A Sample Literacy Solutions Evaluation
On this page is an actual literacy-skills evaluation performed and reported by Literacy Solutions. Identities have been changed to protect the privacy of the client.
Every evaluation performed by Literacy Solutions is as thorough and informative as the report below. Our aim is to give parents and educators what they need to help students realize their full reading and writing potentials.
The following report was created to supply necessary information to teaching professionals. It contains technical language and references that may be unfamiliar to the lay person. Literacy Solutions explains every part of an evaluation — in simple English, and in a relaxed and private setting — to the parent(s) or guardian of the evaluated student.
Literacy Solutions™, LLC
Shelley J. Lacey-Castelot, ATACP, MS Rdg.
10 Jensen Farm Road Suite 201
Oxford, CT 06478
Tel: 203-881-9191
Fax: 203-881-1160
| Name: Student Smith |
Parents: John and Mary
Smith |
|
School: Any School
| Address: Apple Road
|
| Grade: 4.0 |
Anytown, CT |
|
Date of Birth: xx-xx-xx | Date of Evaluation: 08-30-98
|
| Chronological Age: x-x |
Evaluator: Shelley J. Lacey-Castelot
|
Reason for Referral:
Mr. and Mrs. Smith brought Student to The Literacy
Center™ for a diagnostic evaluation of his learning
strengths and weaknesses. They are concerned with his poor
progress in reading and written language and with his academic
frustration. The Anyfamilys are seeking information regarding an
appropriate program for Student in reading and written language,
and help in dealing with his learning frustration.
Background History:
Student is beginning his fourth grade year at Any School in
Jonestown, Anystate. He currently receives Special Education
services for reading and spelling. The last reference in his
records regarding the amount of service he receives is in the
minutes of the March 30, 1998 PET. The minutes show that Student
was receiving 210 minutes weekly of special education service, no
speech and language therapy, no physical or occupational therapy
and that counseling was to be determined.
Student was in the Reading Recovery program in grade one.
According to parental report, in the referral for PET dated
November 19, 1996, Student seemed to do well in this program, but
lost ground after exiting the program and beginning grade two.
Student's parents requested testing in November of 1996. A
referral was made to the Pupil Evaluation Team on November 22,
1996. The records indicate that "Student is performing below
his peers in the area of reading".
An evaluation by Mr. John Doe in November, 1996 revealed that
Student had a learning disability. Student's cognitive
ability as measured by the WISC-III was in the superior range
(Performance Score: 113, Verbal Score: 123, Full Scale IQ: 121).
Student's achievement testing revealed the following scores:
Broad Reading: Standard Score = 86, Basic Reading = 85, Broad
Written Language = 95, Broad Math = 100, Broad Knowledge = 124.
Mr. Doe noted that Student shows a particularly outstanding
knowledge of science. He also noted that Student's behavior
is considered significantly inappropriate by his classroom
teacher.
A Speech-Language Evaluation report by Ms. Betty Smith in
December of 1996 found Student's speech and language
functioning to be in the average range, overall. Weaknesses were
noted in the areas of communicative performance specific to
pragmatic language functions, and receptive skills pertaining to
auditory processing of directions, word discrimination and
memory. Student often misunderstood words and reproduced them
incorrectly. Ms. Smith stated that it was her opinion that
Student did not present with a Central Auditory Processing
Disorder. There is no indication in her report that formal
screening for a Central Auditory Processing Disorder was done to
rule in or out the need to evaluate for a CAP-D. There is also no
indication in the records that Student has ever been formally
evaluated for a Central Auditory Processing Disorder.
On January 3, 1997 the Pupil Evaluation Team identified
Student as having a Learning Disability in reading. Although
there was also a measured significant discrepancy between his
math achievement and his full scale IQ (FS IQ = 121 – 100
math achievement = 21 SS points difference), Student was
not identified as a student with a learning disability in math
and Special Education services were not offered in math. Special
Education services were also not offered to Student in written
language, although there was a significant discrepancy between
his written language achievement and his Verbal IQ (V IQ = 123
– 95 written language achievement = 28 SS points
difference). Student’s strength in Broad Knowledge (SS=124)
was noted as a strength. There was clearly an enormous gap
between Student’s knowledge base and what he is able to
communicate in writing and what he is able to understand in
reading. It was noted that he also had difficulty controlling
anger when frustrated. The records indicate that Student would
receive Resource Service, which would be combined pullout and in
class service.
On January 23, 1997 Student was evaluated by Mr. John Smith.
Mr. Smith completed a psychological evaluation of Student. He
describes Student's performance on the WJ-R as being
indicative of a weakness in phonetic instructional analysis
skills. Mr. Smith described Student’s spelling as appearing
to reflect stronger phonological awareness than his reading.
Student's exceptional expressive verbal skills and verbal
reasoning abilities were cited. Mr. Smith's report notes a
marked discrepancy between Student's exceptional expressive
vocabulary and his low average sight vocabulary. The Conner's
Parent and Teacher Rating scales found some areas of clinical
significance. These areas included excessive self-blame, poor
academics, excessive sense of persecution, excessive resistance,
excessive anxiety and withdrawal, poor ego strength, poor
physical strength, poor coordination, poor attention, poor
impulse controlled, poor reality contact, excessive suffering,
poor anger control and excessive aggressiveness. A
neuropsychological evaluation was recommended for Student. A
Central Auditory Processing evaluation was suggested, along with
an audiometric evaluation. The report stated that Student might
benefit from a relatively structured and individualized academic
setting.
Minutes from the PET meeting of February 3, 1997 indicate that
Student was identified as a student with a learning disability
and as such, would begin to receive special education services.
The amount of time for which he would receive services is not
stated. Mr. Smith stated that he sees Student as truly dyslexic,
but in need of a neuropsychological evaluation. This PET meeting
was continued on February 11, 1997. Student's IEP was
finalized at this meeting. It included reading, spelling,
behavioral and pragmatic language goals. Goals in math and
written language were not established. It was noted that Student
has been participating in the gifted and talented program, and
that he has been much happier since the last PET meeting. It was
determined that Student would begin receiving one hundred fifty
minutes of special education services weekly.
On September 3, 1997 a goal was added to Student's IEP to
improve self-esteem regarding school.
Mr. Sam Jones completed a neuropsychological examination of
Student in April of 1997. The results confirmed that Student was
performing in the superior range of intellectual ability.
Deficits were found on measures of verbal memory and learning,
visuoperceptual ability, attention/concentration, and sensory
perception. Achievement testing found Student to be functioning
in the lower first grade level in word recognition and reading
comprehension and in the upper first grade level in spelling.
Math reasoning and computation skills were found to be at or
about grade level. Standard scores for these tests are not cited.
Based on the DSM 4, a diagnosis of Learning Disorders in Reading
and Written Language was made. An additional diagnosis of
Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly
Inattentive Type was made, based on DSM 4. Evidence of a mild
verbal memory problem and of a mild verbal learning problem was
seen. Evidence was also seen of organizational problems. Low
self-esteem and depression were linked to the academic stress.
One to one educational was recommended. Multimodal instruction,
chunking of instructions, positive reinforcement, side front
seating, hand cues, and extra time to complete testing
assignments were also recommended.
At the June 18, 1997 PET meeting Student's special
education teacher stated that Student had done very well with the
reading program. No standardized testing is cited. The minutes of
this meeting state that Dr. Smith recommended counseling for
Student but that, "everyone agreed that things are going
well and that counseling was not needed as a support services at
this time."
On October 8, 1997 a PET meeting was held. A new objective was
added for reading. A recommendation was made to slowly increase
service time in the resource room for Student. Additional
recommendations were to add a modification for Student to have
time-out, and to add to the plan that the parents would be called
if Student became upset enough to act out physically.
A PET meeting was held on December 4, 1997 to discuss
programming. The minutes state that Student's reading program
"is up to an hour three times per week and that on two days
he works for one half-hour." Progress was noted in
Student's program. The PET planned for Student's
counselor to observe Student in school.
On January 22, 1998 a PET meeting was held to discuss
programming. The team felt that Student's behavior had become
disruptive to his academic program. Student had been reacting
negatively to requests to follow directions, to perform writing
tasks and other academic tasks across the curriculum, and to
complete some assignments for which he was provided one-to-one
assistance (with a paraprofessional). Student's behavioral
program was modified as to time intervals and rewards.
An annual review meeting of the PET was held on March 30, 1998
to review Student's IEP. The minutes show that Student was
receiving 210 minutes weekly of special education service, no
speech and language therapy, no physical or occupational therapy
and that counseling was to be determined. These records indicate
that Student would take the CMTs in the fall. Annual goals were
written calling for an increase in Student's reading and
spelling skills by one year. A goal is included for Student to
increase his on task behavior at school. Student's Special
Education teacher, Cathy Smith, indicates that Student has made
excellent progress in the Wilson reading program and that the
Woodcock Reading mastery test places him at a 2.5 reading level.
No standard scores are included in the report of the minutes of
the meeting. The records do not indicate when and why
Student’s amount of Special Education services were
decreased (12/97, 240 minutes/week; 3/98, 210 minutes/week).
Test Observations:
Student is a highly verbal, imaginative young man who feels
that he is not successful in reading and writing tasks and who
reaches frustration fairly quickly. On tasks that Student found
easy, and at which he was successful, he worked quickly and
steadily. When attempting tasks that were difficult for him,
Student continued for a time to persevere, but when he realized
that he was not successful he quickly "shut down".
Auditory tasks frustrated Student more than any other task,
although the motoric component of writing was also quite
difficult for him.
During a break in testing, Student was observed to have great
difficulty tying the laces of his sneakers. The awkward grasp
that he used and the difficulty that he had coordinating the
movements required for tying his laces were quite discrepant with
his chronological age and his verbal abilities. The same degree
of difficulty with fine motor coordination was seen in
Student's pencil grip and in the way he manipulated his
pencil when writing.
Although Student did not always correctly understand the
directions that were given to him, he attempted to follow them as
he perceived them. Student appeared to have difficulty activating
and sustaining his attentional system. He had weak stamina for
task completion and a high level of motor activity. However, even
when Student was very attentive and his motor activity was not
interfering with his ability to focus, he had difficulty
processing auditory information.
Student demonstrated significant difficulty with sensory
stimuli. He displayed marked sensitivity to auditory input. When
observed carefully, a gradually escalating degree of agitation
could be seen as Student worked to overcome the irritation to his
auditory sense. When he reached sensory overload, Student tended
to jump up and bolt from the environment that was causing his
overload. It is important to note that this state of sensory
overload was reached irrespective of task difficulty, and was
highly correlated with sounds within the environment and with his
difficulty with auditory perception. Visual stimuli also seemed
to bother Student as well, although to a lesser degree. Not only
was Student easily distracted visually; he appeared to find
certain light and patterns quite difficult to tolerate.
Tests Administered:
Test of Written Language-3
Analysis of Informal Writing Samples
Evaluation of Writing Assisted by Technology
Woodcock Reading Mastery Test, Revised
Qualitative Reading Inventory
The Phonological Awareness Test
Non-Psychometric Phonological Processing Assessment
TEST RESULTS:
Test of Written Language-3: Scores are
reported with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3.
Spontaneous Writing Quotient is reported with a mean of 100 and a
standard deviation of 15. Grade level norms were used for
scoring.
Spontaneous Writing Sample:
| Subtests | Standard Score | Percentile |
| Contextual Conventions | 5 | 5 |
| Contextual Language | 4 | 2 |
| Story Construction | 6 | 9 |
| Spontaneous Writing Quotient | 2 | 70 |
Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery: Scores
are reported with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
Grade level norms were used for scoring.
| Clusters | Standard Score | Percentile |
| Broad Reading | 54 | 0.1 |
| Reading Skills | 63 | 1 |
| Subtests |
| Letter-Word Ident. | 57 | 2 |
| Word Attack | 72 | 3 |
| Passage Comprehension | 68 | 2 |
Qualitative Reading Inventory: Scores
are reported by grade level.
| Oral Reading
Instructional Level | Grade |
| Word Identification | 1.0 |
| Comprehension | 1.5 |
The Phonological Awareness Test: Scores are reported with a mean of
100 and a standard deviation of 15. Age level norms were
used.
| Subtests | Standard Score | Percentile |
| Rhyming | 97 | 30 |
| Segmentation | 79 | 8 |
| Isolation | 75 | 6 |
| Deletion | 52 | 1 |
| Substitution | 54 | 1 |
| Blending | 72 | 7 |
| Total Test | 53 | 1 |
Non-Psychometric Assessment
of Phonemic Blending Ability:
In this test, the individual is asked to repeat phonemes after
the examiner, then to blend the phonemes together and to close
upon the word. Student experienced more success in this venture,
most likely because it is a task that brings him from the
non-sense level (phonemes) to the real word level, and he is able
to draw upon his listening and speaking vocabulary to assist him.
Additionally, this test suggests that Student has somewhat more
difficulty with isolating and ordering phonemes than with
blending phonemes. Nevertheless, Student’s performance on
this assessment measure was not in the proficient range. He was
able to blend and correctly close upon only 3 of 7 words, all of
which contained only three individual sounds. Student was not
successful with any of the blending and closing tasks with words
that contained more than three sounds. With words consisting of
more than three sounds, Student tended to substitute sounds,
insert sounds, and incorrectly sequence sounds. These results are
consistent with Student’s performance on other standardized
measures of decoding, encoding and sight word reading given to
him by this examiner.
Boston Naming Test
Performance
Level: Grade 2
This subtest of the Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination
assesses an individual’s ability to name items presented in
picture format, with no cueing, or, if necessary, with a stimulus
cue and/or with a phonemic cue. It also notes any latency period
required by the examinee to retrieve the word. The ability to
successfully engage in rapid, automatic naming has been
positively correlated with reading achievement, particularly the
ability to develop a sight vocabulary.
Pronunciation errors were noted during this and other tasks,
some of which were also seen when analyzing Student’s
reading and writing errors, such as: sound insertions
(flixt/fixed, gunsp/gusp), sound omissions (pet/pecked,
tros/trucks), sound substitutions (thit/lish, goat, ghost/gusp),
and sound sequencing errors (sinirk/snirk, besik/because)
[TOWL-3; WDRB—Word Identification, Word Attack, Passage
Comprehension; QRI; Boston Naming; Phonological Awareness
Test].
Student also experienced a great deal of difficulty with word
retrieval and word labeling. He could often retrieve a label for
a similar, but incorrect, object, thus mislabeling the picture
(decoration/wreath, branch/asparagus). At other times, Student
would substitute a word from the same or a similar category
(calculator/compass, easel/tripod). Student would sometimes name
a picture with a word which sounded similar, but had an entirely
different meaning or which was not even a real word (flannigan/
pelican, muzzle/mug, ice clongs/tongs). At times, Student was
able to retrieve a part of the word he sought to name the
presented picture, but could not retrieve the other part of the
sought word correctly (horsefish/seahorse). Student also worked
to describe the object or its purpose when he could not come up
with the label (hang, rope/noose). There was a latency of up to
eight seconds while Student worked to find a word he wanted.
Almost without exception, Student was aware of his error, engaged
in circumlocutions in an attempt to describe the object which he
was trying to name, and was distressed and frustrated by his
inability to produce the name of the pictured object with which
he was clearly familiar.
In one instance, when shown the picture of a wreath, Student
was initially at a loss, but was clearly thinking and searching.
When given a phonemic cue, he responded, "regal". When
given a stimulus cue, Student first said, "decoration",
then said, "Christmas". He was ultimately able to label
this picture. In another example, Student demonstrated some
knowledge of the pictured object even while ultimately proving
unable to name the object. He was shown a picture of a noose. As
Student stared at the picture, deep in thought, he squirmed
around in his chair and squinted in an effort to enhance his
concentration. After the phonemic cue was given, Student said,
"knot", then immediately tried to self-correct and
said, "No; it’s to hang with—it’s a
rope.". He then angrily shook his head as he continued to
struggle to retrieve the correct label. He was ultimately
unsuccessful in naming the object.
In other instances Student was ultimately able to correctly
label the pictured object, after being given a cue. He was much
more successful with phonemic cues than with stimulus cues, which
is indicative of phonological processing difficulty.
These errors and behaviors are indicative of significant word
retrieval difficulties and may reflect inefficiencies in the
correct initial labeling and storing of words in memory. These
initial labeling weaknesses, and inefficiencies in moving labels
from short term memory to long term memory may be due to poor
auditory memory, phonological processing disorder, attentional
disorder, and/or a combination of all of these difficulties. This
weakness in word retrieval is in sharp contrast with
Student’s Verbal IQ of 123 and is clearly a source of
frustration for Student.
Reading:
Student needed to read out loud to afford him auditory
feedback. This bi-modal processing allowed Student to focus
better and it enhanced his self-monitoring ability. He also
performed better when he had the reading material in front of him
as he responded to questions about what he had read.
Student's reading comprehension is well below the average
range. Student used some good fix-up strategies to enhance his
comprehension of what he read. Given the severity of his reading
disability, this is somewhat surprising. Students often abandon
good reading strategies when they are unable to make them work
successfully. But when reading shorter cloze passages that only
required him to activate prior knowledge, Student often re-read
to enable him to profit from syntactic and semantic cues, made
self-corrections after these re-readings, and monitored for
meaning. He drew upon his background knowledge whenever possible.
However, his difficulty with word retrieval sometimes made it
difficult for him to come up with the word he sought for his
answer (WDRB, Passage Comprehension). When reading longer
passages (QRI) which required Student to gain new information
from what he read, hold it in short term memory while he
integrated the information with prior knowledge, and to make
inferences from this process, Student’s comprehension broke
down much more rapidly and significantly. He made few to no
self-corrections, indicating his difficulty with monitoring for
meaning in this type of reading activity. He made many more
meaning changing miscues when reading longer connected text.
Student's very poor performance on this particular reading
test is highly significant because this type of reading test is
very similar to school curricular tasks. These executive
functions of tracking and self-monitoring are strongly related to
attention. Since Student’s attentional system is clearly
compromised at the primary level (ADD/H), this is not surprising.
However, Student’s weak attentional system is further
compromised by his difficulty with phonological processing and
its impact upon his decoding and ability to build a sight
vocabulary. When Student is able to read the words, he
understands what he reads quite well. When he encounters an
unknown word, however, he has little word attack strategies on
board with which to help himself. His comprehension of what he
reads is severely compromised by his phonological processing
disorder and by his extremely weak sight vocabulary. It is really
only his broad base of background knowledge and his superior
thinking and reasoning abilities that enable Student to gain any
understanding from what he reads, and these strengths are not
enough to hold him afloat in the face of his reading
disability.
Student's sight vocabulary is very significantly below the
average range and his word attack skills are well below average.
Student’s limited sight vocabulary and his deficient
phonological processing ability significantly impaired his
ability to use his comprehension strategies, thereby depressing
his performance on the reading comprehension tests. When an
individual has a phonological processing disorder of such
magnitude as Student’s, it is very difficult for that
individual to develop a solid sight vocabulary. Perceptual
organization of words is so weak that the individual seldom
approaches and perceives a word in the same way, thus inhibiting
sight storage of a word.
Additionally, Student’s comprehension of what he reads
is impacted by several other factors. Student understands better
when he is able to read complete sentences, without having to
retrieve one specific word to complete the sentence correctly,
such as in a cloze procedure (WDRB). Student clearly needs the
complete sentence structure presented intact to him in order to
be able to utilize his comprehension strategies, so that his
specific language difficulties are compensated for. Student
clearly uses language to comprehend what he reads, but he needs
language in a completed format, with no deletions, in order to be
able to utilize it effectively. However, when there is too much
connected text presented to him on a page, Student’s
attentional weakness causes him to process the information from
the text in a splintered manner, often resulting in incorrect
assimilation of material from the text. Additionally, his
deficient sight vocabulary and his phonological processing
disorder also negatively impact on Student’s ability to
gain new information from text. Because of his weak auditory
memory, Student needs to be able to see and to hear what he reads
simultaneously.
In summary, when Student’s reading is not compromised by
his deficient sight vocabulary, weak phonological processing,
specific language and auditory deficits, and when he is able to
effectively utilize his strengths in language and background
knowledge, his comprehension of what he reads is quite good.
However his areas of deficit will continue to impact more and
more negatively on Student’s reading comprehension if not
therapeutically remediated. The discrepancy between
Student’s intellectual ability and his achievement in
reading is immense and can be seen to be widening as he grows
older. When tracking Student’s scores over time, his
negative growth is readily apparent. In November of 1996, his
Broad Reading score was 86. In April of 1997, he was found to be
reading on a low first grade level (no standard scores are
provided). In March of 1998, Student’s reading level is
cited as a 2.5 grade level (no standard scores are provided and
it is not clear whether this score is a Broad Reading score or a
subtest score). Current testing results establish his Broad
Reading score as a 54 (0.1%ile). Since grade equivalents are
quite unstable, one must look to standard scores to assess
Student’s reading progress over time. The drop in standard
scores in Broad Reading from 86 to 54 is immense (-31 SS) and is
not only indicative of lack of growth, it is indicatory of
significant regression in reading achievement. The discrepancy
between Student’s Verbal IQ and his reading achievement is
enormous (123 SS – 54 SS = 69 SS). It is highly unusual for
an individual to have a discrepancy of this magnitude. This
degree of divergence suggests that Student’s learning
disability is quite significant and that he is unable to benefit
from his current educational program. It would seem that marked
changes need to be made in Student’s program if he is to
narrow the gap between his superior potential and his deficient
achievement level in the language arts. Reading and writing
success are key to an individual’s success in the content
areas, particularly in the intermediate and upper grades.
Therefore, accommodations as well as educationally therapeutic
interventions will be needed for Student.
Phonological Processing:
Student demonstrated phonological awareness at the initial
letter level, and sometimes at the final letter level. There was
little to suggest that Student utilized strategies for analyzing,
or even attending to, the medial parts of words when he was
attempting to read words. When reading isolated phonemes, Student
experienced some spotty success, but when reading phonemes
imbedded in words, and words imbedded in connected text, he
rarely used his familiarity with these phonemes to help him
perceptually organize print. Student seemed unfamiliar with
common vowel chunks, and with some consonant blends. He had
difficulty hearing all of the sounds within words and ordering
sounds within words.
On the Phonological Awareness Test Student had the greatest
difficulty with isolating and manipulating phonemes, particularly
final phonemes. This task did not involve printed symbols, and
was assessed with and without manipulatives. When the task
demands increased from phonemic awareness (no print symbols) to
phonological processing (sound/symbol), Student’s struggle
increased. The visual anchor of letters can be helpful to
individuals with attentional weaknesses, but it was not helpful
to Student. This is consistent with the multiple facets of
Student’s learning difficulties. Student also struggled
with his confusion about the concepts of sounds/phonemes. This is
consistent with his performance on the other measures of reading
administered to him (WDRB, QRI, and Non-Psychometric Phonemic
Blending). Student demonstrated confusion with sounds,
particularly l, s/f, y/v (WDRB [Word Attack, Letter-Word
Identification] QRI, Boston Naming). For example, he said park
for part, sit for feet, yet for vent. When attempting to read
lish, Student said, "thi, chi…the l gets me all
confused." It was clear that Student knew the name of the
letter and the sound it makes, and it was equally clear that he
was struggling to help himself produce the sound that he sought.
This is consistent with his phonological processing difficulties
and is also indicative of his weak auditory memory.
Student was somewhat more successful with phonological tasks
when he was able to use colored blocks to represent the sounds
that he was manipulating. This visual anchor helped to focus him
and provided support for his phonological abilities. It is also
likely that this visual and tactile support enhanced his weak
auditory memory. This will be a good teaching medium for Student.
Clearly, his phonological ability is not yet developed enough to
function in words independent of these anchors.
In order to assess the impact of attention upon
Student’s learning difficulties, items on some subtests of
the WDRB were scored with and without prompting (Word Attack,
Letter-Word Identification). The difference in scores, (72/89,
57/78) is quite significant. Differences of this magnitude are
rarely seen except when attentional difficulties interfere.
Attentional difficulties compound Student’s primary
deficits in phonological processing.
Student’s spelling and reading were significant for
sound omissions; that is, for words written without all of the
sounds which are actually present being represented by a symbol
in the child’s writing of the word. Sound substitutions;
that is, hearing and representing a sound which is different than
the one which is actually in the word, were also evidenced in
Student’s reading and writing. Sound sequencing errors were
noted in Student’s reading and writing; that is, the
representation of sounds within words by symbols which are out of
the correct order. Additionally, sound insertions; that is,
hearing and representing a sound in a word which is not actually
present in the word, were evidenced in Student’s reading
and writing. These types of errors are often seen in individuals
with phonological processing disorders.
Student lacks the phonological ability to decode the elements
in the middle of a word. The result is a guess based on the onset
and sometimes the ending, or on general configuration.
Unfortunately, without appropriate , what happens to individuals
in this situation is that they become caught in a
self-perpetuating cycle. Because they lack proficiency in coding,
they guess at these word parts rather than read them, the
guessing prevents them from gaining proficiency in this area of
phonological awareness, which leads to more guessing, and the
cycle continues to backfire on itself. Without appropriate , the
negative impact on such an individual’s ability to
comprehend what he reads becomes greater and greater. After a
period of time, the individual’s ability to continue to
acquire a sight vocabulary becomes compromised as well, since
words beyond the two syllable length are much more difficult to
hold in visual memory without any real phonological processing
skill development. In Student’s case, his ability to
develop a sight vocabulary beyond the one phoneme length is
already significantly compromised, since he presently lacks the
phonological skills to decode the middle of words. His ability to
develop a writing vocabulary of words beyond the one phoneme
length is similarly compromised, for the same reason, since
encoding is simply another reflection of the phonological
processing system.
Typically, progress in writing lags behind progress in
reading, and the individual is able to recognize more words than
can be encoded. This is certainly true for Student. He sometimes
used good strategies to assist him in spelling in the one-to-one
setting. He whispered the word out loud slowly, attempting to
listen for the individual sounds within the words. However, his
efforts still did not always lead to correct responses. Student
seemed to have a partial visual image in memory for some common
sight words. He had difficulty remembering the middle and final
parts of these words, but was able to use his oral elongation of
the words to enable him to correctly produce the beginning sounds
in many cases, and the ending sounds in some cases. While
Student’s encoding attempts are not always correct
visually, beginning and some ending sounds are often represented
by appropriate alphabetic mapping symbols in short words. Because
of his partial visual memory of some words, Student knew that
these words had a middle part, but he was unable to use his
auditory ability to correctly identify and produce this part of
these words. Student’s phonological approximations in
writing were sometimes more accurate than in reading. This may be
facilitated by the physical act of writing. Writing slows down
the process of reading, thereby permitting improved attention to
the details of sound and print and facilitating one’s use
of the phonological code. However, when an individual is
struggling with the alphabetic code because many elements of it
are unknown, and/or known elements are not accessed in a fluent,
automatic manner, the attention diverted to coding depletes what
is for Student an already compromised attentional system. The
higher level functions of ideation and organization, and
reasoning with text, are consequently deprived of the needed
attention. In Student’s case, this becomes a vicious
circle, with lower level perceptual tasks leeching attention from
higher level tasks. With the degree of phonological processing
dysfunction Student is currently experiencing, it is extremely
difficult at this time for him to focus on creating a cohesive
piece of writing which is commensurate with his oral language, in
an unassisted writing task.
There is a tremendous discrepancy between Student’s
phonological processing ability and his intellectual potential,
especially when a comparison is made between his verbal potential
and his phonological processing achievement.
Student demonstrates a symptomatic pattern of errors which is
known to be associated with primary reading disorder. An error
analysis reveals a preponderance of sound insertions, sound
substitutions, sound sequencing errors, and sound omissions.
These symptoms are consistent with symptoms demonstrated by those
individuals who have the specific reading disorder known as
Dysphonetic Dyslexia. Dysphonetic Dyslexics can present with any
or all of the following auditory channel deficits: auditory
perception and discrimination deficits, auditory sequential
memory and recall deficits, difficulty with segmenting the spoken
word into its component phonemes and syllables, and difficulty
with blending phonemes into syllables and syllables into words.
Evidence of all of these auditory channel deficits is seen in
analysis of Student’s reading, writing and processing.
These deficits impair phonological processing and negatively
impact on decoding and encoding.
Individuals with the particular form of dyslexia known as
Dyseidetic Dyslexia can present with any or all of the following
visual channel deficits: visual gestalt perception, memory for
letters and whole words, visual discrimination, visual sequential
memory and recall, and visuospatial orientation. Evidence of all
of these visual channel deficits is seen in analysis of
Student’s reading, writing and processing. These deficits
impair the individual’s ability to develop a sight
vocabulary and a fund of fluent writing words, and to master
letter formation.
Mixed Dysphonetic-Dyseidetic dyslexics can be expected to have
a combination of component deficit functions in both the visual
and auditory channels. This certainly seems to be the case for
Student, and there is a strong family history of dyslexia (at
least four paternal cousins have been diagnosed with dyslexia).
However, this examiner believes that it would be best to reserve
a definitive diagnosis of Mixed Dysphonetic-Dyseidetic Dyslexia
until after a re-evaluation in approximately nine to twelve
months, when Student has had some specifically geared towards
remediating his phonological processing disorder, and when
further investigation of his attentional difficulties has been
completed, with possible pharmacological to assist attention.
This re-evaluation should take place after Student has been
assessed for a Central Auditory Processing Disorder, has had an
Occupational Therapy evaluation and has perhaps seen a
neurologist to rule out the existence of neurological syndromes.
If evaluation in nine to twelve months reveals the same
constellation of symptoms, consistent with Mixed
Dysphonetic-Dyseidetic Dyslexia in particular and with Dyslexia
in general (see section on Information Processing), it is likely
that the diagnosis is appropriate.
Written Language:
Graphomotor:
Student’s letter formation was quite laborious, as he
seemed to draw the letters rather than to form them fluently from
memory. Student is right hand dominant, and did not utilize an
efficient pencil grip. He employed a thumb wrap grip that proved
to be unstable for him. His letter formation was shaky and
disconnected. Student wrote holding his pencil 2perpendicular to
the page, which is indicative of his difficulty using the
appropriate muscles to stabilize his pencil while other muscles
move to form symbols. He wrote with his right hand, while his
left hand usually lay seemingly forgotten in his lap. Student did
not effectively utilize the left side of his page when writing.
He appeared to have difficulty crossing body mid-line. The
inter-word spacing in Student’s writing is quite
inconsistent, suggesting that there may be difficulties with
organizing on the page. In summary, Student appears to have weak
motor production, motor feedback and motor memory. The
graphomotor production component of Student’s writing is
significantly weak that the diagnosis of dysgraphia seems
appropriate to use when describing that component of
Student’s written language. This difficulty is compounded
when a phonological element is added to the writing requirements.
It is important to note that in other motor tasks that did not
involve writing, Student also had difficulty. He was observed to
have motor difficulties with non-writing tasks such as tying his
shoe, skipping, and catching a ball.
Ideation:
Student had no difficulty generating thoughts and ideas.
However, he frequently went off on tangents when trying to
compose, both orally and in writing. This is very likely
attributable to his superior verbal ability and to his
attentional difficulties. Student also had difficulty organizing
his ideas. Part of this difficulty is ascribed to his
overabundance of thoughts and ideas and to the random nature of
his thought generation (as opposed to a concrete, sequential
development of ideas). Another part of this difficulty is
directly related to Student’s weakness in phonological
processing and word retrieval. It was extraordinarily difficult
for Student to organize his ideas and then to capture them on
paper before they "evaporated". Minimal story thread or
development was seen in Student’s written stories. He often
had difficulty thinking of specific words that he wanted to use,
and when he could not retrieve these words, he tended to give up
the entire thought on which he was working. Student would then
switch to another idea that did not involve the target word. He
seemed to find this process taxing and gave up easily as his
cognitive disorganization increased. Student appears to have a
weak attentional system that he has trouble activating and
sustaining and this has a negative impact on his writing. Low
stamina and a disorganized cognitive approach to writing compound
this. The negative impact of Student’s phonological
processing disorder on his language processing at large is also
seen in his ideation in written language. Student’s written
ideation is negatively impacted by his phonological processing
disorder, his weak attentional system, his difficulty activating
and sustaining attention, his word retrieval difficulties, and
his difficulty with cognitive organization. There is an enormous
gap between Student’s intellectual ability and his
achievement in written language. While one should expect to see
this gap growing smaller over time with appropriate educational
therapy, Student’s scores in writing reflect an
ever-widening gap as his educational career progresses.
Organization: In light of the obstacles presented by
Student’s graphomotor weakness, cognitive organization
difficulties, attentional difficulties, phonological deficits,
and word retrieval weakness, it is not surprising that
Student’s writing lacked organization. He was reluctant to
put pencil to paper and was often frustrated by his difficulties
with putting his thoughts down on paper. Additionally, Student
seemed overwhelmed by the preponderance of thoughts in his oral
composition. When prompted to write a paragraph, Student wrote
down a few words and phrases.
In order to assess the language portion of the writing task as
an entity separate from the motor component, Student was given
the TOWL-3 writing prompt and asked to respond orally. When
Student struggled somewhat as well with this task, it was
apparent that language organization skills are weak, both in the
oral and the written mode. His other difficulties described above
most likely also contribute to this difficulty with generating
and organizing written expression.
Shared Writing Task:
With a more knowledgeable adult available to assist Student in
recognizing and utilizing what he knows, Student functions more
consistently in the proximal zone of his learning development,
and produces better quality work that he is more consistently
able to read. Much teaching can take place in this forum,
particularly in the areas of phonological processing, sequential
processing, delineation of ideas, and organization. However, this
is not a forum in which Student can build independence in his
writing, and should be reserved as a medium through which
learning can take place. Writing in this setting produced more
risk-taking behavior, probably because this examiner was able to
use Student’s "knowns" to enable his leaps into
the unknown.
Technologically Assisted Writing
Task:
An assessment of Student’s ability to profit from
technologically assisted reading and writing was done, to see if
this is something that can enable Student to benefit from
appropriate instruction. Student was shown how to use Co-Writer,
a word prediction software program. The sound was turned on to
enable Student to benefit from bi-modal presentation, and to
permit Student to have words in the prediction list read to him,
both of which factors are known to benefit disabled readers and
writers. It was in this forum that Student produced his most
successful writing. Phonological processing was enhanced, visual
recognition of words was enhanced, and motor weaknesses were
bypassed. Student was able to utilize his strengths and to
minimize his weaknesses with the Assistive Technology. He was
able to produce a significantly better writing product when he
utilized this Assistive Technology. The software also helped him
to activate and to sustain attention through its bi-modal
feedback and instant assistance in spelling. Student was easily
able to integrate the various aspects of the program and quickly
became independent in its use. Initially, Student used only the
middle finger of his right hand to type, and did not utilize the
left side of his body at all. With prompting, he began to use
both hands on the keyboard. Student became quite excited at his
ability to write independently and this appeared to enable him to
focus more efficiently and to tap into ideas with less
struggle.
Write Out Loud was another program that was tried with
Student. The bi-modal feedback enhanced his attention but because
no phonological assistance is built into the program, he still
struggled with the phonological aspect.
Inspiration is a software program that helps individuals with
idea generation and with organization of ideas. It is
particularly helpful to random thinkers such as Student who need
to take a "think it, write it" approach and to focus on
organization after idea generation. Student quickly became
proficient with this program as well and was quite excited that
he could generate and process ideas in a way that worked well for
him and allowed him to bypass word retrieval difficulties.
Student generated more specific ideas with this program than he
did even in the strictly oral mode. The program clearly assists
Student in overcoming his deficits in such a way that he is able
to utilize his strengths.
Information Processing:
Information processing is discussed within the sections on
reading and writing and will therefore only be briefly discussed
in this section. Student has a lag in his information processing
system, which may cause him to require additional processing
time. Student’s attentional difficulties also clearly
interfere with his ability to process information in an efficient
manner.
Student has phonological processing problems. The effects of
these phonological processing problems on Student’s reading
and writing are discussed above. Phonological processing problems
also interfere with aspects of information processing. Since
words are accessed through a phonological route, all mental
activity, which is facilitated through the phonological/language
route, is compromised. As such, phonological processing problems
contribute to breakdowns in working memory and the executive
functions of tracking and self-monitoring.
Dyslexia does also have social implications. Dyslexic
individuals often have trouble reading social cues and with being
sensitive to the facial expressions of those with whom they
engage in conversation. Student clearly, both historically and in
current testing situations, has difficulty reading social cues
and facial expressions. He fails to notice when his listener is
no longer interested in his stories and monologues. Student needs
training in reading social cues and in social interaction.
Student has a low tolerance for frustration and does not have
good self-help mechanisms on board. He has learned to act out to
avoid difficult tasks. However, sometimes his acting out is due
to sensory overload. Student needs to learn to be aware of when
he is having difficulty with sensory overload so that he can
calmly seek to remove himself from the provoking environment.
Environments for Student should have as little noise as possible,
soft lighting, and little intrusive touch, especially until
Sensory Defensiveness is ruled in or out, and if diagnosed,
treated. Additionally, Student is an "alpha" type
personality; one who needs to be in charge. It is helpful in
dealing with a child such as this to allow choices, any of which
would be acceptable to the individual offering the choices.
Student’s difficulties with auditory memory, auditory
discrimination, and auditory function are very likely related to
his probable diagnosis of dyslexia. It is important to note that
individuals with dyslexia also often have difficulty with
receptive and/or expressive language (as language processing at
large is often impacted), auditory discrimination, auditory
processing, word retrieval, mastery of rote memory learning, and
time lags in information processing, in addition to more obvious
weaknesses in phonological processing. Student certainly seems to
have difficulties in all of these areas (Expressive language
primarily in the written mode). While it is best to reserve a
definitive diagnosis until after re-evaluation, it is very
important for those who work with Student to understand that this
is a potential diagnosis for several reasons. First, if such a
definitive diagnosis is made, dyslexia is a disorder which
requires long term and highly specific . Second, dyslexia is
eminently treatable. Third, it is important to understand how all
of Student’s symptoms fit together, and how they
interactively impact on him both academically and socially.
Fourth, it is important to understand what residual symptoms one
might expect Student to exhibit after successful remediation so
that possible necessary compensatory strategies and
accommodations for later academic success can be understood.
Fifth, it needs to be understood that with appropriate
educational therapy and accommodations, Student has the ability
to be successful both socially and academically, particularly in
light of his superior intellectual ability.
Recommendations:
The following recommendations are respectfully made to the PET
on Student’s behalf:
- It is recommended that Student be certified to receive the
services of Recordings for the Blind and Dyslexic, a service for
print disordered individuals, so that his vocabulary and book
language may be extended. The use of these materials will improve
Student’s reading comprehension by giving him multi-modal
means of input when reading and will enable him to satisfy his
thirst for content information
- It would be helpful for Student to spend some time on oral
retellings of fiction and of informational text, and on composing
strictly in the oral mode. In this mode, a teacher can give
organizational prompts to Student, and a note-taker can place the
story pieces into graphic organizers, so that when Student
digresses from the story line or central focus of information, he
can be re-directed to the correct focus. Over time, Student can
be taught to use graphic organizers and computer organizer
programs to monitor his own organization of his re-tellings and
new creations. After Student achieves independence in the oral
mode with these skills, he can then begin to transfer the mastery
of these skills to the written mode.
- Written tasks should be reduced whenever possible, with the
focus being on quality rather than quantity at this point. This
should include:
- Reduction in length of written assignments
- Elimination of near-point and far-point copying tasks by
providing Student with his own copy of materials that other
students may be required to copy.
- When writing, it is recommended that Student employ a
verbally mediated approach to the task in order to take advantage
of his strengths. That is, he should be encouraged to take a
"say it, write it" approach. The talk part will help to
stimulate and organize his ideas.
- Student may require additional "wait time" to
process questions and to respond to them. Timed tests,
particularly of rote learning, are especially difficult for
Student. The time factor should be eliminated from these tests
for Student.
- Student needs to work on reading fluency drills because his
reading rate is slow for his age and grade level, and even for
his developmental reading level. In order to improve both his
reading and his writing, Student needs to improve his visual
scanning skills, which fluency drills also address. He would
benefit immensely from reading fluency drills that would train
his eyes to make more efficient sweeps and help with rapid
sequential visual processing. A packet of material is being sent
to the parents to share with the school. It is just one example
of a simple fluency drill system. This drill takes only minutes
each day, can be administered by a paraprofessional, and yields
excellent results.
- Student should be exempt from time constraints in timed math
fact quizzes.
- An updated evaluation of Student’s math achievement
needs to be done in order to assess whether Student needs
services in math at this time. Dyslexic individuals often have
difficulty with learning and retaining rote information (such as
math facts). Additionally, a reading disorder prevents the
individual from being able to read and understand word
problems.
- Individuals such as Student have an inherent lag in the
information processing system that often results in a slower rate
of information retrieval. Student may ultimately prove unable to
memorize all of his math facts, and may need to use a calculator
for homework and tests. However, creative, multi-sensory efforts,
utilizing mnemonic devices, should still be made to teach Student
his math facts, as at least partial mastery is necessary for
purposes of estimation.
- Assistive Technology should be provided to enable Student to
benefit from his instruction in written language and reading.
Presently, it is felt that Student is unable to benefit from
written language instruction because of encoding difficulties,
language difficulties, attentional difficulties, and graphomotor
weakness, which exhaust the attention Student needs to devote to
higher level writing skills such as organization, creativity,
etc. AT will free up attention depleted by the aforementioned and
will result in increased ability to devote that attention to
higher level writing skills, thereby enabling Student to benefit
from instruction in written language. It has been demonstrated
through this evaluation that Assistive Technology is of
tremendous benefit to Student. The following AT recommendations
are made on Student’s behalf:
- Software: Co-Writer word prediction software, Inspiration
software
- Hardware: Computer configured adequately to run the above
software programs, which are available in both Windows and
Macintosh platforms.
- a minimum of ten hours of training for Student in these
programs by an Assistive Technology Trainer
- Training for Student’s teachers and parents
- Availability of the Assistive Technology to Student both at
school and at home for homework
- Student needs to develop fluent decoding skills in order to
improve his reading rate. Student’s reading rate is
adversely affected by his struggle to determine what a word must
be. Student tends to rely heavily on his fund of background
knowledge, syntax, and semantics, and to give up on difficult
words that contain unknown chunks. Mnemonic memory devices and
systematic, multi-sensory phonetic instruction are important to
help individuals such as Student to successfully develop their
phonological processing abilities. Instruction dealing with
phonetics at the sound level, including the ordering of sounds
within words, is extremely important to individuals like Student.
Student would benefit from a program such as the Lindamood
Auditory Discrimination in Depth Program, which treats
phonological processing dysfunction.
- It is important that treatment for Student’s word
retrieval deficiencies take place. He is experiencing frustration
secondary to his word retrieval difficulties and this can be seen
in his academic functioning. It would also be helpful to provide
Student with extra wait time when questioning or conversing with
him. If Student is struggling to say or retrieve a word, a
phonemic cue may be given to trigger the recall of the target
word.
- Preferential seating away from distractions and near the
teacher should be provided.
- Large, multi-step tasks should be broken down into smaller,
more manageable chunks.
- Directions should be given in only single steps at this time.
Student should be asked to re-state the directions to be certain
that he has understood them.
- Speech and Language services should be added to
Student’s IEP to address his phonological processing
disorder, and to address his word retrieval, auditory memory, and
receptive language difficulties.
- Testing by an audiologist for Central Auditory Processing
Disorder should be done because of the extremity of
Student’s auditory processing difficulties. Although
recommended by Mr. Smith, no indication is given in the records
that evaluation for a CAP-D has ever been done.
- In order for Student to become a proficient writer who is
able to adequately express his thoughts and knowledge on paper,
two things need to happen. First, he needs appropriate treatment
for his phonological processing disorder. Second, his graphomotor
weaknesses need to be compensated for. When these two needs are
addressed, instruction in the higher level writing skills can be
successfully implemented and Student’s writing development
should begin to approach the level of his spoken language.
- Student needs to be evaluated by an Occupational Therapist to
ascertain appropriate for his fine motor difficulties. It would
also be helpful for an Occupational Therapist to evaluate Student
for Sensory Defensiveness.
- Student should follow-up with a medical professional to
explore possible pharmacological for his Attention Deficit
Disorder.
- One-to-one instruction by a certified Special Education
teacher will be important since the only time Student seemed to
grow was when he had one-to-one instruction in the Reading
Recovery program.
- Student should continue to participate in the Gifted and
Talented program in order to build his self-esteem and to expand
his strengths.
- Student should be exempt from timed, group standardized
testing, such as the CMTs, because his instructional level is far
below that which is tested and because it will not provide
accurate information about Student’s achievement.
- It may be helpful to have Student evaluated by a neurologist
in order to rule out any neurological syndromes.
Student clearly has multiple learning difficulties which need
to be appropriately and therapeutically addressed. When he was
seen informally in the summer of 1997, Student appeared extremely
withdrawn and depressed. He was nearly noncommunicative with
people around him. The following summer, Student appeared
happier, more extroverted, and engaged easily with his family and
others. Since there is some concern that much of Student’s
emotional difficulties stem from his academic struggles, it is
extremely important that Student receive appropriate educational
therapeutic so that healing may begin and so that Student may
experience an improvement in his self image and in his perception
of himself as an independently capable individual.
Please feel free to contact me at my office if I can be of any
further assistance to you in addressing Student’s needs or
clarifying and/or expanding upon the matters contained within
this report.
Respectfully submitted by
Shelley J. Lacey-Castelot, ATACP, MS Rdg
Educational Consultant and Evaluator
Literacy Solutions™, LLC
Accurate evaluation is key to skills development
©1998 This report may not be
reproduced in whole or in part
without the express written
permission of Literacy Solutions™
