Evaluation Results

Intellectual/Cognitive

Several tests were administered to assess cognitive processes. The CrossBattery Assessment (XBA) approach was used to analyze and synthesize these data. This approach provides guidelines so that assessments can use multiple tests to measure a broader range of abilities than might be available on only one battery. The XBA approach is based on current research evidence regarding the structure of cognitive abilities and their relations to academic abilities. The results are presented next.

Will performed in the average to high-average ranges in several cognitive areas. He is able to apply logical reasoning skills to discern relationships among nonverbal, figural types of problems (Gf), has adequate visual processing skills (Gv), and has well-developed phonemic awareness (Ga).

Within the Gsm cluster, Will displayed a weakness in the narrow ability of working memory (MW). Although the score on the Digit Span subtest of the WISC-IV fell in the average range, an intrasubtest analysis revealed that there was differential performance within this subtest. Will was required to repeat a sequence of digits that were orally presented to him. On one portion, he was asked to repeat the sequence verbatim, and the other portion required him to repeat the sequence backward. There is a difference between Will's performance on Digit Span Forward, which falls in the average range (SS = 10) and is a measure of memory span (MS) versus Digit Span Backwards, which is below average (SS = 6) and measures working memory (MW). Thus, an additional measure of MW was administered, and the results concur with this deficit.

Within the Gc cluster, Will was asked to provide categories for concrete and abstract concepts (Similarities; e.g., In what way are ____________ and

____________ alike?), define words (Vocabulary; e.g., What does

____________ mean?), and apply social knowledge and judgment in answering questions (Comprehension; e.g., Why do people ____________?). This is an area of weakness for Will. He has difficulty with lexical knowledge and abstract concepts. Specifically his vocabulary is weak (e.g., did not know the word pest), and he tends to provide more concrete and functional

examples for abstract concepts (e.g., for brave, he described standing up for a friend; he could not provide a category for anger-joy but did say these terms reflected “being mad at something or someone but then also being happy after you get over being mad”). Will performed better on Comprehension, which requires less abstraction and where examples and descriptions are more acceptable. Noteworthy is the fact that Will's Gc was estimated to be more than a standard deviation lower on this administration of the WISC-IV as compared to a previous administration (where his Gc was well within the average range of functioning). Despite these differences, it does appear that Will's vocabulary knowledge is less well developed as compared to his samegrade peers, which may be related to the difficulties Will continues to have with reading fluency (deriving meaning from text at a grade-appropriate rate and level). Moreover, Will's below average Gc makes writing more difficult for him (e.g., he has difficulty with idea and word generation).

Another related area of weakness for Will is Glr. On the Visual-Auditory Learning test, Will was required to learn words associated with picture symbols and then to recall the words when presented with the symbols in a sentence format. This is a task of associative memory. He had much difficulty retaining the associations, and although he did learn a few symbols, he said this was “too much stuff for his brain.” On the Retrieval Fluency (RF) test, he had to provide words that fell in a particular category. This is a measure of ideational fluency. Will's performance on the RF test is consistent with his difficulty in lexical knowledge and difficulties categorizing and explain, in part, his reading and writing difficulties.

Gs measures the ability to perform a routine task quickly and efficiently. Will had no difficulty on measures of perceptual speed (P) where he had to use visual scanning and perceptual discrimination skills (Symbol Search and Cancellation subtests). His score on the Coding subtest reflects an area of concern. On this subtest Will had to copy geometric shapes associated with numbers within a 2-minute time limit. This requires visual-motor integration. Will was very slow on this subtest, trying to ensure that his reproductions were correct and precise. He commented that his handwriting was “bad” and he had to take his time to “copy the little marks.”

The Beery-Buktenica Test of Visual Motor Integration—Fifth Edition (VMI-5) was administered to follow-up on Will's visual perception and motor

skills. Results are presented in the next table.

The VMI-5 consists of three subtests: Visual Motor Integration, where Will was required to reproduce geometric shapes given one attempt without erasing; Visual Perception, where he was presented with a shape and had to identify the matching picture from a series of similar images below; and Motor Coordination, where he had to draw stimulus forms without going outside double-lined paths (any deviation outside the path is an error; thus, motor control and planning are needed on this task). On the Visual Perception subtest, Will performed in the average range consistent with his scores on the WISC-IV Symbol Search and Cancellation subtests. There is a significant decrease in his performance when motor skills are introduced. On the Visual Motor Integration subtest, he scored in the low-average range; he was able to accurately perceive the shape but could not retain its accuracy when drawing it. On the Motor Coordination subtest, Will scored in the below-average range. This subtest is a pure motor skill. The results of these subtests show that Will does have a weakness in fine-motor coordination, which involves motor planning, accuracy, and preciseness. Will's difficulty in this area is associated with his handwriting legibility. His letters are poorly formed. The results of Will's cross-battery assessment of cognitive abilities are found in Figure 7.1.

Figure 7.1 Results of Will's Cross-Battery Assessment of Cognitive Abilities Note: Standard score ranges were omitted from this graph intentionally due to space limitations. These scores are visible in the XBA DMIA v2.0. The darker shaded area in the middle of this graph represents the Average range (i.e., Standard scores of 90–110); the lighter shaded area represents the range of Normal Limits (i.e., standard scores of 85–115).

Achievement

Grades, Current Educational Performance Levels, and Teacher

Interview

The first quarter grades for Will's fourth grade year are as follows: Language Arts = 64, Reading = 80, Math = 88, and Science and Social Studies = 95 in both classes. He met expectations for his “Target Goals” and “Progress Criteria” in almost all of his subjects. The one exception is that he was below expectations in Language Arts for poor spelling, inaccurate/incomplete sentence construction, and not using organizational skills effectively. He was above expectations in Math for participating in classroom activities and completing his assignments on time.

Will's teachers were interviewed, and his performance in Math, Science, and Social Studies was reported to be above average. Will has no behavior problems in school. The teachers describe Will as motivated and wanting to do well. His Social Studies teacher did report that Will has difficulty completing short-answer and fill-in-the-blank types of items. While there are not many items of this nature on the tests, the teacher uses daily work that does require such items. The Language Arts teacher noted that she has seen some improvement in her class and in reading. She stated that Will would benefit from taking more care with his daily work and homework in language arts.

Norm-Referenced Assessment

Will was administered the Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update: Tests of Achievement (WJ III NU ACH). The WJ III NU ACH measures academic skills in reading, math, and written language. In addition to the WJ-III NU ACH, Will was administered selected sections of the Gray Oral Reading Test —Fourth Edition (GORT-4) and the Test of Written Language—Fourth Edition (TOWL-4). The results of these measures are presented in the next sections.

Reading Skills

The Basic Reading Skills cluster is a combination of the Letter-Word Identification and Word Attack tests, and provides a measure of reading

decoding skills. Although both tests within this cluster are average, the Relative Proficiency Index (RPI) on the Letter-Word Identification test is 64/90. The RPI means that when an average student of the same age as Will shows 90% success on this task, Will's expected proficiency is 64%; this reflects less developed skills in decoding. Will had difficulty with irregular words (e.g., moustache). On the GORT-4, Will read paragraphs; his Accuracy reflects how many words were read correctly. The majority of Will's mistakes in Accuracy involved going back to reread words, mispronunciations, and substituting words. Will's Accuracy on the GORT-4 is consistent with less-than-average sight-word identification.

The Phoneme/Grapheme Knowledge cluster is a combination of the Word Attack and Spelling of Sounds tests and provides an evaluation of phonic (sound) generalizations as well as common orthographic patterns (frequently occurring letter clusters) in both decoding (reading) and encoding (spelling). There is a significant difference within this cluster. Will did perform adequately on Word Attack, which is consistent with his strength in phonemic awareness. On the Spelling of Sounds test, which measures spelling ability, particularly phonological and orthographical coding skills, Will's score falls in the low-average range. He was required to listen to an audio recording and spell letter combinations of nonwords that are regular patterns in English spelling. His misspellings of nonwords reflect errors in vowel patterns (foy=foe, glay=gla). In some cases, whole word errors were made (jong=slang). Will has difficulty associating letter patterns to their corresponding sounds.

The Reading Comprehension cluster is a combination of the Passage Comprehension and Reading Vocabulary tests and provides a measure of comprehension, vocabulary, and reasoning. Will's score on this cluster falls in the low-average range, primarily due to his performance on the Passage Comprehension test. On this test, Will read a short passage/sentence with a word missing and had to determine the word through context. Will had difficulty using context to provide the appropriate vocabulary word. He seemed to attend to something in the sentence that was not relevant (e.g., “I thought that the corn was too expensive. I did not, however, feel like arguing about the ____________.” His answer, manager, indicated that he misunderstood the question, likely responding to the concept of arguing with

someone versus about the price of the corn). On the Reading Vocabulary test, Will read words and provided synonyms, antonyms, and analogies. He performed much better on the Reading Vocabulary test, but an analysis of his responses indicates that his weakest performance was in analogies. On the GORT-4, Will was asked to answer multiple-choice questions (read orally by the examiner) about the paragraphs he had just read aloud. His score fell in the average range. While Will is displaying some difficulties in inferencing (e.g., Passage Comprehension and Analogies on Reading Vocabulary), he is able to understand short passages at a level that would be within normal limits. In addition, Will has passed the Reading TAKS in both third and fourth grades. Thus, no specific disability is suspected in the area of reading comprehension.

Will's Rate score on the GORT-4 reflects the time it takes to read the paragraph/story. Will read the passages at a speed well below age expectation. His speed was equivalent to mid-second grade level (2.5). In analyzing his performance, the stories were read aloud at a slow pace due to Will pausing to sound out different words. His reading rate was also affected by rereading portions of the sentence. Once he self-corrected the word, Will often repeated the portion of the sentence immediately prior to the word (e.g., They put up some swings. He missed the word some (said “same”) and then once he figured it out, he repeated They put up some swings).

While Will does have some weaknesses in the area of reading, he is able to read and understand what he reads. He is currently passing his reading class and has passed the state assessment in this area, indicating that he is able to meet grade-level expectations.

Math Skills

The Math Calculation Skills cluster is a measure of computational skills and automaticity with basic math facts and is comprised of the Calculation and Math Fluency tests. Will's score on this cluster falls in the low-average range, but this is due to his performance in Math Fluency. On the Calculation test, he scored in the average range and was able to perform various calculations, including addition and subtraction (simple and with regrouping) and simple multiplication. The Math Fluency test involved the ability to automatically solve basic math facts. While it is clear that Will knows his facts, based on

the Calculation performance, he scored in the low range on this test. This test had a 3-minute time limit, and Will rushed and made simple mistakes (e.g., 4 − 2 = 6). The majority of errors occurred because he did not shift from the previous problem's operation; thus, if the previous problem was addition, he added the next one regardless of the sign. In addition, he took his time to write his numbers.

The Math Reasoning cluster includes the Applied Problems and Quantitative Concepts tests and provides a measure of mathematical knowledge and reasoning. Will's score in this cluster falls in the average range.

Will knows his facts and can apply these to solving word problems. This is consistent with passing the Math TAKS in both third and fourth grades. There is no suspected disability in the area of math.

Written Expression

The Broad Written Language cluster provides a measure of written language achievement, including spelling of single-word responses, fluency of production, and quality of expression. This cluster is comprised of the Writing Fluency, Writing Samples, and Spelling tests. Will's score on the Broad Written Language cluster falls in the low range. On the Writing Fluency test, Will was given three words and a picture and had to write simple sentences in a 7-minute time period. On this test, he scored within the low-average range. He did construct simple sentences but needed more time to do so than would be expected for his age. The Writing Samples test measures the ability to convey ideas in writing and requires the production of meaningful written sentences in response to both oral and written item directions. Will's score on this test falls in the low range. Will had difficulty constructing sentences and lacked elaboration (e.g., when asked to describe a picture of a blindfolded boy about to run into a chair and also to predict what will happen next, Will wrote: he goeing to trepp; when asked to write a description about a missing belt, given a picture in which a girl is standing in front of an open closet and provided with the words “in the closet,” he wrote: the beilte in the closet lost). Will's writing shows grammatical and syntactical errors and does not provide sufficient detail to allow the reader to understand the concept being conveyed. The Spelling test required Will to spell words

from dictation. On this test, Will's score falls in the low range. Will showed significant difficulty on this test and had numerous spelling errors (e.g., rain [ran], green [grean], floor [flour]). In addition to Will's difficulties in spelling and composing complete and descriptive sentences, his handwriting is very difficult to read due to poor legibility.

Due to Will's low score on the Writing Samples test of the WJ III NU ACH Form A, the Writing Samples test of the WJ III NU ACH Form B was administered. The Form B Writing Samples test was given in order to investigate his writing abilities when using a computer instead of handwriting his responses. Allowing the use of the word processor to compose his sentences is a violation of standardized procedures; thus, no score is reported. [For illustrative purposes, if the test were scored, the score would be 77.] The format of the Writing Samples test of the WJ III NU ACH Form B is identical to Form A. Despite removing the handwriting component of the task, similar sentence formations were observed. On most of the items, correct spelling was not a requirement. For example, Will was able to produce the sentence a boy is skting, and he received full points on this item. He continued to struggle with production of complete sentences when typing his answers into a computer. For example, when prompted to write a good sentence that includes “under the bed” describing a drawing of a boy looking for his missing shoes, he wrote the shersh ar lokking under the bad. Despite the use of a word processor, Will still struggled to produce grammatically and syntactically correct and elaborated sentences.

Test of Written Language–Fourth Edition

The Spontaneous Writing Composite of the Test of Written Language–Fourth Edition (TOWL-4) was administered to Will to follow up on his written language skills, particularly his ability to generate enough sentences to express his thoughts accurately. Will was required to write a story based on a picture that appeared at the top of the paper. For Contextual Conventions and Story Composition, his score was not calculated as his writing was not legible to the examiner. Will's written product is provided in Figure 7.2.

Figure 7.2 Handwriting Sample

The picture Will viewed was that of an accident of a car hitting a fire hydrant with other details in the picture indicating how the accident likely happened. He verbally stated that this product reflected the following: “The car wrecked into the fire hydrant. The three boys tried to fix it, but they couldn't. It broke the car; the license plate came off and the engine hood flew up and water was everywhere.”

Will was administered Form B of the TOWL-4 and again was required to look at a picture and then type a story about it. When looking at a picture of a fire scene, he typed three sentences that had many grammatical and spelling errors. He was prompted to produce a fourth sentence. His writing was as follows: The has on stete cot a fiere. The firedeprtmnet had com. And pot it it out.wal it raned. Ever badey in the naberhood halp. No standard score can be generated as the use of the word processor is a violation of standardized procedures, but Will would receive only 1 raw score point on this short paragraph.

Given Will's performance on all of the writing tasks, it is clear that writing is an area of weakness for him. Will has difficulty with all aspects of written expression—handwriting, spelling, grammar, syntax, and generation of ideas.

Additional Processing Measures: Process Assessment of the Learner– Second Edition (PAL-II)

In order to investigate Will's orthographic processing, several subtests from the PAL-II were administered: Receptive Coding, Expressive Coding, and Word Choice. The first two subtests form the Orthographic Coding composite.

Will scored in the low-average range on the Orthographic Coding composite (scaled score of 6 = standard score of 80). Receptive Coding required Will to read a word and then without looking at the word decide

whether whole words, single letters, or letter groups correspond to the word he just read. Will had no difficulty discerning if whole words were the same (e.g., read from then saw form and was able to say they were not the same), but he did have difficulty in recognizing letter groups (e.g., saw pneumonia and was given mn and was not able to say that this letter sequence was not in the word). The Expressive Coding subtest evaluates the ability to code whole written nonwords into memory and reproduce the nonwords or parts of the words in writing. Will was shown a nonword and then, without looking at the word, had to write the whole item, a single letter, or a letter group from the stimulus item (sees prograph and then writes the word; sees cashevator and is supposed to write the fifth letter; sees lignite and asked to write the third and fourth letters). An analysis of his responses indicates that he had difficulty with both coding and reproducing whole nonwords and letter groups.

The Word Choice subtest required Will to quickly and accurately identify a correctly spelled word that is among two misspelled distracter words. Word Choice Accuracy measures how accurately Will identified the correctly spelled word, and Word Choice Fluency measures the rate with which he accurately identified the words. Both scores generated from this subtest fell in the low average range (SS = 6/80). Since the correct word cannot be chosen simply based on phonology, Will's performance demonstrates that his orthographic recognition skills are an area of weakness.

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fourth Edition (CELF- 4)

Will was administered the CELF-4 subtests of Formulated Sentences and Sentence Assembly. The CELF-4 is used to evaluate language performance. The Formulated Sentences subtest measures the ability to formulate complete semantically and grammatically correct sentences. His scaled score on this subtest was 9, which is in the average range. The Sentence Assembly subtest measures the ability to assemble syntactic structures into syntactically and semantically acceptable sentences. His scaled score on this subtest was 6, which is in the low-average range. Will's scores on these subtests show that he has the linguistic competence to verbally express appropriate sentences, but when he has to take words and determine the syntactic (structure/order)

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition (BASC-2)

The BASC-2 was filled out by Will's parents and by his teacher. The BASC- 2: PRS and TRS are used to assess adaptive and maladaptive behavior in children and adolescents. The T-scores for the raters are in the next table.

The Externalizing Problems composite measures acting-out and disruptive

behaviors, and the Internalizing Problems composite measures behaviors indicating internal distress. There are no significant elevations on any scales within these composites.

The School Problems Composite is comprised of the Attention Problems and Learning Problems scales. Will does not exhibit any significant attention problems. His Language Arts teacher reports significant learning problems. Will is described as having problems with spelling, reading, and handwriting. The Adaptive Skills composite reflects communication ability, organizational and study skills, social skills, and overall daily living skills. Will's teacher did indicate some difficulty with organizational skills.

The Behavior Symptoms Index reflects the overall level of problem behavior. Will does not exhibit any emotional or behavioral difficulties. This is consistent with interview information from parents and teachers. Overall, Will is described as attentive, able to make friends easily, and able to adjust well to new situations/teachers/changes in plans, and he communicates clearly. He tries to do well in school and is often chosen as a leader.

Self-Report

Behavior Assessment System for Children–Second Edition: Self Report of Personality (BASC-2: SRP)

The Behavior Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2: SRP) was completed by Will. This is a self-report measure designed to evaluate the personality and self-perceptions of children. The T-scores for Will are in the next table.

On the School Problems composite, Will rated himself in the average range. He reported that he feels that his teachers care about him and they are proud of him. He also likes to think about school and says that school feels good to him. On the Internalizing Problems composite, Will rated himself in the Average range. He feels that he has control over his life and is able to easily establish and maintain friendships with others.

The Inattention/Hyperactivity composite includes Attention Problems and Hyperactivity scales. Will's scores on this composite and the scales within it fall in the Average range. Will did not endorse items suggestive of poor attention. He reported that he sometimes forgets things but has no problem paying attention to others when they are speaking.

The Emotional Symptoms Index is a global indicator of serious emotional distress. Will's score on this index falls in the Average range; thus, Will is experiencing adequate adjustment with no evidence of emotional or behavioral impairment. He also reports having a high level of emotional

competence.

The Personal Adjustment composite measures adaptive behaviors in the home and school setting, and all scores fall within the average range. Will reports having a strong self-identity. He conveyed that he is liked by others and that he has a close relationship with his parents characterized by mutual respect and positive interactions.

Classroom Observation

Will was observed from 9:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m. during his Language Arts/Reading block. The class finished listening to a short story that was presented via audio recording, and the students followed along in their books. The teacher stopped the recording at several places to discuss elements of the story. She had the class identify the plot, including the rising action, the climax, the falling action, and the resolution.

Will enthusiastically raised his hand to answer questions about the story and contributed to the discussion. Upon completion of the story, the students had to write a brief “essay” about the story and were given two choices: They could write about the main character (actions and feelings) or about the problem in the story and how it was resolved. Will wrote as long as the other students, and he chose to write about the main character. His product was reviewed after the observation with the teacher, and it was clearly below average compared to his classmates. He only wrote 5 sentences (teacher stated that he should have written 10–15 and at least two paragraphs); his sentences were not grammatically correct and had many spelling errors. The sample was similar to his performance on the writing measures.

Will was observed in Reading/Writing Lab working on a computer program. The program used focuses on word recognition, spelling, and sentence construction. Three of the 18 students in this class were working on the same word list as Will was. The program began by showing Will a list of words, which he repeated aloud. His list consisted of shop, show, shot, sod, posh, josh, doll, and whop. The program progressed to Will seeing the same words for a second and then having to type the word out. Finally, Will had to write sentences using the words presented orally to him via headphones. Will worked well independently and remained focused on these tasks, but his written products were poor. His teacher explained that he could not move to