10/20/2016 Quickly and Reliably Screen Students for Language/Literacy Disorders — including Dyslexia Michele A. Anderson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP WELCOME • Webinar Housekeeping Document – Download from the “ Handouts ” pane – Download at bit.ly/screen-with-TILLS • 10% Brookes Publishing Discount – Use code TILLSWEB10 – Good thru November 17, 2016 • Not valid with any other offers or discounts • ASHA CEUs – Provided in partnership with Maryland Speech-Language Hearing Association • Questions? – Type them into “ Questions ” pane – Email: brookeswebmeeting@brookespublishing.com 1
10/20/2016 Disclosure/Acknowledgments • Grant R324A100354 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences to Western Michigan University. Note that opinions in this presentation are those of the authors and not the U.S. government. • Many graduate students, colleagues, test administrators, teachers, parents and students contributed to this research • As co-author of the TILLS SLS, Michele Anderson expects to receive royalties. Goals for the Webinar • Participants will be able to list two psychometric criteria to consider when choosing a language/literacy assessment screening tool. • Participants will be able to explain how to interpret TILLS SLS screening results which indicate an increased likelihood of a disorder — including dyslexia — and the need for further assessment, or those for whom RtI services may be appropriate. 2
10/20/2016 Why do we need a screening tool? Why do we need a screening tool? Limited Time Limited Resources 3
10/20/2016 Ways to Categorize Language Skills Oral Written cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00 Ways to Categorize Language Skills Expressive Receptive cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00 4
10/20/2016 Quadrant Model Sentence/Discourse Ability Good listening comp + sentence formulation Normal Language when talking Dyslexia Average in both Low reading decoding + (Written = Spoken) (Spoken > Written) fluency + spelling + word inflection when writing Sound/Word Ability High sound/word skills Specific Spoken + Written and surface reading Low Reading + Low Oral Comprehension Deficit Language Disorder Good Reading Decoding + Poor Comprehension (Written > Spoken) (Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely, 2013) Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986) Simple View of Reading Redux (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012) Vocabulary Part of C D C R Word Oral Language Reading Recognition Comprehension Comprehension Pattern of Dyslexia Listening comprehension > Reading comprehension (Badian, 1999; Stanovich, 1994) N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016 5
10/20/2016 More information for Identifying Dyslexia Using TILLS TILLS Screener and Assessment 6
10/20/2016 Contents of the Box TILLS Student Language Scale (SLS) 7
10/20/2016 Section One: 12-items • Descriptive statements • 7 pt Likert-like scale • Rate the student “ compared with other students of the same age ” • Items 1-8 linguistic • Items 9-12 cognitive- social Results of EFA 8
10/20/2016 Section Two: Ability checkmark section • Gardner (1983)- theory of multiple intelligences • Linguistic and nonlinguistic items • Mutually exclusive between first set (easeist) and second set (hardest) Section Three: Open- ended Question • Allows a wide variety of responses • Prioritizes area of concern • Comparison across informants may reveal themes 9
10/20/2016 Using the SLS-who can be an informant? Using the SLS-how to administer 10
10/20/2016 Using the SLS-3 Purposes • screening for dyslexia and other language/literacy disorders; • gathering input from teacher, parent, and student perspectives to contribute to planning; and • promoting home-school communication for students with and without language/literacy concerns. Purpose 1: Screening 11
10/20/2016 Using the SLS-how to score Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLS Multiple sources Co-norming Student Rating Scale Correlation between Items 3-4 and Sound/Word Composite: Teachers = .671** Parents = .595** 12
10/20/2016 Purpose 1: Screening/Re-screening Monitor progress to RtI May not have failed but concern-RtI? by re-screening Purpose 1: Screening Catts, Compton, Tomblin, Not Just for Early & Bridges, 2012 Elementary Grades 13
10/20/2016 Purpose 2: Multi-informant Perspectives • Required by IDEA (2004) • Helps educational teams document concerns • Parents contribute as part of the team Purpose 3: Home-School Communication 14
10/20/2016 Predictive Validity Teachers Parents • Are 2 or more ratings <5? • Are 2 or more ratings <5? � High sensitivity � Good sensitivity 93% of 69 students with LLD 85% of 239 students with identified accurately as having LLD identified accurately as problems having problems • Are all (but 1) ratings >5? • Are all (but 1) ratings >5? � High specificity � Good specificity 90% of 206 students with NL 83% of 1065 students with identified accurately as not NL identified accurately as having problems not having problems Concurrent Validity Table 8. Correlation Coefficients Providing Evidence for Concurrent Validity Based on Correlations of Combinations of SLS Ratings by Teachers, Parents, and Students with Student Performance on Related Sections of the TILLS or the Total TILLS Standard Score Pearson r Pearson r Pearson r for for for N P N S Teachers Parents Students N T SLS items 3,4 (Sound/Word Items) 330 .671** 1810 .595** 677 .299** with Sound/Word Composite on TILLS SLS items 1,2,5-8 (Sent/Discourse 322 .720** 1762 .570** 668 .302** Items) with Sentence/Discourse Composite on TILLS SLS items 1-8 (Language/Literacy 321 .752** 1749 .613** 663 .329** Factor) with Total TILLS SLS items 9-12 (Cognitive/Social 323 .536** 1762 .336** 677 .078* Factor) with Total TILLS SLS items 1-12 (Total SLS) with 318 .725** 1736 .572** 652 .279** Total TILLS N T = Number of teachers in each analysis; N P = Number of parents in each analysis; N S = Number of students in each analysis; SLS = Student Language Scale; TILLS = Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills; ** p < .001, p < .05 15
10/20/2016 Reliability-12 item scale Omega Coefficient Alpha • Teachers .96 • Teachers .96 • Parents .94 • Parents .93 • Students .84 • Students .84 Intra-rater Reliability 16
10/20/2016 Purpose 1 screening for dyslexia Case Studies 8;9 Grade 3 Boy No IEP In our Language Literacy Risk (LLR) group: RtI services for Reading Fluency 30 min, 1X/day, 5 days/week 21 st %ile on Star Reading 77 SS, 6 th %ile on WRMT Word Attack Should he be tested/identified? 17
10/20/2016 8;9 Grade 3 Boy Teacher SLS Parent SLS Student SLS 18
10/20/2016 Grade 3 boy (age 8;9) 8;9 Grade 3 Boy Core subtests � Sound/word 53 � Vocab Aware Sentence/discourse 63 � NW Spell � NW Read � WE-Discourse Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia? 19
10/20/2016 8;9 Grade 3 Boy Sentence/Discourse Ability Example of isolated focus on Reading Fluency It was fine but there were many other Good listening comp problems & sentence formulation High in both? Low reading Not classic dyslexia decoding & fluency & spelling Sound/ Could say: Word Ability Dyslexia + Language Dis: Vocab High sound/word skills and surface Delayed Story Retell reading? Low in both? Social Comm Low comprehension in listening and reading? 7;10 Grade 2 Girl No preschool services Positive family history of reading problems Has an IEP with reading decoding and fluency goals LD as primary eligibility (Reading) No S/LI as secondary eligibility – Should there be? 20
10/20/2016 Teacher and Parent SLS for 7;10, Grade 2 Gen Ed Teacher SLS Parent SLS Grade 2 girl (age 7;10) 21
10/20/2016 7;10 Grade 2 Girl � Core subtests Sound/word 50 � Vocab Aware Sentence/discourse 71 � Phoneme Aw � NW Rep Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia? 7;10 Grade 2, Girl LD as primary eligibility Sentence/Discourse Ability (rdg). Also gets help in class (co-taught by special ed Good listening comp teacher and other & sentence formulation High in both? assignments read to Low reading her). decoding & fluency & spelling Sound/ Reading decoding and Word Ability fluency goals on IEP. High sound/word skills and surface reading? Should there be goals Low in both? Low comprehension related to oral in listening and reading? language? Written expression and spelling? 22
10/20/2016 Summary • Useful for screening individual or large groups of students across the school-ages • Minimal costs in teacher or student time and district money • Evidence supports predictive validity as shown by high sensitivity/specificity for teachers and good for parents • Good internal consistency and factor structure • Good intra-rater and test-retest reliability • Qualitatively important to collaborative planning 23
Recommend
More recommend
