Vanderwood, Ph.D. at UC-Riverside claim that the federal regulations never stipulate that processing assessment is needed to determine such nefarious deficits, and expects that future legislation will in fact remove the word processing altogether (Vanderwood & Foley, 2009). In total, only 13 states currently require specific processing assessment for eligibility evaluations. Of these, California has the most stringent requirements with specific processing areas listed within the state definition for SLD (sensory-motor, attention, auditory, visual, cognitive association, cognitive expression, cognitive conceptualization).

The validity of processing assessment has been dogged by the fact that the majority of processing based instruments have inadequate psychometric properties and terrible treatment validity. Some mainstream scholars contend that processing assessment is a throw-back to the days of ATI and flies in the face of the current literature on evidence based practice (Salvia & Ysseldyke, 2007). While there is an intuitive appeal to link cognitive processing and academic tasks (Naglieri & Pickering, 2007), there is very little research to support the treatment validity of processing assessment to academic interventions (Basche, Et. al, 2006).

However in spite of this I continue to hear many colleagues wax poetic about the necessity of the vaunted processing instruments. In my current district we continue to utilize assessments such as the TAPS, TVPS, VMI, and BG-II for all individual student evaluations. Teachers throughout my district claim that they must know a child's "processing disorder" in order to teach them. Yet, each time I observe a classroom I fail to see differentiated instruction that would belay the information gleaned from these tests. It is as if we have become addicted to assessment data for no other reason then the data itself. In the end all processing assessments do is further "psychologize" the problem rather then quantifying it.

I am hopeful that instruments like the PAL-II and CTOPP will move us away from psychological processing and into areas of processing that are directly linked to academic tasks. Assessments would become so much more valid if they linked SLD to specific areas of cognition that are deficient and can be targeted for direct intervention (i.e. phonological awareness for reading, and numeral fluency for math). I do think that there is still some value in memory assessment however, memory should be characterized as a stand alone construct separate from visual/auditory processing. Until legislation is targeted to address this issue I encourage all school psychologists to take the advice of Dr. Vanderwood and ask any teacher who claims to use processing assessment results for instructional purposes to identify a single student in their classroom with their corresponding processing deficit.

RTI: An Intervention-Based Approach to Delivering Services to Students At-Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

2009-03-16T19:07:00.001-07:00

While I am in the mood of posting slides, here is a rather impressive presentation by Frank Gresham, who is really a key player in the behavioral side of RTI systems. I am currently looking into applying his approach as a construct of our PBIS initiative at our school.

RTI: An Intervention-Based Approach to Delivering Services to Students At-Risk for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

View more presentations from schoolpsychology.

Using Response to Intervention with English Language Learners

2009-03-16T18:51:00.001-07:00

I have attended a number of lectures by Dr. Vanderwood and am always encourged by the conceptualization of the school psychologist's role in RTI as a reform agent not just an assessment or eligbility professional. I encourage every school psychologist to approach RTI from this perspective especially if you work in urban schools or other schools with similiar resource shortages.

Using Response to Intervention with English Language Learners

View more presentations from schoolpsychology.

RTI Update

2009-03-16T18:48:00.000-07:00

I am happy to report that as of today baseline levels were established with all students in tier 2 intervention groups using DIBELS ORF progress monitoring probes. We will begin our intervention sessions this week using the letters and sounds curriculum from older editions of Language!. I am also considering using PALS reading groups for some of my younger kiddos. We are also looking into using the SSIS or BASC-2 screener for universal screening at tier 1 at the beginning of next year as we roll out PBIS. More to come.

Where have all the assessments gone?

2009-03-16T18:07:00.000-07:00

Has anyone else noticed lately that all of the major assessment publishers seem to be stream-lining there extant assessment stock in order to concentrate on one or two best-sellers. I happened to have had the privilege of being able to discuss this with consultants from both Pearson and Riverside and they both said that since being bought by larger trans-national entities (Harcourt and Hougton-Mifflin) the word has come down to sell off cognitive assessments in order to focus on one brand. It looks as if we are headed back to the days of the Form L-M and the WISC-R, only now it will be the WISC-IV and the WJ-III Cognitive.

Now the WISC and WJ are both exceptional instruments but we should not forget that they both owe their current development to both competing instruments that pushed the boundaries of traditional assessment and those that were developed utilizing more advanced psychometric properties. Currently practitioners have more choices then every before in cognitive assessment each with a different theoretical construct and differential ability. Riverside has just sold the CAS, UNIT, and SB5 in order to concentrate solely on the WJ family which appears to be an attempt to create a branding effect much like Pearson and the Wechsler scales. Since buying AGS last year, Pearson is contemplating selling off the KABC-II. The CAS2 is currently being standardized by Pro-Ed. and there was some attempt to also re-norm the UNIT but those efforts are now on hold; and while the SB and KABC still have 5 or so years of validity left, there is a good possibility that they will not be re-normed when it comes time to publish new editions.

It was the KABC after all in 1983 that revolutionized cognitive assessment in a way that was directly responsible for the development of later batteries such as the CAS and the current incarnation of the WJ and CHC emphasis of the WISC-IV. And lets not forget that the SB provides a link to our profession's inception with the efforts of Binet in France.

While I admit that the publishers' are directly responsible for some of this with the prohibitive pricing of instruments that has now become untenable, we too share some of the blame. After all how many of you currently own your own instruments? There was a time when there was a certain pride and investment attached to testing and assessment in our field. After all the Psychological Corporation was originally founded by both David Wechsler and Edward Thorndike as a co-op dedicated to safeguarding the integrity of psychological assessment while serving as a vanguard for future research and instrument development. Unfortunately psychcorp too became a casuality two years ago when it was bought by Pearson.

I encourage all clinicians to think about the consequences of this development. After all what incentive will publishers have to invest in assessment research that could challenge its most seminal product? If we are to meet the challenges posed by the dynamic learning environments in our schools today it will only be through continued development of assessment instruments that serve to challenge existing measures to link better to intervention as well as have more treatment validity.

CASP: Some thoughts

2009-03-16T17:25:00.000-07:00

I will preface my comments by first stating that the CASP conference was my first comprehensive conference experience. With that said a few observations or musings if you will. I was expecting a bit more to be honest, there definitely was a "pay to play" vibe where if you didn't have the money to sign up for expensive workshops you were pretty much out of luck. There is no reason why there shouldn't be more general assembly themed lectures open to all registrants free of charge throughout the day. There were some exceptional workshops that I attended, I was particularly impressed with Goldstein, really interesting stuff about the genetic and evolutionary components of autism. I did attend the RTI workshop with Vanderwood and it was interesting to see the evolution of the RTI position as it is applied as a comprehensive eligibility model, I know I am partial but to those like me who initially dismissed RTI I would urge you to take a closer look at it from a different perspective.

All and all there were a lot of pluses and minuses. Although I have to state the obvious by saying that the keynote by Nancy Mather deserved two well deserved thumbs down. Frankly, I expected more then a bachelors level lit. review of the history of reading disabilities at this point in time in our profession. It was a bit tacky to have delivered such a watered down presentation while concluding that we should continue to use traditional assessment to discover ATI's with no new research to support such a conclusion. Essentially one could simplify the address with the following: reading is too complex to be measured by DIBELS, therefore continue to buy the WJ. Which leads me to a final overall observation, more original research please!!!! Conferences used to be the gathering place for new ideas, complex research, and theory debates that had real world implications for practice. While that continues to be the case, it is to a much smaller degree then it used to be. The CASP conference (which I should add is the largest state level SP organizational conference in the country) was dominated by pseudo-research, literature reviews, and tired corporate sponsored lecture circuit partisanship. I would be more then happy to pay double the cost to hear Reynolds, Naglieri, etc. lecture on any topic as long as it doesn't result in them hawking their instrument. Of course I am not the first to lodge these complaints, see the CASP forum dating to the 2005 conference. Other minimal observations:

There was a notable dichotomy of participants this year, mainly academics and student-trainees. While there were some clinicians there, representation was minimal.
Kudos to the mainstream scholars who were willing to interact and answer questions from us common folk. It was nice to see how accessible they were.
15% off assessment vendors......have you heard that there is a recession?
Students (which I am a part of), don't be afraid to bust out a pair of dress pants or mix in a shave or two.
If three district reps. at the job fair isn't a bad omen for the job market then I don't know what is.
Maybe next year we will be over the VMI.

The Fallacy of Experience

2009-02-27T17:12:00.000-08:00

For the past year I have been in the process of competing for admission to several doctoral level programs within the Southern California area, with the intention of pursuing a research agenda within my field of school psychology. Now that alone and of itself limited my options to a few select programs which had some tangential connection to school psychology. I had to rule out the two UC programs simply because I do not have the stomach for another five years of school and because I really don't have a desire to pursue a clinical track (and with my Ed.S. I would essentially only have a research core and clinical courses remaining in the UC Ph.D. format). I am gratified to report that a couple of weeks ago I was offered an appointment to the Ph.D. in education (school psychology emphasis) program at Chapman University in Orange. Although I was accepted at every institution that I applied to including USC, Chapman was my first choice because of combination or faculty, academic rigor, and potential NASP doctoral level approval in the year to come.

However, this process was a really interesting one in that it really shed some light on not only the training paradigm at the doctoral level but also the quality of many doctoral programs that I applied to. You can really pick up on a lot about a program from the admissions interview. There were a couple of programs where I simply walked out the door knowing that I would not in a million years attend that school. The focus of the interview was qualitatively much more rigorous and different at Chapman then every where else (as a consequence of their seeking a national reputation and the program being a Ph.D. I presume). At other institutions it seemed that the them of the admissions process was centered on "experience" (emphasis added) while at Chapman it was on ability to contribute to the field. One of the interviewers didn't even ask me a single question related to my proposed research interests and instead demurred with such homilies as "what if you had to commute to school, how would you handle it?" Apparently they had not glanced at my vita which would have informed them that I have been commuting to graduate school since day one.

Going through this process has raised some interesting questions in my mind not only about the doctoral admissions in the general field of education but also in the focus and content of doctoral preparation within the field of school psychology. The problem is quantified by the sheer lack of doctoral level training programs in California, compared to the population of school psychologists. There are essentially the three UC's (Berkeley, Riverside, and Santa Barbara) for training alone. However, they provide graduates with a clinical track and intensive research sequences which leave most either pursuing school psychology in a part time capacity (in a broader clinical practice) or through research appointments. And lets face it, those programs only admit at most 6 or so students a year so if you compare that to the number of specialist level programs there is a big discrepancy. Over the last couple of years Chapman and the University of the Pacific have started post-specialist Ph.D. programs in school psychology as an off-shoot of their NASP approved specialist programs. However, these programs are geared for those finishing up their specialist level training and are not entry level programs.

Then there is a maze and amalgamation of patchwork programs which are run by smaller institutions such as the online Ph.D. at Walden, Alliant International University's Psy.D. program, and the Ed.D. program at Azusa Pacific University. Most of these programs are essentially money grabs for the institution, which in essence charge tuition fees commensurate with elite level private institutions and offer a program that has not been established in the field and in some cases (i.e. AIU) even shuns the applied research focus of a traditional doctorate. Although there are more and more people popping up each year from AIU.

Although I can write about this forever and there are much more credible viewpoints on this issue that have been raised extensively in the literature, I would like to focus on the issue of "experience" as it is currently the vogue term now that positions are being cut across the country because of the budget crisis. The one thing that stood out to me when comparing Chapman to the other schools that I applied to was this issue namely, the schools that I found lacking seemed to focus extensively on this issue during the admissions process while shunning competence and scholarly ability. Chapman on the other hand didn't ask a single question about experience and instead focused on research interests and the potential to achieve in the field.

Throughout all fields of education there seems to be an open appeal to experience and I believe that it is a false metric. Even the training process in school psychology is tilted toward experience as you are subtly informed by colleagues who have more experience then you that you don't know enough and that there way is better or you are not taking seriously because you are an intern or a graduate student (I would like to emphasize that I am not talking about a trainee who is just beginning their field work, I stipulate that certain training marks have to be mastered before one becomes knowledgeable enough to contribute in the field). I am dealing with this issue head on during my internship and I can't keep from thinking that it is funny that as an intern I am the new person who is sort of looked at as second fiddle up until the day before I receive my credential. On that day I will not have learned anything more then the day before, however the social construction of a credential will grant me referent power which I never before had. I just think that that is an interesting thought to ponder.

However, in these days where districts are being gutted of their young and in some cases better trained talented educators would it behoove us to rethink our metric of experience......competence perhaps? Just think if your child had to be assessed for a learning disability or given a behavioral intervention would you want the most experienced psychologist or the most competent. From my experience (which I admit is not indicative of all school psychologists who have worked more then me and is certainly relegated to my own life-world) I have found that "experienced" psychologists seem to be the most resistant to data-based accountability driven practices like RTI while continuing to be beholden to psychometric witchcraft like ATI's, subtest profiling, and poorly defined processing measures. Our current educational system doesn't make the distinction, and hasn't for years.

WJ-III

2009-02-27T16:49:00.000-08:00

Today I was giving the WJ-III and came across a problem that I have been having with a lot of LD kids that I am assessing for triennials. The problem is that children that have any kind of visual-spatial problems or general memory issues seem to have their overall GIA score dragged down by subtests that are mediated by these tasks. I am not the first to observe the visual-spatial and memory saturation that confounds the WJ-III and it seems to be a problem with all tests that utilize rebus measures (KABC-II, etc.), however I have had at least three kids who have scores in the mid-90's on the WISC-IV and are pulling borderline to low-average scores on most of the subtests (Visual-Auditory Learning specifically).

When I trained on the WJ-III it was right after I had given a WISC-IV for the first time and so I felt like I was entering into some kind of forbidden world however, many many many assessments later I am starting to question the utility of the instrument especially when their are so many other options to measure cognitive abilities that are less time consuming and have better g saturation throughout the subtests. I can't be the only one who felt duped by the literature extolling the WJ for how many CHC properties it measures........little did we know that in order to get all of the indexes we would have to spend 3 hours or more giving all 20 subtests. I don't know, I do know that in some ways I becoming much more of a g purist as time goes on. I will post more info in some upcoming posts about a lot of research that has come out on the factor modeling of cognitive tests over the last couple of years, interesting stuff!

Tier 2 Here We Come!!!!!

2009-02-27T16:40:00.000-08:00

We are finally going ahead with our pilot RTI program at my school site as of next week. I volunteered to lead the intervention groups utilizing PALS lessons for separate math and reading cohorts. We are also in the process trying to put together a research based motivation group based upon some interesting research conducted by Dr. Carol Dweck with didactic achievement motivation training. At this point I am thinking about pre and post testing with the SMALSI to measure effectiveness.

As far as RTI goes, our groups are meeting once a week for 30 minutes and I will be assessing baselines using DIBELS, AIMSWEB (math CBM), and the new TWRE for a norm referenced angle. We will then progress monitor at the end of each intervention session and go over the data with our team every 6-8 weeks and assess whether or not students need to be moved into a tier 3 individualized intervention or scaled-up in their current tier. Our thinking is that if we get the tier intervention foundations going to start then it will be easy to start at the beginning of the year with universal screening as opposed to the opposite. It is really exciting to be implementing something from the ground up as I get to see where it goes from here. We all realize that we could all crash and burn on this thing, but can it be worse then the alternative? More updates later on and I do plan on posting some general student data.

School Funding

2009-02-13T11:33:00.000-08:00

Although school districts across the country are all being hit hard by the current fiscal crisis that is currently plaguing our country, California is especially being hit hard because of the long-standing morass that is our state legislature, who as of this writing have still not passed a budget (over 100 days late). There are some indications coming out of Sacramento that a deal has been reached that could be voted upon at any time now (how many times have we heard this before). As news of this spread, technical aspects of the budget began to be leaked over news outlets early yesterday morning with preliminary indications pointing to an educational funding reduction somewhere around 16% over the nest year and a half. This translates to a loss of about $8 billion out of around $51 billion in total allocated spending. Although there is some questions that remain over how much can be cut in the middle of this school year, there is no doubt that this is a huge reduction that will hit our schools hard.

Although I am a bit of a policy wonk, I also have an invested interest in both the state budget and the coming federal stimulus package because it will almost certainly effect the coming job market as I look for a paid positing at the end of this year. It does appear that California schools will get some relief in the form of a federal stimulus injection that could result in much less invasive cuts in the short term. However it does not address the greater problem of declining revenue over the long term as more and more California workers lose their jobs and thus, tax revenues are again reduced prompting further education cuts.

So how does this effect school psychologists, well essentially if your district is doing what my current district is doing which is not filling open positions left by retirements and transfers then that means higher caseloads and more schools. As it stands now, most psychologists have a 2-3 school case load with most to all of the time being allotted to completing mandated assessments and attending IEP meetings. I fear that we are getting closer and closer to a delivery model that is frankly, not sustainable. It is already difficult enough to consult on interventions and to monitor treatment fidelity when you are only at a school 1-2 days a week. I only have one school for my internship and I am simply going from one (sometimes 2-3) assessments to the next. I already see what the impact is on a psychologist that has a multiple school caseload, assessments are conducted with much less quality and there are little to no effective academic interventions taking place.

In the short term, as I pursue my doctorate, I am starting to think that a full time research career does not seem quite so bad. I mean my avarice to technical writing is assuaged by the fact that I just wrote over 40 report pages this week.........a couple of research articles a year no problem! I feel that in some ways I can do more to advocate for the profession on the research end. So ivory tower here I come..........well private ivory tower that is, our state public universities just took a large hit on the chin.

Research Corner: RIAS

2009-02-13T11:18:00.000-08:00

I just purchased the Reynolds Intellectual Assessment Scales partly because I was interested in trying it out after attending a lecture by the test author and also because I have this compulsive need to have trained on every test that is published. I, as well as other school psychologists I am sure, are interested in in any cognitive assessment that is valid and reliable that can be administered in shorter time periods then a traditional battery (hour to an hour and a half). The RIAS, although published in 2003, is a curious insturment because it has been marketed as a full-scale insturment, rather then a traditional brief screener (i.e. KBIT, WASI, etc.). I have even come accross a few reports, albeit triennial evaluations, with the RIAS included in the cognitive section. I have yet to administer the test as of yet but reviewing the technical literature included in the manual revealed some impressive stability coefficients (>.95) on the full-scale IQ index. I came across this article on another blog and thought I would post. Excellent review with some cautions for interpretation. I found this article to be an excellent review of factor analysis with insightful commentary on the process behind validating an assessment. Unfortunately, as in most psychometric literature, I again came away thinking that the constructs associated with traditional cognitive assessment are simply illusory given that different rotations reveal different data sets and correlations among subtests. The question that I have is whether or not we can truly trust psychometric data that comes from a test publisher given that there is an implicit conflict of interest that comes from revealing data that may call into question the factor modeling of the test in question. I think that every school psychologist should be asking these questions given that every test now claims to be modeled on CHC theory, with so much independent research showing that these assessments are still consistent with traditional psychometric models (VIQ-PIQ split).

See full-text article here:
http://www.iapsych.com/articles/nelson2007.pdf

Autism Assessment

2009-02-06T19:53:00.000-08:00

Here is a short lecture by Mary Joan Lang, Ph.D., a respected neuropsychologist, on the complexity of ASD. As a former behavior therapist I can appreciate that.

I am currently in the middle of a swatch of Autism assessments at the moment and I am struggling as I look over my assessment reports in trying to find a link to intervention. One of the tragedies of the current RTI debate, as it is concentrated on SLD identification, is that students with low-incidence disabilities who need the link between assessment and intervention are absent from the discussion. Instead we rely on currently on rating scales that have mediocre technical properties at best as a primary means of data for decision making. Now 90% of the time that is good enough because we often have an outside PDD diagnosis from a qualified medical doctor. But what happens when there is no support and the rating scales come back inconclusive? Essentially, an educational diagnosis for Autistic-Like ( a pretty severe category) comes down to nothing more then clinical judgement based upon a few classroom observations. I believe there needs to be more then that, and I am not alone. I guess a good first step would be for all of us school psychologists to run out there and get our ADOS training (cue DR. Evil). Now I would love to spend four hours on a diagnostic play assessment alone but frankly thats just not going to happen.

There are some promising instruments on the market, not that most school psychologist know because their district continues to shell out money for the GARS-2 (yes, the second edition came out last year) and the CARS. However, as most clinicians know that is like flipping a coin depending on what teacher or parent you give it to. I just purchased the SRS and the PDDBI which have much better technical properties. However there is not a current scale on the market that does not reference a non ASD norm sample. So essentially you have to hope that the criterion's assessed on the scale are linked to the diagnostic characteristics of the children in the norm sample. Naglieri and Goldstein are coming out with the ARS, which solves this problem, later this year.

However, even if we have technical instruments for diagnostic purposes it still misses the large point that the assessment does not link to intervention. I mean my reports are only good enough to place a child in a restrictive SDC room to watch cartoons all day (yes, it does happen). It is my hope that we can start to move as a field to where our evaluations will not only serve to diagnose learning disabilities like ASD, but also inform educators about how to best meet these student's needs once they are placed into a classroom. Till then I will continue to hold my finger to the wind.

Overview of RTI from NASP

2009-02-04T17:00:00.000-08:00

Understanding Response to Intervention
Helping a child who is having difficulty in school is a concern of parents and teachers alike. Everyone wants to see their child excel, and it can be very frustrating when a child falls behind in class. Traditionally, children having the most difficulty have been referred for an evaluation to determine if they need and qualify for special education services as a result of a learning disability. However, there is a growing effort in education to provide more targeted help, or interventions, to struggling learners before they either fall too far behind or require special education services. This process is called “Response to Intervention” (RTI) and its goal is to ensure that whenever possible children succeed in their general education classrooms.

What Are the Essential Components of RTI?
Response to Intervention emphasizes how well students respond to changes in instruction. The essential elements of RTI are: providing scientific, research-based instruction and interventions in general education; monitoring and measuring student progress in response to the instruction and interventions; and using these measures to shape instruction and make educational decisions. In general, the core features of an RTI process include:
High quality, research-based instruction and behavioral support in general education.
Universal (school-wide or district-wide) screening of academics and behavior in order to determine which students need closer monitoring or additional interventions.
Multiple tiers of increasingly intense scientific, research-based interventions that are matched to student need.

Use of a collaborative approach by school staff for development, implementation, and monitoring of the intervention process.

Continuous monitoring of student progress during the interventions, using objective information to determine if students are meeting goals.

Follow-up measures providing information that the intervention was implemented as intended and with appropriate consistency.

Documentation of parent involvement throughout the process.

Documentation that the special education evaluation timelines specified in the Individuals With

Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 2004 and in the state regulations are followed unless both the parents and the school team agree to an extension.

What Are the Key Terms?
Universal Screening is a step taken by school personnel early in the school year to determine which students are “at risk” for not meeting grade level standards. Universal screening can be accomplished by reviewing recent results of state tests, or by administering an academic screening test to all children in a given grade level. Those students whose test scores fall below a certain cut-off are identified as needing more specialized academic interventions.

Student Progress Monitoring is a scientifically based practice that is used to frequently assess students’ academic performance and evaluate the effectiveness of instruction. Progress monitoring procedures can be used with individual students or an entire class.

Scientific, Research-Based Instruction refers to specific curriculum and educational interventions that have been proven to be effective; that is, the research has been reported in scientific, peer-reviewed journals.

What Role Does RTI Play in Special Education Eligibility?
IDEA 2004 offers greater flexibility to school teams by eliminating the requirement that students must exhibit a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement in order to be found eligible for special education and related services as a student with a learning disability. RTI is one alternative method to traditional ability/achievement discrepancy comparisons. IDEA 2004 addresses RTI through: Effective instruction and progress monitoring. For students to be considered for special education services based on a learning disability they first must have been provided with effective instruction and their progress measured through “data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement.” Furthermore, results of the student progress monitoring must be provided to the child’s parents.
Evaluation procedures. The law gives districts the option of using RTI procedures as part of the evaluation procedures for special education eligibility. Comprehensive assessment is still required under the reauthorized law, however. That means that schools still need to carefully examine all relevant aspects of a student’s performance and history before concluding that a disability does or does not exist. Schools must rule out learning problems that are primarily the result of factors such as poor vision, hearing, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, lack of appropriate instruction, or limited English proficiency. Early Intervening Services. IDEA 2004 creates the option of using up to 15% of federal special education funds for “early intervening services” for students who have not been identified as needing special education, but who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education setting. The types of services that can be included are central to the RTI process, and include professional development for teachers and school staff to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions, as well as educational evaluations, services, supports, and scientifically based literacy instruction.

How Can Parents Be Involved in the RTI Process?
Parents play a vital role in their child’s school success. Being informed about your school’s RTI process is the first step to becoming an active partner. Questions to ask include:
Does our school use an RTI process? (Be aware that your child’s school may call their procedures a “problem solving process,” or may have a unique title for their procedures—e.g., Instructional Support Team— and not use the specific RTI terminology.)
Are there written materials for parents explaining the RTI process? How can parents be involved in the various phases of the RTI process?
What interventions are being used, and are these scientifically based as supported by research?
What length of time is recommended for an intervention before determining if the student is making adequate progress?

How do school personnel check to be sure that the interventions were carried out as planned?
What techniques are being used to monitor student progress and the effectiveness of the interventions? Does the school provide parents with regular progress monitoring reports?
At what point in the RTI process are parents informed of their due process rights under IDEA 2004, including the right to request an evaluation for special education eligibility?
When is informed parental consent obtained and when do the special education evaluation timelines officially commence under the district’s RTI plan?

What Are the Potential Benefits of RTI?
An RTI approach eliminates a “wait to fail” situation because students get help promptly within the general education setting before falling too far behind. RTI also has the potential to reduce the number of students unnecessarily referred for special education services because it helps distinguish between those students whose achievement problems are due to a learning disability and those students whose achievement problems are due to other issues that can be addressed in general education. Finally, parents and school teams alike find that the RTI student progress monitoring techniques provide more instructionally relevant information than traditional assessments.

What Steps Are Required to Implement RTI?
While federal regulations offer guidance, each school district needs to develop its own procedures based on their state regulations, resources, and the needs of its student population. However:
All schools must be prepared to offer a variety of proven instructional strategies.
Staff must be trained to measure student performance using methods that are sensitive to small increments of growth.

Parents must be kept informed of these new procedures and made partners in the process.
Teams must determine how they will define an “adequate” response to an intervention—how much progress over what period of time will be the benchmark to determine if an intervention is successful?

Adapted from: “Response to Intervention: A Primer for Parents,” by Mary Beth Klotz and Andrea Canter, www.nasponline.org, 2006. The full handout is available online at www.nasponline.org/families.

CASP Convention 2009

2009-02-03T18:03:00.000-08:00

60th Anniversary of CASP Conventions!

This is my shameless plug because I am on the commitee....however there is a great lineup of workshops and speakers and hotel rooms should be somewhat affordable.

When will retention go away?

2009-02-03T17:47:00.000-08:00

As the school year starts to head down the final stretch I have consulted with a number of teachers over the past few weeks who have brought up the idea of retention for the particular student in question. Of course I try to steer them away form the idea with appeals for more interventions and patience with the process, and even a few research references however the very concept of retention seems more like a schema that is entrenched within a school culture then a practice tool that is reasoned and rationalized before implementing. What is so distressing to me is that teachers can identify "retention candidates" in the middle of the schoo year (and sometimes earlier) yet, when asked to identify a specific academic weakness I am consistantly told, "well, they are low." In conversations that I have had with other educators it is apparent that the vast majority off school professionals all know, and in some cases voice their own dissaproval of the practice, that retention is not supported by any extant research. Yet, it is a tool that is all too often excercised, all too often in lower SES schools. I believe that retention continues to be practiced mostly for political reasons as a symbol of tough standards to the tax paying public. Evidence that kids who don't put forth the effort will not be rewarded with "social promotion." In my experience the vast majority of students who are put up for retention are not the "motivational" cases but, rather students who are at-risk (through no fault of their own) because of poverty, economic, cultural, or language based issues. To me, the retention problem is not just a research problem, it is a social justice problem. The answer......I am afraid there is not one because of budget cuts and policy reasons most schools do not have the capacity to implement academic bridge programs and sheltered intervention groups. Thus, do to a failure of available options retention remains.

NASP Position Statement on Retention
http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_graderetent.aspx

SB-V Research

2009-01-19T17:28:00.000-08:00

A recent article published in School Psychology Quarterly outlined the factor structure of the Stanford-Binet V. In a nutshell the research concluded that the reported five factor structure (fluid reasoning, knowledge, quantitative reasoning, visual-spatial processing, and working memory) was not supported. Orthogonal rotations revealed that the largest proportions of common and total variance was due to second order "G." In other words the scale remains a very strong measure of global intellectual ability but other first factor variables should not be interpreted.

I honestly do not know anyone that currently uses the SB-V as their primary assessment device, however I do think it is important to train on them if nothing more then nostalgia. I came away from the SB-V thinking that everything seemed to have verbal mediation, even fluid processing.

The article can be found below:

Canivez, G.L. (2008). Orthogonal higher order factor structure of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales-Fifth Edition for children and adolescents. School Psychology Quarterly, (23) 4, 533-541.

RTI and the School Psychologist

2009-01-19T17:21:00.000-08:00

A nice short overview of how RTI will change the role of the school psychologist.

I think the main theme embedded in this process that school psychologists really need to take from it is that there is a role for us before the assessment plan is signed and as experts in a variety of psychological areas related to learning and motivation it is our job to be involved in the process of intervening

update # 1

2009-01-19T16:52:00.000-08:00

After spending a couple of days planning and looking over some research intervention models I believe that I have come up with a very feasible plan for implementing a hybrid RTI intervention model at my school. First off, the SST system heretofore is kaput. No more teacher referrals and pointless team meetings. In place we have a referral system that is screened by the school principal, who then selects cases in which the children need some type of intervention. The principal will then meet with the selected teacher to outline a intervention in which the teacher will progress monitor effectiveness data. A follow-up meeting will then be scheduled to be determined whether or not the student needs to have the intervention changed, intensified, left-alone, etc.. This process is essentially tier 1. I know that most RTI models consider universal screening to be tier 1 but we money for those materials and we need to put together a model that bypasses teacher "buy-in" as much as possible (for fidelity issues)...plus we cannot screen in the middle of the school year, results would not be valid. Tier 2 would be a sheltered intervention group focusing on remediation co-led by an RSP and me. The group meets twice a week for half and hour each time and the last day will be used for PM. Baseline data will be collected in order to gauge intervention effectiveness. The intervention team will meet every 6-8 weeks in order to make Tier decisions including moving children up to tier 3 which is an individualized sheltered intervention. My vision is for assessment to be required if a child is non-responsive at the end of tier 3 interventions. By that time we have tons of CBM data and a pretty good idea of what the academic deficit is. My goal for this RTI process is to inform a potential psychoeducational assessment meaning, I would select instruments in order to search for specific cognitive/neuropsychological deficits that are logically connected to the academic deficit area. If they are found then we have an evidence-based and research bound SLD diagnosis. I believe that this process allows the school psychologist not only to serve at the nexus of academic interventions but also to become a true clinician with assessment instead of throwing the book at each kid during initials in order to satisfy some procedural process.

Me and the RSP teacher presented the pilot model to the principal and it was given an enthusiastic thumbs up so next we move on to strategic planning to iron out the nuts and bolts.

I'm converted

2009-01-19T16:43:00.000-08:00

Those of you who know me know that I have been an outsoken critic of RTI as it has been proposed by some of the more radical elements within my profession (Vanderwood et. al). However, it did not take me long to see how broken the current system is when I had to spend an entire day sitting in SST meetings.

There was not a single meeting in which a teacher could identify a specific academic defecit that the child currently showed in the classroom. Everyone wanted to "psychologize" the observed behavior (more on this for sure in a future post). Essentially it was communicated to the teacher to just hold on to them till they fail enough and then the psychologist will test them. I suggested some progress monitoring interventions and was quickly rebuffed by most teachers with the proverbial white flag comment of, "But I have 30 students in my class." I wanted so badly to respond with, "I know how you must feel because I have over 400 that I am responsible for right now," (over 1,500 if your not an intern like me) but that would have been unprofessional.

So essentially we have a a hodgepodge system that does nothing more then admire the problem, meanwhile a child who currently needs help is not getting it. It only took me a few days on the job to see that RTI is the answer not only to intervention but also to helping psychologists conduct a much more focused assessment if that is needed. I am currently working on implementing an RTI model at my school that hits all of these themes.......updates will be posted on my progress.

TAPS-3

2009-01-19T16:39:00.000-08:00

I am making it my personal mission to be the first school psychologist who takes a stand against the TAPS-3. What a useless instrument; I have yet to find someone who can explain to me how you can differentiate between a deficit on that test and a host of confounding variables. The truly sad thing is that I do believe that processing assessment is the future of cognitive assessment yet, hardly any good instruments to choose from. I purchased the DTAP and so far I have gotten some mixed results with not a whole lot of utility, especially working with the younger kids.

A time for reflection

2008-12-30T12:33:00.000-08:00

As the new year begins all educators in California are currently fixated upon the on-going budget talks taking place in Sacramento. I will try to keep partisan comments aside and stipulate that both sides have contributed to a disastrous form of faux "accountability" and neo-liberal funding mechanisms that have crippled local efforts to build a sustainable consensus among all stakeholders. The reality is that when budgets are cut and funding scaled back the ultimate victim is the students. Not teachers unions, liberal activist groups, or lazy educrats that the right often likes to demonize in every talking point extolling the virtues of "choice." What disturbs me is not so much that these points seem to resonate the most with the bobos (David Brooks term that I find so fitting) that seem to benefit the most from a well funded public education system...no, its the fact that every fiscal year the governor floats education cuts as a first measure to balance monetary short falls. Voters don't seem to bat an eyelash when we mention 10% reductions across the board in education before we have even considered reductions in other agencies. Plato once summarized that you can tell a lot about a civilization by how it chooses to treat its most vulnerable citizens. I think it says a lot about us as a people when welfare, education, and mental health care programs continue to be the first sources of reduction and not the last. I am encouraged by the words of Paul Krugman who hopes that this economic crisis will force us to take a good look at how we fund vital services like education so that these services that are needed during times of crisis like this do not always fall victim to fluctuations in the private sector.

Memory Assessment

2008-12-17T22:32:00.000-08:00

After adminstering all of the most popular memory assessments I thought here are my overall impressions.

WMS-III: The most clinically oriented of the assessments. There are some subtests that I just love out of this battery (spatial span board) and a few that are just a lot of Wechsler greatest hits (digit span, L-N Sequencing). Overall, a really strong battery (what else do you expect from Delis and Kaplan), but not the age range (16+) makes it too prohibitive for use by most school psychologists. I was hoping that the new WMS-IV (2009) would be the first revision to extend down but it does not look like it will be the case. I highly reccomend all psychologists to read the manual for an excellent treatment of overall memory structure and function.

TOMAL-2: I hated this test when I trained on it. It was a beast to give...long....boring...and too taxing on the examiner. However, since then I am becoming more and more fond of it as I notice the flaws in other memory batteries. The TOMAL is by far the most psychmetricaly sound of all the batteries. Covers all the essential components of memory, save working memory, and is the only battery the clearly makes the distinction between verbal and nonverbal memory. Drawbacks are the bland materials and lack of working memory coverage, which I find odd given the scope of this revision (Baddeley is not even cited as a reference in the manual....strange). Devote some time to this assessment, it takes a while to master the complex scoring and administration procedures.

WRAML-2: The only battery that is theory based (Baddeley's Working Memory model) and the most cited in the literature. The data that you can get from the learning graph is an assessment in and of itself. A really promising battery that would by far and away be the runaway "WISC-IV" of this bunch if it weren't for two big flaws: FINGER WINDOWS!!!!! and the poor standardization sample (all age-groups N= >60). For those of you who haven't had your finger windows experience.....what can I say.....pure torture.

CMS: I have a more thorough review of the CMS in this section and I should preface by saying that I currently own the CMS over the others because of its two strengths: utility and child friendly materials. This is the quickest assessment to give by far and is the least taxing on the examinee. Drawback is you can really only utilize the general memory index for interpretive purposes. However, for most school psychologists this is the most cost-effective battery when you take into account time and confound by assessing too many of the same tasks as most cognitive assessments that you will have probably already administered (real problem with the WMS-III).

Overall, I conclude that it is a toss-up between the TOMAL and WRAML for best overall battery in which I give the edge to the WRAML because of working memory (lets face it, is the most important aspect of memory as it relates to school, which is what we are all about) and because I just have this disdain for those awful Pro-Ed., boxes. You would think for a couple hundred bucks they could throw in a vinyl sack or something. However, those are measures that I would recommend for more in-depth memory assessments (most likely when you want to run up the bill as an LEP); the CMS is really the best assessment for general administration as a processing instrument on initial evaluations (which is what most school psychologists need). In the end it is really about comfort with memory assessment....they are all adequate as long as you have had some nueropsychology training and know basic memory structures and what your are looking for.

CMS

2008-12-17T22:17:00.000-08:00

Just tried out the Children's Memory Scale (Cohen, 1997) for the first time today. Overall impression was like that of every memory assessment out there: some real positives but also some things that leave the examiner with some questions.

Positives: Quickest of all the memory assessments I have administered and by far the most child friendly. The least taxing on the examiner and students generally are interested in the stimuli. Get a wealth of data, including the vaunted WRAML word list learning curve.

Negatives: Faces subtest drags on forever....you have to keep telling the examinee, "just a couple more!" Domain scores have internal consistency ratings ranging from the high .60's to the low .90's, which is just not acceptable. The most stable index is the General Memory Composite...no other score is worth reporting, too much confound. Very high correlation with GMC and VIQ from the Wechsler Scales (suggesting confound???) No selected examination of working memory.

General Impressions: Easy to administer (no finger windows here!) and very child friendly. I highly recommend for general assessments such as initials that require the use of a general memory battery. Or if your like me, to assess general memory just because you think that it is a pretty important thing to measure for every student. However, if you need a more clinical memory assessment for school neuropsychological purposes I would recommend combining an extended WJ-III COG and the WRAML-2 or NEPSY-II Attention and Learning battery.

Using Jenga to develop Self-Regulation

2008-12-17T21:58:00.000-08:00

While building rapport with a student that I was testing for an ADHD evaluation I stumbled onto what I think could be an interesting intervention for ADHD or other impulsivity problems in children.

Play Jenga with them! Think about it, pretty much everything that you need to be successful at Jenga is something that ADHD kids struggle with: response disinhibition, attention deficit, impulsivity, distractability, etc. The particular child that I was working with had been suspended numerous times already in the short school year for assaults on other students, staff, and generally just a pain in the you know what to everyone (he was already diagnosed with ADHD that was morphing into Conduct disorder). In fact, I was asked to assess him because he had already gotten into a spat with my supervisor so that relationship was spoiled.

Yet, I pulled out the Jenga (truthfully, because it was the only game we had) and voila, instant rapport. Well not exactly, but it did the trick. While he did have some problems with inhibition, which resulted in pulling down the tower on the first pull, he was able to self-regulate through goal-orienting to win the game. I asked him how was able to do that and he said, "After losing so quickly in the first couple of games I figured that I had to plan my moves to make sure that the tower would not fall down." While this is not by any means a universal intervention, I think it might be a great way to start a therapeutic dialogue with ADHD students who do not have an understanding of self-regulation or how to develop it. Although I did have some explaining to do when the teacher asked me what I did with him for a half hour after he was referred to the office for behavior, I don't advise saying you played Jenga!

Perhaps, you could have the student keep a journal while they are playing and using it to record the strategies that the used to make moves. They could also do a post-mortum after the game and draw connections between their planning and the outcome of the game and develop some hypothesis for how to do better next time if they are not successful. The only issue might be generalizability but hey, when is that not an issue with targeted interventions.

ESL

2008-12-17T21:33:00.000-08:00

As part of my internship I have been assigned an elementary school that has not had a functioning SST process for the last year or so. My supervisor has been working with the principal for the past couple of weeks to get a process going. Last week we had our initial meetings for students who are currently at-risk.

Our team met with the parents of nine different children all with difficulties in reading or math and all ESL. On more then one case the classroom teacher for the students interjected with a point emphasizing that they (the student) had been in school for a couple of years now and therefore, English acquisition could not be considered a rule out.

I am not a charter advocate nor a teacher apologist, I simply call them as I see them. When I hear comments like this from so called professionals I always just want to say to the offending party, "this is why you have to justify salary raises and fight against funding cutbacks that result from the general public perception that you are incompetent." I cannot tell you how many times I have heard a teacher say with certainty that an ESL student should have mastered English after only a couple of years in the school system. This is also coming from an urban school district that has a large ESL population. I will not get into the whole ESL curriculum debate; to be honest I am not as informed as I should be on that subject. However, I do know that all of the extant literature does point out two things; 1.) there are two levels of English language fluency that need to be mastered (academic and social) 2.) while social language (i.e. ability to engage in conversations with English speaking peers) usually emerges after a couple of years, academic fluency takes upwards of 5-7 years to master in the school system (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005). This is also does not take into account that a majority of these students live in nesting environments that utilize their primary language thus, they do not have access to a diverse environment in which they can practice their immersion skills.

Imagine if an English speaking child was only able to speak or hear English when at school, while they went home to a community that communicated primarily through pig-Latin. It is an elementary example but suffice it say I would expect that child to have profound language delays when compared to his/her peers in the classroom.

Also, advice for teachers, you cant expect your students to respect you when you show up to class wearing shorts or sweatpants to work. Name one profession where you would respect your supervisor if they came to work in that kind of attire in what is considered to be a formal work environment. Just my two cents for the day.

2008-12-14T13:17:00.001-08:00

I am starting this blog as a medium to navigate current professional topics in school psychology. As a new school psychologist and one who has a particular interest in assessment, I am astounded by some of the practices that I see on a day in and day out basis in my professional work. By no means am I immune from mistakes; however, I am startled at the dearth of attention that is focused on assessment and instrument selection and application (save for the Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment) in the major school psych advocacy groups and research literature.

First a a caveat, I am not a research psychologist, although I am a consumer of research I am not a psychometrist by training. For a much more thorough treatment of these topics I suggest that practitioners and other concerned stakeholders consult the excellent blog page run by Dr. Kevin McGrew (co-author of the WJ-III). My vision for this page to become a marketplace for ideas about best practice and musings from the field. I hope that in time it can become a valuable resource for both fellow students, parents, and other educators.