Essentials of Processing Assessment

By Milton J. Dehn

Step-by-step guidance and the latest research findings on the basics of processing assessment

Now in its Second Edition, Essentials of Processing Assessment provides critical information about this important aspect of cognitive functioning. This practical resource provides students and practitioners with the tools they need to accurately and efficiently assess an individual's ability to process information. As part of the Essentials of Psychological Assessment series, this book provides information mental health professionals need to practice knowledgeably, efficiently, and ethically in today's behavioral healthcare environment.

• Includes illustrative material, callout boxes highlighting key concepts, and "test yourself" question for gauging and reinforcing learning
• Update throughout to include four new chapters and a new companion CD-ROM that includes all worksheets and testing charts
• Packed with indispensable guidelines on organizing a processing assessment and interpreting results

Essentials of Processing Assessment, Second Edition, offers the best one-stop source of information to help students and practitioners identify processing strengths and weaknesses and plan appropriate interventions.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wiley
• Release date: Nov 13, 2013
• ISBN: 9781118417072

Book preview

One

Introduction and Overview

From 2011 to 2013, a unique gathering occurred at several state school psychology conferences, beginning in Oregon and then proceeding to New York, Texas, and California. These were followed by a similar gathering at the 2013 national conference of the Learning Disabilities Association of America. At each of these venues, several experts in learning disability assessment and identification came together for a summit and presentations. The experts represented the fields of school psychology, neuropsychology, and learning disabilities. Among them were Dawn Flanagan, Nancy Mather, Kevin McGrew, George McCloskey, Daniel Miller, Samuel Ortiz, Steven Feifer, Elaine Fletcher-Janzen, Milton Dehn, and James B. Hale. At each conference, these summits were dubbed The Meeting of the Minds.

These summits were the brainchild of James Hanson and Karen Apgar, school psychologists from Oregon who were working on developing and applying the Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) model to specific learning disability (SLD) identification in Oregon school districts. In their efforts to develop a contemporary, comprehensive, evidence-based approach, they sought input and feedback from nationally recognized experts. They were especially interested in identifying what the experts, each with his or her own model of SLD identification, agreed on. Initial discussions with a couple of the experts culminated in the summits, which were attended by several experts.

As the experts met, one of the topics of discussion was how the PSW model should be applied to processing assessment. The experts already agreed that psychological processes should be directly assessed during SLD evaluations (Hale et al., 2010). Much of the group's discussion focused on the challenges of assessing psychological processes, the application of PSW to psychological processes, and how psychological processing strengths and weaknesses should be used to identify SLD. The group also addressed general concerns about SLD identification and the ramifications of their recommendations. One concern was that written guidelines are often misconstrued and applied rigidly without professional judgment.

This author participated in the meeting held in California in October 2012. At that meeting, the minds generated several tentative position statements about SLD that the majority of them agreed on. The points of general consensus were as follows:

Neurologically based processing deficits underlie specific learning disabilities.

A student cannot have a learning disability without the presence of a processing deficit.

Some processes are highly correlated with academic skills. There is stronger evidence in some areas than others.

If there is a learning disability, academic weakness(es) should be related to the processing deficits.

A pattern of strengths and weaknesses in processing doesn't mean there is a learning disability. Clinical judgment, a comprehensive evaluation, and other sources of data must inform the diagnosis.

Students with SLD have cognitive strengths and cognitive weaknesses, but their overall functioning tends to be at or near the average range.

A weakness should be both normative and intra-individual.

A weakness should be statistically significant and unusual in the population.

Cultural and linguistic differences will impact student cognitive development and academic skills. A child cannot be considered to have a specific learning disability if culture and/or language are primary reasons for processing or academic weaknesses.

Environmental/economic disadvantage can cause neurobiological deficits, which may, in fact, result in a learning disability.

As this author participated in the California summit, he was impressed with the appreciation expressed by conference attendees for the experts' presentations. The attendees appeared to be eager for all the information they could gather, especially in regard to PSW and processing assessment. They welcomed all the guidance in SLD assessment that was available. For some, it may have been new information, but for many it appeared that they were familiar with the models and best practice advice but were still struggling with implementing and applying these practices. Given that many of the recommended practices are not new and that several books and many articles have been published on PSW, cognitive processes, and learning disability assessment, the demand for more information was somewhat surprising.

Consequently, the revision of Essentials of Processing Assessment seems very timely. As states continue to refine their SLD identification criteria and practitioners seek more guidance on PSW and processing assessment, an update is in order. In 2005, when Essentials of Processing Assessment was written, nearly everyone in the field of SLD identification was focused on how to design and implement response-to-intervention (RTI) programs and procedures for SLD identification using RTI data. With the demise of the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, many RTI-only advocates viewed any standardized testing of intelligence, cognitive abilities, or psychological processes as irrelevant. Some states even dropped their requirement of psychological processing assessment, despite the federal statutory definition of a learning disability as a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, spell, or do mathematical calculations (IDEIA 2004, § 602.30).

Don't Forget

An assessment of psychological processes should be included in every SLD evaluation, because Federal law (IDEIA, 2004) states The term ‘specific learning disability’ means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes.

All of the discussion and controversy surrounding SLD assessment may have been beneficial. It has prompted practitioners to seek new information and to question and closely examine their practices. For example, practitioners seem more concerned with how to collect and utilize relevant assessment data in their decision-making processes. Practitioners also seem more interested than ever in understanding learning disabilities and finding evidence-based interventions for learning disabilities.

At the same time, developments in psychological measurement and an expanding research base have addressed some of the practitioners' interests and questions. For instance, many school psychologists have joined the growing specialty of school neuropsychology (Miller, 2010). Supporting this interest are new assessment tools for child neuropsychological assessment and such important psychological processes as executive functions. The interests have also been reinforced with neuroscience and neuropsychology research, which has led to an increased understanding of how the brain functions during learning and memory (e.g., Berninger & Richards, 2002). For example, neuroimaging has allowed us to actually see how the brain of a child with dyslexia functions differently (Shaywitz, 2003). Moreover, just in the last few years, new interventions for brain-based learning problems have been developed and supported. For example, one neuroimaging study (Tageuchi et al., 2010) was able to measure growth in the brain as a result of working memory training.

Changes to Essentials of Processing Assessment

The second edition of Essentials of Processing Assessment will attempt to incorporate many of the important developments and much of the relevant research that has occurred since 2005. Substantial revisions have been made to all of the original chapters, and new chapters have been written on the Neuroanatomy of Psychological Processes, the Children's Psychological Processes Scale (CPPS), Assessing Memory, and Evidence-Based Interventions for Processing Deficits. A CD-ROM with additional information, tables, assessment forms, and an Excel program for analyzing test scores has also been added. The change with the most impact on the structure of the book and the recommended assessment practices may be the formulation of a theory of psychological processing that accounts for the relations between psychological processes and learning. Other changes and additions include the following:

Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview

How psychological processes can be distinguished from intelligence, cognitive abilities, cognitive processes, and skills

An overview of theories related to psychological processing

An overview of several specific learning disability identification models

Introduction of a psychological processing and learning theory

An Integrated SLD Identification Model

Chapter 2: Psychological Processes and Learning

The addition of fine motor processing and oral language processes

A more in-depth discussion of working memory and long-term recall

Update on processing aptitude-achievement relations research

A table that summarizes relations between processes and specific academic skills

Discussion on the interrelationships among psychological processes

How the identification of processing deficits contributes to SLD identification

Chapter 3: The Neuroanatomy of Psychological Processes (new chapter)

A basic review of the brain structures that are associated with psychological process

In-depth discussion of brain structures associated with working memory and long-term recall

Chapter 4: Strategies for Assessing Processing

New items for student, parent, and teacher interviews

New observation items

Updated tables that classify composites and subtests by process

Chapter 5: Assessing Processing With Cognitive Scales

Identifies subtests and composites on cognitive scales that measure specific processes

Updates of specific tests, especially those that have been recently revised or published

Chapter 6: Assessing Memory (new chapter)

Procedures for assessing working memory and long-term memory processes

Detailed guidance for interviews, observations, history, and classroom data

Tables that classify composites and subtests by memory processes

Completed examples of memory assessment planners

Details on use and interpretation of primary memory batteries

Chapter 7: The Children's Psychological Processes Scale (CPPS; new chapter)

An overview of this new teacher rating scale, including information on its structure, reliability, and validity

Administration, interpretation, applications, and an illustrative case study

Chapter 8: Using Scales Designed to Assess Processing

Updates of specific test information, especially for recently revised or published tests

Chapter 9: Analyzing Test Results and Determining SLD

Changes in recommended procedures for cross-battery analysis

Using confidence intervals to test for significant differences

How to examine processing clusters

Recommendations for SLD identification

How to assess the impact of aptitude sets

An overview of the Psychological Processing Analyzer

Guideline for writing a processing report

Chapter 10: Evidence-Based Interventions for Psychological Processing Deficits (new chapter)

Concerns regarding processing interventions

Different types of interventions

Selecting and designing processing interventions

How to set goals and monitor progress

Details on interventions for each process

Chapter 11: Illustrative Case Study

In-depth analysis of a case study that includes processing interventions

Definitions of Psychological Processes and Learning

Psychological processes are mental (neuropsychological) operations that perceive, transform, manipulate, store, retrieve, and express information (Gagne, 1993). Psychological processes range from basic perceptual processes, such as recognizing distinct sounds or perceiving visual details, to higher-level cognitive processes that contribute to language and reasoning performance. It would be very difficult to identify all of the specific neurological processes that contribute to a cognitive operation, to learning, or to performance of a skill. It would be equally difficult to parse out the relative contribution of each process. Multiple processes underlie performance on any given task (see Chapter 2), and any identified process can be decomposed into more specific components and operations. The complexity of psychological processing makes it difficult to identify discrete processes. Thus, the psychological processing constructs selected for assessment in the psychological processing assessment model presented in this book are groupings or aggregates of specific processes, rather than discrete, isolated processes (see Rapid Reference 1.1). These psychological processes should be thought of as broad processes. (Definitions of the selected processes are in Chapter 2.)

The list of psychological processes certainly could be much longer than that presented in Rapid Reference 1.1, because nearly every brain function could be described as a psychological process. However, this book is about the relationships between psychological processes and academic learning. Consequently, the selections have been limited to those cognitive processes that have strong evidence-based relations with the acquisition of specific academic skills.

Rapid Reference 1.1 Psychological Processes that are Highly Related to Academic Skills

Attention

Auditory Processing

Executive Functions

Fine-Motor Processing

Fluid Reasoning

Long-Term Recall

Oral Language Processing

Phonological Processing

Processing Speed

Visual-Spatial Processing

Working Memory

Psychological Processes and Cognitive Processes

The psychological processes that are the focus of this book are primarily cognitive processes. A cognitive process is another broad construct that applies to all forms of knowing and awareness. The essence of cognitive processing or cognition is thinking, reasoning, learning, and remembering, but it also includes basic processes, such as perception. Cognitive processes might be considered a subset of psychological processes. For example, psychological processes include brain functions that generally are not considered as cognitive processes, such as sensory, motor, and social-emotional functioning. Although the processes that are the focus of this book are primarily cognitive, and some experts use the terms interchangeably (e.g., Naglieri, 2011), they are primarily referred to as psychological processes, because it is the more commonly used term in education and legislation pertaining to SLD identification.

Don't Forget

The psychological processes that are the focus of this book are primarily cognitive processes. Thus, when the term cognitive processes is used in this book, it refers to the subset of psychological processes that involve cognition.

Psychological Processes and Cognitive Abilities

Cognitive abilities might be thought of as a combination of innate mental capacities and acquired knowledge and skills. For example, quantitative reasoning is a cognitive ability that is composed of some innate functions, such as the capacity to understand relative differences in quantity, to apply logic, and to creatively solve problems, coupled with mathematics concepts and procedures that have been acquired through experience and learning. The level of performance in skills such as arithmetic is partially determined by the developed level of the abilities they depend on. For that reason, abilities are typically viewed as indicators of potential or capacity. The functioning and demonstration of abilities, which tend to be broad, is dependent on underlying cognitive processes, which are relatively more specific and discrete, working in an interrelated fashion. Given this distinction, mental features such as processing speed and auditory processing should not be considered abilities but basic psychological processes.

Psychological Processes and Intelligence

The traditional approach to measuring cognitive abilities and learning potential has been to use intelligence tests. Although intelligence constructs have many definitions, including some that are very similar to cognitive processes, intellectual constructs have primarily involved broad abilities, such as verbal intelligence. In contrast, processing assessment tends to focus more on specific abilities (or processes), such as auditory processing. Furthermore, the construct and measurement of intelligence historically have focused on the products or content of cognition, not the processes of cognition (Miller, 1999). For example, until recently about 50% of what intelligence tests measured was verbal ability or acquired knowledge, which is usually classified as crystallized intelligence. Although the acquisition and retrieval of crystallized intelligence requires processing, it is mainly the content of crystallized intelligence that is being tapped by intellectual tests. The level of crystallized intelligence is undeniably a strong indication of intellectual functioning, academic achievement, and underlying neuropsychological processing, but it is not a process per se. From crystallized intelligence scores, one can only infer what processing levels might be. Processing assessment attempts to measure cognitive processes more directly than intellectual assessment does.

From another perspective, psychological processing is what underlies intelligence. To acquire and demonstrate intellectual abilities, psychological processes must be intact and at an adequate threshold. Thus, processing and intelligence have an integral relationship, which is perhaps best conceptualized by Sternberg (1997). In Sternberg's theory, there are three basic kinds of processing components: (1) metacomponents (higher order executive processes), (2) performance components (lower order processes that process information under the supervision of the metacomponents), and (3) knowledge-acquisition components (the processes involved in acquiring knowledge). Such processes underlie intellectual performance and are the essence of learning. Intelligence, processing, and learning are all interrelated; for example, the development of general intelligence, especially crystallized intelligence, depends on learning.

Psychological Processes and Skills

The application of psychological processes in a learning environment leads to the acquisition of knowledge and skills and allows the effective performance of acquired skills. Skills involve the acquired ability to perform procedures. Skills develop as a result of instruction, training, study, and practice. Similar to the distinction between crystallized intelligence and processing, skills, such as academic skills, are not psychological or cognitive processes but the product of such processes. Consequently, tests that purport to measure psychological processes should be relatively free of academic content and procedures. For example, using a test of arithmetic skills to measure working memory can result in an invalid working memory score, especially when the examinee lacks arithmetic skills.

Psychological Processes and Learning

Human learning is the acquisition of knowledge and skills. Learning depends on the integration of many cognitive processes operating in parallel fashion in the brain. Although processing is required for all types of learning, learning in this text refers to the acquisition of reading, mathematics, language, and writing skills, as well as academic knowledge, such as science and social studies. The general learning cycle involves taking in selected information through one or more senses, manipulating that information in working memory, encoding the information into long-term storage, and retrieving the information to produce an expression or response. The most effective learners are those who actively influence the cognitive processes that are necessary for effective learning. Most processing does not enter awareness or require directed efforts for its functioning, but active, conscious control of learning processes seems to facilitate and enhance most academic learning. For instance, one must consciously manipulate information in order to study effectively for a course examination. The importance of different types of processes varies, depending on the type of learning. For example, the processes that correlate the highest with learning mathematics are different from those that correlate the highest with learning to read.

Theories Related to Psychological Processing

Information Processing Theory

In the 1960s, cognitive psychologists introduced a theory of mental processing and learning known as information processing theory (Neisser, 1967). Since then, research has found extensive support for the construct of information processing (Anderson, 1990; Gagne, 1993). The research spawned by the theory has increased our understanding of how humans learn and has influenced the development of processing assessment scales and the inclusion of processing measures in existing cognitive tests.

The information processing model uses the computer as a metaphor for human mental processing (Gagne, 1993). The model describes how information flows and is processed from environmental input to output back into the environment. The general model includes the main components of receptors (the senses), immediate memory, working memory, long-term memory, effectors (glands and muscles that produce a response), and control processes (see Figure 1.1). The main processes are selective perception, encoding, storage, retrieval, response organization, and control, with an emphasis on memory systems.

Figure 1.1 Components and Flow of Information in the Information Processing Model

Source: Essentials of Processing Assessment by Milton J. Dehn, 2006, Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Reprinted with permission of John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Cognitive psychology's model of information processing classifies knowledge into two main types—declarative and procedural (Gagne, 1993). Declarative knowledge is factual knowledge, such as knowing about something. Procedural knowledge is knowing how to do something. The two types of knowledge are stored differently in long-term memory. The facts and ideas of declarative knowledge are typically stored in organized, hierarchical networks in which related ideas are interconnected and stored together. Declarative knowledge can also be stored in the form of visual images and linear orderings. An integrated unit of declarative memory storage that incorporates facts, images, and linear orderings is referred to as a schema. In contrast, procedural knowledge is thought to be stored in a series of if-then contingencies referred to as production system. The if part contains the rules that apply, and the then part contains the actions to be carried out. With practice, the procedures become automated and require little conscious processing or control to implement.

As neuroscience research increased, information processing theory receded into the background. From the beginning, psychologists and educators criticized and questioned the model and its learning implications. In general, the model seemed too linear and too static, failing to reflect the complex, integrated, parallel processing taking place in the brain. Furthermore, the model did not seem to adequately explain all of the primary processes, such as phonological processing, involved in academic learning.

Lurian and PASS Theories

Luria (1970) proposed a theory of brain organization and processing that divides the brain into three functional units or blocks. The first functional unit is responsible for arousal and attention and is located in the brainstem. In Lurian theory, attention is defined as the ability to selectively focus cognitive activity toward a stimulus over a period of time without being distracted by other competing stimuli (Naglieri, 2011). The second functional unit serves as the primary intake of information, the processing of that information, and the association of that information with acquired knowledge (Kemp, Kirk, & Korkman, 2001). The second functional unit—located in the occipital, parietal, and temporal lobes—receives and processes visual, auditory, and other sensory information.

The main types of processing in the second unit consist of simultaneous processing and successive processing. Simultaneous processing is a mental process by which the individual integrates separate stimuli into a single whole or group (Luria, 1970). Successive processing is a mental process by which the individual integrates stimuli into a specific serial order that forms a chainlike progression (Naglieri & Das, 1997). The third functional unit—located in the frontal region of the brain—regulates the executive functions of planning, monitoring, and strategizing needed for efficient problem solving. Luria viewed these units and processes as part of an interdependent system. For example, the third functional unit is affected by the attentional/arousal function in the first unit while regulating processing in the second unit. Given the proper state of arousal and attention, the planning, simultaneous, and successive processes interact to acquire knowledge.

The original Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (KABC; Kaufman & Kaufman, 1983) was based on Luria's theory but only included measures of sequential and simultaneous processing. The 2004 revision of the KABC (KABC-II; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) added two more processing scales—planning and learning. The authors built the KABC-II on a dual theoretical framework, basing the scales on both Luria's neuropsychological theory and on psychometric CHC theory (discussed in the next section). The Kaufmans equated the Lurian processes with broad cognitive processes from CHC theory as follows: sequential processing with short-term memory; simultaneous processing with visual processing; planning with fluid reasoning; and learning with long-term retrieval (see Chapter 5 for more information on the KABC-II).

Rapid Reference 1.2 Cognitive Processes in PASS Theory

Planning

Attention

Simultaneous Processing

Successive Processing

Naglieri and Das (1997) based another cognitive theory and assessment scale on Luria's processing theory. From the work of Luria and the influences of cognitive psychology and neuropsychology, the planning, attention, simultaneous, and successive theory emerged and became known as PASS theory (see Rapid Reference 1.2). Naglieri and Das (1997) operationalized PASS theory in the form of the Cognitive Assessment System (CAS), a test of cognitive processes (see Chapter 5 for more information on the CAS-II).

PASS theory and the tests that measure its components have been shown to have diagnostic validity in regard to specific learning disabilities. Naglieri (2005) reviewed several studies and concluded that children with reading decoding problems obtain low successive processing scores. Other studies (e.g., Naglieri & Johnson, 2000) have found low planning ability to be related to mathematics learning and performance difficulties.

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Theory

Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) theory is a contemporary theory of intelligence and human cognitive abilities. CHC theory posits a trilevel hierarchical model, with g, or general intelligence, at the top, 10 broad abilities at the middle level, and approximately 70 narrow abilities at the lowest level (McGrew & Woodcock, 2001). CHC theory is the consolidation of two theories of intelligence—Carroll's and Horn-Cattell's. Raymond Cattell identified the theory's first two types of intelligence—fluid and crystallized—in the 1940s. Fluid intelligence is the ability to reason, form concepts, and solve problems that often include novel content or procedures. Crystallized intelligence is the breadth and depth of knowledge, including verbal ability. John Horn and others went on to find support for several more types of intelligence, expanding the theory to eight or nine broad factors (Horn & Blankson, 2005). In the late 1980s, John B. Carroll (1993) completed a meta-analysis of more than 400 well-designed studies of intelligence conducted in the 20th century. Carroll's factor analytic model turned out to be a close match with Horn-Cattell theory. Thus, in the late 1990s, Horn and Carroll agreed to integrate their theories. Since then, the theory has gained wide acceptance and influence.

CHC theory is applicable to processing assessment, because most of the broad abilities identified by the theory (see Rapid Reference 1.3) can also be considered cognitive processes. The CHC cognitive processes that are included under the assessment model in this book are visual processing, auditory processing, long-term storage and retrieval, fluid intelligence, short-term memory (working memory), and processing speed. Crystallized intelligence, quantitative knowledge, and reading and writing ability are broad cognitive abilities, but they are not considered types of processing in the model proposed herein. Crystallized intelligence and quantitative knowledge are more the products of processing and learning, rather than direct processes. Reading and writing ability are too closely associated with those respective academic skills to be considered psychological processes. Decision/Reaction Time/Speed is also a type of processing, but it is not included in this book's assessment model because of limited research on its relations with academic learning.

Rapid Reference 1.3 CHC Broad Abilities

Fluid Intelligence*

Quantitative Intelligence

Crystallized Intelligence

Reading and Writing

Short-Term Memory*

Visual Processing*

Auditory Processing*

Long-Term Storage and Retrieval*

Processing Speed*

Decision/Reaction Time/Speed

* Processes incorporated into this text's processing model

CHC theory has been operationalized in several cognitive abilities test batteries. The Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001b) is based on CHC theory (see Chapter 6 for more information on the WJ III), as is the Stanford-Binet V (Roid, 2003). As noted in the previous section, the KABC-II (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004) is based on both the CHC and Luria theories. The cross-battery assessment model (Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013) uses CHC theory as a framework for classifying the subtests and factors from all existing intellectual and cognitive scales, including the traditional Wechsler scales.

School Neuropsychological Conceptual Model

Miller (2013) has recently integrated CHC clusters with neuropsychological processes in what he refers to as the School Neuropsychological Conceptual Model. In this model, Miller attempts to identify the underlying neuropsychological constructs measured by the CHC broad abilities. The neuropsychological processes included in his analysis are sensorimotor functions, attentional processes, visual-spatial processes, language functions, learning and memory, executive functions, and speed and efficiency. Sensorimotor functions are distinguished from cognitive processes; they are considered basic building blocks for higher order cognitive processes. In the basic cognitive processes category, Miller includes visuospatial, auditory/phonological, executive functions, and learning and memory. Recently, he classified attention, working memory, and processing speed as facilitators/inhibitors, arguing that these three processes do not work in isolation but rather permeate almost every other cognitive process and function.

Specific Learning Disability Identification Models

Specific learning disability (SLD) identification is guided by federal and state legislation and guidelines. IDEIA 2004 and the federal regulations that followed in 2006 allow states to apply one of three SLD identification models: (1) the traditional ability-achievement severe discrepancy approach; (2) response-to-intervention (RTI); and (3) alternative research-based procedures. Allowing these options has resulted in considerable variability across states. Zirkel and Thomas (2010) completed a survey of all U.S. states and discovered that the ability-achievement severe discrepancy approach remains an option in the vast majority of states. They also found that 12 states require an RTI approach and that 20 states permit a research-based alternative method of identification. In most states, local school districts can choose from the options offered by state education agencies. Despite the inconsistencies across SLD identification practices, all state and local educational agencies require (as does IDEIA 2004) a significant learning deficit in at least one of eight specific types of learning, involving reading, mathematics, written language, or oral language. Some agencies determine these achievement deficits through standardized testing, whereas others do so through RTI procedures.

Since the introduction of RTI there has been controversy surrounding its use as a stand-alone method of SLD identification. The controversy stems from the belief that a failure to respond to intervention is not adequate proof of a disability. Moreover, federal regulations require the use of technically sound instruments that may assess the relative contribution of cognitive and behavior factors (34 CFR § 300.304[b][3]). RTI methodology and the controversies about RTI as a method of SLD determination are beyond the scope of this book. For a primer on RTI, the reader is referred to VanDerHeyden and Burns (2010).

Many states that have implemented RTI do not specifically require assessment and identification of psychological processing disorders. Among the states that do require identification of a psychological processing disorder, the extent of guidance provided varies. It appears that, more often than not, local educational agencies and individual practitioners must establish their own procedures for determining the presence of a processing disorder, as well as how to use processing scores for SLD identification.

SLD identification models, as they relate to processing assessment, are discussed in the following sections. For complete descriptions of these models that go beyond the psychological processes component, the reader is referred to chapters in the edited work by Flanagan and Alfonso (2011).

Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses

The third option allowed under 2006 federal regulations is the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining SLD. Some experts (e.g., Flanagan & Alfonso, 2011) in the field of learning disability identification have interpreted this option as allowing the use of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses (PSW) in SLD determination. The practice involves using assessment data to document a PSW in academic achievement, cognitive abilities, or neuropsychological processes. The existence of a PSW is considered evidence for the diagnosis of a learning disability.

PSW applied to neuropsychological processing is based on the assumption that a neurologically based processing weakness underlies or even causes difficulties in academic learning (Fletcher, Taylor, Levin, & Satz, 1995; Hale & Fiorello, 2004). These process deficits result in an uneven pattern of learning that is not explained by other causes, such as inadequate learning opportunities. Similarly, when SLD exists, there should be a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses because not all psychological processes will be deficient. The occurrence of significant intra-individual weaknesses in a child who displays otherwise normal learning aptitudes is viewed as an indication of an SLD. However, only deficient processes that have significant, research-based relations with the deficient areas of academic learning are considered evidence of an SLD. For example, phonological processing has a strong relationship with basic reading skills but a nonsignificant relationship with mathematics problem solving. Consequently, a deficit in phonological processing would support the diagnosis of SLD in deficient basic reading skills but not in deficient mathematics problem solving.

There are several variations in exactly how PSW can be applied to analyzing processing strengths and weaknesses and to SLD identification. All of the identification models discussed in this chapter include some variation of PSW. The assessment and SLD identification practices recommended in this book also incorporate PSW procedures.

Don't Forget

In the PSW model, a pattern of processing strengths and weaknesses is considered evidence of SLD, especially when the deficient process(es) and the deficient academic skill(s) have strong research-based relations.

The Discrepancy-Consistency Approach

Naglieri (1999) is one of the original advocates of the discrepancy-consistency approach. Although Naglieri applies this approach with psychological tests based on the PASS theory (Naglieri & Das, 1997), it can be used with any set of standardized test data. The essence of the discrepancy-consistency approach is that there needs to be consistency between low psychological processing scores and low academic achievement scores. This approach is in contrast to the IQ-achievement discrepancy model, in which a high or average IQ was required to be discrepant from a significantly lower achievement score. Naglieri's (2011) current model also includes the requirements that the child must have significant intra-individual differences among psychological process scores (similar to the PSW model), the lowest processing score should be substantially below average, there is a discrepancy among achievement scores, and there is a significant difference between average processing scores (the strengths) and the achievement deficit(s). Thus, the discrepancies in this model refer to within-person discrepancies between relatively high and low processes and also discrepancies between the high or average processes (the strengths) and the low areas of achievement. However, the critical and unique component of the model is that there be consistency between low processing scores and low achievement scores (the other components are shared with the PSW model). Consequently, in this book the model will be referred to as the consistency approach.

In addition to requiring consistency and certain discrepancies, Naglieri (1999, 2011) suggests that a psychological processing disorder exists when there is a cognitive weakness. According to Naglieri (2011), a cognitive weakness exists when a processing test score is low relative to a national norm and the score is an intra-individual weakness relative to the examinee's overall level of processing (mean of the processing scores). When both of these criteria are met, the cognitive or processing weakness is highly unusual (occurs infrequently) and is indicative of an underlying neurological impairment (Naglieri, 1999). This concept and application of cognitive weakness is recommended and applied in the SLD identification procedures in Dehn (2006) and in this text. The only difference is that cognitive weakness is labeled herein as a processing deficit. That is, the combination of a normative (below-average) weakness and an intra-individual (sometimes referred to as ipsative or idiographic) weakness equal a deficit (see Chapter 9 for details).

Don't Forget

A cognitive weakness exists when a score is both below average and a significant intra-individual weakness (Naglieri, 2011). Dehn (2006, this text) refers to a cognitive weakness as a processing deficit.

The Concordance-Discordance Model

The concordance-discordance model (Hale & Fiorello, 2004; Hale, Wycoff, & Fiorello, 2011) is similar to the discrepancy-consistency approach but goes one step further. Concordance means that processing scores and related deficient academic skills should be similar, which is the same as