84,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Sprache: Englisch
An invaluable collection of sample case reports from experts in child and adolescent assessment With contributions from authorities in the fields of psychology and special education-including Dawn Flanagan, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Randy Kamphaus, Nadeen Kaufman, George McCloskey, Jack Naglieri, Cecil Reynolds, and Gale Roid--Comprehensive Evaluations provides over fifty sample case reports to help you draft carefully planned, goal-directed, and comprehensive evaluations that clearly explain the reasons for a student's school-related difficulties, from preschool to postsecondary level. A wellspring of information for educational professionals, Comprehensive Evaluations provides models for writing diagnostic reports to accompany the tests most frequently administered in the evaluation of children, adolescents, and adults, including the BASC-2, KABC-II, WAIS-IV, WISC-IV, and WJ III. The reports reflect various disciplines within psychology and education, different theoretical perspectives and paradigms, and span a broad spectrum of disabilities. The diagnostic reports found within Comprehensive Evaluations will help: * Expand your familiarity with widely used test instruments * Enhance your understanding of the interpretation of test scores * Improve your ability to tailor written reports to the purposes of the evaluation * Translate assessment results into meaningful treatment recommendations * Recognize the differences in what evaluators from various school districts, agencies, and private practices consider to be a comprehensive evaluation * Appreciate how your theoretical perspective and choice of tests can influence diagnostic conclusions * Determine a report writing style that meets your needs Comprehensive Evaluations deftly illustrates how thorough assessments help empirically pinpoint the reasons a student is struggling in school, which then allows an evaluator to select the most appropriate accommodations and interventions to help the student succeed.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1694
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2010
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title
Copyright
Dedication
Acknowledgments
List of Contributors
Foreword
Epigraph
Introduction
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS: CASE REPORTS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS, DIAGNOSTICIANS, AND SPECIAL EDUCATORS
PURPOSES OF THE BOOK
TYPES OF CASES
COMPONENTS OF REPORTS
REASONS FOR THE EVALUATION
LEVEL OF DETAIL AND REPORT WRITING STYLE
REPORTING SCORES
LEVELS OF INTERPRETATION AND USE OF SCORES
RECOMMENDATIONS
CAUTIONS FOR NEW REPORT WRITERS
IN CONCLUSION
Case 1: Assessment of Individuals with Autism: Procedures and Pitfalls
MULTIDISCIPLINARY TEAM REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
EDUCATIONAL HISTORY AND SCHOOL BEHAVIOR
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
QUALITATIVE IMPAIRMENTS IN SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
PSYCHOMETRIC SUMMARY
Case 2: Neuropsychological Evaluation of a Young Child with a Seizure Disorder
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BRIEF LITERATURE REVIEW
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
BIRTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY
CURRENT ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENTS AND PROCEDURES
OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY OF MEMORY FUNCTIONING
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 3: Language Assessment of a Sibling of a Child with Autism
SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY REEVALUATION REPORT
SIGNIFICANT INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED/METHODS USED
TESTS/RESULTS
SUMMARY AND DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX: SUBTEST DESCRIPTIONS
Case 4: Cognitive and Achievement Correlates of Language Disorders
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND
TEST MEASURES AND SCORES REPORTED
AUTISM ASSESSMENTS
ORAL LANGUAGE
COGNITIVE ABILITIES
ACADEMIC SKILLS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
SCORES
Case 5: Comorbidity and Cumulative Effects of Inattention, Poor Emotional Control, and Language Problemson Academic Achievement in Early Childhood
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
INSTRUMENTS ADMINISTERED
CONSULTATIONS
REFERRAL REASON
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TEST BEHAVIOR AND OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 6: How a Weakness in Attention Can Mask True Learning Capabilities and Achievement Gains
COGNITIVE EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
FACTORS
SUMMARY
APPROACHES TO MANAGEMENT
Case 7: Associative Memory Disorder
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
TESTS ADMINISTERED
CURRENT SCHOOL PERFORMANCE
TEST SESSION OBSERVATIONS AND DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 8: Evaluation of a Bilingual Student witha History of Language Delay
BILINGUAL PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
TEACHER INTERVIEW
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS DURING TESTING
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TEST INTERPRETATION
OBSERVATIONS AND DATA REGARDING AUTISM/DEVELOPMENTAL DISORDER DIAGNOSES
SUMMARY
Recommendations
APPENDIX A
Completed by Ms. Fernandez
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Case 9: Twice-Exceptional
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND
TESTING OBSERVATIONS
CLINICAL INTERVIEW
COGNITIVE TESTING
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX: INFORMATION AND CAUTIONS REGARDING TESTING AND SCORES
Case 10: An Elementary School Student with a Specific Learning Disability in Reading
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
RESULTS
OVERALL SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 11: Using a Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Approach in a Complex Case
ORGANIZATION
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL/REVIEW OF INFORMATION
DEVELOPMENTAL ANDSCHOOL HISTORY
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION, DATE: 11/14/2009
PROGRESS MONITORING DATA
PATTERN OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 12: Learning Is the Best Therapy
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
EDUCATIONAL HISTORY AND EVALUATIONS
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TESTS ADMINISTERED
INFORMATION REGARDING TESTS AND SCORES
COGNITIVE ABILITIES
SUMMARY
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE PARENTS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SCHOOL
STANDARDIZED ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Case 13: Difference Versus Disorder
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL ASSESSMENT-FOR-INTERVENTION REPORT
REASON FOR AND PURPOSEOF ASSESSMENT
DESCRIPTION OF PROCEDURES
STATEMENT OF VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
EVALUATION OF EXPERIENTIAL FACTORS
EVALUATION OF HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENTAL FACTORS
OBSERVATION OF CURRENT BEHAVIOR AND PERFORMANCE
CLASSIFICATION OF TEST SCORES
EVALUATION OF ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
EVALUATION OF COGNITIVE PROCESSES AND INTELLECTUAL FUNCTIONING
OPINIONS AND IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTERVENTION AND REMEDIATION
APPENDIX
Case 14: Using the PASS Theory to Uncover Disorders in Basic Psychological Processes
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR EVALUATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TESTING OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 15: Neuropsychological Evaluation of aChild with a Brain Injury at Birth
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR EVALUATION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CURRENT ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 16: Missing Out on Early Intervention
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS AND RATIONALE
EDUCATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 17: Learning Disabilities and Mathematics
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
TESTS ADMINISTERED
DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY
EDUCATIONAL HISTORY
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 18: The Cognitive Assessment System and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV in a Neuropsychological Context
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 19: Reestablishing Eligibility and Reevaluation Post Natural Disaster
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
REFERRAL REASON
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INSTRUMENTS ADMINISTERED
CONSULTATIONS
TEST BEHAVIOR AND OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 20: Psychoeducational Assessment of a Child with High-Functioning Autism Using a Problem-Solving Approach
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
DEVELOPMENTAL, MEDICAL, EDUCATIONAL, AND SOCIAL HISTORIES
PROCEDURES ADMINISTERED
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
EVALUATION FINDINGS
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PSYCHOMETRIC SUMMARY
Case 21: RTI Data and Cognitive Assessment Are Both Useful for SLD Identification and Intervention Planning
CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT
REFERRAL CONCERNS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS: ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS: COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL AND BEHAVIORAL FUNCTIONING
SUMMARY AND DATA INTEGRATION
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 22: Specific Learning Disability Report
FULL INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS (11-11-09)
OBSERVATIONS DURING ASSESSMENT
SCHOOL HISTORY
COGNITIVE PROCESSES
EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE
CRITERIA AND CONCLUSIONS
ELIGIBILITY STATEMENTS
IMPLICATIONS FOR EDUCATION
ASSURANCES
Case 23: Integrating RTI with an Individual Comprehensive Assessment to Identify a Specific Learning Disability in Reading
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
STUDENT INTERVIEW
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
DAS-II TEST RESULTS
WIAT-III TEST RESULTS
TOSRWF RESULTS
Case 24: Assessing a Child with a Nonspecific Pervasive Development Disorder
CONFIDENTIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTS
RELEVANT TEST BEHAVIORS
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 25: Difficulty Versus Disability?
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND AND OBSERVATIONS
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
ORAL LANGUAGE
ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL ADJUSTMENT
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
SCORES
Case 26: Psychoeducational Assessment of a Student with a Visual Impairment Using the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement – Braille Adaptation
PSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CURRENT EVALUATION
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 27: Differential Diagnosis
COMPREHENSIVE PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
DEVELOPMENTAL, MEDICAL, AND FAMILY HISTORY
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
TEST ADMINISTRATION OBSERVATIONS
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TEST INTERPRETATION
ASPERGER MEASURES
CLINICAL SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 28: The Heterogeneity and Complexities of Children with Developmental Delays
COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
EVALUATION RESULTS
SUMMARIES AND CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 29: Differential Diagnosis
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
DEVELOPMENTAL, MEDICAL, AND FAMILY HISTORY
CURRENT MEDICATIONS
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TEST INTERPRETATION
CLINICAL SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 30: Integration of Post-Referral Progress Monitoring Data in a Specific Learning Disability Evaluation
FULL INDIVIDUAL EVALUATION: SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY
REASON FOR REFERRAL
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
INTELLECTUAL AND ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR
ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION: SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY
ASSURANCES
Case 31: Sweet Child (But Only When Not in School)
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL/PSYCHODIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
TESTS ADMINISTERED
DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS
PERTINENT HISTORY
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 32: Psychoeducational Evaluation of a Bilingual Student with a Visual Impairment
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
EDUCATIONAL HISTORY
RESULTS OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS
ASSESSMENT STRATEGY
OBSERVATIONS
COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
ACADEMIC ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS
ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 33: Memory and Processing Assessments
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
OBSERVATIONS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
SCORE REPORT
Case 34: Oral and Written Language Influences on Academic and Social Functioning
EVALUATION REPORT
REASONS FOR REFERRAL
RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PREVIOUS TESTING
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION PROCEDURES
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION RESULTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 35: Process Assessment of the Learner, 2nd Edition (PAL-II)
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
FAMILY AND EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
WRITING
READING
MATH
TESTS ADMINISTERED DURING TWO SESSIONS OF THREE HOURS EACH
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX WITH TEST SCORES
Case 36: Math Problem Solving
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
PROCEDURES/TESTS ADMINISTERED
SCORES
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
REVIEW OF PREVIOUS EVALUATIONS
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
EVALUATION RESULTS: INTELLECTUAL/COGNITIVE
ACHIEVEMENT/EDUCATIONAL PERFORMANCE LEVELS
PARENT AND TEACHER RATING SCALES
STUDENT INTERVIEW
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 37: “Nonverbal” Learning Disabilities or Asperger’s Syndrome?
SCHOOL NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
INSTRUMENTS ADMINISTERED/SOURCES OF INFORMATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
RELEVANT BACKGROUND INFORMATION
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
ASSESSMENT OBSERVATIONS
ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND CLINICAL IMPRESSIONS
SUMMARY AND DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
SCORE SUMMARY SHEET
Case 38: Applying a Multilevel Interpretive Framework with an Emphasis on the Assessment of Executive Functions
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL/PURPOSE OF REPORT
BACKGROUND INFORMATION FROM PARENTS
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENT PERFORMANCE
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX TO REPORT: DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND INTERPRETATION OF ASSESSMENT RESULTS
SUMMARY OF ASSESSMENTS OF COGNITIVE AND LINGUISTIC CAPACITIES
ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING
TEST RESULTS
ACADEMIC SKILLS
Case 39: The Assessment of “Nonverbal” Learning Disabilities
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PRIOR EVALUATION FINDINGS
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATIONS
IMPRESSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
TEST SCORES
Case 40: Actively Involving an Adolescent in the Evaluation Process from Intake to Feedback
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
BEHAVIORAL CHARACTERISTICS
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SUMMARY AND DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
PSYCHOMETRIC SUMMARY OF CURRENT TEST RESULTS
PSYCHOMETRIC SUMMARY OF PREVIOUS TEST RESULTS
REPORT FOR STUDENT
SUMMARY OF PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REFERRAL AND BACKGROUND
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS: COGNITIVE AND ACADEMIC
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 41: A Comprehensive Evaluation of a High School Student
REASON FOR REFERRAL
SUMMARY AND DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSIONS
ELIGIBILITY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATION
PSYCHOMETRIC SUMMARY
Case 42: ADHD: To Be or Not to Be?
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TESTING OBSERVATIONS
ASSESSMENT OF COGNITIVE FUNCTIONING
ASSESSMENT OF ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING
ASSESSMENT OF SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING
ATTENTION-DEFICIT/HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER
CONCLUSION
RECOMMENDATIONS
TEST DESCRIPTIONS
Case 43: Assessing an Adolescent English Language Learner
BILINGUAL SPEECH-LANGUAGE EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
TESTING OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS/INTERPRETATION
DISCUSSION
SUMMARY AND ELIGIBILITY STATEMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 44: Neuropsychological Evaluation of an Adolescent with Moderate Mental Retardation
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
OBSERVATIONS AND IMPRESSIONS
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TEST RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF TEST RESULTS
Case 45: The Impact of Slow Processing Speed on Performance
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND REASON FOR REFERRAL
TESTS ADMINISTERED
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY
DIAGNOSES
RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY PROFILE
Case 46: Falling Through the Cracks
DIAGNOSTIC EVALUATION REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PREVIOUS TESTING
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TESTING OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
EDUCATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCOMMODATIONS AND MODIFICATIONS
Case 47: A Multiple Measures Approach to Assessing a Student Who Is Deaf
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PREVIOUS ASSESSMENTS
TESTS ADMINISTERED
CLASSROOM OBSERVATIONS
TESTING OBSERVATIONS AND INTERVIEW WITH SAMANTHA
COGNITIVE TESTING RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
SUMMARY
APPROACHES TO MANAGEMENT
SCORE ADDENDUM
Case 48: Comprehensive Assessment of an Attention-Based Learning Problem
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REFERRAL INFORMATION
PROCEDURES
TESTS ADMINISTERED
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TESTING CONSIDERATIONS AND ENVIRONMENT
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
STRUCTURED CLINICAL INTERVIEW
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
OVERALL IMPRESSION
CLINICAL/DIAGNOSTIC IMPRESSION
SPECIAL EDUCATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX: SCORES
Case 49: Psychoeducational Assessment of a Juvenile Offender in a Correctional Setting
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND HISTORY
EVALUATION PROCEDURE
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
TEST RESULTS
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 50: When the Child with Specific Learning Disabilities Grows Up
EDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL
BACKGROUND
TESTS ADMINISTERED
TEST SESSION OBSERVATIONS
SUMMARY OF ACADEMIC FUNCTIONING
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE OF SCORES
Case 51: A Comprehensive Evaluation of a High-Functioning Secondary Student with Dyslexia
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION
DIAGNOSTIC SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
SPECIFIC ACCOMMODATIONS
GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
PSYCHOLOGICAL AND EDUCATIONAL INSTRUMENT SUMMARY
ACHIEVEMENT
ORAL LANGUAGE
SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL
TEST INSTRUMENTS
Case 52: Use of Nonverbal Cognitive Assessment to Distinguish Learning Disabilities from Second Language Learning Difficulties
PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES AND INSTRUMENTS
CLASSROOM OBSERVATION
RELEVANT TEST BEHAVIORS
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
TABLE OF SCORES
Case 53: The Enduring Nature of Specific Learning Disability
LEARNING DISABILITIES EVALUATION
REASON FOR EVALUATION
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
DEVELOPMENTAL AND FAMILY HISTORY
ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION PROCEDURES
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
ASSESSMENT/EVALUATION FINDINGS
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
RECOMMENDATIONS AND ACCOMMODATIONS
Case 54: Comprehensive Evaluation of a Hard of Hearing High School Student in a Rural Setting
EVALUATION REPORT FOR HEARING IMPAIRMENT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
STATEMENT OF RACIAL/ETHNIC AND ECONOMIC STATUS
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
CONSIDERATIONS AND ACCOMMODATIONS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
SCREENING INSTRUMENT FOR TARGETING EDUCATIONAL RISK (SIFTER)
ACHIEVEMENT TESTING
COGNITIVE PERFORMANCE AND ADAPTIVE BEHAVIOR
STUDENT INTERVIEW
SUMMARY
IMPLICATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 55: Assessment of a Cognitively Capable Student Who Is Struggling to Succeed in College
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION
REASON FOR REFERRAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT TECHNIQUES
COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT RESULTS
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
Case 56: Making the Most of One's Strengths: When Verbal Intelligence and Dedication to Succeed Overcome Late Identification
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MEDICAL/DEVELOPMENTAL/EDUCATIONAL HISTORY
RULE-OUT CONSIDERATIONS
CLINICAL INTERVIEW AND ACHENBACH ADULT SELF-REPORT
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
MEASURES
INTERPRETATION
RESULTS
PSYCHOMETRIC SUMMARY
Case 57: Use of the Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition in a Brain Injury Case
EVALUATION OF TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY
REASON FOR REFERRAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
OBSERVATIONS
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
COGNITIVE ABILITIES
LEARNING AND MEMORY
ACHIEVEMENT AND ACADEMIC SKILLS
RATING SCALES
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR JAN
Case 58: Psychoeducational Evaluation of an Adult for LD and ADHD
PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL EVALUATION REPORT
REASON FOR REFERRAL
HISTORY
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS
ASSESSMENT RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION
SUMMARY
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX OF TEST SCORES
Appendix A: Table of Reports
Appendix B: Guidelines for Writing Assessment Reports
Appendix C: Test Acronyms
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Case 33: Memory and Processing Assessments
Table 1 WISC-IV Integrated Results
Table 2 WRAML2 Results
Table 3 Conners’ Parent Rating Scale
Table 4 SMALSI Results
List of Illustrations
Case 13: Difference Versus Disorder
Figure 1 Cultural-Linguistic Interpretive Matrix
Figure 2 Cultural-Linguistic Interpretive Graph
Case 14: Using the PASS Theory to Uncover Disorders in Basic Psychological Processes
Figure 1 Comparison of Assessment Results by Standard Scores
Case 18: The Cognitive Assessment System and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV in a Neuropsychological Context
Figure 1 Sara’s Standard Scores for WISC-IV, CAS, & WJ III.
Case 19: Reestablishing Eligibility and Reevaluation Post Natural Disaster
Figure 1 PRS T Score Profile: Ms. Fulano’s Observations
Figure 2 SRP
T
Score Profile: Fulanito’s Self-Assessment
Case 22: Specific Learning Disability Report
Figure 1 Progress Monitoring Improvement Report for Olivia
Case 27: Differential Diagnosis
Figure 1 BRIEF Teacher Report: General Education Teacher’s Observations
Figure 2 BASC-2 Results: Two Teachers’ and Mother’s Observations
Case 29: Differential Diagnosis
Figure 1 KABC-II Results
Figure 2 BRIEF Teacher Report: General Education Teacher’s Observations
Figure 3 BRIEF Teacher Report: Alternative School Teacher’s Observations
Figure 4 BASC-2 Rating Form: Multiple Observations
Figure 5 BASC-2 Teacher Rating Form: General Education Teacher’s Observations Compared with Alternative School Teacher’s
Figure 6 BASC-2 Parent Rating Form: Mother’s Observations
Case 30: Integration of Post-Referral Progress Monitoring Data in a Specific Learning Disability Evaluation
Figure 1 Comparison of John’s Math Probe Scores with Class Average
Case 33: Memory and Processing Assessments
Figure 1 Jane’s Processing and Memory Strengths and Weaknesses
Case 41: A Comprehensive Evaluation of a High School Student
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Case 56: Making the Most of One’s Strengths: When Verbal Intelligence and Dedication to Succeed Overcome Late Identification
Figure 1 ASR/18–59—DSM-Oriented Scales for Women Aged 18–35
Case 57: Use of the Stanford-Binet Fifth Edition in a Brain Injury Case
Figure 1 Black-and-White Version of the SPECT Brain Scan Results for the Case Study of Jan: Resting State.
Figure 2 Black-and-White SPECT Scan for Active State in Case Study of Jan.
Case 58: Psychoeducational Evaluation of an Adult for LD and ADHD
Figure 1
Figure 2
Guide
Cover
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Pages
cover
contents
iii
iv
v
xiii
xv
xvi
xvii
xviii
xix
xx
xxi
xxii
xxiii
xxv
xxvi
xxvii
xxviii
xxix
xxx
xxxi
xxxii
xxxiii
xxxiv
xxxv
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS
CASE REPORTS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS, DIAGNOSTICIANS, AND SPECIAL EDUCATORS
NANCY MATHER
LYNNE E. JAFFE
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Copyright © 2011 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved.
Published by John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning, or otherwise, except as permitted under Section 107 or 108 of the 1976 United States Copyright Act, without either the prior written permission of the Publisher, or authorization through payment of the appropriate per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923, (978) 750-8400, fax (978) 646-8600, or on the web at www.copyright.com. Requests to the Publisher for permission should be addressed to the Permissions Department, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, (201) 748-6011, fax (201) 748-6008.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty: While the publisher and author have used their best efforts in preparing this book, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this book and specifi cally disclaim any implied warranties of merchantability or fi tness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives or written sales materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a professional where appropriate. Neither the publisher nor author shall be liable for any loss of profi t or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If legal, accounting, medical, psychological, or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought.
Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. In all instances where John Wiley & Sons, Inc. is aware of a claim, the product names appear in initial capital or all capital letters. Readers, however, should contact the appropriate companies for more complete information regarding trademarks and registration.
For general information on our other products and services please contact our Customer Care Department within the U.S. at (800) 762-2974, outside the United States at (317) 572-3993 or fax (317) 572-4002.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats. Some content that appears in print may not be available in electronic books. For more information about Wiley products, visit our website at www.wiley.com.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data:
Comprehensive evaluations : case reports for psychologists, diagnosticians, and special educators / edited by Nancy Mather and Lynne E. Jaffe. p.cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-470-61791-5 (pbk.); 978-0-470-88194-1 (ePDF); 978-0-470-88195-8 (eMobi); 978-0-470-88196-5 (ePub) 1. Autism—Case studies. I. Mather, Nancy. II. Jaffe, Lynne, 1946– RC553.A88C673 2011 616.85′882—dc22
This book is dedicated to Dr. Richard W. Woodcock, a visionary in the fi eld of cognitive and academic measurement. He has always understood, and has helped others to understand, the role and the importance of comprehensive evaluations in identifying the factors that underlie a student's problems in learning and behavior.
Acknowledgments
We would not have been able to bring this book to publication without the encouragement and contributions of our friends and colleagues. We are sincerely grateful
To our colleagues, who generously responded to our requests for reports and for their willingness to share their expertise regarding students with diverse special needs.
To Kathy Gardner, who graciously accepted the onerous task of obtaining multiple permissions for the use of copyrighted material. Without her help, we would still be sending out forms.
To Erin Katz, for her help in formatting the reports and gathering information for the appendices during the initial stages of this project.
To Isabel Pratt, our project director at John Wiley & Sons, for her enthusiasm, encouragement, and friendship as she guided us through the publication process.
To Kim Nir, our production editor, for her attention to detail. She oversaw the design, copyediting, typesetting, and proofreading stages of a long and complex manuscript.
To our life partners, Michael and Brian, who have tolerated our writing of yet another book with minimal complaint and plenty of love, encouragement, and support.
To each other, for finishing this book and still remaining the best of friends.
Finally, we raise our glasses in a toast to Dr. John Willis for his ability to connect clinical knowledge with cognitive theory, and his skill in explaining controversial issues in the field with both eloquence and wit. We are grateful for his willingness to take time from his busy schedule to write the foreword to this book.
List of Contributors
Bashir Abu Hamour, Ph.D.Mu’tah UniversityJordan
Vincent C. Alfonso, Ph.D.Professor and Associate DeanGraduate School of EducationFordham UniversityNew York, NY
Dale A. Bailey, M.A., CCC-SLPSpeech-Language PathologistSpecial Education ConsultantFort Kent, ME
Sherry Mee Bell, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorSpecial EducationNashville, TN
Virginia W. Berninger, Ph.D.Professor of Educational PsychologyUniversity of WashingtonSeattle, WA
Thomas M. Brunner, Ph.D.Clinical, Forensic, Consulting PsychologySan Rafael Professional OfficesTucson, AZ
Mary N. Camarata, M.S., CCC-SLPAssistant Professor Hearing & Speech ScienceVanderbilt University School of MedicineNashville, TN
Stephen M. Camarata, Ph.D., CCC-SLPProfessor Hearing & Speech ScienceVanderbilt University School of MedicineNashville, TN
Gail Cheramie, Ph.D.Associate Professor and DirectorSchool Psychology ProgramUniversity of Houston-Clear LakeHouston, TX
Chris Coleman, M.A.University of GeorgiaAthens, GA
Lisa Coyner, Ph.D.School PsychologistArizona State Schools for the Deaf and the BlindTucson, AZ
James M. Creed, M.Ed.JCreed ConsultingLeominster, MA
Sean Cunningham, M.S.University of UtahSalt Lake City, UT
Milton J. Dehn, Ed.D.Schoolhouse Educational ServicesStoddard, WI
Ron Dumont, Ed.D.Director of School PsychologyFairleigh Dickinson UniversityTeaneck, NJ
Krystle Edwards, B.A.Warner Pacific CollegePortland, OR
Colin D. Elliott, Ph.D.Gevirtz Graduate School of Education,University of California, Santa BarbaraNewbury Park
Steven Feifer, D.Ed.School PsychologistFrederick, MD
Catherine A. Fiorello, Ph.D.Associate Professor and Coordinator of School PsychologyTemple UniversityPhiladelphia, PA
Dawn P. Flanagan, Ph.D.Professor of PsychologyDirector, School Psychology ProgramsSt. John’s UniversityJamaica, NY
Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Ed.D.American Board of Pediatric NeuropsychologyProfessor of School PsychologyChicago School of Professional PsychologyChicago, IL
Sarah Gaines, Psy.S., NCSPSchool PsychologistArizona State Schools for the Deaf and the BlindTucson, AZ
John M. Garruto, D.Ed., NCSPSchool PsychologistOswego City School DistrictFulton, NY
Brigid Garvin, M.Ed.School Psychology ProgramTemple UniversityPhiladelphia, PA
Michael E. Gerner, Ph.D., P.C.Consulting PsychologistsFlagstaff, AZ
Marshall Andrew Glenn, Ph.D.Oklahoma City UniversityNorman, OK
Sam Goldstein, Ph.D.Neurology, Learning, and BehaviorSalt Lake City, UT
Lisa A. Hain, Psy.D., NCSPSchool PsychologistAdjunct FacultyDepartment of PsychologyPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic Medicine
James B. Hale, Ph.D.Associate Professor of Clinical NeuropsychologyUniversity of VictoriaVictoria, BC, Canada
Joel S. Hanania, Ph.D.School Psychologist, Washington School DistrictKid Assist, DirectorCave Creek, AZ
Jim Hanson, M.Ed.School PsychologistPortland, OR
Frances Ingram, M.A.School PsychologistStern Center for Language and LearningWilliston, VT
Lynne E. Jaffe, Ph.D.Learning Disabilities Consulting and EvaluationAdjunct Assistant ProfessorUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Randy Kamphaus, Ph.D.Dean and Distinguished Research ProfessorGeorgia State UniversityCollege of EducationAtlanta, GA
Nadeen L. Kaufman, Ed.D.Child Study CenterYale University School of MedicineNew Haven, CT
Melissa M. King, M.Ed.Educational ConsultantLearning Curve, LLCEssex Junction, VT
Judith M. Kroese, Ph.D.Pediatric NeuropsychologistSouthern Arizona Neuropsychology AssociatesTucson, AZ
Toby Laird, Ph.D.Consulting PsychologistsFlagstaff, AZ
Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Ph.D.Clinical PsychologistCarlsbad, CA
Sally J. Logerquist, Ph.D.PsychologistScottsdale, AZ
Nancy Mather, Ph.D.Professor, Learning DisabilitiesUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
R. Steve McCallum, Ph.D.Professor and HeadEducational Psychology and CounselingKnoxville, TN
George McCloskey, Ph.D.Professor and Director of School Psychology ResearchPhiladelphia College of Osteopathic MedicinePhiladelphia, PA
Jane McClure, Ph.D.PsychologistMcClure, Mallory & BaronSan Francisco, CA
Kelly Kathleen Metz, M.Ed.Measurement and EvaluationTeacher for the Deaf and Hard of HearingArizona State Schools for the Deaf and BlindPhoenix, AZ
Robert Misak, M.Ed., M.A.Licensed Specialist in School PsychologyVictoria Independent School District
Kimberly Morris, Ph.D., NCSPSchool PsychologistTucson, AZ
Richard Morris, Ph.D.Meyerson Distinguished Professor of Disability and RehabilitationProfessor and Director, School Psychology ProgramUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Jack A. Naglieri, Ph.D.Professor of PsychologyGeorge Mason UniversitySenior Research ScientistThe Devereux FoundationCentreville, VA
Christopher J. Nicholls, Ph.D.Clinical/Pediatric NeuropsychologistThe Nicholls GroupScottsdale, AZ
Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D.Professor of PsychologySt. John’s UniversityNew York, NY
Tulio M. Otero, Ph.D.Associate ProfessorDepartments of Clinical & School Psychology ProgramsChicago School of Professional PsychologyChicago, IL
Linda Hernandez Parks, M.A.University of Houston-Clear LakeHouston, TX
Mitchel D. Perlman, Ph.D.Forensic NeuropsychologistSan Diego, CA
Blanche Podhajski, Ph.D.President, Stern Center for Language and LearningClinical Associate Professor of NeurologyUniversity of Vermont College of MedicineWilliston, Vermont
Eva M. Prince, Ed.S.School PsychologistTucson, AZ
Tara C. Raines, Psy.S.School PsychologistAtlanta, GA
Cecil Reynolds, Ph.D.EmeritusProfessor of Educational PsychologyProfessor of NeuroscienceDistinguished Research ScholarTexas A&M UniversityBastrop, TX
Deborah Rhein, Ph.D., CCC-SLPAssistant ProfessorCommunication Disorders ProgramNew Mexico State UniversityLas Cruces, NM
Gale H. Roid, Ph.D.Warner Pacific CollegePortland, OR
Janice R. Sammons, Ph.D.Southern Arizona Neuropsychology AssociatesTucson, AZ
Ashley Schuler, M.A.University of Houston-Clear LakeHouston, TX
Ed Schultz, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorMidwestern State UniversityWichita Falls, TX
Andrew Shanock, Ph.D.Associate Professor of PsychologyCollege of Saint RoseSchenectady, NY
Donna Rury Smith, Ed.D.Independent ConsultantFort Worth, TX
Annmarie Urso, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorState University of New York at GeneseoGeneseo, NY
Christina M. Vasquez, Ed.S.School Psychology ProgramUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ
Barbara J. Wendling, M.A.Woodcock-Munoz FoundationDallas, TX
Mary C. Wright, M.A.,School PsychologistLearning Curve, LLCEssex Junction, VT
Aimee Yermish, Psy.D.Educational Therapistda Vinci Learning CenterStow, MA
Foreword
John O. Willis
If you don’t know where you are going, you will probably end up somewhere else.
—Laurence J. Peter
Comprehensive Evaluations: Case Reports for Psychologists, Diagnosticians, and Special Educators clearly and informatively answers in the affirmative the question: “Do we need comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations of children with disabilities?”
A passion for parsimony, efforts to save time and control costs, and complacency about offering nothing more than diagnoses with only minimal, vague, generic, or one-size-fits-all recommendations often lead to evaluation reports that are neither very comprehensive nor especially helpful to examinees, parents, teachers, therapists, and other consumers of our reports. Perhaps the most extreme pressure for oversimplification of reports has been with evaluations for children with specific learning disabilities (SLD).
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) (1990, 1997, 2004) and its predecessor, the Education of All Handicapped Children Act (EHA, 1975) have always used the following definition for SLD with minor word changes: “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which disorder may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical calculations.”
That definition seems clear enough, with “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes” being the defining characteristic of the disability. However, since the original Education of All Handicapped Children Act (1975), the regulations implementing the laws have never operationalized or even required the assessment of basic psychological processes as part of the legal identification of SLD. Instead, the requirements focused on ruling out sensory or motor impairments, intellectual disability, emotional disturbance, or disadvantage as primary causes of the child’s learning problems, and—until 2004—on establishing a “severe discrepancy” between levels of achievement and intellectual ability. Based on myriad complaints about severe discrepancy (e.g., Bijou, 1942; Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Cronbach, 1957; Donovan & Cross, 2002; Fletcher, Denton, & Francis, 2005; Hoskyn & Swanson, 2000; Kavale, 2002; Reschly, Tilly, & Grimes, 1999), the 2006 regulations for the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA (Assistance to States, 2006) fundamentally altered the operational definition of specific learning disability. Critics referred to the “severe discrepancy” criterion as a “wait to fail” model. Under the new (2006) regulations, the states could still allow, but could no longer require, a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement as a criterion for identifying SLD. Instead, states were required to permit a Response to Intervention (RtI) approach as part of the process for identifying SLD and could also permit the use of other, undefined research-based methods of identification. Explaining these regulations in more detail, the criterion for low achievement was expanded: “The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards.” In addition, the criteria for identifying a child as having SLD through the RtI process were explained: “The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention.” The more confusing alternative, use of undefined research-based methods, was described: “The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, state-approved grade level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with §§ 300.304 and 300.305.”
Subsequently, partly in response to the regulations and partly to minimize educational spending, special education programs often attempt to limit the number of comprehensive psychoeducational assessments that are conducted or, in the case of SLD, eliminate them altogether in the belief that documented failure to respond to scientific, research-based interventions, plus a vision and hearing screening, and a review of the student’s history, including school-wide and state-wide assessments, would constitute a sufficiently comprehensive evaluation to identify SLD.
The addition of and preference for RtI for the purpose of identifying specific learning disabilities has caused consternation in the field (see, for example, Mather & Kaufman [2006a, 2006b]). A superficial reading of the regulations might suggest that there is no longer any place for traditional psychoeducational evaluations. However, the commentary in the 2006 regulations (Assistance to States, 2006) includes such observations as “An RtI process does not replace the need for a comprehensive evaluation, and a child’s eligibility for special education services cannot be changed solely on the basis of data from an RtI process” (p. 46648) and “RtI is only one component of the process to identify children in need of special education and related services. Determining why a child has not responded to research-based interventions requires a comprehensive evaluation” (p. 46647). I think they got that part right.
Identification of other disabilities under EHA (1975) and IDEA (1990, 1997, 2004) has always required surprisingly little psychoeducational information about the student. Unlike SLD, which has its very own sections for detailing evaluation methods, the other disabilities have no specific guidance for evaluation other than the definition of each disability and the general guidelines for all evaluations in Evaluations and Reevaluations (IDEA 2004, § 614). Yet, it is often a referral for academic difficulties and the subsequent comprehensive evaluation that provides a different perspective on the difficulty the student is having, as well as a non-SLD diagnosis, that lead to the most appropriate treatment recommendations. For these students (e.g., with severe anxiety, autism, intellectual disability), “watching them fail” the RtI interventions just postpones the help they need. “Watch them fail” does not seem to be much of an improvement over “wait to fail.”
Thus, for students who do not respond completely satisfactorily to attempted interventions in an RtI model, the questions should become why does the student have such difficulty and, once we understand the why, how can we help the student succeed? If we do not fully understand the problem, we are unlikely to stumble across the solution. I believe that this is the reason that the IDEA definition of a specific learning disability still specifies “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes” as the core of the disability. Similarly, the definition of emotional disturbance specifies that it is “a condition exhibiting one or more of the following characteristics over a long period of time and to a marked degree that adversely affects a child’s educational performance” [emphasis supplied] (Assistance to States, 2006, § 300.8 (c) (4) (i)). If we understand, for example, the nature of the “disorder” or the “condition,” then we have a fighting chance of figuring out what to do to help the student succeed. The above examples are drawn from federal laws and regulations pertaining to two disabilities in schoolchildren, but the same considerations are equally important for evaluations of all disabilities and concerns with both children and adults. If we cannot explain the mechanism whereby the disability impairs the examinee’s functioning, we have little hope of offering useful suggestions. An unexplained and unexplored diagnosis or IDEA category leaves us closing our eyes and blindly sticking pins into books of remedial techniques, such as provided in Mather and Jaffe (2002) or Wendling and Mather (2009).
As just one example (Beal, Dumont, & Willis, 2003), let us consider how many different ways you can fail to read the word “cat.” These 21 possibilities do not exhaust all reasons for reading difficulty, are listed in no particular sequence, and include difficulties with auditory perception, memory span and working memory, long-term storage and retrieval, sequencing, oral vocabulary, and other issues.
1.
You do not know the sounds represented by each of the three letters.
2.
You know the sounds but cannot recall them.
3.
You know the sounds and can eventually recall them, but not quickly enough to finish sounding out the word.
4.
You cannot blend the three sounds into a single, spoken word.
5.
You can blend the sounds but not quickly enough to finish sounding out the word before you forget what you are doing.
6.
You do not recognize the spoken word “cat” as containing three distinct sounds.
7.
You appreciate the three distinct sounds but do not recognize them as /k /, //, and /t/.
8.
You do not process the three sounds in correct sequence (“act,” “tac”).
9.
You sound out the word flawlessly, but do not know the spoken English word “cat.”
10.
Your working memory cannot handle all three sounds at once.
11.
Your working memory cannot handle two possible sounds for c, four (or more) possible sounds for a, and one more sound for t.
12.
Your processing speed is too slow for your memory.
13.
Your memory span is too limited for your processing speed.
14.
Your visual acuity is insufficient to discern the letters correctly.
15.
Your visual perception or orthographic ability causes you to confuse
t
with
f
.
16.
Your auditory acuity impairs your ability to hear the spoken word “cat.”
17.
Your auditory perception impairs your ability to perceive the spoken word “cat.”
18.
You have not had enough whole-language experience with rich literature involving cats.
19.
You cannot guess a word without seeing it in context.
20.
There is a social or emotional barrier to your reading progress.
21.
English is not your first language.
Given even this incomplete list of reasons a student might encounter difficulty with a simple reading task, it should be obvious that we sometimes need more than a record of responses to intervention to determine and remediate the causes of school difficulty. In many instances, a careful, thoughtful consideration of the student’s history will suggest an intervention that will be completely effective in resolving the student’s school difficulties. However, in others, the record of interventions will be like the ship whose bridge was swamped by a rogue wave that destroyed all navigational equipment except the speedometer. The captain announced, “We have no idea where we are and no clue where we might be headed, but we do know we are making record time.”
“Explaining” the failure to read with a diagnosis of mental retardation, learning disability, emotional disturbance, or some other disability really does not, by itself, tell us how to help the student. We still need to understand why the student cannot read (or do math or get along with other students or pay attention in class or succeed in the job for which she or he was trained), and we need to understand how all of the cognitive, personality, sensory, motor, social, academic, and other issues interact. In short, we need a comprehensive evaluation.
We see far too many evaluations that focus on an overall intelligence score and one or more diagnoses. Although they may be admirably parsimonious, I find such evaluations of little value in helping plan remediation and rehabilitation. More than 40 years ago, John McLeod commented that “A respect for the law of parsimony is a characteristic of science, but educational psychology’s penchant for simple answers to questions of complex human behavior, particularly in the area of learning disability, has tended toward paucity rather than parsimony of explanation” (1968, p. 97). Sadly, McLeod’s lament still holds true far too often.
My shelves sag under the weight of excellent texts telling me how to select, administer, score, and interpret psychological and educational tests. Many of my best books even tell me how to write reports and recommendations with specific strategies, and some even include helpful case studies. A few are devoted to carefully constructed philosophies and frameworks for rationally planning and organizing assessments. The special virtue of Comprehensive Evaluations: Case Reports for Psychologists, Diagnosticians, and Special Educators is that it provides us with complete models of a variety of actual assessments, not just instructions and a few examples.
The case reports in this book dramatically illustrate the value and the importance of providing genuinely comprehensive evaluations when referral questions are complex and perplexing and when other approaches to solving the problems have failed. The reports employ a variety of approaches and instruments to explore different concerns and different types of disabilities for both children and adults. The unifying theme is that complex and difficult problems require carefully planned, very thorough, goal-directed, comprehensive evaluations that will guide the examinees, parents, teachers, and other professionals in fully understanding the student’s strengths and needs as a basis for planning interventions that will ameliorate the problems and lead to improved functioning.
The evaluations in this book go well beyond simply using intelligence tests to measure overall, global intellectual ability or g. Global intellectual ability is probably the best single predictor of academic achievement and other important things (see, for example, Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2002), but it is not, by itself, much help in understanding the nature of complex learning problems, nor in designing effective interventions. These evaluations use test, observation, interview, and historical data in a variety of ways, all resulting in concrete plans for remediation. The cases are all real evaluations done with real (albeit disguised) persons; they offer insights into the methods, instruments, and—most important—the thinking of the evaluators. Far better than a textbook explaining what can be done, this compendium of evaluations shows both what can be done as well as how it can be done. I plan to refer to these reports frequently in my teaching and in planning my own evaluations.
REFERENCES
Assistance to States for the Education of Children With Disabilities, 34 C.F.R. Part 300 (2006).
Beal, A. L., Dumont, R., & Willis, J. O. (April 2003). Guide to identification of learning disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Toronto, Ontario.
Bijou, S. W. (1942). The psychometric pattern approach as an aid to clinical assessment—A review. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 46, 354–362.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cronbach, L. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Education of All Handicapped Children Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 ff. (1975).
Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of LD: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552.
Hoskyn, M., & Swanson, H. L. (2000). Cognitive processing of low achievers and children with reading disabilities: A selective meta-analytic review of the published literature. The School Psychology Review, 29, 102–119.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 ff. (1990).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 ff. (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 ff.
Kavale, K. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 370–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. (2002). Woodcock-Johnson III: Recommendations, reports, and strategies (with CD). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (Guest Eds.) (2006a). Special Issue, Part 1: Integration of cognitive assessment and response to intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 43(7).
Mather, N., & Kaufman, N. (Guest Eds.) (2006b). Special Issue, Part 2: Integration of cognitive assessment and response to intervention. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8).
McLeod, J. (1968). Reading expectancy from disabled readers. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 1, 97–105.
Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., & Grimes, J. P. (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (Eds.) (2002). The general factor of intelligence: How general is it? Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Wendling, B. J., & Mather, N. (2009). Essentials of evidence-based academic interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
If these tests will give us a basis from which we can start to understand a child’s difficulties, they will have justified the time spent on them. Anything which helps educators or parents to understand any phase of development or lack of development is of immeasurable value.
Stanger & Donohue, 1937, p. 189
Introduction
COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATIONS: CASE REPORTS FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS, DIAGNOSTICIANS, AND SPECIAL EDUCATORS
This book contains a wide variety of reports written for the purpose of explaining the reasons for an individual’s school-related difficulties. The reports come from different disciplines within psychology and education, and reflect different theoretical perspectives and paradigms. The subjects of these case reports range in educational level from preschool to postsecondary. Similarly, the evaluators who contributed their reports represent multiple professions, but all related, in some way, to the education of individuals with exceptional needs. They include authors of the tests frequently used; educational and cognitive researchers; university faculty responsible for training school psychologists and specialists in special education; clinical psychologists, school psychologists, diagnosticians, special education teachers, and speech-language therapists working in public schools or private practice.
Although the content, style, and format of these reports vary considerably, they all illustrate that informative, clearly written psychological and educational evaluations play an essential role in describing and explaining an individual’s abilities and disabilities, and provide the basis on which effective interventions and accommodations are developed.
The reports in this book were selected to represent the usual questions that accompany a referral, the cognitive and educational problems that typically and not so typically confront evaluators, an assortment of writing styles, and different levels of information analysis and methods of interpretation. Throughout, however, these reports answer the referral question through carefully selected tests; provide appropriate interpretation of the scores and other key information (e.g., history, observations, interviews, qualitative analysis); and propose logical and knowledgeable solutions for intervention.
PURPOSES OF THE BOOK
In the current educational and political climate, some researchers and practitioners have questioned the value of comprehensive evaluations for students suspected of having specific learning disabilities (SLD), arguing that monitoring of a student’s performance and response to varying instructional approaches can provide sufficient information to make a disability diagnosis and determine effective interventions. Comprehensive evaluations, however, are both beneficial and necessary for truly understanding the reasons why a student is struggling in school and for designing interventions that are tailored to the cognitive and academic profile of that student. A child who appears to have a learning disability may, in fact, have an intellectual disability. A language impairment could be confused with autism, learning disability, or inattention. Behaviors suggestive of emotional disturbance may really stem from the school failure and low self-esteem that accompanies learning disabilities. Sometimes, the problem is not a disability at all, but rather a case of “dyspedagogia,” or inadequate teaching (Cohen, 1971). The interventions for these different types of problems can differ considerably and the sooner a student can receive effective interventions, the better. Otherwise, the learner continues to be confronted by evidence of his or her “inability” to learn,
What is a comprehensive evaluation? IDEA 2004 Regulations regarding evaluation procedures mandate that an evaluation for disability includes “all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities.” It further states that “… in evaluating each child with a disability … the evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child’s special education and related services needs, whether or not commonly linked to the disability category in which the child has been classified” (Assistance to States, 2006). Although well-planned, problem-focused Response to Intervention (RtI) is an appropriate pre-referral intervention and may reduce the number of comprehensive evaluations that are needed, RtI should not be used as the sole method for diagnosing the existence of a disability.
People who write comprehensive evaluations often think: “I wonder how others write their reports?” The purposes of this book are therefore twofold: (a) to provide models of psychological and educational reports using a variety of different tests and approaches, and (b) to illustrate the value of comprehensive evaluations for understanding an individual’s unique learning abilities and disabilities. In building a new skill or polishing a frequently used one, models are often helpful. Rather than “starting from scratch,” one may adopt what fits and adapt what does not. By reading and studying these diagnostic reports, practitioners may:
Increase their understanding of the usefulness of comprehensive evaluations;
Expand their knowledge of possible interpretations of assessment results;
Expand their familiarity with widely used test instruments;
Enhance their understanding of test scores;
Increase their understanding of common childhood disorders and how these, treated or untreated, manifest in adults;
Improve their ability to tailor written reports to the purposes of the evaluation;
Improve their abilities to translate assessment results into meaningful treatment recommendations; and
Recognize the differences in what evaluators from various school districts and agencies consider to be a comprehensive evaluation.
TYPES OF CASES
The diagnostic reports in this book are authentic, but for the sake of confidentiality, all names and identifying information have been changed. The reports illustrate: (a) varied reasons for referral (e.g., academic, behavioral); (b) different ages, backgrounds, medical histories, and educational situations; (c) the use of a variety of evaluation materials (e.g., standardized tests, curriculum-based measures, classroom work samples, rating scales); (d) the use and interpretation of different types of scores; and (e) a range of different diagnoses from clear-cut cases to those that are extremely complex. The reader may also observe how different clinical perspectives and the choice of assessment instruments have influenced the interpretation of results.
Some reports are follow-ups based on a referral from another evaluator for a more specialized evaluation; other reports contain recommendations for further testing from a specialist in another field regarding a suspected comorbid or underlying disability (e.g., language impairment, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or clinical depression). To help a reader locate specific types of reports, the Table of Reports (see Appendix A) lists key characteristics of each report, including the name and age of the examinee, the diagnosis, the tests used, and the examiners.
