WELCOME Webinar Housekeeping Document Download from the Handouts - - PDF document

10/20/2016 1

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

10/20/2016 2

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.

10/20/2016 3

Why do we need a screening tool? Why do we need a screening tool?

Limited Time Limited Resources

10/20/2016 4

cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00

Ways to Categorize Language Skills

Oral Written

cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00

Expressive Receptive

Ways to Categorize Language Skills

10/20/2016 5

Quadrant Model

Good listening comp + sentence formulation when talking Low reading decoding + fluency + spelling + word inflection when writing Average in both Low Reading + Low Oral Language High sound/word skills and surface reading Good Reading Decoding + Poor Comprehension

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/Word Ability Dyslexia (Spoken > Written) Specific Comprehension Deficit (Written > Spoken) Spoken + Written Disorder Normal Language (Written = Spoken)

(Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely, 2013)

D Word Recognition C Oral Language Comprehension R Reading Comprehension

Pattern of Dyslexia Listening comprehension > Reading comprehension (Badian, 1999; Stanovich, 1994)

Vocabulary Part of C

Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986) Simple View of Reading Redux (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012)

• N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016

10/20/2016 6

More information for Identifying Dyslexia Using TILLS

TILLS Screener and Assessment

10/20/2016 7

Contents of the Box TILLS Student Language Scale (SLS)

10/20/2016 8

Section One: 12-items

• Descriptive

statements

• 7 pt Likert-like scale
• Rate the student

“compared with

• ther students of the

same age”

• Items 1-8 linguistic
• Items 9-12 cognitive-

social

Results of EFA

10/20/2016 9

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
• f responses
• Prioritizes area of

concern

• Comparison across

informants may reveal themes

10/20/2016 10

Using the SLS-who can be an informant?

Using the SLS-how to administer

10/20/2016 11

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

10/20/2016 12

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**

10/20/2016 13

Purpose 1: Screening/Re-screening

May not have failed but concern-RtI? Monitor progress to RtI by re-screening

Purpose 1: Screening

Not Just for Early Elementary Grades Catts, Compton, Tomblin, & Bridges, 2012

10/20/2016 14

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

10/20/2016 15

Predictive Validity

Teachers

• Are 2 or more ratings <5?

High sensitivity 93% of 69 students with LLD identified accurately as having problems

Parents

• Are all (but 1) ratings >5?

High specificity 90% of 206 students with NL identified accurately as not having problems

• Are 2 or more ratings <5?

Good sensitivity 85% of 239 students with LLD identified accurately as having problems

• Are all (but 1) ratings >5?

Good specificity 83% of 1065 students with NL identified accurately as 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

NT Pearson r for Teachers NP Pearson r for Parents NS Pearson r for Students SLS items 3,4 (Sound/Word Items) with Sound/Word Composite on TILLS 330 .671** 1810 .595** 677 .299** SLS items 1,2,5-8 (Sent/Discourse Items) with Sentence/Discourse Composite on TILLS 322 .720** 1762 .570** 668 .302** SLS items 1-8 (Language/Literacy Factor) with Total TILLS 321 .752** 1749 .613** 663 .329** SLS items 9-12 (Cognitive/Social Factor) with Total TILLS 323 .536** 1762 .336** 677 .078* SLS items 1-12 (Total SLS) with Total TILLS 318 .725** 1736 .572** 652 .279** NT = Number of teachers in each analysis; NP = Number of parents in each analysis; NS = Number of students in each analysis; SLS = Student Language Scale; TILLS = Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills; ** p < .001, p < .05

10/20/2016 16

Reliability-12 item scale

Omega

• Teachers .96
• Parents .94
• Students .84

Coefficient Alpha

• Teachers .96
• Parents .93
• Students .84

Intra-rater Reliability

10/20/2016 17

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 21st %ile on Star Reading 77 SS, 6th %ile on WRMT Word Attack Should he be tested/identified?

10/20/2016 18

8;9 Grade 3 Boy

Parent SLS Teacher SLS

Student SLS

10/20/2016 19

Grade 3 boy (age 8;9) 8;9 Grade 3 Boy

• Core subtests

Vocab Aware NW Spell NW Read WE-Discourse Sound/word 53 Sentence/discourse 63

Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?

10/20/2016 20

8;9 Grade 3 Boy

Good listening comp & sentence formulation Low reading decoding & fluency & spelling High in both? Low in both? High sound/word skills and surface reading? Low comprehension in listening and reading?

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/ Word Ability Example of isolated focus

• n Reading Fluency

It was fine but there were many other problems Not classic dyslexia Could say: Dyslexia + Language Dis: Vocab Delayed Story Retell Social Comm

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?

10/20/2016 21

Teacher and Parent SLS for 7;10, Grade 2 Parent SLS Gen Ed Teacher SLS

Grade 2 girl (age 7;10)

10/20/2016 22

7;10 Grade 2 Girl

Sound/word 50 Sentence/discourse 71

• Core subtests

Vocab Aware Phoneme Aw NW Rep

Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?

7;10 Grade 2, Girl

Good listening comp & sentence formulation Low reading decoding & fluency & spelling High in both? Low in both? High sound/word skills and surface reading? Low comprehension in listening and reading?

Sentence/Discourse Ability Sound/ Word Ability

LD as primary eligibility (rdg). Also gets help in class (co-taught by special ed teacher and other assignments read to her). Reading decoding and fluency goals on IEP. Should there be goals related to oral language? Written expression and spelling?

10/20/2016 23

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