362 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT
Provide cues to signal o -task behavior and improve Oscar’s self-awareness. Consider nonverbal cues (such as tapping a finger on the reminder card on his desk).
Use memory aids (e.g., pictorial graphic organizers) as a reminder of the instructions or to guide the completion of an activity.
Use preparatory sets to build background knowledge about a particular topic, focus attention on particular themes or words, and provide an expectation of what to look for or listen to in any new material.
Resources
Examples of programs and resources to consider:
Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL) Research-Based Reading and Writing Lessons (www.pearsonclinical.com)
RAVE-O (www.voyagersopris.com)
Seeing Stars® Program for Reading Fluency and Spelling (www.lindamoodbell
.com)
SPELL-Links to Reading and Writing (www.learningbydesign.com)
Berninger, V. W., & Wolf, B. J. (2016). Teaching students with dyslexia, dysgraphia,
OWL LD, and dyscalculia (2nd ed). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
111111111
Words: Integrated Decoding and Spelling Instruction Based on Word Origin and Word Structure–Second Edition (www.proedinc.com)
Disclaimer: The examiner receives no royalties or compensation and has no significant financial interest in any of the products or programs recommended.
Reference for characteristics of dyslexia, dysgraphia, and OWL-LD:
Berninger, V. W. (2009). Highlights of programmatic, interdisciplinary research on writing. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice: A Publication of the Division for Learning Disabilities, Council for Exceptional Children, 24(2), 69–80.
Resource for further information about
OWL-LD/Language Processing Disorder:
Learning Disabilities Association of
America: http://ldaamerica.org/
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 363
Psychometric Summary for Oscar
Table 6.10 WISC-V**
Scale/Index |
Standard |
(90% Confidence |
Percentile |
|
Subtest |
Score |
Interval) |
Rank |
Qualitative Descriptor |
|
|
|
|
|
Verbal Comprehension |
89 |
(83–96) |
23 |
Low Average to Average |
Similarities |
8 |
|
25 |
|
Vocabulary |
8 |
|
25 |
|
Visual Spatial |
86* |
(81–94) |
18 |
Low Average to Average |
Block Design |
5 |
|
5 |
|
Visual Puzzles |
10 |
|
50 |
|
Fluid Reasoning |
79** |
(74–87) |
8 |
Very Low to Low Average |
Matrix Reasoning |
12 |
|
75 |
|
Figure Weights |
1 |
Insu cient e ort |
0.1 |
|
(Picture Concepts) |
5 |
Substitute for FW |
5 |
|
|
|
in FSIQ |
|
|
Working Memory |
74 |
(70–83) |
4 |
Very Low to Low Average |
Digit Span |
6 |
|
9 |
|
Picture Span |
5 |
|
5 |
|
Processing Speed |
75 |
(70–86) |
5 |
Very Low to Low Average |
Coding |
4 |
|
2 |
|
Symbol Search |
7 |
111111111 |
16 |
|
Full Scale IQ |
77 |
(73–83) |
6 |
Very Low to Low Average |
Note: WISC-V Index standard scores have a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15, and the subtest standard scores have a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 10.
*Nonunitary composite score.
**The WISC-V was administered on Q-interactive with a touch tablet (iPad).
Table 6.11 Index Level Strengths and Weaknesses
Index |
Score |
Strength or Weakness (p < .05) |
Base Rate |
VCI |
89 |
S |
< = 15% |
Comparison score is the FSIQ. Base rates are reported by ability level.
Table 6.12 Index Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons
|
|
|
|
Critical |
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
Di erence |
|
|
Index Comparison |
Score 1 |
Score 2 |
Di erence |
Value |
(p < .05) |
Base Rate |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
VCI–WMI |
89 |
74 |
15 |
12.46 |
Y |
9.7% |
VCI–PSI |
89 |
75 |
14 |
13.79 |
Y |
10.8% |
Base rates are reported by ability level.
364 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT |
|
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Table 6.13 Subtest Level Strengths and |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
Weaknesses |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
Subtest |
Score |
|
Strength or Weakness |
Base Rate |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MR |
12 |
|
|
S |
|
|
< = 2% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||
Table 6.14 Subtest Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critical |
|
|
Significant |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Di erence |
|
||
Subtest Comparison Score 1 |
Score 2 |
Di erence |
Value |
|
|
(p < .05) |
Base Rate |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
BD–VP |
|
5 |
|
10 |
–5 |
3.04 |
|
|
Y |
4.6% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Process Score |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scaled Score |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
Block Design No Time Bonus |
|
|
BDn |
|
|
|
6 |
|
|||
Digit Span Forward |
|
|
|
DSf |
|
|
|
7 |
|
||
Digit Span Backward |
|
|
|
DSb |
|
|
|
9 |
|
||
Digit Span Sequencing |
|
|
|
DSs |
|
|
|
5 |
|
||
|
|
||||||||||
Table 6.15 Process Level Pairwise Difference Comparisons |
|
||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
111111111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Significant |
|
||
Score |
|
|
|
|
Critical |
|
Di erence |
|
|||
Comparison |
Score 1 |
Score 2 |
Di erence |
Value |
|
(p < .05) |
Base Rate |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DSb–DSs |
9 |
5 |
|
|
4 |
3.66 |
|
|
Y |
11.5% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
Table 6.16 KTEA-3 Brief: Grade Norms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Standard |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtest/Composite |
|
|
|
Score |
Percentile |
|
Qualitative |
||||
|
|
(90% CI) |
Rank |
|
|
Descriptor |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
Letter & Word Identification |
|
79 (74–84) |
8 |
|
|
|
Below Average |
||||
Reading Comprehension |
|
|
87 (77–97) |
19 |
|
|
|
Low Average |
|||
Reading |
|
|
|
81 (74–88) |
10 |
|
|
|
Low Average |
||
Math Concepts and Application |
|
84 (79–89) |
14 |
|
|
|
Low Average |
||||
Math Computation |
|
|
93 (88–98) |
32 |
|
|
|
Average |
|||
Mathematics |
|
|
|
86 (82–90) |
18 |
|
|
|
Low Average |
||
Written Expression |
|
|
74 (66–82) |
4 |
|
|
|
Below Average |
|||
Spelling |
|
|
|
77 (71–83) |
6 |
|
|
|
Below Average |
||
Written Language |
|
|
75 (69–81) |
5 |
|
|
|
Below Average |
|||
Academic Skills Battery |
|
|
78 (74–82) |
7 |
|
|
|
Below Average |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ILLUSTRATIVE CASE REPORTS 365
Table 6.17 KTEA-3 Comprehensive: Grade Norms
|
Standard |
|
|
Subtest/Composite |
Score |
Percentile |
Qualitative |
(90% CI) |
Rank |
Descriptor |
|
|
|
|
|
Phonological Processing |
88 (81–95) |
21 |
Low Average |
Nonsense Word Decoding |
90 (84–96) |
25 |
Average |
Word Recognition Fluency |
77 (66–88) |
6 |
Below Average |
Writing Fluency |
84 (73–95) |
14 |
Low Average |
Listening Comprehension |
83 (73–93) |
13 |
Low Average |
Sound-Symbol |
86 (81–91) |
18 |
Low Average |
Decoding |
83 (79–87) |
13 |
Low Average |
Comprehension |
83 (75–91) |
13 |
Low Average |
Note: The KTEA-3 was administered on Q-interactive with a touch tablet (iPad).
Table 6.18 KTEA-3 Error Analysis: Phonological Processing
|
Items |
Average |
Student’s |
|
Error Category |
Attempted |
# of Errors |
# of Errors |
Skill Status |
|
|
|
|
|
Blending |
10 |
0–2 |
2 |
Average |
Rhyming |
8 |
0–1 |
0 |
Average |
Sound Matching |
6 |
111111111 0–1 |
1 |
Average |
Deleting |
6 |
0–1 |
1 |
Average |
Segmenting |
10 |
0–2 |
3 |
Weak |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6.19 KTEA-3 Error Analysis: Listening Comprehension
|
Items |
Average |
Student’s |
|
Error Category |
Attempted |
# of Errors |
# of Errors |
Skill Status |
|
|
|
|
|
Literal Comprehension |
12 |
2–4 |
8 |
Weak |
Inferential Comprehension |
9 |
2–4 |
6 |
Weak |
Narrative Comprehension |
10 |
1–3 |
7 |
Weak |
Expository Comprehension |
11 |
2–5 |
7 |
Weak |
|
|
|||
Table 6.20 KTEA-3 Error Analysis: Reading Comprehension |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
Items |
Average |
Student’s |
Skill Status |
|
(N/A for out of |
|||
Error Category |
Attempted |
# of Errors |
# of Errors |
level item set) |
|
|
|
|
|
Literal Comprehension |
22 |
N/A |
4 |
N/A |
Inferential Comprehension |
9 |
N/A |
1 |
N/A |
Narrative Comprehension |
16 |
N/A |
0 |
N/A |
Expository Comprehension |
15 |
N/A |
5 |
N/A |
|
|
|
|
|
366 ESSENTIALS OF KTEA™-3 AND WIAT®-III ASSESSMENT
Table 6.21 KTEA-3 Error Analysis: Written Expression
|
Items |
Average |
Student’s |
|
Error Category |
Attempted |
# of Errors |
# of Errors |
Skill Status |
|
|
|
|
|
Task |
6 |
0–2 |
3 |
Weak |
Structure |
8 |
2–4 |
5 |
Weak |
Word Form |
8 |
0–2 |
4 |
Weak |
Capitalization |
14 |
3–7 |
10 |
Weak |
Punctuation |
24 |
9–14 |
13 |
Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6.22 WIAT–III: Grade Norms
Subtest |
|
Standard Score (90% CI) |
Qualitative Descriptor |
|
Oral Reading Fluency (Grade 4 item set) |
82 (75–89) |
Low Average |
||
Oral Reading Fluency Accuracy |
|
93 (83–103) |
Average |
|
Oral Reading Fluency Rate |
|
82 (75–89) |
Low Average |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6.23 PAL-II: Grade Norms |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Subtest |
|
Scaled Score (90% CI) |
Qualitative Descriptor |
|
|
|
111111111 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Finger Succession—Dominant Hand |
|
6 |
Low Average |
|
Finger Succession—Nondominant Hand |
|
6 |
Low Average |
|
Word Choice—Accuracy |
|
|
8 |
Average |
Word Choice—Fluency |
|
|
7 |
Low Average |
Alphabet Writing—Legible at 15 seconds |
|
11 |
Average |
|
Alphabet Writing—Legible Letter Writing |
6 |
Low Average |
||
Alphabet Writing—Total Time |
|
|
10 |
Average |
Sentence Copying—Legible at 15 seconds |
8 |
Average |
||
Sentence Copying—Legible Letter Writing |
13 |
High Average |
||
Sentence Copying—Total Time |
|
|
7 |
Low Average |
|
|
|
|
|
Table 6.24 CELF–5 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||
Subtest/Composite |
Scaled Score (90% CI) |
Qualitative Descriptor |
||
|
|
|
|
|
Word Classes |
|
6 (4–8) |
|
Low |
Formulated Sentences |
|
7 (5–9) |
|
At Risk |
Recalling Sentences |
|
7 (6–8) |
|
At Risk |
Semantic Relationships |
|
7 (6–8) |
|
At Risk |
Core Language |
81 (76–86) |
|
At Risk |
|
Note: The CELF–5 was administered on Q-interactive with a touch tablet (iPad).