[PDF] Identifying Math Learning Disabilities Using the Concordance

View - Download Identifying Math Learning Disabilities Using the Concordance

Previous PDF

Next PDF

10/18/2018

1

Identifying Math Learning Disabilities Using the

Concordance-Disorcordance Model (C-DM) for

Targeted Intervention

James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Professor of Educational Neuroscience (Ret)

Board-Certified Pediatric Neuropsychologist

Washington Licensed PsychologistWashington Certified School Psychologist

Certified Special Education Teacher (SLD/EBD)

Breakout Session Part II

Washington State Association of School Psychologists Annual Conference

Seattle, Washington

October 19, 2018

Sponsors and Affiliates:

Three Axes Interpretation

Left Hemisphere-Routinized/Detailed/Local

-Convergent/Concordant -Crystallized Abilities

Right Hemisphere

-Novel/Global/Coarse -Divergent/Discordant -Fluid Abilities

Anterior/Superior

-Executive Regulation and Supervision -Motor Output

Posterior

-Sensory Input -Comprehension

Inferior

-Executive Execution -Automaticity of

Action©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Three Axes Interpretation: Easy Model

Left Hemisphere

-OLD LEARNING -PARTS/DETAILS

Right Hemisphere

-NEW LEARNING -WHOLE/BIG PICTURE

Anterior/Superior

-GOING OUT -BRAIN BOSS/THINKING

Posterior

-GOING IN -UNDERSTANDING

Inferior

-AUTOMATIC/DOING ©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

10/18/2018

2

Three Axis Interpretation

Hale et al. (2018). Recognizing frontal-subcortical circuit dimensions in child and adolesecent psychopathology.

In J. N. Butcher (Ed), APA Handbook of Psychopathology, Washington, DC: APA Books.

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

The Brain on Math: Math Computation

Orthographic

Number-

Quantity

Association

Dorsal

Stream

Oculomotor-

tracking

Dorsolateral

Prefontal

Cortex

Direction (Left)

Spatial-Attention (Right)

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Math Fluency and Math Word Problems

Executive

(Dorsolateral

Prefrontal)

Other

Structures:

ALL Previous

Math

Computation

Structures

Language

Comprehension

Orthographic

Automaticity

Timing

Ventral

Stream

Retrieval SLF

Gave

Away =

Subtract

Gave Away Subtr act

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

10/18/2018

3 Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities in the United States: Definitions and Practices ȈDisorder of the basic psychological processes that adversely affects achievement

Defining Learning Disabilities

ȈDiscrepancy between 䇾ability䇿and 䇾achievement䇿 ȈFailure to respond to research-based intervention

ȈMay use other alternative research-based

procedures for determining specific learning disability (§300.8(c)(10) OSERS

Final Regulations, August, 2006)

Determining Learning Disabilities

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Learning Disabilities Association of America White Paper and Learning Disability Quarterly Publication

Learning Disability Quarterly, 33,223-236

The Learning Disabilities Association of America䇻s White Paper on Evaluation, Identification, and Eligibility Criteria for Students with Specific Learning Disabilities The background and reason for the White Paper became apparent when the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Statute was published in 2004. Members of the LDA Board of Directors were pleased that the definition of Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) remained intact. But when the Regulations were published in 2006, it was surprising to find that the SLD evaluation criteria and identification criteria were no longer aligned with the SLD definition in IDEA. Both of these criteria changed from taking the cognitive nature of SLD into consideration, to instead aligning IDEA with the regulations in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/NCLB) and putting the emphasis on identifying students who are not achieving adequate for the child䇻s age or the attainment of StateǦapproved gradeǦlevel standards, not abilities. In effect, the new criteria virtually eliminated a great many students with SLD, including some who have high academic achievement in some areas but markedly low achievement in other areas. In 2008 LDA partnered with a group of professionals who were also concerned that the cognitive nature of SLD was not given much, or in some cases, no consideration but rather was looked upon as a condition that is educational in nature. The idea for the White Paper grew out of this partnership of professionals and members of LDA and was presented at a Symposium held at the LDA International Conference held in

Baltimore, February 2010.

LDA White Paper, February 2010

valuation%20Criteria%20for%20SLD.pdf

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

© 2010 SAGE Publications

DOI: 10.1177/0734282910388598

http://jpa.sagepub.com Forest Grove School District v. T.A. Supreme Court Case:

Implications for School Psychology Practice

Shauna G. Dixon1, Eleazar C. Eusebio2, William J. Turton2, Peter W. D. Wright3and James B. Hale4

Abstract

The United States Supreme Court Position

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

10/18/2018

4

Multi-Tier Model of Service Delivery

Source: Hale, J. B. (2006). Implementing IDEA with a three-tier model that includes response to intervention and

cognitive assessment methods. School Psychology Forum: Research and Practice, 1, 16-27.

Tier 1:

85%

Served

Problem-Solving

RTI ApproachIndividualized Special

Education

Standard Protocol

Instruction

RTI Approach

Tier 2:

10%

Served

Tier 3:

5%

Served

Curriculum-Based

Measurement

Ongoing Progress Monitoring

Individualized Measurement

Single Subject Designs

Individualized Measurement

Single Subject Designs

Comprehensive

Cognitive

Hypothesis Testing

Evaluation

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Tier 1

Standardized RTI Approach

Responder?

YES Continue General

Education and

Progress Monitoring

NO Begin Tier 2

Problem-Solving

Model Intervention

Responder?

YES Return to Tier 1

General Education and

Progress Monitoring

NO, Consider Comprehensive

Evaluation and Cognitive

Hypothesis Testing Model

Tier 2

Problem Solving Model RTI Approach

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Tier 3: Cognitive Hypothesis Testing

Theory

Hypothesis

Data Collection

Interpretation

1. Presenting Problem

2.Intellectual/Cognitive Problem

3. Administer/Score Intelligence Test

4. Interpret Global Scores or Demands Analysis

5. Cognitive Strengths/Weaknesses

6. Choose Related Construct Test

7. Administer/Score Related Construct Test

8. Interpret Constructs/Compare

9. Intervention Consultation

10. Choose Plausible Intervention

11. Collect Objective Intervention Data

12. Determine Intervention Efficacy

13. Continue/Terminate/Modify

Comprehensive evaluation of cognitive, academic, and psychosocial functioning to assess processing strengths and weaknesseslinked to targeted child intervention

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

10/18/2018

5

The Cognitive Hypothesis Testing Model

Source: Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School Neuropsychology: A Practitioner䇻s Handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Theory

Hypothesis

Data Collection

Interpretation

1. Presenting Problem

Comprehensive Evaluation for Disability

Determination and Service Delivery

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

Clinical Interview: Developmental Issues

Genetics

Fertilization/gestation/birth

Developmental milestones

Illness, trauma, and recovery (records!)

Past and current physical status

Always check hearing, vision, motor,

somatosensory, eating, sleeping

Conduct thorough family and social history

(constellation, relationships, activities, discipline, family history)

Conduct thorough school and occupational

history (chronological, strengths, weaknesses, changes, include prior evaluations)

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

The Cognitive Hypothesis Testing Model

Source: Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School Neuropsychology: A Practitioner䇻s Handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Theory

Hypothesis

Data Collection

Interpretation

1. Presenting Problem

2.Intellectual/Cognitive Problem

3. Administer/Score Intelligence Test

4. Interpret IQ or Demands Analysis

5. Cognitive Strengths/Weaknesses

Comprehensive Evaluation for Disability

Determination and Service Delivery

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

10/18/2018

6

Conducting Assessment Observations

ȈPhysical appearance

ȈDeveloping rapport

ȈOpenness and Disclosure

ȈEye contact, affect, and mood regulation

ȈVerbal (receptive/expressive language)

ȈNonverbal (facial expressions, posture, gestures, mannerisms)

ȈVisual skills

ȈMotor skills

ȈHigher order thinking response

ȈAttention

ȈMemory

ȈExecutive function, such as working memory and self-regulation ȈFrustration tolerance, persistence, response to examiner intervention

ȈValidity statement

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

AssessmentsAlternative Assessments

Cognitive to

Achievement

Grid

Visual

-Spatial

LanguageWorking MemoryLong

-Term

Storage

-Retrieval Fluid

ReasoningProcessing

Speed

Phonological AwarenessSensory

-Motor

FunctionsAttention

Rapid Automatic

Naming

Orthographic ProcessingExecutive Functions

Basic Reading

Skills

Reading

Fluency

Reading

Comprehen-

sion Math

Calculation

Math Problem

Solving

Written

Expression

Meeting of the Minds: Start with CHC Interpretation!

Learning Disabilities Association of America 2012

WISC-V as a SCREENER of Cognitive Processes:

CHC is a Good Place to Start!

©James B. Hale, PhD, MEd, ABPdN

10/18/2018

7

Subtest

Convergent

Language

Crystallized

Memory

Spatial(RH)

Detail(LH)

Fluid

Reason

Attention-

Persist

Executive and

quotesdbs_dbs47.pdfusesText_47

[PDF] Math developper et factoriser une expression

[PDF] Math développer et recherche

[PDF] Math devoir 1

[PDF] math devoir 10 3éme cned

[PDF] Math devoir 10 Cned

[PDF] Math devoir 11 Urgent

[PDF] MATH DEVOIR 12

[PDF] math devoir 2 en 2nde cned

[PDF] Math devoir 3 1ère ES

[PDF] Math devoir 4eme

[PDF] math devoir 6 cned 3éme

[PDF] math devoir 6cned 3éme

[PDF] math devoir 7 cned

[PDF] math devoir 8 3éme cned

[PDF] math devoir a rendre demain