1. hobbies and interests
2. reading

SAMPLE ELL PSYCHOEDUCATIONAL REPORT
Date:
Name:
Birthdate:
Age:
PPS ID#:
School:
Grade:
Tamara WIthers
11/28/1991
12 years, 4 months
122345
GENERIC SCHOOL
6
Parent:
Address:
Phone:
Examiner:
Mary WIthers
4533 SW Bungalow Dr.
Portland, OR 97229
(503) 916-5100
Supervisor: Bette Midler
Barry B. Manilow, M.Ed.
School Psychologist
1. REASON FOR REFERRAL:
Tamara was referred for an evaluation of special education eligibility and learning needs. The
team is concerned about Tamaraʼs communication, reading comprehension, and math reasoning
skills. Tamara expends much extra effort to complete tasks. Tamara reportedly worries a lot and
has some difficulty transitioning to new activities. The team would like information about Tamaraʼs
emotional functioning, or how her past trauma might be affecting her educational progress. The
team would like to know if Tamara has a communication disorder (CD), a learning disability (LD)
or an emotional disturbance (ED) that requires special education placement and services.
2. ASSESSMENT AND EVALUATION:
A. Instruments Used:
School Records Review
Family, Medical and School History
Physicianʼs Statement
Observations, Interviews, Curriculum Based Assessment of Work Samples
Cross Cultural Comparisons, Group Achievement Test Scores and Response to Instruction
IDEA Proficiency Tests (IPT 2)
Differential Abilities Scale (DAS)
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT)
Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Tests of Cognitive Abilities (WJ III COG)
Woodcock Johnson Third Edition: Tests of Academic Achievement (WJ III ACH)
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, Second Edition (WIAT II)
Dynamic Assessment
Red Flag Matrix for ELL Students
Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC)
3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Family History: Tamara lives with her adoptive mother, Mary WIthers, and her younger adopted
sibling, Bianca (age 9). The family speaks only English at home. Tamara and Bianca were born in
Zanzibar. They are from different tribal affiliations and are not biologically related. Tamaraʼs first
language was Kitumbatu a derivative of Swahili (Bantu). Her second language was Swahili.
Tamara did not go to school in Zanzibar. Tamara suffered significant trauma as a youngster.
When Tamara was approximately five years old, her mother, father, and sister died of a medical
condition, possibly malaria or typhoid fever. Tamara was placed in an orphanage. Ms. WIthers
adopted Tamara when Tamara was about six years old. Ms. WIthers has provided an enriched
living situation for Tamara. Tamara has many strengths including her athletic abilities, her work
ethic, and her cheerful and outgoing nature.
1
Medical History: Ms. WIthers has been diligent in assuring that Tamara receives services for her
early trauma and early lack of educational and cultural opportunities. Ms. WIthers reports that
when Tamara was younger she raged at home and compulsively avoided people who were even
mildly ill. Tamara has received counseling services in Nevada and Oregon. Dr. Gary Dorne
diagnosed a depressive disorder (311). Tamara takes Seraquel to even out her moods. She
currently attends Dougy Center for grief counseling. Tamaraʼs vision and hearing are normal.
Education History: Tamara started school in America two months before the end of first grade.
She attended school in Las Vegas, Nevada, for three years. She received ESL, Title One, and
private tutoring. Tamara attended fifth grade at Tripp Elementary in Portland, Oregon. Tamara
has attended GENERIC SCHOOL since the beginning of her sixth grade year. Debbie Darling
provided Tamaraʼs last two years of ESL services. All five years of ESL services were pullout, not
dual-language/bilingual education. Tamara best fits Ochoa & Ortiz Language Profile 4 or 7,with
minimal first language and emergent (Profile 4) or fluent (Profile 7) second language skills. For a
full description of Ochoa & Ortiz Language Profiles, please see the reference following the report.
B. Observations, Interviews, Curriculum Based Assessment, Cross Cultural
Comparisons, Group Achievement Test Scores & Response to Interventions:
During the 3/15/2004 morning meeting, students listened to their teachersʼ announcements
and sang songs. Tamara sat, listened, and sang with the other students. She was on task over
ninety-five percent of the time. When Mr. Perry asked if anyone had any questions, Tamara did
not raise her hand. During later academic activities, Tamara looked at other students when she
wasnʼt sure what to do. Tamara asked another student for help. She did not ask the teacher for
help. Mr. Perry reports that although Tamara is improving in her ability to ask for help when
needed, asking for help remains an appropriate goal. Tamaraʼs written work products were
compared to a studentʼs work. That student was also adopted at age seven from another country.
That student had not suffered as much trauma as Tamara. Tamaraʼs work was of similar quality
although the other student produced more work. On an earlier observation (12/15/2003),
Tamaraʼs class created ornaments. Tamara worked slowly and asked peers rather than adults for
help.
On fifth grade writing samples, Tamaraʼs word choice was basic. Tamaraʼs ideas and
content were good; she created suspense. Tamaraʼs punctuation and capitalization were good.
She used quotation marks, commas, periods, exclamation points, and apostrophes within
contractions. Tamaraʼs spelling was adequate; she misspelled some medial vowel diphthongs
and digraphs within basic sight-word vocabulary words. For example, Tamara spelled “frend” for
“friend.” On consonants, Tamara sometimes substituted alveolar, velar, and glottal stops (e.g.,
“think” for “thing” and “sord” for “sort”). Tamara did not drop the “e” when adding “ing.” Tamaraʼs
organization was fair. Tamara used some transition words and phrases (“then”, “after that”) and
sequenced her ideas. Tamara first described the inside of a house and then the outside. She did
not use introductory or summary statements effectively to establish the setting, characters, plot,
or resolution of her story. On sixth grade writing samples, with the same prompt, Tamara
improved her skills in each area. Tamaraʼs word choice was better. She included colorful details
that made her story interesting. Tamara did not make the same spelling mistakes on consonants
and vowels. Still, Tamara misspelled irregular suffixes sometimes. She did not drop the “y” and
add “ies” when making “candy” plural. She spelled heard “heared.” Tamaraʼs organization
improved. Her story was much more sequential. Tamara used an introduction effectively. Her
sentences connected ideas and the story flowed from beginning to end. Tamara used many more
sequencing words and phrases such as “later on,” “then,” and “now.” Tamara ended with a
cliffhanger. Tamaraʼs writing samples do not suggest the presence of a learning disability; her
error patterns and her improvements are more indicative of second language acquisition patterns.
2
Tamaraʼs performance on group achievement tests differs slightly (but not significantly)
from the performance of another adopted student in her classroom. Tamara was close but did
not quite reach state benchmarks in reading or math; she scored 218 in reading and 215 in math.
Tamaraʼs scores were similar to that of two female students with learning disabilities. Although
Tamaraʼs scores were similar, her progress has been much better than the progress of those two
students. Unlike those students, Tamara made significant gains in reading and math from the
previous year. (In 2003, Tamara scored 187 in reading and 206 in math.)
Tamara has a history of making good progress when given adequate instruction. Tamaraʼs
response to instruction is excellent. In second grade, her first year of school, Tamara made
excellent gains a phonics-based reading program. Tamara improved on measures of phonemic
awareness and reading fluency. Her scores on standardized and informal measures improved.
Observations during Testing: Tamara came willingly to the examinerʼs office. Tamara spoke
easily with the examiner about her interests. Testing conditions were adequate. Tamaraʼs
motivation was good. Tamara often took longer to complete problems. She sometimes asked for
the directions to be repeated. The examiner repeated questions when the testsʼ standardization
requirements allowed him. Results should be a valid representation of Tamaraʻs current
functioning.
C. English Language Learner Testing
IPT-2
Date: June, 2004
Examiner: Debbie Darling
The IDEA Proficiency Tests, Second Edition, are individually administered assessments of
academic skills. Tamara took the Writing Test for Grades 4-6. Tamara was asked to write an
essay and three paragraphs from prompts of three pictures showing a sequence of events.
Tamaraʼs responses followed task demands. She added interesting details. Tamara scored ten of
ten possible points in conventions, six of six possible points in writing skill and conventions, and
two of three possible points in organization. Tamaraʼs English Oral Language score of 5 (out of a
possible 6) indicates that Tamara speaks conversational English at a proficient level; she
demonstrates Basic Interpersonal Communicative Skills (BICS). Tamaraʼs Cognitive Academic
Proficiency (CALP) levels, the more advanced language skills required for fluency and success
on academic work, are given and discussed in Section E of the report.
D. Cognitive Testing.
DAS
Date: 3/15/2004
Examiner: Manilow
Test Name:
Standard Score:Percentile:
General Conceptual Ability (GCA)
79
8
Special Nonverbal Composite
83
13
Verbal (Gc)
77
6
Nonverbal Reasoning (Gf)
96
39
Spatial (Gv)
74
4
Category:
Low
Below Average
Low
Average
Low
Subtest Name:
Recall of Designs
Word Definitions
Pattern Construction
Matrices
Similarities
Sequential & Quantitative
Category:
Below Average
Below Average
Low/Very Low
Average
Low
Average
t-score: Percentile:
39
14
38
12
30
2
44
27
35
7
52
58
3
The Differential Ability Scale is designed to control for cultural bias. It was developed using an
international sample of multi-cultural students. Approximately 600 additional Black and Hispanic
children were included in the standardization sample to provide more sensitivity to the responses
of minority children. Despite the potentiality of greater sensitivity to minority studentsʼ responses,
Tamaraʼs ethnic and language group was not represented, so possible increases in the DAS
sensitivity compared to other cognitive tests might not exist.
At a chronological age of 12 years, 3 months, Tamara obtained a GENERAL
CONCEPTUAL ABILITY (GCA) score of 79 +/-6. Tamaraʼs GCA score falls at the eighth
percentile for her age and within the low range. Tamaraʼs GCA must be interpreted with
caution due to her cultural, language and history differences; these might contribute to the
significant differences among her cognitive abilities. Research suggests that Tamara would be
expected to score about fifteen standard score points lower on verbal composites that are highly
culturally and linguistically loaded (the Verbal composite), and nearer the average score of 100 on
tests that are lower in the degree of cultural and linguistic demand (the Nonverbal Reasoning and
Spatial Reasoning composites). Additionally, Tamaraʼs scores on the Spatial composite must be
interpreted with extreme caution. Both are timed tests and later testing will show that Tamara
requires additional time to complete tasks quickly. Her lower scores on Recall of Designs and
Pattern Construction might be due more to her lower processing speed than visual-spatial
weaknesses. In addition, Tamara expressed extreme frustration when she was first presented
with the Patter n Construction materials. She made guesses at what was required rather than
listening well to the instructions and demonstrations, and she gave up easily on some items.
When she encountered a similar test on the UNIT later, she felt more confident, conformed to
instructions, and did not give up as easily. The UNIT scores might be more reflective of her
visual-spatial thinking than these DAS scores. If this is true, then her pattern of scores would also
reflect the profile of a student who is learning English and experiencing some difficulties with
verbal reasoning.
Tamaraʻs Verbal Reasoning is within the low range and at the sixth percentile for her
age. The DAS Verbal Reasoning subtests measure verbal comprehension and knowledge
(Gc). Verbal reasoning is highly correlated to reading, writing and math achievement, and it is
highly affected by a studentʼs language and cultural acquisition. Tamara performed within the low
range on Similarities, a subtest that measures two abilities: word knowledge (lexical skills) that is
the primary factor, and determining verbal categories and classifications (logical and abstract
thinking, or fluid reasoning skills). Tamara performed within the low average range on Word
Definitions, a subtest that measures expressive language and knowledge of word meanings.
These results suggest that Tamara might need assistance developing her vocabulary first, and
then scaffolding to support more advanced interpretation of oral language and text. Teachers
might want to pre-teach vocabulary words, particularly “third tier” words that are specific to certain
subjects. Tamara is encouraged to play vocabulary games and listen to books on tape.
Additionally, because of Tamaraʼs history of anxiety and differing cultural expectations, teachers
should Tamara to ask a question or signal when she doesnʼt understand a word or a verbal
concept. Teachers should continue to “normalize” this process by remarking that all students are
in the learning process and asking questions is expected and rewarded.
Tamaraʼs Nonverbal Reasoning is within the average range and at the thirty-ninth
percentile for her age. Nonverbal reasoning subtests measure fluid reasoning (Gf). Tamaraʼs
DAS fluid reasoning score is a better estimate of her true ability than her UNIT fluid reasoning
score because the DAS subtests are not timed. Tamara performed within the average range on
Matrices, a subtest that measures inductive reasoning. Tamara performed within the average
range on Sequential and Quantitative Reasoning. Tamaraʼs Nonverbal Reasoning is
significantly more developed than her other cognitive skills and represents a relative strength.
4
Because of the difference between Tamaraʼs fluid reasoning and verbal skills, Tamara might
grasp a concept and get frustrated when she canʼt put it into words. Tamara is encouraged to
learn visual note taking or pictographic “idea capturing” techniques to web her ideas for later
writing or oral presentation.
Tamaraʼs Spatial Reasoning score is reported, despite concerns about its validity. Spatial
Reasoning subtests measure visual-spatial thinking (Gv). Visual-spatial thinking is not highly
related to academics. Tamaraʼs score is within the low range and at the fourth percentile for her
age. UNIT scores on visual-spatial thinking are somewhat higher. Both testsʼ results suggest that
Tamara might not remember visual material well. She might need handouts, portable exemplars,
or other visual reminders of how and when to do something.
UNIT
Date:
Composite
Memory Quotient
Reasoning Quotient
Symbolic Quotient
Nonsymbolic Quotient
FULL SCALE IQ
Subtest
Symbolic Memory
Cube Design
Spatial Memory
Analogic Reasoning
Object Memory
Mazes
4/26/2004
Examiner: Manilow
Standard Score* Percentile Rank
Classification
95% Confidence
81
10
Low Average
75-91
84
14
Low Average
77-95
79
8
Delayed
72-90
86
18
Low Average
79-97
80
9
Low Average
75-89
Scaled Score*
Percentile Rank
Descriptive Classification
7
16
Low Average
8
25
Average
8
25
Average
7
16
Low Average
6
9
Low Average
8
25
Average
*Standard scores are used with composites and subtest scores. Composite standard
scores between 90-109 are considered to be within the average range. Scores between 80-89
are considered to be within the low average range. Scores of 70-79 are within the delayed range.
Scores of 69 and below are within the very delayed range. Scaled scores between 8-12 are
average. Scores of 7 and below indicate lower than average functioning.
The Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (UNIT) is an intellectual assessment
instrument designed for children and adolescents who have speech, language, or hearing
impairments. The examiner uses simple gestures to communicate instructions. The student
responds by pointing, drawing, placing chips, or moving blocks. No words are spoken during the
entire testing session. The UNIT is appropriate for students with color-vision deficiencies, those
with different cultural or language backgrounds, and those who are verbally uncommunicative.
Given Tamaraʼs language profile, level of cultural acquisition, and developmental history, the
UNIT might provide better information than other tests do on the two aspects of cognitive
processing that it measures.
The UNIT measures two constructs of intelligence: fluid reasoning (Gf) and visual-spatial
reasoning (Gv). The UNIT does not measure processing speed; however, it contains several
timed tests. Later testing will show that Tamaraʼs processing speed is relatively weak and at the
eleventh percentile. Therefore, Tamaraʼs Cube Design and Mazes scores must be interpreted
with caution because they are both timed tests.
5
Fluid reasoning (Gf) is the nonverbal ability to form concepts, make comparisons
among concepts, draw inferences, make deductions, and use sequential reasoning skills. Fluid
reasoning (Gf) is highly related to math reasoning achievement. The UNIT Analogic Reasoning
test measures inductive reasoning, or the ability to discover the underlying rule, concept, or
process that governs a problem by examining the characteristics of a set of materials. Tamara
scored within the low average range. However, this score must be interpreted with caution.
Tamara asked if the items were timed; the examiner urged her to do her best. Tamaraʼs results
might indicate when she “shuts down” due to anxiety.
The other five UNIT subtests measure aspects of visual-spatial reasoning (Gv). Visualspatial reasoning has not been shown to relate highly to academic achievement, but information
from these tests might aide in providing accommodations or teaching strategies that help support
learning. Symbolic Memory, Spatial Memory, and Object Memory comprise the Memory
Quotient, which measures visual memory. Tamaraʼs visual memory skills are within the low
average range and indicate an area of possible weakness. Tamara might profit when information
is presented with explicit memory aides or pneumonic devices that are designed to heighten
retention. Mazes measures visual-spatial scanning. Tamaraʻs Mazes score in within the
average range. Cube Design measures spatial relations; Tamara scored within the average
range.
The UNIT hypothesizes three additional constructs: reasoning, reasoning with symbolic
material, and reasoning with non-symbolic material. Although reported, the team should interpret
these scores with extreme caution due to their mixed factorial properties and their debatable
clinical or educational utility. Tamaraʻs Reasoning Quotient is within the low average range. The
Symbolic Quotient measures a studentʼs reasoning when he or she uses “mental language”
(sub-vocalization or self-talk). Because most academic material is symbolic in nature, the test
developers theorize that the Symbolic Quotient might also predict academic achievement.
Tamaraʼs score is within the delayed range, but it is not significantly different than her
Nonsymbolic Quotient. The Nonsymbolic Quotient measures purely visual-spatial reasoning.
Tamaraʻs score is within the low average range.
WJ III COG
Date: 5/27/2004
Composite or Test
Phonemic Awareness III
Auditory Processing (Ga)*
Sound Blending
Incomplete Words
Auditory Attention
Sound Awareness
Processing Speed (Gs)
Visual Matching
Decision Speed
Rapid Picture Naming
Pair Cancellation
Short-Term Memory (Gsm)
Working Memory
Numbers Reversed
Auditory Working Memory
Memory for Words
Examiner: Manilow
Standard Score
100
117
113
96
116
91
82
81
87
79
96
98
89
99
79
98
90% Confidence
93-108
108-126
104-123
86-107
104-129
84-99
76-87
74-87
80-94
76-82
92-100
90-107
82-95
90-108
71-86
88-109
Percentile Rank
51
88
81
41
86
28
11
10
19
8
40
46
22
47
8
45
6
*For academic purposes, ability scores between 90 and 110 fall within the average range.
Scores below 85 indicate areas of weakness. Scores above 115 indicate areas of strength.
Because Tamaraʼs birthday is approximate and she has been in school for six years, Tamaraʼs
WJ III COG and WJ III ACH scores are based on grade. Age- and grade-based WJ III scores,
however, are very similar (within the standard error of measure for each reported score).
Therefore, the team can make comparisons with Tamaraʼs other testsʼ scores using appropriate
caution.
Tamaraʻs Phonemic Awareness is within the average range. Phonemic awareness is a
crucial pre-reading ability. It includes blending sounds into words, rhyming, substituting sounds,
and reversing sound patterns. Tamara has a good “ear” for the sounds of the English language,
which she speaks with no discernibly different accent. Tamaraʼs phonemic awareness skills will
improve as she acquires more English vocabulary and reading fluency, and that the team might
consider continuing to provide additional support in literacy in order to maximize Tamaraʼs
learning potentials. Tamara performed better (high average range) on auditory processing tests
that required fewer working memory skills, such as auditory attention (ignoring background noise)
and sound blending.
Tamaraʻs Processing Speed (Gs) is within the low average range and at the eleventh
percentile for her age. Processing speed is the ability to work quickly and accurately on familiar
information that does not require much mental processing. Tamara performed best on Pair
Cancellation, a processing speed task that used simple pictures. Pair Cancellation has the lowest
linguistic demand of the four WJ III COG processing speed tests. Pair Cancellation is a
continuous performance test much like those used to help diagnose AttentionDeficit/Hyperactivity Disorder-Inattentive Type (ADHD-I). Tamaraʼs average score, along with
direct observation and history, suggest that the team might be able to rule out ADHD-I as a
contributing factor to Tamaraʼs challenges. Tamara performed scored within the low range on
Rapid Picture Naming, a measure of Rapid Automatic Naming, or RAN. Although lower
processing speed scores and lower RAN scores are often seen in students with learning
disabilities, they are also frequently seen in students who have a history of trauma, anxiety, or
depression. Because Tamaraʼs basic reading skills and spelling are adequate, the team might
consider if Tamaraʼs lower processing speed and RAN skills are more related to emotional than
cognitive factors.
Tamaraʻs Short Term Memory (Gsm) is within the average range. Short-term memory is
comprised of memory span (how much a person can remember in order) and working memory
(the ability to hold several pieces of information in immediate awareness, reorder or rework the
pieces, and then use the information within a few seconds). Tamara performed better on the rote
memory span task (Memory for Words) than on working memory tasks. The discrepancy among
her scores might be partially explained by the slightly higher degree of linguistic demand on
Auditory Working Memory test, but when the examiner asked Tamara, she explained that she
had an easier time remembering things in order, and she had an easier time when she only had
to remember numbers or words. When she had to remember both, and categorize them before
repeating them, she got frustrated.
Results from the WJ III COG suggest that although Tamara demonstrates a weakness in a
basic psychological process (processing speed) that this weakness might be due to factors other
than a learning disability. Results also suggest that Tamara might profit from visual
representations when working with higher order analysis such as making predictions, using
categorization skills, developing hypotheses for writing, and analyzing social and academic
interactions.
7
E. Academic Testing
WJ III ACH
Date:
3/12/2004
Composite or Test
Broad Reading
Basic Reading Skills
Letter Word Identification
Reading Fluency
Word Attack
Reading Comprehension
Passage Comprehension
Reading Vocabulary
Examiner: Manilow
Standard
Score
88
93
90
92
96
85
83
90
Percentile
Rank
21
32
25
30
40
16
13
26
Grade
Equivalent
4.4
4.7
4.5
5.0
5.1
3.7
3.2
4.4
Broad Mathematics
86
17
4.5
Math Calculation Skills
Calculation
Math Fluency
Math Reasoning
Applied Problems
Quantitative Concepts
93
101
79
77
82
75
31
54
8
6
11
5
5.4
6.7
3.6
3.2
3.5
3.0
Broad Written Language
Basic Writing Skills
Spelling
Writing Fluency
Punctuation and Capitals
Written Expression
Writing Samples
Editing
83
95
92
78
99
79
83
99
13
37
29
8
47
8
13
48
3.9
5.4
4.8
3.3
6.3
3.3
3.3
6.3
Phoneme/Grapheme Knowledge
Word Attack
Spelling of Sounds
99
96
106
48
40
67
6.2
5.1
8.9
Oral Language (extended)
Listening Comprehension
Understanding Directions
Oral Comprehension
Oral Expression
Story Recall
Story Recall Delayed
Picture Vocabulary
91
100
91
106
84
80
4.5
6.4
4.1
8.9
2.8
2.0
86
28
49
28
66
14
9
Z= -2.47
17
Total Achievement
86
18
4.3
Academic Skills
Academic Fluency
Academic Applications
92
84
82
29
15
11
5.1
4.1
3.3
CALP
3
3
3
3
4
4
3-4
3.1
8
*Standard scores between 90 and 110 fall within the average range. Scores below 85 indicate
areas of weakness. Scores above 115 indicate areas of strength.
WIAT II
Date:
Composite or Diagnostic
Examiner: Manilow
Standard/
Raw Score
Score
Quartile*
Percentile
Rank
Reading Composite
94
2
34
Word Reading
Pseudoword Decoding
Reading Comprehension
96
92
100
2
2
2
39
30
50
Target Words
Reading Speed
18
362
1
2
Grade
Equivalent
5.6
3.8
6.8
*Grade-Based Norms
*Standard scores between 90 and 110 fall within the average range. Scores below 85 indicate
areas of weakness. Scores above 115 indicate areas of strength. Quartile scores indicate the
bottom (first); lower-middle (second); upper-middle (third) and upper (fourth) twenty-five-percent
ranges for each grade level.
ACADEMIC SKILLS, FLUENCY, APPLICATIONS & CALP
Overall, there are no significant differences between Tamaraʼs reading, math, and written
language, skills, fluency, and applications. Tamara has specific intra-achievement differences that
will be addressed in the following sections. Tamaraʼs total achievement score of 86 falls at the
eighteenth percentile and within the low average range for her age. This score indicates that
Tamara will profit from exposure to grade level academic materials although some modifications
and accommodations might be made. Specific recommendations are addressed below. Tamaraʼs
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) levels are below what would be expected
given five years of ESL services. Tamara should have CALP levels of at least 5 in all areas.
READING
On the WJ III ACH, Tamaraʼs reading achievement is within the low average range and
at the twenty-first percentile for her age. On the WIAT II, Tamaraʼs reading achievement is within
the average range and at the thirty-fourth percentile for her age.
Tamaraʼs word identification skills are within the average range on both tests. Tamara
used a phonetic or “sounding out approach when pronouncing unfamiliar words. Tamara often
corrected her pronunciation errors. Tamara read “nonsense” words with predictable phonetic or
orthographic patterns. She performed within the average range on both tests. (Poor nonsense
word reading is a strong indicator of learning disabilities. Tamaraʼs average skills in phonemic
awareness and nonsense word reading do not indicate a learning disability in basic reading
skills.)
On the WJ III ACH, Tamara read simple sentences and answered “yes” or “no”
comprehension questions at an average rate compared to same-age peers. The WJ III ACH
fluency task asks students to use reasoning skills and is not a simple measure of oral reading
fluency or speed. However, the WIAT II reading fluency tasks do not require students to apply
reasoning skills and Tamaraʼs score is also within the average range. (Poor reading fluency is a
strong indicator of reading disabilities in older students. Tamaraʼs scores do not indicate a
learning disability in reading fluency.)
9
Tamaraʼs reading comprehension on the WJ III ACH is within the low average range.
Tamaraʼs Passage Comprehension score is within the low average range. Tamara pronounced
words she read and supplied synonyms, antonyms, or analogies at an average level. Tamaraʼs
Reading Comprehension score on the WIAT II was within the average range. Tamaraʼs better
performance on the WIAT II is due to the nature of the reading comprehension tasks. On the WJ
III ACH, reading comprehension is gauged by a “cloze” procedure; students read and supply
missing words within the reading passages. The WJ III ACH Passage Comprehension test
requires a greater grasp of semantics and syntax. On the WIAT II, students read passages and
are asked comprehension questions. Many of the questions require using fluid-reasoning skill as
well as reading comprehension skill. Tamara did very well on questions that required her to
sequence ideas, predict events, make inferences, and determine cause and effect. Tamara did
not do as well on recognizing the stated or implied details in the reading passages.
MATHEMATICS
Overall, Tamaraʼs mathematics achievement is within the low average range and at the
seventeenth percentile for her age.
On the first section, Tamara solved math problems on a page. Tamara performed math
calculations on an average level. Tamara performed all basic operations with regrouping with
nearly one hundred percent accuracy; Tamara did not divide a four-digit by a two-digit number.
Tamara added and subtracted fractions with common denominators. Tamara did not multiply or
divide fractions. Tamara did not perform operations on mixed numbers. Tamara multiplied two
numbers with decimals but did not put the decimal point in the correct place in her answer.
Tamara multiplied a negative and a positive integer. Tamara did not solve for x on a very basic
algebra equation.
On the second section, Tamara was asked to solve easy basic operation questions (+,,x,./.) as rapidly as possible. Tamaraʼs math fluency is low compared to same-age peers.
Tamaraʼs accuracy was good but her speed was poor. Tamaraʼs relatively poor processing speed
(Gs) is most evident in her math and writing fluency scores. Math and writing are not yet
“automatic” processes for Tamara. She might need some assignments shortened or some
deadlines extended.
On the third section, the examiner read math story problems aloud while Tamara read
along silently or looked at graphics that represented the problem. Tamara answered math
reasoning problems on a low average level. Tamara often knew the math process but she did
not know the underlying concept involved. Therefore, Tamara did not estimate well and relied on
her knowledge of process to verify her answers. Tamara told time to the half-hour on an analog
clock. She determined elapsed time. Tamara did not solve problems with money or percents.
Tamara had difficulty solving multiple step math problems.
On the fourth section, the examiner asked Tamara questions that measured her
conceptual understanding of underlying math processes, or quantitative concepts. Tamara
scored within the low range. Tamara did not determine place value, round to the nearest one
hundred, or perform a very basic division problem with a visual clue (determining one-third of
twelve apples). Tamara performed poorly on a WJ III ACH “number series” task similar to the
DAS sequential reasoning subtest. Several factors seemed important to Tamaraʼs performance.
One factor was the amount of assistance she received. On the WJ III ACH, Tamara was given
fewer instructions, fewer sample items, and less guided practice. Second, an item analysis of
both tests suggests that Tamara relied on her knowledge of math processes rather than
determining the quantitative relations among the numbers she saw. Tamara tried to figure out a
“hard-and-fast” rule that would explain the number series. This lowered her score on both tests. A
10
third factor, anxiety, might have lowered her WJ III ACH score. Tamara had more performance
anxiety on the “academic” test than on the “learning games” tests, most of which she reportedly
enjoyed. Fourth, Tamara had difficulty shifting set, or moving from more basic operations
(addition and subtraction) to more difficult operations (multiplication and division). Finally, Tamara
performed relatively well determining the “rule” for number series when only one operation was
involved. She did not solve number series problems when two or more steps were required (e.g.,
divide and add one, or add one, then two, then three to each number in the series). These last
two factors impacted her scores on both tests. For more information on Tamaraʼs math and
cognition, please refer to the section on dynamic assessment.
WRITING
Overall, Tamaraʻs written language is within the low average range and at the thirteenth
percentile for her age.
Tamaraʻs spelling is at the average level. Tamara spelled nonsense words at a high average
level. Both of these skills would be affected if Tamara had a learning disability in reading or
writing. Tamaraʼs punctuation and capitalization skills are average. Tamara is still working on
using apostrophes to show possession. Tamara has average abilities to edit or spot the mistakes
in written work. Tamara wrote at a low rate when compared to same-age peers. This writing
fluency task requires students to form short sentences from three words and a picture prompt. It
is therefore highly affected by word knowledge as well as processing speed.
When spelling is not counted, Tamaraʼs written expression is at low average level. Tamara
displayed strengths and weaknesses on her WJ III ACH writing sample similar to those on her
classroom work samples. Tamaraʼs word choice, sentence structure, and grammar were
adequate. Tamara used summary and topic sentences. On the most difficult items, Tamara
missed or misread key concepts in the prompts that would have guided her in connecting the
ideas within paragraphs. Tamaraʼs sentences almost always related the charactersʼ emotions, not
actions.
ORAL LANGUAGE
Overall, Tamaraʼs oral language skills are within the average range and at the twentyeighth percentile for her age. Tamaraʼs listening comprehension is relatively more developed than
her oral expression. This pattern is often seen in students with communication disorders and/or
English language learners.
Tamaraʼs most developed oral language skill was in Oral Comprehension; her score fell at
the sixty-sixth percentile. Tamara heard sentences from a recording and supplied the missing
word at the end of the sentences. This oral language “cloze” procedure score can be compared
with her passage comprehension score, a reading “cloze” procedure. Tamara performed
significantly better on the oral language test. This result suggests that if Tamara does not have a
reading disability, the team can expect Tamaraʼs reading comprehension to improve significantly
with instruction. Tamaraʼs score on the other listening comprehension test, Understanding
Directions, also fell within the average range. Tamara followed two- and three-step directions
well. Tamara had difficulty with directions that required a simultaneous answer rather than a
sequential answer (e.g., “Point to this and that.”). Tamara also had difficulty with conditional
directions (e.g., “If this is present, then do that”). Tamara mistook right and left. However, in
testing of limits, Tamara identified right and left.
Tamaraʼs Oral Expression score is within the low average range. Tamara Picture
Vocabulary score is at the seventeenth percentile. Tamara had the most difficulty remembering
11
and retelling stories. Her Story Recall score fell at the ninth percentile. Tamara did not remember
the connected text that was read to her. Tamara had particularly poor skills in remembering the
connected text after completing a few other subtests. Tamara did not remember the character
names, main ideas, or plots from any of the stories. When comparing Tamaraʼs skills, the
examiner hypothesizes that Tamara might have difficulty processing the amount of verbal
information presented in the stories. The verbosity, rather than the complexity, of information
might have been the primary factor in Tamaraʼs poor Story Recall Delayed score. If there is no
opportunity to provide diagrams or visuals, teachers might want to give Tamara short, concise
directions and avoid lectures.
F. Dynamic Assessment & Analysis of Test Behaviors
Dynamic assessment provides insights in to strategies that might be effective in
improving Tamaraʼs math reasoning. Dynamic assessment is a test-teach-retest procedure that
discovers what kind of help [and how much help] a student needs to master a concept. Three
sessions are recommended. Because of time constraints, only one was completed. Once WJ III
ACH Form B math testing was completed, the examiner helped Tamara through the problems
she had missed. The examiner used nonverbal hints, verbally emphasized key words, explained
purposes, provided links to previous learning, and solved parts of the problems so Tamara might
solve the subsequent parts.
Attention/Discrimination:
♦ Tamara initiated and maintained focus well.
♦ Tamara often needed test items repeated.
♦ Tamara had difficulty processing embedded information (when vital information was included
in phrases and not simple, straightforward sentences).
♦ On easy items, Tamara easily stated what information was relevant and what was
extraneous.
Comparative Behavior:
♦ Tamara often commented on the similarity among types of math problems.
♦ Tamara has a basic math vocabulary. She didnʼt need reviews of key words like “of” and
“and.”
♦ Tamara needed no or slight examiner intervention to recognize similar problems and transfer
her new knowledge to the new problems. For example, when the examiner showed Tamara
how to multiply two fractions, she easily applied her knowledge to the next item.
Planning:
• Tamara easily grasped and restated the goal and plan of the activity. She did not require
extended explanations of the intent or meaning of math tasks.
♦ Tamara understood temporal sequencing (days, months, and years).
♦ When two-step math problems were introduced, Tamara often solved them independently.
♦ Even with sustained help, Tamara had difficulty solving three and four step math problems.
Visual methods of sequential organization proved only marginally useful; Tamara might
require multi-sensory approaches, including tactile strategies, to sequence multiple-step
problems.
♦ Tamara relied on process knowledge yet she had difficulty explaining her process for solving
problems. Moreover, Tamara did not use trial and error strategies effectively.
Self-Regulation/Awareness:
• Tamara has poor math estimation skills; she often did not check her estimation or ask herself
if an answer made “quantitative sense.” Tamara required significant intervention to use this
rmeta-cognitive strategy.
12
•
•
Tamara used scratch paper effectively without prompting on math problems. She recognized
this and agreed that she should continue to use orthographic models to solve story problems.
Tamara waited for instructions to end before beginning each task.
Transfer:
• Tamara needed only slight prompts to transfer her knowledge to other, more advanced
problems. For example, when asked to reduce a fraction to its simplest term on one problem,
the examiner explained what that meant. The next time the examiner asked Tamara to
reduce a fraction, she did so, accurately, without prompting.
• On a few items, the examiner had to reframe or rephrase the question several times until
Tamara understood. Teachers might need to be prepared to explain things several different
ways in order for Tamara to grasp more advanced math concepts.
• Tamara usually responded well to verbal explanations that were paired with visual
demonstrations. Teachers might wish to continue to use multi-modal instruction techniques.
• Tamara did not identify or count coins when she saw pictures of coins. However, when she
saw real coins, Tamara determined their names and values. She used the coins to compare
to the pictures of the coins and solved problems accurately. Tamara might profit from math
activities that stress links to real world tasks such as grocery shopping, budgeting and
carpentry.
Affect: Anxiety; Motivation; Tolerance to Frustration:
♦ Tamara did not appear or report anxiety in the testing situation. She expressed her desire to
do well and tried hard. When Tamara got frustrated, she continued to try to solve problems.
♦ Tamaraʼs motivation is very high. She usually attempts all items and doesnʼt give up easily.
Tamaraʼs high motivation and tolerance to frustration might explain why she often does better
than might be expected given her life challenges.
Dynamic Assessment Modifiability Scale
Tamara usually required only slight to moderate interventions on most items. The examinerʼs
slight effort resulted in high student responsiveness and transfer. On the most difficult items,
Tamara met the examinerʼs moderate high effort with moderate responsiveness and low transfer.
Tamara needs fewer words and learning objectives well within her proximal zone of development.
Examiner Effort
High/Moderate
Moderate
Slight
Student Responsiveness
Moderate
Moderate
High
Transfer
Low
Moderate
High
G. Red Flag Matrix
Tamaraʼs teachers and parent reported on items included on the PPS Red Flag Matrix, a
qualitative measurement tool that reflects atypical development and learning patterns inconsistent
with second language skill development. Most domains reflected no concerns. However, the team
noted severe concerns with Tamaraʼs developmental history of early trauma. The team had
moderate concerns with Tamaraʼs present psychiatric diagnosis (mood disorder) and medical
protocol. Tamaraʼs Bantu and Puucu language proficiency is poor. The team had mild concerns
with her intellectual and communication testing and CALP acquisition when compared to peers.
13
H. Behavioral Testing
BASC
Respondent
SCALE
A) Mary WIthers, Parent
B) Jerry Perry, Teacher
Date: 2/9/2004
Date: 6/9/2004
t-score
A
B
percentile
A
B
range
A
B
63
49
90
57
At Risk
Average
Externalizing Problems
63
47
90
52
At Risk
Average
Hyperactivity
Aggression
Conduct Problems
60
65
58
44
54
44
86
92
83
33
76
25
At Risk
At Risk
Average
Average
Average
Average
Internalizing Problems
Anxiety
Depression
Somatization
52
62
45
47
50
58
49
44
64
88
34
42
63
79
64
30
Average
At Risk
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
(Additional Clinical Scales)
Atypicality
Withdrawal
72
57
43
51
96
79
23
65
Significant
Average
Average
Average
School Problems
Attention Problems
Learning Problems
NA
54
NA
50
49
51
NA
69
NA
55
50
61
NA
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Adaptive Skills
Social Skills
Leadership
Study Skills
37
38
39
NA
54
55
46
59
12
13
14
NA
63
70
38
78
At Risk
At Risk
At Risk
NA
Average
Average
Average
Average
Behavioral
Index
Symptoms
NA=Not Available on the parent version, L=Low, A=Average, R=At Risk, S=Clinically Significant.
The BASC is a questionnaire that parents teachers fill out in order to assess the social
competencies, behavior problems, emotional difficulties of students. The BASC yields T scores
with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. On behavior scales, scores above 70 are
within the clinically significant range and indicate significant problems. T scores from 60 to 69 are
within the “at risk” range and indicate possible problems. “At risk” scores may also indicate
existent problems that are not as severe but might require continued monitoring. On adaptive
scales, scores below 30 are considered significantly low and indicate skill deficits. A statistical
analysis indicates that both raters responded truthfully and consistently. Tamaraʻs Behavioral
Symptoms Index scores fall within the “at risk” (home) and average (school) ranges; Tamaraʻs
scores are not similar to scores of students who have been diagnosed with emotional
disturbances. Tamaraʼs Adaptive Skills scores fall within the “at risk” (home) and average
(school) ranges. Home and school ratings are significantly different (.01) on all composites
except Internalizing Problems. The overall similarity coefficient is –0.01.
The differences in ratings might be explained by Tamaraʼs behavior in specific situations,
by any significant improvement in Tamaraʼs functioning between February and June 2004, in the
respondentsʼ interpretation of items, or in the respondentsʼ bases of comparison with other
children. Tamaraʼs school rating indicates no significant problem behaviors or adaptive skill
deficits. Tamaraʼs home rating indicates possible problems with hyperactivity, aggression, and
anxiety. A number of these items are related to the DSM-IV criteria for Oppositional Defiant
Disorder. Ms. WIthers reports that although Tamara never pouts, she is almost always a “sore
14
loser.” Tamara often blames others. She sometimes argues with adults, interrupts, teases others,
or breaks othersʼ things. Tamara sometimes threatens other people, is overly active and
impulsive, and rushes through things. Tamaraʼs Atypicality score is within the clinically significant
range. Tamara often repeats one activity over and over. She sometimes complains about being
able to block out unwanted thoughts. Sometimes Tamara has strange ideas or seems out of
touch with reality. Tamaraʼs home rating indicates “at risk” adaptive skills. At times, Tamara
does not interact successfully with peers and adults nor work well with others.
Targeted behaviors for interventions at school include joining social groups or clubs,
attending after school activities, not throwing tantrums, and offering to help others. Additional
home-based interventions include accepting responsibility, interrupting correctly, giving
compliments, and respecting othersʼ physical and emotional space (not hitting or threatening).
4. SUMMARY AND CONLCUSIONS:
Tamara WIthers is a twelve-year-old grade student at GENERIC SCHOOL. She was referred
for an evaluation of special education eligibility and learning needs. The team would like to know
if Tamara has a learning disability, communication disorder, or emotional disturbance.
Tamara was born in Tanzania, lost her family to disease, was placed in an orphanage for a
year and a half. Tamara was adopted when she was about seven by Mary WIthers. Ms. WIthers
has assured that Tamara received medical and counseling interventions for her early trauma.
Tamara takes Seraquel and attends grief-counseling sessions.
Tamara has attended school for five years in America. She has had five years of ESL pullout
services. Tamaraʼs scores on ESL testing and work samples indicate that she is making excellent
progress. Tamara functions relatively well academically within the classroom. With help, Tamara
completes and turns work in. Her portfolio is complete. Tamara has traditionally responded well to
academic interventions. Nevertheless, Tamaraʼs scores on other formal and informal measures of
second language acquisition (CALP) indicate that she has not made all of the gains expected with
five years of ESL and general education services.
Although her growth might be slower than peers or other ESL students, it should be noted
that Tamara has many of the skills necessary for language, math and literacy skill acquisition.
Tamaraʼs auditory processing is within the high average range. Tamara is sensitive to the sounds
of language and has learned how to speak English with no accent. Tamaraʼs fluid reasoning
ability is probably within the average range. Fluid reasoning supports math reasoning skill
learning. Although Tamaraʼs math reasoning scores are lower than her fluid reasoning skills, this
might be explained by the fact that Tamara tends to rely to heavily on the process of solving math
problems rather than slowing down and using her conceptual reasoning skills. Tamara might
require direct instruction on how to access her nonverbal fluid reasoning skills (how to remember
to use them, and how put words to them to help her solve problems).
Despite her strengths, Tamara has several possible cognitive and/or emotional factors might
impair her learning. Tamara has difficulty with short-term auditory and visual memory. She has
particular difficulty when she must divide and categorize the material that she hears. Tamaraʼs
processing speed is at the eleventh percentile for her age. She will need more time to complete
work, shortened assignments, and visual organization materials that break tasks down into their
parts. Other memory aides such as inspiration software, Carnegie notes, and planners might
prove increasingly important, as Tamara gets older. Teachers must also make sure that Tamara
demonstrates mastery of material before they move on; if Tamara learns something incompletely,
itʼs unlikely that she will be able to reconstruct it later.
15
The team must take special consideration when considering whether Tamara has a learning
disability based on her lower academic scores and her pattern of cognitive strengths and
weaknesses. Tamaraʼs lower scores on some measures of memory and processing speed might
be related to early trauma and second language acquisition. When corrected for anxiety issues,
Tamaraʼs profile of test scores (ranging from the least to the most demanding on language
development) resembles other English Language Learners; her scores are highest on the least
demanding and the lowest on the most demanding. However, the team should consider that
Tamaraʼs specific language and verbal reasoning test scores are even lower than expected given
her time in ESL classes and her cultural acquisition. A communication evaluation is essential to
determine if Tamara has a communication disorder.
Tamaraʼs academic achievement scores indicate that in most academic areas, Tamara will
profit from instruction in the general education classroom with minimal accommodation. However,
Tamara is still struggling in math reasoning and written expression. She might need additional
specialized instruction in order to improve these skills. As reported, Tamaraʼs math reasoning
skills are lower than expected given her average fluid reasoning ability. These math reasoning
skills might be affected by her lower verbal reasoning scores and her over-reliance on process
rather than conceptualization. There is some evidence that Tamaraʼs math reasoning
performance was affected by anxiety and might respond well to a period of intervention. Tamara
did not use the more effective strategy of estimating based on quantitative concepts, and
teachers might need to provide explicit instruction and practice in conceptualization and
estimation skills.
Tamara evidences some anxiety within the classroom. She relies on peers and might feel
uncomfortable asking questions or for accommodations. However, Tamaraʼs school ratings do not
indicate concerns with problems with poor behavior or lack of adaptive skills. Tamaraʼs home
ratings and interviews indicate concerns with anxiety, oppositional behavior, obsessions or
compulsions, and mild social skill deficits. Although Tamaraʼs scores on these ratings do not
indicate an emotional disturbance across settings, the team will continue to consult with Tamaraʼs
community therapist and medical providers regarding Tamaraʼs mental health needs and offer
counseling services if they are appropriate.
Tamara often compensates for her academic and life challenges with her outstanding
strengths. The team recognizes Tamaraʼs resilience in overcoming many challenges, and might
provide her encouragement on her current challenges by reminding her of her successes.
Tamaraʼs strengths include her work ethic, her excellent motivation, her athletic genius, and her
cheerful and outgoing personality.
5. RECOMMENDATIONS:
♦
After reviewing assessment results, team members will consider the most appropriate
eligibility, services, and placement for Tamara. The Speech and Language Pathologist will
advise the team on Tamaraʼs communication abilities.
♦
Tamara is commended for not only surviving her early environment but for flourishing in her
current one. Ms. WIthers and the team is encouraged to continue to provide enrichment
opportunities, to acknowledge Tamaraʼs outstanding strengths, and to give Tamara lots of
opportunities to use her strengths at school, at home, and in the community. Tamara should
continue to help others, particularly younger students, to learn the athletic and academic skills
she has mastered.
16
♦
The team is encouraged to continue to consult with medical and counseling providers
regarding Tamaraʼs trauma and anxiety. Tamara seemed to express her emotions well in
writing. Writing, dance, and other expressive therapeutic modalities might prove beneficial.
♦
Tamara will need assistance developing her vocabulary. Teachers might want to pre-teach
vocabulary words in all subjects. Tamara is encouraged to play vocabulary games and listen
to books on tape. Tamara is encouraged to ask questions when she doesnʼt understand a
word or a verbal concept. Teachers should continue to “normalize” this process by remarking
that all students are in the learning process and asking questions is expected and rewarded.
♦
Because of the difference between Tamaraʼs average fluid reasoning and poor verbal skills,
Tamara might grasp a concept and get frustrated when she canʼt put it into words. Tamara is
encouraged to learn visual note taking or pictographic “idea capturing” techniques to web her
ideas for later writing or oral presentation.
♦
Math and writing are not yet “automatic” processes for Tamara. She might need some
assignments shortened or some deadlines extended.
♦
Tamaraʼs math skills might be improved by concentrating on quantitative concepts and
relations, estimation, and other Piagetan approaches.
♦
Tamara profits most from new concepts that are presented well within her proximal zone of
development and might shut down if her mastery level of new material is less than 90%.
♦
Tamara might not remember visual material well. She might need handouts, portable
exemplars, or other visual reminders of how and when to do something. Tamara might profit
when information is presented with explicit memory aides or pneumonic devices that are
designed to heighten retention. If there is no opportunity to provide diagrams or visuals,
teachers might want to give Tamara short, concise directions and avoid lectures.
♦
Although Tamara is improving in her ability to ask for help or for accommodations when
needed, asking for help remains an appropriate goal. Targeted behaviors for interventions at
school include joining social groups or clubs, attending after school activities, not throwing
tantrums, and offering to help others. Additional home-based interventions include accepting
responsibility, interrupting correctly, giving compliments, and respecting othersʼ physical and
emotional space (not hitting or threatening).
____________________________
Barry B. Manilow, M.Ed.
School Psychologist
17