Part I - catalogimages.wiley.com€¦ · Planning and selecting interventions is conceptualized here as the process of identifying evidence-based interventions that are most often

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:39 Page 1

Part I

INTERVENTION PLANNING:DIAGNOSTIC ASSESSMENT,RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION, ANDCONSULTATION

COPYRIG

HTED M

ATERIAL

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:39 Page 2

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:39 Page 3

One

A SYSTEMATIC METHOD OF ANALYZINGASSESSMENT RESULTS FOR TAILORINGINTERVENTIONS (SMAARTI)

Jennifer T. MascoloDawn P. FlanaganVincent C. Alfonso

The term intervention is one that is familiar to anyone working in a schoolsystem. Adjectives such as research-based and evidence-basedwhen placed infront of this term elevate it to an indubitable status. This is primarily

because these descriptors suggest that the intervention was subjected to a rigorousevaluation and was found to be effective, meaning that when implemented withfidelity, it leads to positive outcomes (e.g., Cooney, Huser, Small, & O’Connor,2007; Flanagan & Alfonso, 2011).

Not surprisingly, then, evidence-based interventions are often the ones that areused first in either general or specialized instructional settings as compared to thoseinterventions and techniques without such support. In general, it is incumbentupon practitioners to use evidence-based interventions with students who struggleacademically. It is also prudent to use comprehensive interventions that can meetstudents’ multiple manifest academic difficulties (e.g., remedial reading programsthat contain the five essential components of reading; Feifer, 2011). However, it isclear from the literature that despite their overt relevancy, not all comprehensive,evidence-based interventions address the academic needs of every student effec-tively (e.g., Della Tofallo, 2010; Hale, Wycoff, & Fiorello, 2011).

In a tiered service delivery model, interventions are planned for and selectedbased on universal screening data. For example, students who are at risk forreading difficulties may receive Wilson if their reading difficulties are related

3

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:39 Page 4

primarily to decoding difficulties or Read 180 if their reading difficulties are relatedprimarily to comprehension difficulties (e.g., Feifer, 2011, and Chapter 5, thisvolume). When a student does not respond as expected to evidence-basedinterventions, a comprehensive evaluation is often recommended to gain a betterunderstanding of the nature of and basis for the student’s learning difficulties. It isthrough a comprehensive and focused evaluation that the intervention processmoves from planning and selecting interventions to tailoring interventions. Planningand selecting interventions is typical of a standard treatment protocol Response toIntervention (RTI) service delivery model, whereas tailoring interventions is moreconsistent with a problem-solving RTI model.

PLANNING AND SELECTING INTERVENTIONS VERSUSTAILORING INTERVENTIONS

Planning and selecting interventions is conceptualized here as the process ofidentifying evidence-based interventions that are most often used in standardservice delivery models to address manifest academic difficulties that are revealedvia progress monitoring (e.g., a particular reading program is selected by a districtas a Tier II intervention for students with reading fluency difficulties). On theother hand, a primary focus of tailoring interventions involves understanding thestudent’s pattern of cognitive and academic strengths and weaknesses and how thispattern interacts with the instructional materials used by the student as well asclassroom instructional factors, environmental factors, and other individual/situational factors that may facilitate or inhibit learning. The goals, therefore,are (a) to use information about a variety of intrinsic and extrinsic factors to tailorspecific interventions; and (b) to ensure that a student has appropriate access to thecurriculum byminimizing or bypassing the adverse affects that cognitive and otherweaknesses have on the student’s learning. Tailoring interventions may includeModification (e.g., instructional, curricular), Accommodation, Remediation, andCompensation. The acronym,MARC, can be used to assist in remembering thesemethods of tailoring interventions, which are defined in Rapid Reference 1.1.

AMETHOD FOR TAILORING INTERVENTIONS

This chapter provides a Systematic Method of Analyzing Assessment Results forTailoring Interventions (SMAARTI). This method, as initially conceptualized byMascolo (2008), involves the organization, analysis, and synthesis of assessmentdata to aid in understanding the cognitive basis of students’ learning difficulties.Based onmultiple data sources, the steps of SMAARTI assist in identifying various

4 ESSENTIALS OF INTERVENTIONS FOR UNIQUE LEARNERS

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:40 Page 5

Rapid Reference 1.1 Methods of Tailoring Interventions...........................................................................................................................

TailoringMethod Brief Description Examples

Modification Changes content of material to betaught or measured; typicallyinvolves changing or reducinglearning or measurementexpectations; may change thedepth, breadth, and complexity oflearning and measurement goals.

Reducing the amount of materialthat a student is required to learnSimplifying material to be learnedRequiring only literal (as opposedto critical/inferential) questionsfrom an end-of-chaptercomprehension checkSimplifying test instructions andcontent

Accommodation Changes conditions under whichlearning occurs or is measured, butdoes not change or reduce learningor assessment expectations.Accommodations may includetiming, flexible scheduling,presentation, setting, and responseaccommodations.

Extending time on examsAssigning a project in advance orallowing more time to complete aprojectAligning math problems vertically,as opposed to horizontallyProviding a separate room toworkHaving a student dictate responsesto a scribe

Remediation Techniques or programs used toameliorate cognitive and academicdeficits. Academic interventionstypically focus on developing a skill,increasing automaticity of skills, orimproving the application of skills.Cognitive interventions typicallyfocus on improving cognitiveprocesses such as working memorycapacity and phonologicalprocessing. There are manytechniques, published programs,and software designed for thepurpose of remediation.

Evidence-based programs listed atWhat Works Clearing House:http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwcReading programs appearing onthe Florida Center for ReadingResearch website: www.fcrr.ordTechniques and materials from theReading Rockets website: www.readingrockets.orgCogMed (Pearson)Spotlight on ListeningComprehension (LinguiSystems,2006)

Compensation Procedures, techniques, andstrategies that are intended tobypass or minimize the impact of acognitive or academic deficit.

Teaching the use of mnemonicdevicesOrganizational aids or techniquesTeaching a student to outline oruse graphic organizers

A SYSTEMATIC METHOD FOR TAILORING INTERVENTIONS 5

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:40 Page 6

methods of tailoring intervention (i.e., MARC) that make instruction moreaccessible to the student, thereby improving learning. SMAARTI is used whena student fails to respond as expected to evidence-based interventions (typicallythose used at Tier II) and, therefore, undergoes a comprehensive evaluation thatincludes an assessment of cognitive functioning.

STEPS OF SMAARTI

SMAARTI consists of five steps (see Rapid Reference 1.2). While this methodassumes that several forms of data have already been collected for a particularstudent and, therefore, will be viewed post-hoc, the steps of SMAARTI can also serveas a roadmap to the types of data that ought to be gathered in an initial evaluation toaid in tailoring interventions for students with unique learning needs.

DON’T FORGET............................................................................................................A comprehensive evaluation should include data from the following areas offunctioning: (a) educational history and current academic performance; (b) familialfactors and medical history; (c) cognitive performance (including Cattell-Horn-Carroll [CHC] ability domains and neuropsychological processes); (d) behavioral andsocial-emotional functioning; and (e) classroom/instructional/environmental obser-vations. Other information that must be garnered during the course of an evaluationto ensure that interventions are practical include parent/home resources (e.g., timeavailable to spend with student, parent interest/motivation, parents’ level of languageproficiency, computer in the home), student’s schedule and routine, current and pastinterventions used, and current strategies used by the student. When necessary, acomprehensive evaluation may include assessment of cultural and linguistic factors aswell as any other factors that will assist in differential diagnosis.

Rapid Reference 1.2 The Five Steps of SMAARTI...........................................................................................................................

1. Organize primary data using the CHC-based Data Organization and Targets forIntervention form (or DOTI form; see Table 1.1 and CD). Primary data includeinformation from norm-referenced, standardized tests of cognitive and academicability and neuropsychological processes and provide information about charac-teristics that reside mainly within the child (i.e., that are intrinsic). Examine allprimary data to gain an understanding of the student’s unique pattern of ability andprocessing strengths and weaknesses.

2. Determine whether academic weaknesses are empirically related to the cognitiveweaknesses by reviewing the research on the relations among specific cognitive


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:40 Page 7

Step 1: Organize Primary Data Using the CHC-Based Data Organizationand Targets for Intervention (DOTI) Form

In this step, practitioners may use the CHC-based DOTI form in Table 1.1(also downloadable from CD) to organize primary data. Primary data includestandardized test scores from cognitive and academic measures, special-purpose batteries (e.g., memory, language), district-wide testing programs(e.g., English Language Arts scores), and progress monitoring. As may be seenin Table 1.1, the DOTI form is organized into 10 CHC domains. It alsocontains an “other” category, which is reserved for use with measures not

abilities, neuropsychological processes, and academic skills (see Rapid Reference1.4). An empirically established relationship between cognitive abilities or pro-cesses and academic skills allows practitioners to gain a better understanding of thepotential reasons for the academic deficit. Knowledge of the underlying reasonsfor academic skill deficiency is necessary for both diagnosis and intervention.

3. Review manifestations of cognitive weaknesses, organize secondary data, identifyinitial targets for intervention, and identify types of academic skill deficits forremediation using the DOTI form. Determine whether identified cognitiveweaknesses manifest in real-world performances in predictable ways. Refer tothe CHC-based manifestations tables (see Rapid References 1. 5 to 1.13) to gainan understanding of the various ways in which a weakness in a specific cognitivedomain likely manifests generally, as well as more specifically in reading, math, andwriting. Based on this information, integrate secondary data into the DOTI form.Secondary data include information from rating scales, classroom observations, andinterviews with parents, teachers, and the student him- or herself. Like primarydata, secondary data typically provide information about characteristics that areintrinsic to the child. When practitioners are able to observe the manifestations ofspecific cognitive deficits in classroom performance, for example, cognitive testresults are ecologically valid. Be sure to note whether manifestations of cognitivedeficits are pervasive (i.e., occur across settings) or setting-specific (e.g., occur onlyin school during mathematics instruction). When recording data in the DOTIform, hypothesize whether the cognitive areas of weakness should be targeted formodification, accommodation, remediation, compensation, or some combinationthereof, and whether the areas of academic weakness are related to basic skillacquisition, fluency, or higher level skill (i.e., application).

4. Consider tertiary data, which are comprised of information about classroominstruction, instructional materials, environment, and strategies—that is, informa-tion about factors that affect learning and that are largely external to the student(i.e., extrinsic). Use the information in Rapid References 1.14 to 1.20 to tailorinterventions for the purpose of minimizing the effects of cognitive weaknesses onlearning and achievement.

5. Integrate data from all previous steps, design and implement an intervention, andmonitor its effectiveness.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:44 Page 8

readily classified into one of the 10 CHC domains (e.g., measures of visualmotor ability, attention, executive functions, social-emotional). The DOTIform has three columns for organizing data, allowing for normative strengthsand weaknesses to be recorded in separate columns. As the note to Table 1.1

Table 1.1 CHC-Based Data Organization and Targets for Intervention(DOTI) Form

CHC Cognitive/AcademicAbility or ProcessingDomain

Normative Weaknessand Information About

Intervention

WithinNormalLimits

Normative Strengthand Information

About Intervention

Fluid Reasoning (Gf)Target for Intervention?Crystallized Intelligence (Gc)Target for Intervention?Long-Term Storage andRetrieval (Glr)Target for Intervention?Short-Term Memory (Gsm)Target for Intervention?Visual Processing (Gv)Target for Intervention?Auditory Processing (Ga)Target for Intervention?Processing Speed (Gs)Target for Intervention?Reading (Grw-R)Type of Skill TargetedWriting (Grw-W)Type of Skill TargetedMathematics (Gq)Type of Skill TargetedOtherTarget for Intervention?

Note: Use the following guidelines for identifying strengths and weaknesses: NormativeWeakness is defined by standard scores that are about one standard deviation or more belowthe mean; Normative Strength is defined by standard scores that are about one standarddeviation or more above the mean; within normal limits is defined by standard scores that fallbetween ± 1 SD of the normative mean (i.e., standard scores between 85 and 115). If acognitive domain is targeted for intervention, note whether it is targeted for Modification toInstruction/Curriculum (M), Accommodation (A), Remediation (R), or Compensation (C).When there is a need to target an academic area for intervention, note the type of skill targeted aseither a Basic (or foundational) skill (B), Fluency (F), or a Higher-level (or applied) skill (H).


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:44 Page 9

indicates, in general, standardscores that are about 1 standarddeviation (SD) below the meanor lower are considered norma-tive weaknesses and standardscores that are about 1 SD abovethe mean or higher are consid-ered normative strengths.

To illustrate various aspects ofSMAARTI, this chapter includes excerpts from a case study, a boy, AydenMurphy, who has difficulties with learning (see Rapid Reference 1.3). ADOTI form for Ayden is included in Table 1.2. This table contains primarydata only. For example, a quick review of the data included in this table shows thatAyden has cognitive weaknesses in Glr, Ga, and Gs as well as deficits in reading,math, and writing skills. He also has relative strengths, particularly in the areaof Gv.

C A U T I O N.........................................................Readers not familiar with CHC theory arereferred to Essentials of Cross-BatteryAssessment, Third Edition (Flanagan, Ortiz, &Alfonso, 2013) for definitions and taskexamples of all CHC abilities as well asCHC classifications of cognitive, academic,and neuropsychological tests.

Rapid Reference 1.3 Selected Information From aPsychoeducational Evaluation of Ayden Murphy...........................................................................................................................

Name: Ayden MurphyAge: 10Gender: MaleGrade Level: Fifth Grade

Reason for Referral:Ayden was referred to the Spotswood Center for Psychological Services for anevaluation by his mother, Ms. Murphy. Ms. Murphy reported that she was concernedabout Ayden’s difficulties in reading, reading comprehension, and writing. Morespecifically, Ms. Murphy indicated that Ayden continues to have difficulty decodingwords and is not able to write in complete sentences most of the time or formparagraphs. In general, Ayden’s academic performance has declined markedly in thefifth grade and he has recently demonstrated much less interest in school, homework,and reading.

Selected Measures Administered/Evaluation Procedures:Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration, Sixth Edition

(BEERY VMI)

(continued)


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:44 Page 10

Child Intake InterviewParent Intake Interview (Source: Mother)Test of Orthographic Competence (TOC)Woodcock-Johnson III Normative Update Tests of Achievement (WJ III NU ACH);

Form A, Age NormsWoodcock-Johnson III Normative Update Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III NU

COG); Form A, Age Norms

Background Information:Ayden is a 10-year-old Caucasian male who is currently in fifth grade at JeffersonElementary. He resides with his mother, stepfather, maternal grandmother, andyounger sister. Ms. Murphy reported that Ayden typically gets along with all membersof the household. Ayden has no reported medical conditions and is seemingly in goodhealth. Ayden’s last vision exam was approximately a year ago. He wears glasses fornearsightedness. Although he has never had a hearing exam outside of school, hishearing has never been a concern and he has passed all screening exams conducted atschool.

Ayden attended Washington Heights Day Care between the ages of 3 and 5years. He has attended Jefferson Elementary School since kindergarten and iscurrently in the fifth grade. During kindergarten (age 5), Ayden’s teacher reportedthat he behaved well, but had difficulty reading and making sound-symbolconnections. During first grade (age 6), Ayden had a strict teacher whom Ms.Murphy believed was beneficial for him. Specifically, Ayden’s first-grade teacherkept him on-task and worked with him often on an individual basis. Nevertheless,during second grade (age 7), Ayden continued having difficulty reading and alsobegan misbehaving in the classroom. For example, he would often play with thingsin his desk during reading instruction and frequently left his seat during readinggroups. In third grade (age 8), Ayden was described as having problems withreading and writing and, in fourth grade (age 9), he received additional help from areading teacher. Although he continued to struggle in reading and writing in thefourth grade, his teacher reported that he made some improvement over thecourse of the academic year.

Ayden is currently in fifth grade (age 10). According to his mother, Ayden iscurrently receiving pull-out services, which include meeting with the remedial readingteacher for one period three times per week for 30 minutes.

In terms of social-emotional development, Ms. Murphy described Ayden asgenerally cooperative, even-tempered, friendly, happy, and affectionate. Hereportedly gets along well with others. Ayden enjoys playing football, soccer,and X-Box. According to Ayden, his least favorite activities are reading indepen-dently and completing social studies homework, although Ms. Murphy reportedthat Ayden enjoys reading with his family. Ayden also likes going to the park,movies, and out to eat. Ayden attends Operation Exodus, which is an after-schoolprogram designed to help him complete his homework and explore variouseducational activities.

(continued)


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:46 Page 11

Table 1.2 DOTI Form for Ayden MurphyWith Primary Data Only

CHC Cognitive/AcademicAbility or Processing Domain

NormativeWeakness and

Information AboutIntervention

Within NormalLimits

NormativeStrength and


Fluid Reasoning (Gf) Fluid ReasoningFactor = 88 ± 4

Target for Intervention?Crystallized Intelligence (Gc) Comprehension-

KnowledgeFactor = 95 ± 4

Target for Intervention?Long-Term Storage andRetrieval (Glr)

Long-Term Storageand Retrieval Factor= 77 ± 5

Target for Intervention?Short-Term Memory (Gsm) Short-Term

Memory Factor= 96 ± 6

Target for Intervention?Visual Processing (Gv) Visual

ProcessingFactor =107 ± 4

Target for Intervention?Auditory Processing (Ga) Auditory Processing

Factor = 72 ± 5Target for Intervention?Processing Speed (Gs) Processing Speed

Factor = 84 ± 4Target for Intervention?Reading (Grw-R) Passage

Comprehension =70 ± 5Reading Fluency =83 ±

Letter-WordIdentification =90 ± 4

Type of Skill TargetedWriting (Grw-W) Writing Samples =

74 ± 6Spelling =87 ± 5Writing Fluency= 95 ± 5

Type of Skill TargetedMathematics (Gq) Applied Problems =

81 ± 4Fluency = 80 ± 4

Calculation =107 ± 4

Type of Skill Targeted(continued )


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:47 Page 12

Step 2: DetermineWhether AcademicWeaknesses Are EmpiricallyRelated to the CognitiveWeaknesses by Reviewing the Research on theRelations among Specific Cognitive Abilities, NeuropsychologicalProcesses, and Academic Skills

In the initial step of SMAARTI, data were organized by CHC domain andnormative strengths and weaknesses were identified. Prior to making classifica-tions or diagnostic decisions and tailoring interventions, however, it is importantto examine the relations among cognitive abilities, neuropsychological processes,and specific academic skills for the following reasons. First, information oncognitive-achievement relationships assists in interpreting the data entered onthe DOTI form. Second, because specific learning disabilities are caused byunderlying cognitive processing weaknesses, knowing the cognitive correlates ofmanifest academic difficulties assists in diagnosis (e.g., Flanagan, Alfonso, &Ortiz, 2012; Flanagan et al., 2013). Third, when empirical data are available tosupport a relationship between identified areas of cognitive and academic weak-nesses, interventions designed to remediate academic skill deficits can be tailoredin an attempt to minimize the effects of cognitive weaknesses on learning. Thus, inthis step, practitioners should examine the information in Rapid Reference 1.4 todetermine if identified cognitive and academic weaknesses are related empirically.

Table 1.2 (Continued )

CHC Cognitive/AcademicAbility or Processing Domain

NormativeWeakness and


Within NormalLimits

NormativeStrength and


OtherTarget for Intervention?

Note: Cognitive and Academic standard scores are from the WJ III NU COG and ACHbatteries (Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001, 2007), unless otherwise noted. Use thefollowing guidelines for identifying strengths and weaknesses: Normative Weakness is definedby standard scores that are about one standard deviation or more below the mean; NormativeStrength is defined by standard scores that are about one standard deviation or more above themean; within normal limits is defined by standard scores that fall between ± 1 SD of thenormative mean (i.e., standard scores between 85 and 115). If a cognitive domain is targeted forintervention, note whether it is targeted for Modification to Instruction/Curriculum (M),Accommodation (A), Remediation (R), or Compensation (C). When there is a need to target anacademic area for intervention, note the type of skill targeted as either a Basic (or foundational)skill (B), Fluency (F), or a Higher-level (or applied) skill (H).


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:47 Page 13

Rapid Reference 1.4 Summary of Relations BetweenCHC Broad and Narrow Cognitive Abilities and Reading,

Math, and Writing Achievement...........................................................................................................................

ReadingAchievement

MathAchievement

WritingAchievement

Gf Inductive (I) andgeneral sequentialreasoning (RG)abilities play amoderate role inreadingcomprehension.

Inductive (I)and generalsequential (RG)reasoningabilities areconsistentlyvery importantfor mathproblem solvingat all ages.

Inductive (I) andgeneral sequentialreasoning abilities (RG)are consistently relatedto writtenexpressionat all ages.

Gc Languagedevelopment (LD),lexical knowledge(VL), and listeningability (LS) areimportant at allages. These abilitiesbecomeincreasinglyimportant with age.

Languagedevelopment (LD),lexical knowledge(VL), and listeningabilities (LS) areimportant at allages. These abilitiesbecomeincreasinglyimportant withage.

Languagedevelopment (LD),lexical knowledge (VL),and generalinformation (K0) areimportant primarilyafter about the secondgrade. These abilitiesbecome increasinglyimportant with age.

Gsm Memory span(MS) andworkingmemory (WM)capacity.

Memory span(MS) andworkingmemory (WM)capacity.

Memory span (MS)is important towriting, especiallyspelling skills,whereas workingmemory (WM) hasshown relationswith advancedwriting skills (e.g.,writtenexpression).

Gv OrthographicProcessing—reading fluency

May be importantprimarily for higherlevel or advancedmathematics(e.g., geometry,calculus).

OrthographicProcessing—spelling

(continued)


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:47 Page 14

Research on the relations among cognitive abilities, neuropsychological pro-cesses, and specific academic skills has mounted over the years (see Flanagan, Ortiz,Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006; Flanagan, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2011; Fletcher, Lyon,Fuchs,&Barnes, 2007; andMcGrew&Wendling, 2010, for summaries).Much ofthe recent research on cognitive-academic relationships has been interpreted withinthe context of CHC theory (e.g., Flanagan et al., 2011) and with specificinstruments developed from CHC theory (e.g., McGrew & Wendling, 2010).In addition, statistical analyses, such as structural equationmodeling, have beenusedto understand the extent to which specific cognitive abilities explain variance inacademic skills above and beyond the variance accounted for by g (e.g., Floyd et al.,2008; McGrew, Flanagan, Keith, & Vanderwood, 1997; Juarez, 2012; Vander-wood, McGrew, Keith, & Flanagan, 2001). Finally, many valuable resourcessummarize the research on cognitive and neurobiological processes associatedwith specific academic skill deficits (e.g., Feifer & Della Toffalo, 2007; Flanagan

Ga Phonetic coding(PC) or“phonologicalawareness/processing” is veryimportant duringthe elementaryschool years.

Phonetic coding (PC) or“phonologicalawareness/processing” isvery important duringthe elementary schoolyears for both basicwriting skills and writtenexpression (primarilybefore about grade 5).

Glr Naming facility (NA)or “rapid automaticnaming” is veryimportant during theelementary schoolyears. Associativememory (MA) isalso important.

Naming facility(NA); associativememory (MA)

Phonetic coding (PC) or“phonologicalawareness/processing” isvery important duringthe elementary schoolyears for both basicwriting skills and writtenexpression (primarilybefore about grade 5).

Gs Perceptual speed (P)abilities areimportant during allschool years,particularly theelementary schoolyears.

Perceptual speed (P)abilities areimportant during allschool years,particularly theelementary schoolyears.

Perceptual speed (P)abilities are importantduring all school yearsfor basic writing andrelated to all ages forwritten expression.

(continued)


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:47 Page 15

& Alfonso, 2011; Fletcher-Janzen& Reynolds, 2008; Fletcher et al., 2007; Hale &Fiorello, 2004; Miller, 2010, 2013).

The research summarized in Rapid Reference 1.4 includes primarily studies onthe relations among the various CHC broad and narrow cognitive abilities andspecific neuropsychological processes and themajor areas of achievement—namely,reading, math, and writing. Rapid Reference 1.4 shows that narrow abilitiessubsumed by Gc (lexical knowledge, language development, listening ability,general information), Gsm (memory span, working memory capacity), Ga (pho-netic coding), Glr (associative memory, meaningful memory, naming facility), andGs (perceptual speed) were found to be significantly andmost consistently related toreading achievement. Similarly, narrow abilities within these same broad abilitieswere found to be related to writing achievement.Narrow abilities within the areas ofGf, Gc, Gsm, Glr, and Gs were found to relate significantly to math achievement,with Gf (induction and general sequential reasoning) showing a stronger relation tothis academic area than either reading or writing.

A review of Ayden’sDOTI form (Table 1.2) shows three areas of cognitive deficitand areas of academic skill deficiency in reading, math, and writing. Based on theinformation summarized in Rapid Reference 1.4, it appears that there is anempirically supported relationship between Ayden’s cognitive weakness in Gsand his academic fluency in reading andmath. There also seems to be an empiricallysupported relationship between his weakness in Ga (viz., the narrow PhoneticCoding ability) and his spelling ability and reading fluency (i.e., inefficient phoneticstrategies slows down reading, thereby interfering with comprehension). Finally,Ayden has weaknesses in both the learning efficiency and retrieval fluency aspects ofGlr, both of which are empirically related to higher level application of basicacademic skills. Ayden’s deficit in Glr and relative weakness in Gf together affectreading comprehension, math problem solving, and written expression adversely.

Step 3: Review Manifestations of CognitiveWeaknesses and OrganizeSecondary Data, Identify Initial Targets for Intervention, and IdentifyTypes of Academic Skill Deficits for Remediation Using the DOTI Form

Once empirically established relations between cognitive and academic areas areidentified, practitioners should consult Rapid References 1.5 to 1.13 to determinewhether the identified cognitive-academic relationships are ecologically valid.These rapid references will prove particularly useful when organizing secondarydata in the DOTI form. Secondary data include any information that can relatepotentially to a specific aspect of the student’s cognitive functioning that was notalready included as primary data. Such information might include data obtained


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:48 Page 16

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.5Ge

neral

andS

pecifi

cManifesta

tions

ofFlu

idReasoning

(Gf)Weakness

es................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itiveAbilities/

Neu

ropsycho

logica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsycho

logica

lW

eakn

ess

Fluid

Rea

soning

(Gf)

Novelreason

ingandprob

lem

solving;

abilityto

solveprob

lemsthatare

unfamiliar.

Processesareminimallydependento

npriorlearning.

Involves

manipulatingrules,abstracting,

generalizing,andidentifying

logical

relatio

nships.

Fluidreason

ingisevidentininferential

reason

ing,conceptformation,

classificatio

nof

unfamiliarstim

uli,

categorization,andextrapolationof

reason

ableestim

ates

inam

biguou

ssituatio

ns(Schneider

&McG

rew,2012).

NarrowGfabilitiesincludeInduction,

GeneralSequentialR

easoning

(Deductio

n),and

Quantitative

Reason

ing.

Diffi

cultieswith:

Higher-levelthinkingand

reason

ing

Transferringor

generalizinglearning

Derivingsolutio

nsfor

novelproblem

sExtendingknow

ledge

throughcriticalthinking

Perceiving

andapplying

underlyingrulesor

process(es)tosolve

prob

lems

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Drawinginferences

from

text

Abstractingmainidea(s)

MathDiffi

culties:

Reason

ingwith

quantitative

inform

ation(w

ordprob

lems)

Internalizingprocedures

and

processesused

tosolve

prob

lems

Apprehendingrelatio

nships

betweennumbers

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Essaywritingandgeneralizing

concepts

Develop

ingathem

eCom

paringandcontrastingideas

16

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:49 Page 17

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.6Ge

neral

andS

pecifi

cManifesta

tions

ofCrystallize

dInte

lligence

(Gc)

Weakness

es................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itiveAbilities/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

ofC

ogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lWea

kness

Crystalliz

edIntellige

nce(G

c)Breadthanddepthof

know

ledgeandskills

that

arevalued

byon

e’sculture.

Develop

edthroughform

aleducationas

wellas

generallearningexperiences.

Stores

ofinform

ationanddeclarativeand

proceduralknow

ledge.

Reflectsthedegree

towhich

aperson

has

learnedpracticallyusefulknow

ledgeand

masteredvalued

skills

(Schneider

&McG

rew,

2012

).NarrowGcabilitiesincludeGeneralVerbal

Inform

ation,Language

Develop

ment,Lexical

Know

ledge,ListeningAbility,Inform

ationabou

tCulture,C

ommunicationAbility,and

GrammaticalSensitivity.

Diffi

cultieswith:

Vocabularyacquisitio

nKn

owledgeacquisitio

nCom

prehending

language

orunderstandingwhat

othersaresaying

Fact-based/inform

ational

questio

nsUsin

gpriorkno

wledgeto

supp

ortlearning

Findingtheright

words

touse/say

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Decod

ing(e.g.,wordstudentisattempting

todecode

isno

tinhis/hervocabulary)

Com

prehending

(e.g.,po

orbackgrou

ndknow

ledgeabou

tinformationcontainedin

text)

MathDiffi

culties:

Understanding

mathconceptsandthe

“vocabularyof

math”

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Grammar(syntax)

Blandwritingwith

limiteddescrip

tors

Verbo

sewritingwith

limiteddescrip

tors

Inapprop

riate

wordusage

Lang

uage

Diffi

culties:

Understanding

classlesson

sExpressivelanguage—

“povertyof

thou

ght”

17

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:49 Page 18

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.7Ge

neral

andS

pecifi

cManifesta

tions

ofAuditory

Processing

(Ga)

Weakness

es................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itiveAbilities/

Neu

ropsycho

logica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cific

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsycho

logica

lW

eakn

ess

Aud

itory

Pro

cessing

(Ga)

Abilityto

analyzeandsynthesizeauditory

inform

ation.

One

narrow

aspectof

Gaisaprecursorto

orallanguage

comprehensio

n(i.e.,parsin

gspeech

sounds

orPhon

eticCod

ing).

Inadditio

nto

Phon

eticCod

ing,other

narrow

GaabilitiesincludeSpeech

Sound

Discrim

ination,Re

sistanceto

Audito

ryStimulus

Distortio

n,Mem

oryforS

ound

Patterns

(and

othersrelatedto

music).

Diffi

cultieswith:

Hearinginform

ation

presentedorally,initially

processin

goralinform

ation

Paying

attentionespecially

inthepresence

ofbackgrou

ndno

iseDiscerning

thedirection

from

which

auditory

inform

ationiscoming

Discrim

inatingbetween

simplesounds

Foreign-language

acquisitio

n

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Acquiringphon

icsskills

Sounding

outw

ords

Usin

gphon

eticstrategies

MathDiffi

culties:

Readingwordprob

lems

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Spelling

Note-taking

Poor

quality

ofwriting

18

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:50 Page 19

Rapid

Reference1.8

General

andS

pecificM

anifesta

tionsofLong-Te

rmSto

ragea

ndRetrie

val(G

lr)Weakness

es.................................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itive

Abilities/Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Long

-Term

Storage

and

Retriev

al(G

lr)

Abilityto

storeinform

ation(e.g.,

concepts,w

ords,facts),consolidateit,

andfluentlyretrieve

itatalatertime

(e.g.,minutes,hou

rs,days,andyears)

throughassociation.

InGlrtasks,inform

ationleaves

immediate

awarenesslong

enou

ghfor

thecontentsof

primarymem

oryto

bedisplacedcompletely.Inotherw

ords,

Glrtasks(unlikeGsm

tasks)do

not

allowforinformationto

bemaintained

continuo

uslyinprimarymem

ory

(Schneider

&McG

rew,201

2).

Glrabilitiesmay

becategorized

aseither

“learningefficiency”or

“fluency.”Learning

efficiency

narrow

abilitiesincludeAssociativeMem

ory,

MeaningfulM

emory,andFree

Recall

Mem

ory;fluencynarrow

abilities

involveeither

theprod

uctio

nof

ideas

(e.g.,Ideatio

nalFluency,A

ssociatio

nal

Fluency),the

recallof

words

(e.g.,

Nam

ingFacility,W

ordFluency),orthe

generatio

nof

figures(e.g.,Figural

Fluency,FiguralFlexibility)(Schneider

&McG

rew,201

2).

Diffi

cultieswith:

Learning

newconcepts

Retrieving

orrecallin

ginform

ationby

usingassociation

Perfo

rmingconsistently

across

different

task

form

ats(e.g.,

recognition

versus

recallform

ats)

Rapidretrievalofinformation

Learning

inform

ationquickly

Pairedlearning

(visu

al-audito

ry)

Recallin

gspecificinform

ation

(words,facts)

Generatingideasrapidly

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Accessin

gbackgrou

ndknow

ledgeto

supp

ortn

ewlearning

whilereading

Slow

toaccessphon

ological

representatio

nsduringdecoding

Retellin

gor

paraphrasin

gwhato

nehas

read

MathDiffi

culties:

Mem

orizingmathfacts

Recallin

gmathfactsandprocedures

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Accessin

gwords

touseduringessay

writing

Specificwritingtasks(com

pare

and

contrast;persuasivewriting)

Note-taking

Idea

generatio

n/prod

uctio

nLa

ngua

geDiffi

culties:

Expressive—

circum

locutio

ns,speech

fillers,“interrupted”

thou

ght,pauses

Receptive—

makingconnectio

nsthrougho

utoralpresentatio

ns(e.g.,class

lecture)

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:50 Page 20

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.9Ge

neral

andS

pecifi

cManifesta

tions

ofPro

cessing

Speed(

Gs)W

eakness

es.................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itiveAbilities/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

ofC

ogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lWea

kness

Pro

cessingSpe

ed(G

s)Speedof

processin

g,particularly

whenrequiredto

focusattention

for1

–3minutes.

Usuallymeasuredby

tasksthat

require

theabilityto

perfo

rmsim

plerepetitivecognitive

tasks

quicklyandaccurately.

NarrowGsabilitiesinclude

PerceptualSpeed,Rate-of-T

est-

Taking,N

umberF

acility,Re

ading

Speed,andW

ritingSpeed(note

thatthelatter

twoabilitiesarealso

listedundero

ther

broadCHC

domains,including

Grw

).

Diffi

cultieswith:

Efficientp

rocessingof

inform

ation

Quicklyperceiving

relatio

nships

(similaritiesanddifferences

betweenstimuliorinformation)

Working

withintim

eparameters

Com

pletingsim

ple,rote

tasks

quickly

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Slow

readingspeed,which

interfe

reswith

comprehensio

nNeedto

reread

foru

nderstanding

MathDiffi

culties:

Autom

aticcomputatio

nsCom

putatio

nalspeed

isslo

wdespite

accuracy

Slow

speedcanresultinreducedaccuracy

dueto

mem

orydecay

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Limitedou

tput

dueto

timefactors

Labo

redprocessresults

inreducedmotivationto

prod

uce

Lang

uage

Diffi

culties:

Canno

tretrieve

inform

ationquickly—

slow,

disruptedspeech;canno

tget

outtho

ughtsquickly

enou

ghIsslo

wto

processincominginform

ation,puts

demands

onmem

orystorethatcanresultin

inform

ationoverload

andlossof

meaning

20

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:51 Page 21

Rapid

Reference

1.10

General

andS

pecificM

anifesta

tions

ofVisualProc

essing

(Gv)Weakness

es................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itiveAbilities/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

ofC

ogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lWea

kness

Visua

lPro

cessing

(Gv)

Abilityto

analyzeandsynthesizevisual

inform

ation.

Theabilityto

makeuseof

simulated

mentalimagery(ofteninconjunction

with

currently

perceivedimages)to

solveprob

lems(Schneider

&McG

rew,

2012

).Th

erearemanynarrow

Gvabilities,

someof

which

includeVisu

alization,

SpeededRo

tatio

n,Closure

Speed,

Flexibilityof

Closure,V

isualMem

ory,

andSpatialScanning.

Diffi

cultieswith:

Recognizingpatterns

Readingmaps,graphs,charts

Attending

tofine

visualdetail

Recallin

gvisualinform

ation

App

reciationof

spatial

characteristicsof

objects(e.g.,

size,length)

Recognition

ofspatialorientation

ofob

jects

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Ortho

graphiccoding

(usin

gvisualfeatures

oflettersto

decode)

Sight-wordacquisitio

nUsin

gchartsandgraphs

withinatext

inconjunctionwith

reading

Com

prehensio

nof

text

involvingspatial

concepts(e.g.,socialstudiestext

describ

ing

physicalbo

undaries,movem

ento

ftroop

salon

gaspecified

route)

MathDiffi

culties:

Num

beralignm

entd

uringcomputatio

nsRe

adingandinterpretinggraphs,tables,and

charts

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Spellingsight

words

Spatialplanningduringwritingtasks(e.g.,no

attentionto

margins,w

ords

thatoverhang

aline)

Inconsistentsize,spacing,po

sition,andslant

ofletters

21

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:51 Page 22

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.11

General

andS

pecifi

cManifesta

tions

ofShort

-Term

Mem

ory(Gsm

)Weakness

es...............................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itiveAbilities/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

ofC

ogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lWea

kness

Sho

rt-T

erm

Mem

ory

(Gsm

)Abilityto

holdinform

ationin

immediate

awarenessanduseor

transform

itwithinafew

seconds.

Diffi

cultieswith:

Followingmultisteporal

andwritteninstructions

Remem

beringinform

ation

long

enou

ghto

applyit

Remem

beringthe

sequence

ofinform

ation

Rote

mem

orization

Maintaining

one’splacein

amathprob

lem

ortrainof

thou

ghtw

hilewriting

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Readingcomprehensio

n(i.e.,understanding

whatisread)

Decod

ingmultisyllabicwords

Orally

retellin

gor

paraphrasin

gwhato

nehasread

MathDiffi

culties:

Rote

mem

orizationof

facts

Remem

beringmathematicalprocedures

Multistepprob

lemsandregrou

ping

Extractinginform

ationto

beused

inwordprob

lems

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Spellingmultisyllabicwords

Redundancy

inwriting(w

ordandconceptuallevels)

Identifying

mainidea

ofastory

Note-taking

22

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:51 Page 23

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.12

General

andS

pecifi

cManifesta

tions

ofAtten

tion

Weakness

esandE

xamp

lesofRecomm

endations

andInte

rventions

................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itive

Abilities/Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Atten

tion

Attentio

nisacomplex

and

multifaceted

constructu

sedwhenan

individualmustfocus

oncertain

stimulifor

inform

ationprocessin

g.In

ordertoregulate

thinking

andto

completetasksof

daily

livingsuch

asscho

olwork,itisnecessaryto

beable

toattend

tobo

thauditoryandvisual

stimuliintheenvironm

ent.Attentio

ncanbe

view

edas

thefoundatio

nof

allother

higher-order

processin

g.Attentio

ncanbe

dividedinto

five

subareas:selective/focusedattention,

shiftingattention,dividedattention,

sustainedattention,andattentional

capacity(M

iller,20

13).

Itisimpo

rtanttoidentifytheexact

nature

oftheattentionalproblem

(s)

priortoselectingan

interventio

n,teaching

strategies,m

odifyingthe

curriculum

,orm

aking

accommod

ations,

Easilydistracted

Lacksattentionto

detail;makes

carelessmistakes

Difficulty

discerning

demands

ofatask

(e.g.,where

tobeginor

howto

getstarted)

May

onlybe

ableto

attend

totask

inshortintervals

Difficulty

changing

activities

Difficulty

applying

adifferent

strategy

whentask

demands

change

Difficulty

attendingto

morethan

onethingor

task

atatim

eCanno

tperform

wellw

henfaced

with

multiplestimulioran

abundanceof

detail

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Loseshisor

herp

lace

easily

Easilydistracted

whilereading

Doe

sno

tpickup

impo

rtant

detailsintext

MathDiffi

culties:

Doe

sno

tcon

sistentlyattend

tomathsigns

Frequent

mistakes

onword

prob

lems

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Has

difficulty

completinglong

assignm

ents;difficulty

following

timelines

23

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:52 Page 24

Rapid

Reference

1.13

General

andS

pecificM

anifesta

tions

ofExecutive

Functionin

gWeakness

esandE

xamp

lesofRecomm

endations

andInte

rventions

....................................................................................................................................................................................................

CHC

Bro

adCogn

itiveAbilities/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lFun

ctions

Brief

Defi

nition

Gen

eral

Man

ifestations

ofC

ogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lWea

kness

Spe

cificMan

ifestations

ofC

ogn

itive/

Neu

ropsyc

hologica

lW

eakn

ess

Exe

cutive

Fun

ctioning

Executivefunctio

ning

isoften

understood

astwobroadly

conceptualized

areasthatare

relatedto

thebrain’sfro

ntal

lobes:cognitive

controland

behavioral/emotional

control.Th

ecognitive

aspectsof

executive

functio

ning

includeconcept

generatio

n(G

c/Glr);problem

solving(G

f);attentional

shifting(attentio

n;Gs);

planning;organizing;working

mem

ory(G

sm);andretrieval

fluency(G

lr).The

behavioral/

emotionalaspectsof

executivefunctio

ning

relate

totheinhibitorycontrolsof

behavior

(e.g.,impulsivity,

regulatio

nof

emotionalton

e,etc.)(seeMille

r,20

10).

Diffi

cultywith:

Learning

newactivities,generatingconcepts,and

solving

prob

lems

Identifying

goalsandsettinggoals

Planning

(e.g.,begins

projectw

ithou

tnecessarymaterials;

does

notallocate

sufficienttimeto

completetask)

Sequencing

(e.g.,may

skipstepsinmultistepprob

lems)

Prioritizing(e.g.,no

tsurewhat’s

impo

rtantw

hentaking

notes)

Organization(e.g.,losesimpo

rtantp

apers;failsto

turn

incompleted

work;createsunrealisticschedule)

Initiation(e.g.,hasdifficulty

gettingstartedon

tasks,

assignm

ents,etc.)

Pace

(e.g.,oftenruns

outo

ftimeon

seatworkandexam

s;has

difficulty

completingho

mew

orkdueto

unrealistictim

eline)

Shiftingbetweenactivities

flexibly;cop

ingwith

unforeseen

events

Self-mon

itoring(e.g.,do

esn’tcheck

toinsure

thateach

step

was

completed;doe

sn’tcheckworkbefore

subm

ittingit)

Emotionalcon

trol(e.g.,may

exhibitinapp

ropriate

orover-

reactiverespon

seto

situatio

ns)

Rea

ding

Diffi

culties:

Sequencing;tellingastory

chrono

logically

Prioritizing;extractingmainidea

andotherimpo

rtantinformation

Prob

lem

solving;draw

ing

inferences

from

text

MathDiffi

culties:

Sequencing;rem

emberingorder

ofop

erations

Prioritizing;figuringou

twhatis

impo

rtantw

hensolvingword

prob

lems

Shifting;attendingto

mathsigns

onapage

Writing

Diffi

culties:

Generatingideasto

writeabou

tSequencing

astory

Prioritizingmaineventsinastory

Source:A

dapted

from

LeslieE.Packer

(Schoo

lbehavior.com

);seealso

Packer

andPruitt’sbo

ok,C

hallengingKids,C

hallenged

Teachers(W

oodb

inePress,20

10),

24

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:52 Page 25

via observation, rating scales, record reviews, work sample analysis, and/orinterviews. For example, if a mother reports, in a parent intake interview, thather son has difficulty remembering to take necessary items to a recurring event (e.g.,soccer practice), this information can be considered secondary data and recordedin the Gsm section, given its potential relationship to memory. Similarly, if amother reports that her daughter is highly anxious during essay exams, thisinformation may be recorded in the Glr section, given that anxiety may interferewith retrieval of learned information.

To help build a knowledge base about the general and specific ways in whichcognitive weaknesses manifest in real-world performance, particularly academicperformances, Flanagan and colleagues (2013) developed Rapid References 1.5 to1.13. These rapid references describe ways in which deficits in broad CHC abilitiesmanifest in real-world performance (e.g., classroom activities). Rapid References1.12 and 1.13 describe manifestations of deficits in attention and executivefunctions, respectively. It is important to note that these rapid references do notrepresent an exhaustive list of manifestations. Rather, they assist practitioners inextending their thinking beyond standardized test scores by considering howcognitive deficits impact learning in multiple settings (e.g., classroom and home).

Rapid References 1.5 to 1.13 are organized into four columns. For example,Rapid Reference 1.5 shows that the first column, “CHC Broad CognitiveAbilities/Neuropsychological Functions,” identifies a CHC broad cognitive abilityor neuropsychological process, in this case, Fluid Reasoning (Gf). The secondcolumn, “Brief Definition,” provides a brief definition of the broad ability orprocess along with a list of narrow abilities subsumed by the broad ability. Thethird column, “General Manifestations of Cognitive/Neuropsychological Weak-ness,” lists the types of difficulties that can be expected to manifest generally whenthere is a weakness in the cognitive domain. For example, difficulties with higherlevel thinking, problems with generalizing learning, and difficulty with ruleapplication during problem solving may be evident when an individual has aweakness in Gf. “Specific Manifestations of Cognitive/Neuropsychological Weak-nesses” are listed in the fourth column and typically center on the types ofdifficulties that may be seen in specific academic domains (e.g., reading, writing,math). Rapid Reference 1.5 shows that individuals with a weakness in Gf mayhave difficulties drawing inferences from text (reading comprehension), appre-hending relationships between numbers (math application), and developing atheme when writing (written expression), to name a few.

When secondary data sources reveal that cognitive deficits manifest in specificacademic areas as expected based on the information in Rapid References 1.5 to1.13, the empirically supported cognitive-academic relationships have ecological


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:52 Page 26

validity, which is critical for tailoring interventions effectively. Ecological validityrefers to “the relation between real-world phenomena and the investigation ofthese phenomena in experimental contexts” (Shmuckler, 2001, p. 420). InSMAARTI, this relationship is akin to an empirically supported below-averagecognitive-achievement consistency, where the relationship is supported by real-world manifestations—an important marker for specific learning disability iden-tification (see Flanagan et al., 2013).

It is important to keep in mind that secondary data need not be consistentwith standardized test results (i.e., primary data) to be included in the DOTIform. That is, while convergence among data sources provides ecologicalvalidity for standardized test findings, a lack of convergence calls into questionthe validity of the primary data, which is equally important and suggests a needto evaluate the primary data more carefully (e.g., approach to tasks, sufficiencyof evaluation, malingering). It is also important to realize that even whensecondary data converge as expected with primary data, such as in the exampleof the boy who repeatedly forgot his soccer gear, alternative hypotheses mayalso be tested. For example, rather than a Gsm deficit, this student may havedifficulties with attention or organization—characteristics that may warrant adifferent approach to intervention as compared to a Gsm deficit.

Additional secondary data may include information obtained via a work sampleanalysis, parent–teacher interviews, observations, error analysis, or records review(e.g., report cards, classroom tests, teacher notes/comments). For example, if apractitioner reviewed several math tests with low scores, the scores may be enteredin the Quantitative Knowledge (Gq) domain in the normative weakness column(e.g., “math quiz 3/10/13—score 63; math quiz 4/2/13—score 59”). Similarly,practitioner comments from work sample analysis may be included (e.g., “10spelling errors out of a 25-word writing sample” may be entered for the Writingdomain [Grw-W] in the normative weakness column).

Table 1.3 shows that secondary data in the form of parent and teacher reportsabout Ayden’s academic performance converge with standardized test data in theareas of Glr, Ga, and Gs. For example, Ayden’s teacher reported that he hasdifficulty working within time limits and his mother reported that he is slow tocomplete his homework. Both of these reports are consistent with his observedweakness in the cognitive area of Gs, thus providing ecological validity evidencefor the observed Gs deficit. Table 1.3 also shows that Ayden’s teacher indicatedthat he does better on multiple-choice tests as compared to essay tests. Such anobservation is consistent with an individual with Glr difficulties, as essay testsrequire recall of information, whereas multiple choice tests require recognition,thereby minimizing the demands on Glr.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:52 Page 27

As shown in Table 1.3, the DOTI form also provides space for practitionersto hypothesize about the cognitive and academic areas that may need to betargeted for intervention. For example, when it is hypothesized that a cognitivedomain should be targeted for intervention, then the practitioner should makea note of whether he or she believes the intervention should focus onModification (instructional or curricular), Accommodation, Remediation,Compensation, or some combination thereof, using the letters M, A, R,and C, respectively. For young children in particular, when academic weak-nesses are found, intervention is primarily of the remedial type. Whilecognitive weaknesses should also be targeted for remediation in young childrengiven brain plasticity (e.g., Fletcher-Janzen & Reynolds, 2008), depending onthe area of weakness, young children may also need modifications to instruc-tion, for example, to minimize the effect of the cognitive weakness, therebyallowing greater access to the curriculum. Worthy of note is that identificationof strengths assists in determining what interventions may circumvent or limitthe impact of a weakness.

Table 1.3 shows that Ayden’s Gs deficit was a target for intervention.Specifically, the evaluator hypothesized that it may be necessary to makeaccommodations for Ayden’s Gs deficit as well as make modifications toinstruction or the curriculum in an attempt to minimize the effects of thisdeficit.

When it is determined that an academic weakness should be targeted forintervention, then the practitioner should make a note of the type of skill that istargeted for remediation. For example, the practitioner can use the letters B, F,and H to designate the skill as either a Basic (or foundational) skill, a F luencyskill, or a Higher level (applied) skill, respectively. A deficit in a foundationalskill suggests a need for basic skill building via explicit teaching designed toremediate the weakness (e.g., teaching a student how to subtract double-digitnumbers). A fluency deficit suggests that basic skills, while present, are notautomatic. Therefore, fluency deficits suggest the need for practice. Whenfluency deficits exist, it is important to examine whether the use of inefficientstrategies may be interfering with the development of fluency (e.g., fingercounting). Difficulties with higher level application of skills (e.g., readingcomprehension, math problem solving, written expression) can be directlyrelated to lower level deficits or they canreflect a breakdown in the student’sability to analyze or synthesize skillswithin an academic domain to problemsolve or otherwise demonstrate higher

C A U T I O N................................................Cognitive deficit may not manifestin a specific academic area.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:54 Page 28

Tab

le1.3

DOTIF

orm

forAyd

enMur

phywithPrimaryan

dSec

ond

aryData

CHCCognitive/Academic

Abilityor

Processing

Dom

ain

NormativeWeaknessandInform

ationAbout

Interventio

nWith

inNormalLimits

NormativeStrength

andInform

ation

About

Interventio

n

FluidReasoning

(Gf)

FluidReasoning

Factor

=88

±4

Teacher

Report:sometim

eshas

difficulty

generalizingwhath

ehaslearned

Targetfor

Intervention

?C(Com

pensation)

Crystallized

Intelligence(G

c)Com

prehension-Knowledge=

95±

4Targetfor

Intervention

?Lon

g-Term

Storageand

Retrieval(G

lr)

Long-Term

StorageandRetrieval=

77±

5

Teacher

Report:seem

sto

dobetteron

multip

le-choicetestsas

comparedto

essays;diffi

culty

remem

bering

previouslytaught

inform

ation

ParentR

eport:spends

hoursstud

ying—

morethan

hisfriends;

oftenhasd

ifficulty

gettingoutw

hath

ewantsto

say

Targetfor

Intervention

?M

(Modificatio

n)A(Accom

modation)

C(Com

pensation)

Short-Term

Mem

ory(G

sm)

Short-Term

Mem

ory=

96±

6Targetfor

Intervention

?VisualP

rocessing(G

v)VisualP

rocessing=

107±

4TOCOrthographicAbility=

103±

3

28

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:55 Page 29

Teacher

Report:seem

sto

dobetterwith

visualinform

ation

(e.g.,chartsandgraphs

inmath

andscience)

Ayden:“Ilove

todraw

.”Targetfor

Intervention

?Emph

asizein

program

planning

totheextent

possible

Aud

itoryProcessing(G

a)Aud

itory

Processing

=72

±5

Reading

Specialist:doesnotu

seph

oneticstrategies

consistently;reliesmoreon

visualfeaturesandcontextualcues

todecode

Teacher

Report:mishearswords

frequently

Targetfor

Intervention

?R(Rem

ediatio

n)ProcessingSp

eed(G

s)Processing

Speed=

84±

4Teacher

Report:hasdifficulty

working

with

intim

elim

itsParentR

eport:takesalong

timeto

completehomew

ork

Targetfor

Intervention

?A(Accom

modation)

M(M

odificatio

n)Reading

(Grw

-R)

PassageCom

prehension

=70

±5

Teacher

Report:hasdifficulty

retelling

whath

ehasread

for

monthlybook

reports

Reading

Fluency=

83±

5Reading

Specialista

ndScho

olPsychologistO

bservation

:oralreadingisslo

wandlaborious

Ayden:“Ican’treadfast.”

Letter-W

ordIdentifi

catio

n=

90±

4

Typ

eof

Skill

Targeted

H(H

igherL

evelApp

lication)

F(Fluency)

Writing

(Grw

-W)

Writin

gSamples=

74±

6Teacher

Report:doesnotu

sevocabu

lary

words

inwritin

gassignments;n

ote-taking

isdifficultforhim—

verbatim

note-

taking

asopposedto

paraph

rasing

Spellin

g=

87±

5Writin

gFluency=

95±

5

(contin

ued)

29

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:55 Page 30

Tab

le1.3

(Con

tinu

ed)

CHCCognitive/Academic

Abilityor

Processing

Dom

ain

NormativeWeaknessandInform

ationAbout

Interventio

nWith

inNormalLimits

NormativeStrength

andInform

ation

About

Interventio

n

Typ

eof

Skill

Targeted

H(H

igherL

evelApp

lication)

B(BasicSkill)-

spellin

gMathematics(G

q)App

liedProblems=

81±

4Parenta

ndTeacher

Reports:diffi

culty

with

wordproblems

Fluency=

80±

4Teacher

Report:slo

wbu

taccurate

Classroom

Tests:G

rade

of“D

”on

allM

adMathMinutes

Calculatio

n=

107±

4

Typ

eof

Skill

Targeted

H(H

igherL

evelApp

lication)

F(Fluency)

Other

Ayden

hasrecently

begunto

avoidreadingforpleasureand

seem

sto

bedeveloping

anxietyrelatedto

readingaloudin

school

Ayden

ishighly

motivated

tolearn

andpu

tsforth

considerableeffortin

alledu

catio

nal

activities;doeswell

with

hand

s-on

activities

Targetfor

Intervention

?Capitalizeon

his

motivationand

incorporateinterests

into

remedial

activities

30

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:55 Page 31

level thinking. Students who have difficulty with higher level skills oftenrespond well to instructional aids and techniques such as graphic organizers,modeling, and procedural mnemonics.

Step 4: Consider Tertiary Data, Which Are Comprised of InformationAbout Factors That Affect Learning and Achievement and That AreLargely External to the Student (i.e., Extrinsic)

At this step of SMAARTI, practitioners already have a good understanding of thenature of the student’s learning difficulties based on primary and secondary datasources. However, additional data most likely need to be considered for tailoringinterventions to meet a student’s unique learning needs. Four categories of tertiarydata,meaning data that are largely external to the student, shouldbe consideredpriorto tailoring interventions, namely classroom instruction, instructional materials,environment, and strategies. A brief description of each category follows.

With regard to classroom instruction, practitioners should consider how factorssuch as pacing of instruction, timing and nature of feedback, responsiveness tostudents’ questions, and quality of student–teacher interaction, for example,affect learning and achievement for the student in question. Instructionalmaterials include the tools of teaching with which the student directly interactsand includes such things as textbooks, workbooks, electronic media (softwareprograms, applications), and consumables (e.g., worksheets). Attention toinstructional materials may assist in identifying factors that can inhibit learning(e.g., small font embedded in most graphics for a student with a visual perceptualdifficulty, a large amount of text, visuals, and callouts on a page for a student withattention difficulties) or facilitate learning (e.g., use of an audio glossary on apublished textbook’s website to assist a student with weaknesses in vocabulary,phonemic awareness, and basic decoding skills). Factors in the home or schoolenvironment may also exacerbate or minimize the impact of a student’s cognitiveweaknesses and, therefore, should be considered carefully. Relevant environ-mental factors refer to the student’s classroom or home physical space, includingdesk arrangements (student’s and teacher), room acoustics, environmental noise,lighting, temperature, use of resources (e.g., classroom learning aids such asposters, word walls), and classroom/home displays (e.g., homework board,bulletin boards of student work). Finally, strategies include any method orplan that is explicitly taught to or used by the student in an effort to compensatefor cognitive weaknesses or deficits, thereby facilitating learning and achieve-ment.Data relevant to each of these categories are gathered typically via classroomobservations and teacher/parent/student interviews.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:55 Page 32

It is important to realize that most classroom observations and interviews areconducted prior to a comprehensive evaluation. Therefore, during an initialclassroom observation or interview, the practitioner is not necessarily primed togather tertiary data in an effort to determine what factors might facilitatelearning or exacerbate learning difficulties because the specific nature andpresumptive cause of the learning problem are not yet known or understoodwell. As such, it may be necessary to conduct additional classroom observationsor interviews after the practitioner has a more complete understanding of thevarious and specific presumed causes of the student’s learning difficulties.Moreover, it is likely that most practitioners are not very familiar with theinstructional materials used by the teacher and student (e.g., textbooks,electronic media, worksheets) and, therefore, they are not in a position togive guidance on how certain features of instructional material may facilitatelearning for a student. Therefore, practitioners should make an effort tofamiliarize themselves with relevant instructional materials.

Rapid References 1.14 to 1.20 include information, organized according tothe four categories described earlier, that will assist practitioners in gatheringtertiary data and considering these data for the purpose of tailoring interventionsfor students with specific cognitive weaknesses or deficits. There is one rapidreference for each of seven broad CHC cognitive abilities. For example, RapidReference 1.17 includes recommendations for a student like Ayden, whoselearning difficulties are affected adversely by a deficit in Long-term Storage andRetrieval. To ensure that the adverse effects that a Glr weakness has on learningare minimized, the practitioner should consult this rapid reference to gainknowledge about how to intervene and tailor instruction for Ayden. Further-more, when reviewing the information in this rapid reference, the practitionershould consider factors and strategies that capitalize on a student’s area of relativestrength. For example, Ayden has a relative strength in Visual Processing (Gv).Therefore, relevant recommendations include pairing verbal information withvisuals, organizing materials to be learned using visual aids, and providing visualreminders (Post-its, color-coded systems). It is important to note that theinformation contained in Rapid References 1.14 to 1.20 is not meant to beexhaustive. For more information about recommendations for students withcognitive ability and processing weaknesses or deficits, see the other chapters inthis book or other relevant resources (e.g., Mather & Jaffe, 2002). Copies ofRapid References 1.14 to 1.20 may be downloaded from the CD that accom-panies this book.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:56 Page 33

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.14

Recomm

endations

ThatMay

Facilitat

eLearning

andA

idin

Bypassing

orMinimizin

gthe

EffectsofaF

luidR

easonin

g(Gf)D

eficit

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classro

om

Instru

ction

Instru

ctiona

lMaterials

Env

ironm

ental

Strateg

ies

Use

demon

stratio

nsto

externalizethereason

ing

process(think-alouds)

Expanded

answ

erkeys

containing

the“reason”

for

correct/incorrectchoices

Prob

lem-solving

charts

(hanging

ortapedto

desk)

Use

metacognitivestrategies

(mnemon

icsthatare

mem

orableandthat

accuratelyrepresentthe

learning

task)

Graduallyofferguidedpractice(e.g.,guided

questio

nslist)to

prom

oteinternalizationof

procedures

orprocess(es)

Guidedlistsforimplem

enting

procedures,formulas

Proceduralcharts/lists

(hanging

ortapedto

desk)

Use

toolsthathelpthem

categorizes

objectsand

conceptsto

assistindraw

ing

conclusio

ns(e.g.,graphic

organizers,con

cept

maps)

Offertargeted,explicitfeedback

Mod

els/exam

ples

Preferredseating

arrangem

entsthatprovide

easyaccessto

apeer

mod

elwith

strong

reason

ingskills

(e.g.,forcoo

perativelearning

activities)

Listen

toandseparate

the

stepsincompletinga

prob

lem

from

theactual

contentu

sedinaprob

lem

Offero

pportunitiesforlearningform

atsthatallow

forreasoning

tobe

mod

eled

forthe

student(e.

g.,coo

perativelearning,reciprocalteaching)

Text

features

(boldface,italics)

Com

pare

newconceptsto

previouslylearned

concepts(sam

evs.different)

Graphicorganizersthatallowfor

avisualdepictionof

relatio

nships

betweenandam

ongconcepts

Use

analogies,sim

iles,metapho

rs,pairedwith

concrete

explanations,tosupp

ortu

nderstanding

whenpresentingtasks(e.g.,“W

earegoingto

learn

ourm

athfactswith

lightning

speed,thatmeans

we

aregoingto

learnthem

fast”)

Manipulatives

todemon

strate

relatio

nships

(e.g.,partto

who

lerelatio

nships)

33

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:57 Page 34

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.15

Facto

rsThatMay

Facilitat

eLearning

andA

idinBypassing

orMinimizin

gthe

EffectsofaC

rystallized

Intellige

nce(Gc)D

eficit

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classro

om

Instru

ctiona

lFac

tors

Instru

ctiona

lMaterials

Env

ironm

ental

Fac

tors

Strateg

ies

Provides

anenvironm

entrichinlanguage

andexperiences

Con

tainschapterG

lossaries

Word-of-the-day

calendar

Use

KWLstrategy

toincrease

backgrou

ndknow

ledge

Incorporates

frequentp

racticewith

and

expo

sure

towords

E-Glossariesavailable

Wordwalls

Use

contextw

henreadingto

ascertain

meaning

Readsalou

dto

children

Provides

vocabularybuilding

activities

(printo

ronline)

Capitalizeon

oppo

rtunities

topracticenew

words

(listeningfortheiruseintelevisio

nshow

sandotherm

edia,purpo

selyusing

them

inconversatio

n)Variesreadingpurpose

(leisu

re,information)

Con

tainstoolsforp

riming

backgrou

ndknow

ledge(e.g.,

Harcourt)

Distraction-fre

eseating

Engage

inactivities

such

aswordsearches

containing

relatedterm

s(e.g.,travelterm

s)andcrossw

ords

(note:puzzlemaker.com

can

create

custom

ized

puzzles)

Works

onvocabularybuilding

Includes

storystarters

Closeddo

ors

Writeanewwordandits

definitio

nalon

gwith

adraw

ing

Teachesmorphology

Includes

text

features

(boldface,

italics)

Closedwindo

ws

Capitalizes

onop

portunities

todefine

words

withininstruction(e.g.,“the

compositionof

igneou

srock,thatis,

whatitismadeof,is...”)

Availabilityof

videoclips

34

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:57 Page 35

Includes

supp

ortivemod

alities

(e.g.,visuals,

gestures)toincrease

understandingof

language

used

Audioglossaries

Embeds

instructionwithinameaningful

context(e.g.,relatingwords

tolearner

experiences,increasinglistening

ability

throughgame-likeform

at)

Dictio

naries

Develop

svocabularythroughnaturalistic

extensionof

language

(e.g.,ifastudentasks,

“Can

Istartmywork,”theteacherm

ight

respon

d,“Yes,you

canbeginyour

work,”

naturally

buildingsyno

nym

know

ledge)

Thesaurus

Usesextensionandexpansionstrategies

(Mather,Lynch,&Richards,200

1)Encyclop

edias

Use

vocabularycartoo

ns(Burchers,20

00)

Use

text

talks

35

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:58 Page 36

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.16

Facto

rsThatMay

Facilitat

eLearning

andA

idinBypassing

orMinimizin

gthe

Effectsofan

Auditory

Processing

(Ga)

Deficit

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classro

om

Instru

ctiona

lFac

tors

Instru

ctiona

lMaterials

Env

ironm

entalF

actors

Strateg

ies

Enunciates

sounds

inwords

inan

emphatic

mannerw

henteaching

newwords

forreading

orspelling

Video

clips

Rulesfortalking

and

listening

Use

comprehensio

nmon

itoring(e.g.,

Doe

sthewordIheard/readmake

senseincontext?)

Usesinstructionaltechniques(e.g.,workpreview/

text

preview)toclarify

unknow

nwords

Read

alou

dtexts/features

Spellinglists

Engage

inself-advocacy

(e.g.,asking

for

inform

ationto

berepeated

and/or

clarified

inregard

tothemish

eard

part)

Provides

instructionalsuppo

rts(e.g.,guided

notes)duringno

te-takingactivities

Audioglossaries

Closeddo

ors

Physicallypo

sitioning

oneselftow

ard/

closeto

thespeaker

Buildsintim

eforclarificatio

nquestio

nsrelatedto

“missed”or

“mish

eard”itemsduringlecture

Supp

lemento

ral

instructions

with

written

instructions

Closedwindo

ws

Attending

tospeaker’s

mou

thand/or

gestures,facialexpressions,duringthe

deliveryof

inform

ation

Shortens

instructions

Phon

emicaw

areness

activities

Distraction-fre

eseating

Recordingno

tesviaaudiometho

dsto

allowamechanism

forb

eing

ableto

fill

inno

tesforcom

pleteness

Makes

aneffortto

minimizebackgrou

ndno

isevia

theuseof

instructionalcom

mands

(e.g.,work

quietly,refrainfro

mtalkingwith

your

neighbor)

Electron

ictextbo

oks

Noise

minimizers(carpet,

noise-reducing

headphon

es)

Followingalon

gwith

written

directions/te

xtduringtheprovision

oforalinstruction

Repeatsor

rephrasesquestio

nsaskedby

other

studentsto

ensure

thatallstudents“hear”the

questio

nthatisassociated

with

theteacher’s

givenrespon

se

Guidedno

tes,graphic

organizers

Preferentialseating(close

toteacher,aw

ayfro

mheaters,fans)

Practicingspellinglistswith

visually

basedtechniques

Emphasizes

sight-w

ordreading

Localizesoundsource

for

studentb

ystanding

closer

whendeliveringinstructions

Use

visualizationstrategies

toremem

berthings

Pauses

whendeliveringoralinstructionto

allow

timeforstudent

toprocessauditoryinform

ation

Use

writtenmediums(e.g.,em

ail,text)

topreserve

content/integrityof

inform

ationcommunicated

36

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:59 Page 37

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.17

Facto

rsThatMay

Facilitat

eLearning

andA

idinBypassing

orMinimizin

gthe

EffectsofaL

ong-T

ermSto

ragea

ndRetrie

val(G

lr)De

ficit

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classro

om

Instru

ctiona

lFac

tors

Instru

ctiona

lMaterials

Env

ironm

entalF

actors

Strateg

ies

Usesclose-endedquestio

ns,yes/

no,true/false

Guidedlistsfor

implem

entingprocedures,

form

ulas

Proceduralcharts

Organizes

materialtobe

learnedusingvisualaids

(e.

g.,diagram

s,flow

charts),auditoryaids

(e.g.,

chunking),or

othertangibles

(e.g.,flashcards)

Usesconsistentinstructio

nal

routines

Practiceguides

Wordwalls

Makes

connectio

nsby

relatingmaterialtobe

learned

toon

eself

Offersrepeated

practicewith

andreview

ofnewlypresented

inform

ation

Onlinereview

Deskorganizers

Relatesconceptsto

belearnedto

oneanothervia

toolssuch

asaconceptm

ap

Teachesmem

orystrategies

and

encourages

theiru

se(verbal

rehearsaltosupp

ortencod

ing,

useof

mnemon

icdevices;Dehn,

2010

)

Glossaries(electronic,audio,

printed)

Externalmem

oryaids

(lists,

audibletim

ers)

Creates

ascheduleford

istrib

uted

practiceof

materialtobe

learned

Usesmultiplemod

alities

when

teaching

newconcepts(pair

writtenor

visualwith

verbal

inform

ation)

tosupp

ortd

ual

recoding

(Dehn,20

10)

Studyguides

Calendarswith

visual

references

toduedates

Plansforregularreview

ofmaterial

Limits

theam

ount

ofnew

materialtobe

learned;

introd

uces

newconcepts

gradually

andwith

aloto

fcontext

Review

sheets

Visu

alreminders(Post-its,

color-codedsystem

s)Re

hearsesmaterialtobe

learnedviarecitatio

n,repetition

(continued)

37

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:12:59 Page 38

Ismindfulof

whennewconcepts

arepresented

Dictio

naries(tosupp

ort

wordretrieval)

Quiet

environm

ento

rnoise-

reductionaids

(headp

hones,

cubicles,study

carrels)

Studiesandcompletes

homew

orkinadesignated

locatio

nwith

necessarymaterials

Makes

associations

between

newlylearnedandprior

inform

ationexplicit

Thesaurus(tobuild

vocabularyandminimize

impactof

retrieval

weaknesses)

Preferentialseatingto

minimizedistractions

when

encoding

Usesactivelearning

strategies

(note-taking,flash

cards,conceptm

aps,chunking)inreview

sessions

Usesliststo

facilitaterecall

(prompts)

Studiesandreview

slearning

materialimmediately

priortosleeping

Expandsvocabularyto

minimize

impactof

wordretrievaldeficits

Usesorganizatio

nalstrategiessuch

assemantic

clustering(D

ehn,20

10)

Buildsinwait-tim

eforstudent

whenfluencyof

retrievalisan

issue

Usesverbalassociationstrategies

(e.g.,elaboration;

Dehn,20

10)

Usestext

previewsto

“prim

e”know

ledge

Implem

entsdualcoding

strategies

(visu

alto

verbal

andvice

versa)

Provides

backgrou

ndknow

ledge

firstb

eforeasking

aquestio

nto

“prim

e”studentfor

retrieval

Engagesinself-testing

Usesspecificstrategies

foracademictasks

(e.g.,PQ

RST,forreading

comprehensio

n;Dehn20

10)

(continued)

38

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:0 Page 39

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.18

Facto

rsThatMay

Facilitat

eLearning

andA

idinBypassing

orMinimizin

gthe

EffectsofaP

rocess

ingSpeed(Gs)D

eficit

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classro

om

Instru

ctiona

lFac

tors

Instru

ctiona

lMaterials

Env

ironm

ental

Fac

tors

Strateg

ies

Focuseson

features

ofworkprod

uctsthatare

unrelatedto

timeparameters(e.g.,

quality

oraccuracy

ofarespon

se)

Practiceguides

Clocks

Plan

forlon

g-term

projectsby

usingarealistic

schedulethatallowsforcon

sistent

movem

ent

towardcompletion

Repeated

practice

Onlinereview

Writtenschedules

Previewimpo

rtantp

artsof

text

(end-of-chapter

questio

ns,title,subtitles,glossaryof

term

s)to

facilitatereadingspeed

Offersspeeddrills

Deskorganizers

App

lyplanning

andtim

emanagem

entstrategies

Use

computeractivities

that

require

quick,sim

pledecisio

nsUse

techniques

such

asskimmingandscanning

forreading

activities

Extended

time

Bookson

tape

Use

anou

tlining

strategy

forn

ote-taking

Reducesthequantityof

workrequired

(includingho

mew

ork)

Onlineactivities/gam

es(e.g.,

http://www

.arcadem

icskillb

uilders.com

/games/)

Increaseswait-tim

esbo

thafterq

uestions

areaskedandafterrespo

nses

aregiven

Cho

ralrepeatedreading

39

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:1 Page 40

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.19

Facto

rsThatMay

Facilitat

eLearning

andA

idinBypassing

orMinimizin

gthe

EffectsofaV

isualPro

cessing

(Gv)De

ficit

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classro

om

Instru

ctiona

lFac

tors

Instru

ctiona

lMaterials

Env

ironm

entalF

actors

Strateg

ies

Provideoralexplanationforvisu

alconcepts

Video

clips

Color-cod

edInform

ation

Usesorthographicstrategies

for

decoding

(e.g.,wordlength,shape

ofword);U

ses“cover-cop

y-compare”

technique—

goto:http://w

ww

.amblesideprim

ary.com/amblew

eb/

lookcover/lookcover.htm

lRe

view

sspatialcon

cept

andsupp

orts

comprehensio

nthroughuseof

hands-

onactivities

andmanipulatives

(e.g.,

usingmod

elsto

demon

strate

the

moo

n’sorbitalpath).

Enlarged

text

(viaon

line

zoom

featureor

alternativeprintcop

yof

textbo

ok,w

orksheet)

Preferentialseatingaimed

atallowingthe

studenttoaccessvisualmaterial(e.g.,

smartb

oard)m

anipulatives,visu

alaids,

andotherm

aterialsto

supp

ortlearning

Capitalizes

onintactor

strong

auditoryskills

duringlearning/studying

(e.g.,uses

phon

emicskills

for

decoding

tasks)

Provides

verballabelfor

visual

representatio

ns(e.g.,“The

shaded

red

barsrepresentw

omen’svotes,thegreen

barsrepresentm

en’svotes”)

Highlightsmargins

duringwritingtasks

Assignedno

te-takingbudd

yPairs

visualinform

ationwith

verbal

(mnemon

ics)

Provides

writtencopies

oforal

instructions,lectures

Provides

direct

handwritingpractice

Readersor

scrib

es,w

here

needed

Labelsvisualcharts/graphswith

verbal

labels

Audito

rycueing

tosupp

lementvisu

alinform

ation/cues

(e.g.,“Loo

katthebar

graphforw

eeklysales”)

Provides

visualsupp

orts

(graphicorganizers,

graphpaper)

Reduce

visualdistraction

Highlightsor

colorcod

esimpo

rtant

inform

ation

40

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:1 Page 41

Provides

graph-paperto

assistw

ithnumber

alignm

ent

Alternativelighting(naturallight,

non-fluo

rescentlighting)

Usesaids

tosupp

ortvisu

altracking

(finger,index

card,ruler)

Bookson

tape

Spaces

itemson

apage

Text-to-speech

techno

logy

(screenand

text

readers)

Usesapplications

orsupp

ortsthat

allowfore

nlargemento

ffon

ts

Reading/scanning

pens

Usesno

te-takingstrategies

(e.g.,

Cornell,ou

tlining)

41

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:2 Page 42

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.20

Facto

rsThatMay

Facilitat

eLearning

andA

idinBypassing

orMinimizin

gthe

EffectsofaS

hort-Term

Mem

ory(Gsm

)Deficit

................................................................................................................................................................................................

Classro

om

Instru

ctiona

lFac

tors

Instru

ctiona

lMaterials

Env

ironm

entalF

actors

Strateg

ies

Offersrepetitionof

inform

ation

Practiceguides

Color-cod

edinform

ation

App

lyrotestrategies

(e.g.,basic

rehearsal,

simplerepetition)

forinformationto

belearnedintheshort-term

Review

sinform

ationandnewly

presentedconceptsoften

Guidedstudy

Math-factstables

(e.g.,

multiplication)

Encourageuseof

relatio

nalstrategies(e.g.,

mnemon

ics)

Deliversinform

ationin

manageableparts

Onlinereview

Writtenschedules

Use

elaborativerehearsal(associatingnew

inform

ationwith

priorkno

wledge)

Evidencesuseof

consistent

instructionalrou

tines

Flashcards

Visu

alschedules(e.g.,pictures)

Semantic

rehearsal(creatingasentence

usingthings

tobe

remem

bered)

Usesmeaningfulstim

ulitoassist

with

encoding

andallowfor

experientiallearning(i.e.,learning

whiledo

ing)

Multisensorymaterialsto

facilitate

encoding

Writtenreminders

(hom

ework)

Chunking

Provides

oppo

rtunities

for

repeated

practiceandreview

Paraphrasin

g

Provides

supp

orts(e.g.,lecture

notes,guided

notes,studyguides,

writtendirections)to

supp

lemento

ralinstructio

n

Visu

almnemon

ics(im

agery,pegw

ords,loci,

keyw

ordmetho

d;Dehn,20

08)

42

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:2 Page 43

Breaks

downinstructionalsteps

forstudent

Chaining

Provides

visualsupp

ort(e.g.,

times

table)

tosupp

ort

acquisitio

nof

basic

mathfacts

First-letter

mnemon

ics

Outlines

mathprocedures

for

studentand

provides

procedural

guides

orflashcards

forthe

studenttousewhen

approachingprob

lems

Use

tangiblereminders(alarm

s,to-dolists,

calendarschedules)

Highlightsimpo

rtantinformation

withinawordprob

lem

App

lyspecificacadem

icstrategies

(e.g.,

writeou

tallmathcomputatio

ns,use

acalculator,spellchecker)

Has

studentswriteallsteps

and

show

allw

orkform

ath

computatio

nsUseswritingprogramsor

techniques

thatem

phasize

draftingfirst(e.g.,D

raftBu

ilder

6)Te

acheschunking

strategies

Source:A

dapted

from

LDOnline.Cop

yright

2008

bytheNationalC

enterforLearning

Disabilities,Inc.Allrightsreserved.

43

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:2 Page 44

Step 5: Integrate Data From All Previous Steps, Design and Implementan Intervention, and Monitor Its Effectiveness

In this final step, practitioners integrate all data from Steps 1 through 4 to designand document an intervention. As seen in Rapid Reference 1.21, the SMAARTIPlanning Form is organized into five columns. Practitioners should use informa-tion from the DOTI form to assist in planning and selecting educational strategiesand tailoring interventions.

Ayden has several academic areas targeted for intervention. Ayden’s difficultiesin reading, math, and writing are related partly to associated cognitive weaknesses.The manifestations of these weaknesses and specific interventions and recom-mendations for addressing them appear in Rapid Reference 1.21.

Ayden’s difficulties in reading decoding appear to be related partly to his Gaweakness in phonetic coding. These difficulties appear to be maintained partly bythe fact that Ayden does not apply phonetic coding strategies and, instead, relieson the visual features of words in an attempt to decode them. While he has beenfairly successful with this strategy and has acquired sight-word decoding skills(e.g., Letter Word Identification, SS = 90, Average), he is struggling in contentareas, such as social studies and science, where new technical terms are introduced(e.g., symbiotic, injustice) that do not lend themselves easily to visual analysis. Tosupport his decoding, and subsequent comprehension, it is suggested that Aydenuse audio glossaries that accompany his science and social studies texts so that hecan hear the words and definitions read aloud to him before he begins a newlesson. Beyond audio glossaries, an environmental accommodation, namelypreferential seating, is suggested for Ayden. This is primarily due to Ayden’sreported concerns with reading aloud in front of his classmates. Given his concernof social repercussions of his reading weaknesses (e.g., feeling embarrassed in frontof his peers), Ayden is less likely to access teacher support to assist him in decodingunknown words. Preferential seating, close to the teacher’s desk, can allow Aydento access help more inconspicuously and can allow his teacher to monitor his needfor help (e.g., she can have a bird’s-eye view of his reading behaviors, such aspausing, that might suggest a difficulty with decoding). Finally, the Great Leapsprogram, which is presently used by Ayden’s reading specialist, is recommendedfor continued use given its applicability to his age, his familiarity with andmotivation in the program, and its focus on building fluency. Notwithstanding,because the phonemic awareness component of the program is primarily presentedin the earlier grades, a supplemental phonemic awareness activity is being suggestedfor Ayden to be used at each reading session. This activity can be obtained via theuse of the Month-by-Month Phonics and Vocabulary workbook.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 45

Rapid

Refer

ence

1.21

ReviewofAyden’s

Cognitiv

eWeakness

–Academic

WeaknessR

elationship

s.................................................................................................................................................................................................

Aca

demic

Targe

tsfor

Interven

tion

(Step1)

Sug

gested

Rem

edial

Pro

gram

Related

Cogn

itive

Wea

kness(es)

(Step2)

Man

ifestations

of

Cogn

itive

Wea

kness(es)

(Step3)

Sug

gested

MARC

Interven

tions

and

Rec

ommen

dations

(Step4)

Rea

ding

Dec

oding

GreatLeaps

Mon

th-by-Mon

thPhon

icsand

Vocabulary,Grade

5(Cunningham,Lom

an,&

Arens,200

7)

Ga—

Phon

eticCod

ing

Doe

sno

tuse

phon

eticstrategies

consistently

Audioglossaries

Preferentialseating

Rea

ding

Fluen

cyGreatLeaps

Gs,Glr

Readingisslo

wandlabo

rious

Shortenedpassages

Text

preview

Rea

ding

Compr

ehen

sion

GreatLeaps

Glr,Gf

Has

difficulty

retellin

gwhath

ehas

read

inmon

thlybo

okrepo

rts

Think-alou

dsCoo

perativereading

Cause/effectgraphic

organizers

MathFluen

cyArcadem

ics

Gs

Isaccurate

butslow

Abb

reviated

mathminutes

with

charting

(continued)

45

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 46

MathPro

blem

Solving

Glr,Gf

Difficulty

with

wordprob

lems

Mathmnemon

ics

Mathconceptcard

Proceduralchart

Spe

lling

Folding-intechnique;cover-

copy-com

pare

Ga—

Phon

eticCod

ing

Mish

earswords

frequently

Wordwall

Spellchecker

Spellingdictionarywith

graph

Preferentialseating

Written

Exp

ression

Inspiratio

nGlr,Gf

Doe

sno

tuse

newlylearned

vocabularyinwritingassignm

ents;

note-takingisverbatim

Sentence

strip

sW

ordbank

Wordwall

Thesaurus

Feedback

Guidedno

tes

(continued)

46

3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 47

While Great Leaps can also be used to address Ayden’s difficulties with readingfluency, two additional recommendations, namely shortened passages and textpreview, are recommended. The modification of shortened passages during class-wide independent reading is recommended primarily because Ayden’s reading isdescribed consistently as slow and laborious. Further, given his concerns aboutreading more slowly than his peers, Ayden has attempted to compensate byrushing through the reading, which has always resulted in difficulty withcomprehension questions. When he reads at a more measured pace, he typicallydoes not finish the passage and, as a result, often needs to answer the readingquestions at home, which then necessitates a full rereading of the passage, therebylengthening the amount of time spent in homework. Shortened passages can buildhis confidence by allowing him to finish his work at a similar rate as his peers, canfacilitate his comprehension of the passages as it reduces the perceived need torush, and, finally, can make a more efficient use of homework time as he will onlyneed to read new material (if the remaining part of the assignment is still requiredof him). To further support his reading fluency, it is suggested that Ayden engagein a text preview whereby he reviews the chapter or passage title, headings, andnew vocabulary prior to being tasked with reading a passage during class. Whileshortened passages can accommodate partly Ayden’s weakness in Gs, the textpreviews can serve as a primer that can circumvent the impact of his Glr weakness(e.g., speed of lexical access).

In terms of reading comprehension, in addition to the Great Leaps program, itis recommended that Ayden’s teacher continue to use cooperative reading groups,but pair him with a student with strong reasoning skills who can serve as a modelduring guided think-alouds (e.g., activities that help externalize the reasoningprocess by explicitly pointing out connections during reading, such as characters’feelings and their behaviors). To facilitate Ayden’s comprehension and encodingof what he has read, and circumvent the full impact of his reasoning difficulties,it is also recommended that he use graphic organizers during reading tasks,specifically those that allow for relationships (e.g., cause and effect) to bereadily seen.

Based on the evaluation data, Ayden has a specific weakness in processing speed(Gs) that impacts not only reading fluency, but also the automaticity with whichhe completes math problems. As described by his teacher, when Ayden completes“mad math minutes” with the class, he is always the last one working and rarely, ifever, completes a full sheet. As a result, Ayden has become averse to this daily mathpractice and has begun to show signs of escape/avoidance (e.g., asks to use thebathroom, repeatedly drops his pencil on the floor during the timed minute).To build Ayden’s confidence and facilitate his engagement with this task, it is


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 48

suggested that the math minutes be abbreviated (20 problems instead of 30).Additionally, it is recommended that Ayden graph his progress in terms of totalnumbers of items completed in a minute and total number of items accurate.Given that Ayden’s accuracy is already high, it is expected that this latter numberwill be consistently high, thereby providing an immediate opportunity for positivefeedback and reinforcement. The abbreviated sheet is expected to positivelyimpact the total number of items completed, thereby building Ayden’s confi-dence. The daily graphing will allow Ayden to focus on his individual progressrather than use his peers as a benchmark for judging himself. Finally, this format(graphing) capitalizes on Ayden’s reported interest in working with visuals and isexpected to be motivating in and of itself.

To further strengthen Ayden’s automaticity with math facts, repeated practicein the home is recommended. Rather than focus on drill and practice viatraditional methods (flashcards), a fun, web-based program, called Arcademics,is recommended. This website has several math games, presented in an arcade-likeformat. The Arcademics games are particularly attractive as a home-basedintervention as they are also available as apps on the iPad, which increases themobility of this intervention, an important consideration for Ayden, who spendstwo days a week at his grandmother’s home after school. The games, such as Jet-Ski addition, provide visual feedback as well as audio feedback to Ayden relating tothe accuracy and speed of his response (e.g., his jet-ski is propelled forward, at a fastpace, with accurate and quick responding).

Beyond fluency, Ayden’s deficits within the areas of reasoning (Gf) andretrieval (Glr) limit his ability to apprehend patterns or underlying rules withinproblems as well as to retrieve procedures necessary to complete problems. Tocircumvent the impact of these weaknesses, it is recommended that Ayden betaught specificmnemonics to assist him with retrieving steps or sequences necessaryto compute problems (e.g., PDMAS) and that he use a math concept card that isorganized into four quadrants with each of four operations represented (i.e.,addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division) along with associated wordsthat denote each operation (e.g., “in all,” “sum,” “in total,” “altogether” wouldappear under the addition symbol). Together, these supports are intended tofacilitate Ayden’s ability to identify the computations and/or procedures requiredto complete math word problems.

In writing, several interventions are recommended for Ayden. An initialrecommendation is to allow Ayden to use Inspiration software during independentwriting tasks. This visually based writing software program allows Ayden tocapitalize on his relative Gv strength and can help circumvent the impact of his Gfweakness as it allows him to see relationships between concepts/ideas given the


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 49

graphic organizer type format. Additional recommendations such as providingAyden with word banks during the completion of specific tasks (e.g., answeringend-of-chapter questions and/or short-answer test questions in content areas suchas science or social studies) are offered. To facilitate his self-advocacy skills, it issuggested that Ayden be reminded of, and encouraged to reference, his classroomword wall, which contains a cumulative listing of weekly vocabulary words. It ishoped that this classroom resource will encourage Ayden to use newly learnedvocabulary in his weekly writing assignments. Given that increasing one’svocabulary can minimize the full impact of a retrieval deficit, building Ayden’svocabulary is important. One way to achieve this is through implementing aninstructional recommendation that involves having Ayden’s teacher providefeedback on his writing by circling specific words and offering another termthat is similar in meaning as well as circling one or two terms for which Ayden canoffer an alternative. To accomplish this, Ayden can use a thesaurus to locate thecircled terms and then select, from the listed choices, another word that would beequally effective in communicating his thoughts. Beyond a physical thesaurus,Ayden can be taught to use the thesaurus function in Microsoft Word.

Presently, Ayden takes notes verbatim as his retrieval difficulties impact hisability to quickly paraphrase what the teacher is saying and it also impacts thesequencing/organization of his thoughts. To address the latter issue, sentence stripsare recommended during writing tasks. Use of such strips allows Ayden to writediscrete thoughts or facts, as they come to mind, and then physically manipulatethe strips into an organized, cohesive sequence, after he has generated discretethoughts. To address his difficulty with paraphrasing or summarizing, guided notesare recommended. Such a support can help circumvent the impact of Ayden’s Glrweakness. Further, guided notes can minimize memory demands during note-taking, thereby allowing Ayden to more fully attend to the lesson. Finally, theearlier recommendation for preferential seating is relevant to addressing Ayden’snote-taking difficulties in that it can minimize any auditory distractions that mightotherwise increase the frequency with which he mishears words. Further, it allowshim and the teacher to have easy access to one another. As such, Ayden can moreprivately secure assistance with writing tasks and the teacher can discreetly check inwith him during such tasks.

To address Ayden’s spelling weaknesses and maximize the utility of theclassroom word wall, Ayden can be reminded to reference this wall to assisthim with spelling recently learned words. It is also suggested that Ayden beencouraged to use the spellchecker function on computer-based writing assign-ments. Based on his mastery of words, Ayden will be asked to build a spellingdictionary, generating an entry for each newly mastered word. Finally, it is


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 50

suggested that his reading teacher use the folding-in technique with Ayden to buildhis sight-word reading/spelling skills. This technique aims to increase spelling/reading skills via a flashcard method that involves presenting 10 words, seven ofwhich are known and three of which are “unknown.” This 70/30 ratio of knownto unknown results in consistently high rates of success during the task, with theaim of improving Ayden’s confidence and motivation. To reinforce the wordspresented by his reading teacher, a recommendation to allow Ayden repeatedpractice via a cover-copy-compareweb-based program is offered.With this program,Ayden’s mother can build a word list containing the 10 words used in the folding-in technique. The computer program will show each word in isolation, then afterAyden right clicks the “cover” button, a hand will swipe in from the left side of thescreen to cover the word, at which point Ayden will type the word and select the“compare” button. The hand will retract and the correctly spelled word will berevealed for comparison.

Practitioners should develop a plan for monitoring interventions and evaluatingtheir benefit. Depending on their use and benefit, practitioners will summarize anoutcome of the recommendations and suggest next steps. The next steps caninvolve one of three actions, Retain (RT), Refine (RF), or Reduce/Eliminate (RD/E). If the recommendation is being used and is working, the recommendation canbe retained. If an element of the recommendation is not particularly effective or ifthere is an identified factor that can maximize its effectiveness, it can be refined.Finally, if the intended benefit is achieved (e.g., spelling accuracy increasessubstantially and consistently) or if the intensity of the recommendation canbe adjusted, the support can be eliminated and/or reduced. It is important todistinguish between refining and reducing. A reduction of a support does notinvolve changing the support; rather, it involves modifying the frequency orintensity with which the support is delivered. A refinement involves changing anaspect of the recommendation.

SUMMARY

School psychologists and other practitioners involved in the assessment of studentswith learning difficulties routinely collect data related to students’ social, emo-tional, behavioral, academic, and cognitive functioning. Parent intakes, classroomobservations, teacher and student interviews, administration of standardized tests,and record reviews represent routine assessment activities. Despite the time andeffort necessary to collect these data, they are rarely integrated in a systematicmanner for use in tailoring interventions. Rather, data from comprehensiveevaluations are used typically to determine a student’s eligibility for special


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 51

education services. While eligibility decisions are important and often drive thedelivery of intervention resources, it is difficult to make sound choices regardingthe nature and type of intervention needed for any given student without adetailed review of multiple data sources, including data gathered from cognitiveassessment.

This chapter described a Systematic Method of Analyzing Assessment Resultsfor Tailoring Interventions (SMAARTI) for students with learning difficulties.This method allows practitioners to define targets for intervention via a careful,research-based analysis of a student’s quantitative and qualitative cognitive andacademic strengths and weaknesses. The steps of SMAARTI assist the practitionerin understanding evidence-based connections between below-average cognitiveand academic deficits and determining qualitative manifestations of observedcognitive weaknesses or deficits in real-world (e.g., classroom) performances. Oncea student’s unique below-average cognitive-academic consistencies are deter-mined, SMAARTI assists the practitioner in tailoring interventions for thestudent. Ultimately, SMAARTI encourages practitioners to collect multipledata sources using multiple data gathering methods to ensure that any interventionthat is recommended for a student is targeted specifically to his or her uniquelearning needs.

REFERENCES

Burchers (2000). Vocabulary cartoons.Cooney, S. M., Huser, M., Small, S., & O’Connor, C. (2007). Evidence-based programs: An

overview. What Works,Wisconsin–Research to Practice Series, 6. Madison, WI: University ofWisconsin–Madison/Extension.

Cunningham, P. M., Loman, K. L., & Arens, A. B. (2007). Month-by-month phonics andvocabulary, grade 5. Greensboro, NC: Carson-Dellosa.

Dehn, M. J. (2008). Working memory and academic learning: Assessment and intervention.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Dehn, M. J. (2010). Long-term memory problems in children and adolescents: Assessment,intervention, and effective instruction. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Della Toffalo, D. (2010). Linking school neuropsychology with response-to-interventionmodels. In D.C. Miller (Ed.) Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelines for effectivepractice, assessment, and evidence-based interventions (pp. 159–184). New York, NY:Guilford.

Della Toffalo, & Douglas, A. (2010). Best practices in school neuropsychology: Guidelinesfor effective practice, assessment, and evidence-based intervention. In D.C. Miller (Ed.),Best practices in school neuropsychology (pp. 159–183). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley &Sons.

Elliott, S. N., Witt, J. C., Kratochwill, T. R., & Callan Stoiber, K. (2002). Selecting andevaluating classroom interventions. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.),Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches(pp. 243–294). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 52

Feifer, S. G. (2011). How SLD manifests in reading. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso(Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 21–42). Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Feifer, S. G., & DeFina, P. D. (2002a). The neuropsychology of written language disorders:Diagnosis and intervention. Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.

Feifer, S. G., & DeFina, P. D. (2002b). The neuropsychology of mathematics: Diagnosis andintervention. Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.

Feifer, S. G., & Della Toffalo, D. A. (2007). Integrating RTI with cognitive neuropsychology: Ascientific approach to reading. Middletown, MD: School Neuropsych Press.

Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2011). Essentials of specific learning disability identification.Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Flanagan, D. P., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2011). A CHC-based operational definitionof SLD: Integrating multiple data sources and multiple data gathering methods. In D. P.Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification(pp. 233–298). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C., & Ortiz, S. O. (2012). The cross-battery assessmentapproach: An overview, historical perspective, and current directions. In D. P. Flanagan andP. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests and issues (3rd ed.,pp. 459–483). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment(3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., Alfonso, V. C., & Mascolo, J. T. (2006). The achievement testdesk reference (ATDR): A guide to learning disability identification. Boston, MA: Allyn &Bacon.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: Fromidentification to intervention. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Fletcher-Janzen, E., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (2008).Neuropsychological perspectives on learningdisabilities in the era of RTI: Recommendations for diagnosis and intervention. Hoboken, NJ:Wiley.

Floyd, R. G., Clark, M. H., & Shadish, W. R. (2008, Aug.). The exchangeability of IQs:Implications for professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39,414–423.

Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A practitioner’s handbook. NewYork, NY: Guilford Press.

Hale, J. B., Wycoff, K. L., & Fiorello, C. A. (2011). RTI and cognitive hypothesis testing foridentification and intervention of specific learning disabilities: The best of both worlds. InD. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification(pp. 173–201). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Juarez, B. M. (2012). Effects of general and specific cognitive abilities on reading achievement in areferred sample. New York, NY: St. John’s University.

Mascolo, J. T. (2008). Linking assessment to intervention: The SMART approach (Invitedpresentation). New York, NY: Fordham University-Lincoln Center.

Mather, N., & Jaffe, L. E. (2002). Woodcock-Johnson III: Reports, recommendations, andstrategies. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.

Mather, N., Lynch, K., & Richards, A. M. (2001). The thinking blocks: Language, images andstrategies. In S. Goldstein &N. Mather (Eds.) Learning disabilities and challenging behaviors:A guide to intervention and classroom management. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.

McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., Keith, T. Z., & Vanderwood, M. (1997). Beyond g: Theimpact of Gf-Gc specific cognitive abilities research on the future use and interpretation ofintelligence tests in the schools. School Psychology Review, 26, 189–210.


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:4 Page 53

McGrew, K. S., & Wendling, B. J. (2010, Aug.). Cattell-Horn-Carroll cognitive-achievementrelations: What have we learned from the past 20 years of research? Psychology in the Schools,47(7) (Special Issue: Current research in Cattell-Horn-Carroll-based Assessment), 651–675.

Miller, D. C. (Ed.). (2010). Best practices in school neuropsychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Miller, D. C. (2013). Essentials of school neuropsychological assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ:

Wiley.Packer, L. E., & Pruitt, S. K. (2010). Challenging kids, challenged teachers. Bethesda, MD:

Woodbine House.Schmuckler, M. A. (2001). What is ecological validity? A dimensional analysis. Infancy, 2(4),

419–436.Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In D.

Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.),Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues(3rd ed.) (pp. 99–144). New York: Guilford.

Vanderwood, M. L., McGrew, K. S., Flanagan, D. P., & Keith, T. Z. (2001). The contributionof general and specific cognitive abilities to reading achievement. Learning and IndividualDifferences, 13(2) (Special Issue: Is g a viable construct for school psychology?), 159–188.

Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001, 2007) Woodcock-Johnson III Tests ofAchievement Normative Update. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

TEST YOURSELF............................................................................................................................

1. The evidence-based programs listed on sites such asWhatWorksClearinghouse (WWC) and the Florida Center for Reading Research(FCRR), and implemented with a student, serve as an example of:

a. A modificationb. An accommodationc. Remediationd. Compensation

2. When do you engage in SMAARTI?

a. As a pre-referral stepb. During an initial evaluationc. After a student fails to respond to evidence-based interventionsd. All of the above

3. A comprehensive evaluation includes, but is not limited to, which ofthe following:

a. Educational history and current academic performanceb. Familial factors and medical historyc. Cognitive performanced. Behavioral and social-emotional functioninge. All of the above are part of a comprehensive evaluation

(continued )


3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:5 Page 54

(continued )4. All of the following are examples of primary evaluation data except:

a. Standardized cognitive and academic scoresb. Progress monitoring datac. Scores from district-wide testing programsd. Data from work sample analysis

5. True or False?: Information relating to instructional materials used with astudent is an example of tertiary data.

6. Secondary data typically provides information about characteristics that are

a. Related to the child’s instructional materialsb. Related to the child’s instructional environmentc. Related to intrinsic characteristics of the child him- or herselfd. Operating in the child’s home environment

7. Step 3 of SMAARTI involves which of the following?

a. Reviewing manifestations of cognitive weaknessesb. Organizing secondary datac. Identifying types of academic skill deficitsd. Identifying initial targets for interventione. All of the above

8. Aligning math problems vertically as opposed to horizontally, having astudent dictate responses to a scribe, or providing a student with aseparate room to complete work all serve as an example of:


9. Reducing the amount of material that a student is required to learn,simplifying material to be learned, or requiring a student to answer only asubset of a specific type of question on a mixed facts sheet all serve as anexample of:


10. Teaching a student to use mnemonic devices or to outline and use graphicorganizers is an example of:



3GC01 02/11/2014 22:13:5 Page 55

11. True or False?: Understanding cognitive weaknesses and their relation toacademic weaknesses is necessary for program planning in the SMAARTIapproach.

Answers: 1. c; 2. d; 3. e; 4. d; 5. T; 6. c; 7. e; 8. b; 9. a; 10. d; 11. T


Documents

Part I - catalogimages.wiley.com€¦ · Planning and selecting interventions is conceptualized here as the process of identifying evidence-based interventions that are most often