48,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Fachliteratur
- Serie: Essentials of Psychological Assessment
- Sprache: Englisch
A critical handbook for practitioners and clinicians engaged in processing assessments In the newly revised third edition of Essentials of Processing Assessment, a team of distinguished practitioners delivers an expert framework for planning, conducting, and interpreting an assessment of psychological processes. Emphasizing a pattern-of-strengths-and-weaknesses (PSW) perspective, the book offers an overview of evidence-based interventions for various psychological processes. In the book, readers will review cognitive processing theories, apply a PSW model for specific learning disability (SLD) identifications, review the relationships between psychological processes and specific kinds of achievement, and detailed information on how to assess 14 different processes covered in the model. Readers will also find: * Step-by-step guidelines and worksheets that walk readers through the analysis and interpretation of test results * Strategies for identifying students with specific learning disabilities * Information about major cognitive and memory scales, as well as scales designed for processing assessment An essential handbook for psychologists and other practitioners and clinicians engaged in processing assessments of children and adults, Essentials of Processing Assessment, 3rd Edition will earn a place in the libraries of anyone seeking to make more accurate diagnoses and identify more effective treatments.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 614
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2022
Ähnliche
TABLE OF CONTENTS
COVER
SERIES PAGE
TITLE PAGE
COPYRIGHT
DEDICATION
SERIES PREFACE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
ABOUT THE COMPANION WEBSITE
ONE INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
CHANGES TO
ESSENTIALS OF PROCESSING ASSESSMENT
THE NEEDS TO ASSESS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
COGNITIVE PROCESSING THEORIES
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY IDENTIFICATION MODELS
TWO PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND ACHIEVEMENT
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
PROCESSING CLUSTERS
DEVELOPMENT OF PROCESSES
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES AND ACADEMIC LEARNING
PROCESSING DEFICITS AND LEARNING DISABILITIES
THREE THE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
OVERVIEW OF BRAIN STRUCTURES AND FUNCTIONS
NEUROLOGICAL STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH EACH PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESS
NEUROLOGICAL STRUCTURES ASSOCIATED WITH ACHIEVEMENT
FOUR PLANNING, ORGANIZING, AND CONDUCTING A PROCESSING ASSESSMENT
HYPOTHESIS TESTING
MULTIDIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT
INFORMAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES
MULTIBATTERY SELECTIVE TESTING
SELECTION OF COMPOSITES AND SUBTESTS
GUIDELINES FOR CLASSIFYING COMPOSITES AND SUBTESTS
HOW TO USE THE
PROCESSING ASSESSMENT PLANNER
ASSESSING PSW IN ACHIEVEMENT
TESTING ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNERS
FIVE ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING TEST RESULTS
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ANALYZING AND INTERPRETING TEST SCORES
INFORMAL PSW ANALYSIS
COMMUNICATING PSW AND PROCESSING ASSESSMENT RESULTS
SIX IDENTIFYING PSW AND SLD WITH THE PPA AND MPA
SELECTIVE TESTING WITH THE PPA
MEMORY PROCESSES ANALYZER
DATA ENTRY
USING THE PPA TO ANALYZE SCORES FROM A CATTELL‐HORN‐CARROLL PERSPECTIVE
HOW THE PPA AND MPA ANALYZE DATA
USING THE PPA AND MPA TO DETERMINE SLD
SEVEN USING THE CPPS TO SCREEN PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
STRUCTURE OF THE CPPS
VALIDITY EVIDENCE
HOW TO USE THE CPPS
INTERPRETATION OF CPPS RESULTS
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE CPPS
EIGHT RECOMMENDED BATTERIES AND SCALES
WOODCOCK‐JOHNSON IV TESTS OF COGNITIVE ABILITIES AND ORAL LANGUAGE
THE WECHSLER SCALES
WISC‐V INTEGRATED
KABC‐II NU
COGNITIVE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM, SECOND EDITION (CAS2)
DIFFERENTIAL ABILITY SCALES, SECOND EDITION (DAS‐II)
NEUROPSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS
NEPSY‐II
ACHIEVEMENT BATTERIES
RATING SCALES
SCALES DESIGNED TO MEASURE SPECIFIC PROCESSES
NINE ASSESSING MEMORY
WORKING MEMORY ASSESSMENT
LONG‐TERM MEMORY ASSESSMENT
ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF MEMORY TESTING RESULTS
BATTERIES AND SCALES FOR MEMORY TESTING
TEN EVIDENCE‐BASED INTERVENTIONS FOR PROCESSING DEFICITS
TYPES OF INTERVENTIONS
THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY INTERVENTIONS
SELECTING AND DESIGNING INTERVENTIONS
SETTING GOALS AND MEASURING PROGRESS
FACTORS RELATED TO SUCCESS
INTERVENTIONS FOR SPECIFIC PROCESSES
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROCESSING WEAKNESSES FROM THE PPA PROGRAM
ELEVEN ILLUSTRATIVE CASE STUDY
ORIGINAL PRESENTING PROBLEMS
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
INITIAL BEHAVIOR OBSERVATIONS
INITIAL EVALUATION
SECOND EVALUATION
THIRD EVALUATION
INTERPRETATION SECTION OF THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REPORT FOR JASON'S THIRD EVALUATION
SAMPLE INTERVENTIONS FOR JASON
REFERENCES
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
INDEX
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
Figure 1.1 Conceptual model of the PSW option for SLD identification
Figure 1.2 Dehn's Processing/PSW Model
Chapter 2
Figure 2.1 Dehn's working memory model
Chapter 3
Figure 3.1 The brain's four lobes.
Figure 3.2 The basal ganglia and limbic system.
Figure 3.3 Brain areas involved in speech and other functions.
Figure 3.4 Two important brain structures.
Chapter 6
Figure 6.1 Example of PPA data entry screen
Figure 6.2 PPA summary of processing strengths and weaknesses table
Chapter 9
Figure 9.1 Dehn's working memory model
Figure 9.2 Representation of long‐term memory sequence
Chapter 11
Figure 11.1 Jason's PPA Process Scores Chart.
Figure 11.2 Jason's Achievement Scores Chart.
Guide
Cover Page
Series Page
Title Page
Copyright
Dedication
Series Preface
Acknowledgments
About the Companion Website
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
References
Annotated Bibliography
About the Author
Index
Wiley End User License Agreement
Pages
ii
iii
v
vi
vii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvii
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
Essentials of Processing Assessment
Series Editors, Alan S. Kaufman and Nadeen L. Kaufman
Essentials of 16PF® Assessment
by Heather E. P. Cattell and James M. Schuerger
Essentials of Adaptive Behavior Assessment of Neurodevelopmental Disorders
by Celine A. Saulnier and Cheryl Klaiman
Essentials of ADHD Assessment for Children and Adolescents
by Elizabeth P. Sparrow and Drew Erhardt
Essentials of Assessing, Preventing, and Overcoming Reading Difficulties
by David A. Kilpatrick
Essentials of Assessment Report Writing, Second Edition
by W. Joel Schneider, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Nancy Mather, Nadeen L. Kaufman, and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of Assessment with Brief Intelligence Tests
by Susan R. Homack and Cecil R. Reynolds
Essentials of Autism Spectrum Disorders Evaluation and Assessment
by Celine A. Saulnier and Pamela E. Ventola
Essentials of Bayley Scales of Infant Development‐II Assessment
by Maureen M. Black and Kathleen Matula
Essentials of Bayley—4 Assessment
by Vincent C. Alfonso, Joseph R. Engler, and Andrea D. Turner
Essentials of Behavioral Assessment
by Michael C. Ramsay, Cecil R. Reynolds, and R. W. Kamphaus
Essentials of Career Interest Assessment
by Jeffrey P. Prince and Lisa J. Heiser
Essentials of CAS2 Assessment
by Jack A. Naglieri and Tulio M. Otero
Essentials of Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, Second Edition
by Linda Wilmshurst
Essentials of Cognitive Assessment with KAIT and Other Kaufman Measures
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger, Debra Y. Broadbooks, and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of Conners Behavior Assessments™
by Elizabeth P. Sparrow
Essentials of Creativity Assessment
by James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, and John Baer
Essentials of Cross‐Battery Assessment, Third Edition
by Dawn P. Flanagan, Samuel O. Ortiz, and Vincent C. Alfonso
Essentials of DAS‐II® Assessment
by Ron Dumont, John O. Willis, and Colin D. Elliott
Essentials of Dyslexia Assessment and Intervention
by Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling
Essentials of Evidence‐Based Academic Interventions
by Barbara J. Wendling and Nancy Mather
Essentials of Executive Functions Assessment
by George McCloskey and Lisa A. Perkins
Essentials of Forensic Psychological Assessment, Second Edition
by Marc J. Ackerman
Essentials of Gifted Assessment
by Steven I. Pfeiffer
Essentials of IDEA for Assessment Professionals
by Guy McBride, Ron Dumont, and John O. Willis
Essentials of Individual Achievement Assessment
by Douglas K. Smith
Essentials of Intellectual Disability Assessment and Identification
by Alan W. Brue and Linda Wilmshurst
Essentials of KABC‐II Assessment
by Alan S. Kaufman, Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger,
Elaine Fletcher‐Janzen, and Nadeen L. Kaufman Essentials of KTEA™‐ 3 and WIAT® ‐III Assessment
by Kristina C. Breaux and Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger
Essentials of MCMI®‐ IV Assessment
by Seth D. Grossman and Blaise Amendolace
Essentials of Millon™ Inventories Assessment, Third Edition
by Stephen Strack
Essentials of MMPI‐A™ Assessment
by Robert P. Archer and Radhika Krishnamurthy
Essentials of MMPI‐2® Assessment, Second Edition
by David S. Nichols
Essentials of Myers‐Briggs Type Indicator® Assessment, Second Edition
by Naomi L. Quenk
Essentials of NEPSY®‐ II Assessment
by Sally L. Kemp and Marit Korkman
Essentials of Neuropsychological Assessment,
Second Edition
by Nancy Hebben and William Milberg
Essentials of Nonverbal Assessment
by Steve McCallum, Bruce Bracken, and John Wasserman
Essentials of PAI® Assessment
by Leslie C. Morey
Essentials of Planning, Selecting, and Tailoring Interventions for Unique Learners
by Jennifer T. Mascolo, Vincent C. Alfonso, and Dawn P. Flanagan
Essentials of Processing Assessment, Second Edition
by Milton J. Dehn
Essentials of Psychological Assessment Supervision
by A. Jordan Wright
Essentials of Psychological Tele‐Assessment
by A. Jordan Wright and Susan Engi Raiford
Essentials of Psychological Testing, Second Edition
by Susana Urbina
Essentials of Response to Intervention
by Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Matthew
K. Burns
Essentials of Rorschach® Assessment by Tara Rose, Michael P. Maloney, and Nancy Kaser‐Boyd
Essentials of Rorschach Assessment: Comprehensive System and R‐PAS
by Jessica R. Gurley
Essentials of School Neuropsychological Assessment,
Third Edition
by Daniel C. Miller and Denise E. Maricle
Essentials of Social Emotional Learning (SEL): The Complete Guide for School Practitioners
by Donna Black
Essentials of Specific Learning Disability Identification,
Second Edition
by Vincent C. Alfonso and Dawn P. Flanagan
Essentials of Stanford‐Binet Intelligence Scales (SB5)
Assessment
by Gale H. Roid and R. Andrew Barram
Essentials of TAT and Other Storytelling Assessments,
Second Edition
by Hedwig Teglasi
Essentials of Temperament Assessment
by Diana Joyce
Essentials of Trauma‐Informed Assessment and Interventions in School and Community Settings by Kirby L. Wycoff and Bettina Franzese
Essentials of WAIS®‐ IV Assessment, Second Edition
by Elizabeth O. Lichtenberger and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of WISC®‐ IV Assessment, Second Edition
by Dawn P. Flanagan and Alan S. Kaufman
Essentials of WISC‐V® Assessment
by Dawn P. Flanagan and Vincent C. Alfonso
Essentials of WISC‐V Integrated Assessment
by Susan Engi Raiford
Essentials of WJIV® Cognitive Abilities Assessment
by Fredrick A. Schrank, Scott L. Decker, and John M. Garruto
Essentials of WJIV® Tests of Achievement
by Nancy Mather and Barbara J. Wendling
Essentials of WMS®‐ IV Assessment
by Lisa Whipple Drozdick, James A. Holdnack, and Robin C. Hilsabeck
Essentials of WNV™ Assessment
by Kimberly A. Brunnert, Jack A. Naglieri, and Steven T. Hardy‐Braz
Essentials of Working Memory Assessment and Intervention
by Milton J. Dehn
Essentials of WPPSI™‐ IV Assessment
by Susan Engi Raiford and Diane L. Coalson
Essentials of WRAML2 and TOMAL‐2 Assessment
by Wayne Adams and Cecil R. Reynolds
Essentials of Treatment Planning, Second Edition
by Mark E. Maruish
Essentials of the California Verbal Learning Test
by Thomas J. Farrer and Lisa Whipple Drozdick
Essentials of Processing Assessment, Third Edition
by Milton J. Dehn
Essentials of Processing Assessment
Third Edition
Milton J. Dehn
Copyright © 2022 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
All rights reserved. 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 or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Milton J. Dehn to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Dehn, Milton J., author.
Title: Essentials of processing assessment / Milton J. Dehn.
Description: Third Edition. | Hoboken, NJ : Wiley, [2022] | Series: Essentials of psychological assessment | Revised edition of the author's | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2022012502 (print) | LCCN 2022012503 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119691334 (paperback) | ISBN 9781119691358 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119691310 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Intelligence tests. | Cognition–Testing.
Classification: LCC BF431 .D38 2022 (print) | LCC BF431 (ebook) | DDC 153.9/3–dc23/eng/20220314
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022012502
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2022012503
Cover Design: Wiley
Cover Image: © Greg Kuchik/Getty Images
To my loving wife and business partner, Paula Dehn. As an academic tutoring coordinator for nearly 20 years, she used parent consultation, advocacy, and her understanding of psychological processing deficits and learning disabilities to help numerous children improve their achievement, academic performance, and emotional well‐being.
SERIES PREFACE
In the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, we have attempted to provide the reader with books that will deliver key practical information in the most efficient and accessible style. The series features assessment instruments in a variety of domains, such as cognition, personality, education, and neuropsychology. For the experienced clinician, books in the series offer a concise yet thorough way to master use of the continuously evolving supply of new and revised instruments, as well as a convenient method for keeping up to date on the tried‐and‐true measures. The novice will find here a prioritized assembly of all the information and techniques that must be at one's fingertips to begin the complicated process of individual psychological diagnosis.
Wherever feasible, visual shortcuts to highlight key points are used alongside systematic, step‐by‐step guidelines. Chapters are focused and succinct. Topics are targeted for an easy understanding of the essentials of administration, scoring, interpretation, and clinical application. Theory and research are continually woven into the fabric of each book, but always to enhance clinical inference, never to sidetrack or overwhelm. We have long been advocates of “intelligent” testing—the notion that a profile of test scores is meaningless unless it is brought to life by the clinical observations and astute detective work of knowledgeable examiners. Test profiles must be used to make a difference in the child's or adult's life, or why bother to test? We want this series to help our readers become the best intelligent testers they can be.
This volume—the third edition of Essentials of Processing Assessment—provides practitioners with a framework for planning, conducting, and interpreting an assessment of psychological processes, especially from a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) perspective. It also offers an overview of evidence‐based interventions for some psychological processes. The approach is systematic and elucidates a challenging type of evaluation that usually requires multibattery assessment. The author sets the stage by (a) reviewing cognitive processing theories; (b) applying a PSW model for specific learning disability (SLD) identification; (c) reviewing the relations between psychological processes and specific types of achievement, and (d) providing detailed information on how to assess the 14 processes in his processing model. Details are also provided on major cognitive and memory scales, as well as scales specifically designed for processing assessment. Through step‐by‐step guidelines and worksheets the author walks the reader through analysis and interpretation of test results from a psychological processing and PSW perspective.
The final component of the evaluation process is diagnosis. To that end, this text provides guidance on how to determine significant intraindividual strengths and weaknesses among psychological processes and how to use those patterns to identify students with SLD. It is our belief that the insights and practices gained from the authoritative author of this volume will lead to more accurate diagnoses and more effective treatment for individuals who struggle with learning.
Alan S. Kaufman, PhD, and Nadeen L. Kaufman, EdD, Series EditorsYale Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to express my gratitude to Jenny Ponzuric, MS, LEP, a California school psychologist who provides training and consultation to school districts on the implementation of the PSW model. Jenny has contributed to the enhancement of the Psychological Processing Analyzer (PPA) through numerous reviews and recommendations. For this volume, she reviewed the draft and provided insightful feedback from a practitioner's viewpoint.
I would also like to thank Charles Szasz, EdS, a retired school psychologist who has programmed the PPA since it was first released in 2012. I am extremely grateful to Charles for all his creative ideas and innovative programming. His attention to detail has resulted in very professional and useful software for conducting a PSW analysis.
I am also very grateful to Kim Charnofsky, MS, LEP, a practicing school psychologist in California. She first became involved with the PSW method when she served on the committee that produced the Ventura County PSW Manual. Over the years, her numerous valuable recommendations have led to important changes and improvements to my processing assessment and PSW model.
I also wish to thank Dr. Michael Levine for reviewing a draft of the manuscript and providing insightful feedback from a practitioner's viewpoint. Dr. Levine has been a practicing school psychologist for over 45 years, having worked in public schools, mental health clinics, and the prison system. He is a strong proponent of the Dehn PSW model and has been using the Children's Psychological Processing Scale and the Psychological Processing Analyzer since they were first published.
ABOUT THE COMPANION WEBSITE
This book is accompanied by a companion website:
www.wiley.com/go/dehn/processingassessment3e
This website includes Excel worksheets and online appendices.
OneINTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW
The primary purpose of psychological and educational assessment is to better understand the client or student. Individuals are referred for a variety of concerns requiring different types of assessment, but what all evaluations have in common is the need to better understand why the individual is experiencing the difficulties that prompted the referral. In educational settings, students are often referred for learning problems that are manifestations of specific learning disabilities and underlying psychological processing deficits. To better understand such students, an assessment of psychological processes, which includes cognitive abilities or processes, is typically conducted. Analysis of the testing results will usually reveal the examinee's processing strengths and weaknesses, with the weaknesses typically related to the learner's low areas of achievement. Discovery of a student's cognitive and achievement strengths and weaknesses profile should lead to a better understanding of why the student is experiencing learning problems. When teachers, parents, and related support staff better understand the learner, they can adapt instruction, provide accommodations, and offer interventions that better meet the learner's needs, regardless of whether special education services for a specific learning disability (SLD) is provided.
This book is written for psychologists, neuropsychologists, school psychologists, educational diagnosticians, special education teachers, special education administrators, and all related professionals who conduct evaluations of youth who are referred for learning problems. The goal is to help these readers improve their assessment practices, leading to better decisions, recommendations, and interventions for students who struggle with academic learning and performance. Although this book focuses on psychological processing deficits in learning disabled students and using a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) to identify specific learning disabilities, the methods and principles promoted in this work apply to all psychoeducational assessments and all types of childhood disabilities that affect academic learning and performance. The overall goal of the model advocated in this book is to use testing and assessment data to gain a deeper understanding of the examinee's psychological and academic functioning, especially a better understanding of why the examinee is experiencing learning problems.
DON'T FORGET
The model, methods, and principles promoted in this work apply to all psychoeducational assessments and all types of childhood disabilities that affect achievement and scholastic performance.
The author of this volume, and the two previous editions of Essentials of Processing Assessment, has been thinking about, developing, practicing, and advocating for this model for more than 3 decades. His interest and involvement began during his school psychology internship when he was directed to identify a basic psychological processing deficit in a student he had evaluated for possible SLD. He was informed that federal and state legislation required this and that he could meet this requirement by checking one of the items listed on an SLD placement form. The processing deficit options listed on the form were storage, organization, acquisition, retrieval, expression, and manipulation, referred to as SOAREM. This was puzzling to the young intern because none of the assessment batteries he had used for the evaluation contained any such labels. Furthermore, when he reviewed the examples given for each processing deficit option, he discovered that “has a messy desk” met the requirement for the organization category. He found this very troubling: a student could be placed for SLD because he had a messy desk.
Shortly thereafter, the author of this volume began teaching cognitive assessment to school psychology graduate students. In his course, he began working out and teaching how to address the SLD legislative requirement of having a deficit in one or more basic psychological processes. The questions involved included:
How should each of the SOAREM categories be defined?
How did common processing areas, such as auditory processing, align with SOAREM?
How should
deficit
be defined?
What was meant by
basic
?
Were
cognitive abilities
part of psychological processes?
Should test scores be required to document a deficit?
How low should such test scores be?
Should psychological processes be tested in a comprehensive manner?
How should test scores be analyzed to determine a possible deficit?
Could learners with low IQs have processing deficits, or were they excluded?
What did these processing deficits have to do with learning and SLD?
When multibattery testing was conducted, how could test scores be compared across batteries?
Regarding this requirement, how could SLD identification procedures be improved?
The result of trying to answer these questions was the initial development of guidelines and procedures for his graduate students. These included the recommendations that identification of processing deficits should require:
Testing all commonly recognized psychological processes, at least those that could be tested with the cognitive scales that were available.
Explaining how each process tested was related to or part of one of the SOAREM categories.
Allowing only below‐average processes to be considered deficits.
Comparing each processing score with the examinee's IQ to judge whether there was a deficit.
Including informal assessment data that corroborated the low processing scores.
Explaining how the processing deficit might be related to the identified SLD.
At the same time, the author began to question his state's SLD criteria, not just the processing component but why the state was using grade equivalents to determine IQ–achievement discrepancies. After he raised these questions in a state publication, his state department of public instruction invited him to join a committee that was writing a new SLD identification guide. He was assigned to defining the SOAREM categories, aligning them with processes tested with contemporary scales, and recommending guidelines for determining the existence of a deficit. Because SOAREM was based on the old information processing model from the 1960s, the processing options it allowed were fairly narrow, with most of them applying to some aspect of memory. Consequently, the author recommended that more psychological processes, such as auditory processing and processing speed, be explicitly added to the list.
Following this experience, the author was influenced by leaders in the field of intellectual assessment, such as Woodcock, McGrew, and Flanagan who were expanding the applications of Cattell‐Horn‐Carroll (CHC) theory in such publications as the Intelligence Test Desk Reference (McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). These new applications led the author to further refine his procedures for analyzing test scores and determining the existence of processing deficits. The final influence was the advent of the school neuropsychology movement, first promoted by Hale and Fiorello (2004) in their work titled School Neuropsychology: A Practitioner's Handbook. Later, Miller (2010) would specialize in training school neuropsychologists. These developments encouraged this author to begin emphasizing the brain basis of psychological processes and the brain basis of learning disabilities. For this author, the culmination of these experiences, influences, and developments was a proposal to Alan Kaufman, the editor of this Essentials series, for a new book on processing assessment. With Kaufman's approval, work on the first Essentials of Processing Assessment began in 2004, prior to the release of the latest federal legislation that was to open the door for a PSW approach to SLD identification.
Thus, the first edition of this book was not influenced by the PSW movement because it had not yet occurred. However, the PSW procedures that were to be advanced by several experts were consistent with what this author had already developed for identifying processing deficits. The point is that the methodology recommended in this book works equally well for identifying processing deficits, identifying a PSW in cognitive abilities and achievement, and just plain identifying within‐child strengths and weaknesses.
DON'T FORGET
The model and procedures is this book were originally developed for the identification of psychological processing deficits. The model and procedures were later adapted to incorporate a PSW approach to SLD identification.
With the release of this edition, it is time to give this author's model and method a name. Because it's both a processing model and a PSW model, an appropriate descriptive name for it is Dehn's Processing/PSW Model. This is how it will be referred to throughout this text. Dehn's Processing/PSW Model focuses on 14 psychological processes that are highly related to academic achievement in reading, writing, and mathematics (see Rapid Reference 1.1).
DON'T FORGET
The model promoted is this book is referred to as Dehn's Processing/PSW Model.
Rapid Reference 1.1 The 14 Psychological Processes in Dehn's Processing/PSW Model
Attention
Auditory processing
Executive functions
Fine motor/sensorimotor
Fluid reasoning
Verbal long‐term recall
Visual‐spatial long‐term recall
Oral language
Orthographic processing
Phonological processing
Processing speed
Visual‐spatial processing
Verbal working memory
Visual‐spatial working memory
CHANGES TO ESSENTIALS OF PROCESSING ASSESSMENT
The third edition of Essentials of Processing Assessment incorporates many of the important developments and supporting research that have occurred since the second edition was written in 2013. Revisions, additions, and updates have been made to all the chapters and recommended procedures. Also, extensive appendices that include worksheets have been placed in the online resources. Specific changes and additions include:
More elaboration of concepts and recommended procedures
More examples
More emphasis on PSW details and procedures
More emphasis on strengths
Information on dyslexia
New memory processes
More details on neurological structures
More information on achievement testing
More information on PSW in achievement
Orthographic processing
New and revised test batteries and scales
Explanation of how to incorporate crystallized intelligence scores
More information on English language learners
More research supporting PSW
The Memory Processes Analyzer
More information on the
Psychological Processing Analyzer
(
PPA
)
THE NEEDS TO ASSESS PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Processing Deficits and Specific Learning Disabilities
The first need to assess psychological processes was mentioned earlier in this chapter. Since Public Law 94‐142 was introduced in 1975, federal legislation has defined a learning disability as “a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes.” This requirement remains in the current federal legislation. However, when changes were made to federal legislation in 2004 and subsequent U.S. Department of Education regulations, some states and local education agencies began to disregard this requirement and focus more on implementing the new Response‐to‐Intervention (RTI) approach to SLD identification. Even in states and schools where it is still included on their placement forms, identification of a processing deficit often gets little more than lip service. That is, the existence of a processing deficit is affirmed without any data, especially standardized test data, to back it up. This is unfortunate, not so much from an SLD criteria perspective, but because valuable information about the struggling student could be gained by taking this aspect of an SLD evaluation seriously. For schools and practitioners who value this kind of information, this book will provide helpful recommendations and step‐by‐step procedures for meeting this need.
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses and Specific Learning Disabilities
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) 2004 and the federal regulations that followed in 2006 allow states to apply one of three SLD identification models: (a) the traditional ability–achievement severe discrepancy approach; (b) RTI; and (c) alternative research‐based procedures. The third option allowed under 2006 federal SLD identification regulations is “the use of other alternative research‐based procedures.” One of the research‐based procedures is known as the PSW method, also mentioned earlier in this chapter. The practice involves using test scores and other assessment data to document a PSW in academic achievement, cognitive abilities, or psychological processes. The existence of a PSW is considered evidence for the educational determination of a specific learning disability. Different models and procedures for determining an examinee's PSW have been promoted (see details in a later section of this chapter). These practices are still evolving and in some locations being implemented for the first time 15 years after PSW was first introduced. The PSW regulations and practitioners' desire for structured and defensible methods for making these determinations creates the second need for this book and for psychological processing assessment. This work will attempt to provide as much structure and guidance as possible while still allowing for professional judgment.
Better Understanding of the Examinee's Strengths and Weaknesses
Good psychoeducational and neuropsychological assessment should include testing and analysis of the examinee's psychological processes in order to identify the examinee's strengths and weaknesses, whether or not there are any statutory requirements. Fundamentally, evaluators should engage in good assessment practices that include testing and analysis of psychological processes because they are cognizant of the evidence base connecting psychological processes and achievement, as well as the evidence for a brain basis for learning disabilities. The goal with such assessment is a better understanding of why the student is experiencing learning challenges. This is the third and perhaps most important need for psychological processing assessment. This book will provide readers with a review of research on processing–achievement relations and how brain‐based deficits can impair learning. In addition, this work will provide structure and guidance for analyzing and interpreting results, as well as suggestions for processing interventions that address the processing deficits.
All aspects of daily functioning throughout the life span depend on psychological processes, not just academic learning; processing weaknesses are related to more than learning disorders. For example, individuals with autism spectrum disorders have processing deficits (Saulnier & Ventola, 2012). Whether directly acknowledged or not, assessment of psychological processes is conducted in several settings and for many referral reasons. Although the assessment practices in this book are discussed in relation to specific learning disabilities, they apply to the psychoeducational or neuropsychological assessment of any individual who is referred for an evaluation, regardless of the suspected disorder.
DON'T FORGET
The assessment practices recommended in this book apply to all types of psychoeducational and neuropsychological evaluations, regardless of the suspected disorder.
PSYCHOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Psychological processes are mental operations that perceive, transform, manipulate, store, retrieve, and express information (Gagne, 1993). Psychological processes range from basic perceptual processes, such as recognizing distinct sounds or perceiving visual details, to higher level cognitive processes that contribute to language and reasoning. It would be very difficult to identify all the specific brain‐based psychological processes that contribute to a cognitive operation, to learning, or to performance of a skill. It would be equally difficult to parse out the relative contribution of each process. Multiple processes underlie performance on any given task, and any identified process can be decomposed into more specific components and operations. The complexity of psychological processing makes it difficult to identify discrete processes. Thus, the psychological processing constructs selected for assessment in Dehn's Processing/PSW Model are groupings or aggregates of specific processes, rather than discrete, isolated processes. These psychological processes should be thought of as broad processes. Definitions of the 14 selected processes are presented in Chapter 2.
The list of psychological processes certainly could be much longer because nearly every major brain function could be described as a psychological process. However, this book is focused on the processes that have the most influence on acquiring and performing academic skills (achievement). Consequently, the selections have been limited to those psychological and cognitive processes that have strong evidence‐based relations with the acquisition of specific academic skills. Processes that do not have a significant relationship with at least one achievement area are not included. Noncognitive processes, such as social or emotional processes, are also excluded.
Psychological Processes and Cognitive Processes
The psychological processes that are the focus of this book are primarily cognitive processes. A cognitive process is another broad construct that applies to all forms of knowing and awareness. The essence of cognitive processing or cognition is thinking, reasoning, learning, and remembering, but it also includes basic processes, such as perception. Cognitive processes might be considered a subset of psychological processes. For example, psychological processes include brain functions that generally are not considered as cognitive processes, such as sensory, motor, and social‐emotional functioning. Although the processes that are the focus of this book are primarily cognitive, and some experts use the terms interchangeably (e.g., Naglieri, 2011), in this work they are primarily referred to as psychological processes, because it is the more commonly used term in legislation pertaining to SLD identification. That is, whenever the term psychological processes is used herein, it also refers to cognitive processes.
DON'T FORGET
Psychological processes are primarily cognitive processes. In this book, the psychological processes term also refers to and includes cognitive processes and cognitive abilities.
Psychological Processes and Cognitive Abilities
Cognitive abilities might be thought of as a combination of innate mental capacities and acquired knowledge and skills. For example, quantitative reasoning is a cognitive ability that is composed of some innate functions, such as the capacity to understand relative differences in quantity, to apply logic, and to creatively solve problems, coupled with mathematics concepts and procedures that have been acquired through experience and learning. The level of performance in skills such as arithmetic is partially determined by the developed level of the abilities they depend on. For that reason, abilities are typically viewed as indicators of potential or capacity. The functioning and demonstration of abilities, which tend to be broad, is dependent on underlying cognitive processes, which are relatively more specific and discrete, working in an interrelated fashion. Given this distinction, mental features such as processing speed and auditory processing should not be considered abilities but basic psychological processes. Despite these distinctions, in this book the terms cognitive processes and cognitive abilities are used interchangeably, and psychological processes include cognitive processes.
Psychological Processes and Intelligence
The traditional approach to measuring cognitive abilities and learning potential has been to use intelligence tests. Although the construct of intelligence has many definitions, including some that are very similar to cognitive processes, the construct of intelligence has primarily included very broad abilities, such as verbal and nonverbal intelligence. In contrast, processing assessment tends to focus on more narrow abilities (or processes), such as auditory processing. Furthermore, the construct and measurement of intelligence historically have focused more on the products or content of cognition rather than on the processes of cognition (Miller, 1999). For example, until recently about 50% of what intelligence tests measured was verbal ability or acquired knowledge, which is usually classified as crystallized intelligence. Although the acquisition and retrieval of crystallized intelligence requires processing, it is mainly the content of crystallized intelligence that is being tapped by intellectual tests. The level of crystallized intelligence is undeniably a strong indication of intellectual functioning, academic achievement, and underlying neuropsychological processing, but it is not a process per se. From crystallized intelligence scores, one can only infer what processing levels might be. Processing assessment attempts to measure cognitive processes more directly than intellectual assessment does.
From another perspective, psychological processing is what underlies intelligence. To acquire and demonstrate intellectual abilities, psychological processes must be intact and at an adequate threshold. Thus, processing and intelligence have an integral relationship, which is perhaps best conceptualized by Sternberg (1997). In Sternberg's theory, there are three basic kinds of processing components: (a) metacomponents (higher order executive processes), (b) performance components (lower order processes that process information under the supervision of the metacomponents), and (c) knowledge‐acquisition components (the processes involved in acquiring knowledge). Such processes underlie intellectual performance and are the essence of learning. Intelligence, processing, and learning are all interrelated; for example, the development of general intelligence, especially crystallized intelligence, depends on learning.
Despite these distinctions, intelligence tests, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition (WISC‐V; Wechsler, 2014) can and should be administered as part of psychological processing assessment because they contain reliable and valid measures of various psychological processes (Chapter 8). Another reason for their use is that with each iteration, they have evolved to include more and more processing measures, such as the WISC‐V's expansion into long‐term recall.
DON'T FORGET
Intelligence tests can and should be used as part of a processing assessment because they reliably and validly measure several psychological processes.
Psychological Processes and Skills
The engagement of psychological processes in a learning environment leads to the acquisition of knowledge and skills and allows the effective performance of acquired skills. Skills involve the acquired ability to perform procedures. Skills develop as a result of instruction, training, study, and practice. Similar to the distinction between crystallized intelligence and processing, skills, such as academic skills, are not psychological or cognitive processes but the product of such processes. Consequently, tests that purport to measure psychological processes should be relatively free of academic content and procedures. For example, using a test of arithmetic skills to measure working memory can result in an invalid working memory score, especially when the examinee lacks arithmetic skills.
A different but related issue is the extent to which psychological processes are really just developed skills and not innate abilities. This is similar to the old nature–nurture controversy. Certainly, psychological processes develop and improve as a result of experiences and structured learning. Thus, in a sense, it could be argued that they are primarily, or at least in part, skills. Nonetheless, they should still be thought of as processes, even though their development and enhancement is at least partially due to learning. Processes are mainly involved in processing information, not just performing an acquired skill. Also, processes can handle information without any specific required skill, such as when an individual uses reasoning to solve a novel problem.
Psychological Processes and Academic Learning
Human learning is the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Learning depends on the integration of many psychological processes operating in parallel and integrated fashion in the brain. Although processing is required for all types of learning, learning in this text refers to the acquisition of reading, mathematics, language, and writing skills, as well as academic knowledge, such as science and social studies. The general learning cycle involves taking in selected information through one or more senses, manipulating that information in working memory, encoding the information into long‐term storage, and retrieving the information to produce an expression or response. The most effective learners are those who actively influence the processes that are necessary for effective learning. Most processing does not enter awareness or require directed efforts for its functioning, but active, conscious control of learning processes seems to facilitate and enhance most types of learning. For instance, one must consciously manipulate information in order to study effectively for a course examination. The importance of different types of processes varies, depending on the type of learning. For example, the processes that correlate the highest with learning mathematics are different from those that correlate the highest with learning to read (see Chapter 2 for more details on these relations).
Psychological Processing Aptitudes
Aptitudes are specific cognitive abilities that enable a learner to acquire specific academic skills. In Dehn's Processing/PSW Model, psychological processes are considered aptitudes for specific types of academic learning (achievement). On the other hand, most traditionally identified scholastic aptitudes are actually psychological processes. A different combination of psychological processing aptitudes underlies each academic skill (see Chapter 2 for details).
COGNITIVE PROCESSING THEORIES
Lurian and PASS Theories
Luria (1970) proposed a theory of brain organization and processing that divides the brain into three functional units or blocks. The first functional unit is responsible for arousal and attention and is located in the brainstem. In Lurian theory, attention is defined as the ability to selectively focus cognitive activity toward a stimulus over a period of time without being distracted by other competing stimuli (Naglieri, 2011). The second functional unit serves as the primary intake of information, the processing of that information, and the association of that information with acquired knowledge (Kemp et al., 2001). The second functional unit—located in the occipital, parietal, and temporal lobes—receives and processes visual, auditory, and other sensory information. The main types of processing in the second unit consist of simultaneous processing and successive processing. Simultaneous processing is a mental process by which the individual integrates separate stimuli into a single whole or group (Luria, 1970). Successive processing (also referred to as sequential processing) is a mental process by which the individual integrates stimuli into a specific serial order that forms a chainlike progression (Naglieri & Das, 1997). The third functional unit—located in the frontal region of the brain—regulates the executive functions of planning, monitoring, and strategizing needed for efficient problem solving. Luria viewed these units and processes as part of an interdependent system. For example, the third functional unit is affected by the attentional/arousal function in the first unit while regulating processing in the second unit. Given the proper state of arousal and attention, the planning, simultaneous, and successive processes interact to acquire knowledge.
The original Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983) was based on Luria's theory but only included measures of sequential and simultaneous processing. The 2004 revision of the KABC (KABC‐II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) added two more processing scales—planning and learning. The authors built the KABC‐II on a dual theoretical framework, basing the scales on both Luria's neuropsychological theory and on psychometric CHC theory (discussed in the next section). The Kaufmans equated the Lurian processes with broad cognitive processes from CHC theory as follows: sequential processing with short‐term memory, simultaneous processing with visual processing; planning with fluid reasoning, and learning with long‐term retrieval (see Chapter 8 for more information on the KABC‐II).
Naglieri and Das (1997) based another cognitive theory and assessment scale on Luria's processing theory. From the work of Luria and the influences of cognitive psychology and neuropsychology, the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive theory emerged and became known as PASS theory (see Rapid Reference 1.2). Naglieri and Das operationalized PASS theory in the form of the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), a test of cognitive processes.
PASS theory and the tests that measure its components have been shown to have good diagnostic validity in regard to SLDs. For example, Naglieri (2005) reviewed several studies and concluded that children with reading decoding problems obtain low successive processing scores. Other studies (e.g., Naglieri & Johnson, 2000) have found low planning ability to be related to mathematics learning and performance difficulties. Naglieri and Feifer (2018) promote a PSW model that is based on PASS theory (see discussion later in this chapter).
The main concern with Lurian and PASS theory‐based scales is that they measure only a few of the 14 processes judged to be essential for achievement skills and academic performance. See Rapid Reference 1.2 for comparisons.
Rapid Reference 1.2 The 14 Psychological Processes and Corresponding PASS Processes
Psychological process
PASS ability/CAS II measure
Attention
Attention
Auditory processing
None
Executive functions
Planning
Fine motor
None
Fluid reasoning
Matrices subtest
Verbal long‐term recall
None
Visual‐spatial long‐term recall
None
Oral language
None
Orthographic processing
None
Phonological processing
None
Processing speed
None
Visual‐spatial processing
Verbal‐Spatial Relations subtest
Verbal working memory
Successive Processing
Visual‐spatial working memory
Successive Processing
Cattell‐Horn‐Carroll Theory
CHC theory is a contemporary theory of intelligence and human cognitive abilities. CHC theory posits a trilevel hierarchical model, with g, or general intelligence, at the top, 10 broad abilities at the middle level, and approximately 70 narrow abilities at the lowest level (McGrew & Flanagan, 1998). CHC theory is the consolidation of two theories of intelligence—Carroll's and Horn‐Cattell's. Raymond Cattell identified the theory's first two types of intelligence—fluid and crystallized—in the 1940s. Fluid intelligence is the ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems that often include novel content or procedures. Crystallized intelligence is the breadth and depth of knowledge, including verbal ability. John Horn and others went on to find support for several more types of cognitive abilities, expanding the theory to eight or nine broad factors (Horn & Blankson, 2005). In the late 1980s, John B. Carroll (1993) completed a meta‐analysis of more than 400 well‐designed studies of intelligence conducted in the twentieth century. Carroll's factor analytic model turned out to be a close match with Horn‐Cattell theory. In the late 1990s, Horn and Carroll agreed to integrate their theories. Since then, the theory has gained wide acceptance and influence.
CHC theory has been operationalized in several cognitive abilities test batteries. The Woodcock‐Johnson (WJ) cognitive test batteries were originally based on Horn‐Cattell theory; the more recent revisions have been based on CHC theory (see Chapter 8 for more information on the WJ IV). As noted in the previous section, the KABC‐II (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) is based on both the CHC and Lurian theories. Advocates of CHC theory, for example, McGrew and Flanagan (1998), have classified the composites and subtests of all intellectual, cognitive, and achievement assessment instruments according to CHC taxonomy. There is also a PSW model based on CHC theory (Flanagan et al., 2018; see discussion later in this chapter).
CHC theory is applicable to processing and PSW assessment because most of the 10 broad abilities identified by the theory (see Rapid Reference 1.3) can be considered 1 of the 14 psychological processes. The CHC broad cognitive abilities that are included under Dehn's Processing/PSW Model are visual processing, auditory processing, long‐term storage and retrieval, fluid intelligence, short‐term memory (working memory), processing speed, and crystallized intelligence (classified as oral language in Dehn's Processing/PSW Model). The quantitative knowledge, reading and writing ability, and decision/reaction time/speed broad abilities are not considered 1 of the 14 processes. Reading and writing achievement are too closely associated with those respective academic skills to be considered psychological processes. Decision/reaction time/speed is also a type of processing, but it is not included in Dehn's Processing/PSW Model because of limited research on its relations with academic learning. Also, one of the 14 processes, phonological processing, is actually a CHC narrow ability.
Rapid Reference 1.3 The 14 Psychological Processes and Corresponding CHC Abilities
Psychological process
CHC ability
Attention
None
Auditory processing
Auditory processing
Executive functions
None
Fine motor
None
Fluid reasoning
Fluid reasoning
Verbal long‐term recall
Long‐term retrieval
Visual‐spatial long‐term recall
Long‐term retrieval
Oral language
Crystallized intelligence
Orthographic processing
None
Phonological processing
Auditory processing narrow ability
Processing speed
Processing speed
Visual‐spatial processing
Visual processing
Verbal working memory
Short‐term working memory
Visual‐spatial working memory
Short‐term working memory
School Neuropsychology Conceptual Model
Miller (Miller and Maricle, 2019) has recently integrated CHC clusters with neuropsychological processes in what he refers to as the Integrated School Neuropsychology/CHC Conceptual Model. In his model, Miller identifies the underlying neuropsychological constructs measured by the CHC broad abilities. His list of school neuropsychological (SNP) processes include several broad cognitive processes: visuospatial processes, auditory processes, learning and memory processes, and executive processes. Sensorimotor functions are distinguished from cognitive processes; they are considered basic building blocks for higher order cognitive processes. Miller classifies attention, working memory, and processing speed as “facilitators/inhibitors,” arguing that these three processes do not work in isolation but rather permeate almost every other cognitive process and function. Miller's Integrated SNP/CHC model is very consistent with Dehn's Processing/PSW Model. The only 1 of the 14 processes not specially included in Miller's model is orthographic processing. See Rapid Reference 1.4 for comparisons between Miller's model and Dehn's Processing/PSW Model.
Rapid Reference 1.4 The 14 Psychological Processes and Corresponding SNP Processes
Psychological process
SNP ability
Attention
Allocating and maintaining attention (facilitator/inhibitor)
Auditory processing
Auditory processes
Executive functions
Executive processes
Fine motor
Sensorimotor functions
Fluid reasoning
Executive processes
Verbal long‐term recall
Learning and memory processes
Visual‐spatial long‐term recall
Learning and memory processes
Oral language
Acculturation knowledge
Orthographic processing
None
Phonological processing
Auditory processes second order ability
Processing speed
Speed, fluency & efficiency of processing (facilitator/inhibitor)
Visual‐spatial processing
Visuospatial processes
Verbal working memory
Working memory (facilitator/inhibitor)
Visual‐spatial working memory
Working memory (facilitator/inhibitor)
SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY IDENTIFICATION MODELS
SLD identification is guided by federal and state legislation and guidelines. IDEIA 2004 and the federal regulations that followed in 2006 allow states to apply one of three SLD identification models: (a) the traditional ability‐achievement severe discrepancy approach; (b) RTI; and (c) alternative research‐based procedures. Allowing these options has resulted in considerable variability across states and school districts. Zirkel and Thomas (2010) completed a survey of all U.S. states and discovered that the ability–achievement severe discrepancy approach remained an option in the vast majority of states. They also found that 12 states required an RTI approach and that 20 states permitted a research‐based alternative method of identification. In most states, local school districts can choose from the options offered by state education agencies. Despite the inconsistencies across SLD identification practices, all state and local educational agencies require (as does IDEIA 2004) a significant learning deficit in at least one of eight specific types of learning, involving reading, mathematics, written language, or oral language (see Rapid Reference 1.5). Some agencies determine these achievement deficits through standardized testing, whereas others do so through RTI procedures.
Rapid Reference 1.5 Federal and State SLD Achievement Categories
Basic reading skills
Reading fluency
Reading comprehension
Mathematics calculation
Mathematics problem solving
Written expression
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Many states that have implemented RTI do not specifically require assessment and identification of psychological processing disorders. Among the states that do require identification of a psychological processing disorder, the extent of guidance provided varies. It appears that, more often than not, local educational agencies and individual practitioners are allowed to establish their own procedures for determining the presence of a processing disorder, as well as how to use processing scores for SLD identification. SLD identification models, as they relate to processing and strengths and weaknesses assessment, are discussed in the following sections. For information on other approaches to SLD identification, the reader is referred to the edited work by Flanagan et al. (2018).
Response to Intervention
The basic concept behind the RTI SLD identification method is that struggling learners should be provided with academic interventions before they are assessed with standardized tests. Those who fail to respond to these interventions are thought to have learning disabilities. Although practices vary by state and school district, curriculum‐based assessment and failure to respond to RTI seem to be the basis for SLD placement even though some standardized testing is usually conducted prior to placement.
Since the introduction of RTI, now often referred to as MTSS (Multi‐Tiered System of Supports), there has been controversy surrounding its use as a stand‐alone method of SLD identification (Kovaleski et al., 2013). The controversy stems from the belief that a failure to respond to intervention is not adequate proof of a disability. Moreover, federal regulations require the “use of technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavior factors” (34 CFR § 300.304[b][3]). Further discussion of RTI methodology and the controversies surrounding RTI as a method of SLD determination are beyond the scope of this book. For a primer on RTI, the reader is referred to VanDerHeyden and Burns (2010).
This author views Dehn's Processing/PSW Model as compatible with an RTI/MTSS model, especially the intervention side of RTI/MTSS. Both models are in favor of early identification and intervention. Information gathered when using Dehn's Processing/PSW Model can inform interventions that are implemented under RTI. Moreover, identification of processing weaknesses can help education professionals understand why a student has failed to respond to RTI. For example, discovery of a serious orthographic processing deficit could explain why the reader is not responding to typical remedial reading programs and phonemic awareness training. Despite the overall compatibility of these two models, it is the opinion of this author that allowing RTI/MTSS as the sole SLD identification approach and disregarding psychological assessment data that includes information about a learner's processing strengths and weaknesses is poor professional practice, given how much we now know about the brain basis of specific learning disabilities (see Chapter 3) and given the evidence‐based opportunities for interventions that directly address processing deficits (see Chapter 10).
Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses Models
The third option allowed under 2006 federal SLD identification regulations is “the use of other alternative research‐based procedures.” The research‐based procedure some states have adopted under this option is known as the PSW method. The practice involves using assessment data to document a PSW in academic achievement, cognitive abilities, or psychological processes. The existence of a PSW is considered evidence for the educational determination of a specific learning disability.
PSW applied to psychological processing assessment is based on the assumption that one or more brain‐based processing weaknesses underlie or cause difficulties in academic learning that could lead to a learning disability (Fletcher et al., 1995; Hale & Fiorello, 2004). These processing weaknesses, or deficits, result in an uneven pattern of cognitive functioning. The learning problems and low achievement caused by processing weaknesses cannot be explained by other causes, such as inadequate learning opportunities. When SLD exists, there should be a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses because if all psychological processes are deficient, by definition it is not a learning disability. Rather, the learning problems are more likely due to overall low intellectual/cognitive ability or what is sometimes referred to as a global learning difficulty. The occurrence of significant intraindividual weaknesses in a child who displays otherwise normal learning aptitudes is viewed as an indication of an SLD. However, only deficient processes that have significant, research‐based relations with the deficient areas of academic learning should be considered evidence of an SLD. For example, phonological processing has a strong relationship with basic reading skills but a nonsignificant relationship with mathematics problem solving. Consequently, a deficit in phonological processing would support a diagnosis of SLD in deficient basic reading skills but not in deficient mathematics problem solving. The final requirement for SLD determination when using a PSW model is that there is consistency between the low area of achievement and related psychological processes. Typically, consistency means that both types of scores are similarly low.
There are several PSW methods being applied across the United States. Figure 1.1 illustrates the conceptual similarities among these PSW methods. The top oval in the figure represents cognitive ability or cognitive processing strengths as well as academic strengths (although not all methods require an academic strength). The bottom left oval represents cognitive processing weaknesses, and the bottom right oval represents academic skill (achievement) weaknesses. The double‐headed arrow between the two bottom ovals indicates an empirical or ecologically valid relationship between specific achievement areas and related cognitive deficits. This relationship is referred to as consistency; evidence of consistency occurs when a cognitive score and a related achievement score are similarly low. Consistency indicates that a cognitive weakness is likely interfering with the student's acquisition and development of a specific academic skill. The double‐headed arrows between the top oval and the two bottom ovals indicate statistically significant differences. On the left side, there are differences between processing strengths and weaknesses. On the right side, there are difference between academic strengths and weaknesses. The pattern of cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses in the figure exemplifies two of the most common diagnostic markers of SLD – specific cognitive processing weaknesses and unexpected underachievement.
Figure 1.1
