Step 4

Theory and Practice

Step 4 Step 4

The scores a child obtains on the CAS can be compared to those obtained from achievement tests, to help determine if achievement is, in fact, below reasonable expectations. This sort of comparison can be helpful when inter- ventions are being planned as well as when eligibility for special education services is being considered. There are two methods for comparing the CAS scores to achievement: simple- and predicted-difference methods. Both of these approaches fit within a theoretical framework designed to discover if the child has a PASS cognitive weakness and an associated academic weak- ness. First, the simple-difference method for comparing CAS with achieve- ment will be presented, and then a theoretical system for interpretation of these differences will be discussed. For information about the predicted- difference method, see Naglieri and Das (1997b).

Ability/Achievement D i s c r e p a n c y

The CAS scores can be compared to achievement test scores using the simple-difference method and the values necessary for significance at the .01 and .05 levels, for both the Standard and Basic Batteries, as provided by Naglieri and Das (1997b) and Naglieri (1999). (See Naglieri, 1999, for details about how these values were computed.) These values are used in the fol~

lowing manner. First, compare the difference between the two scores to the tabled values (ignore the sign). Any difference that is equal to or greater than the tabled value is significant. For example, Leslie earned a CAS Full Scale standard score of 88 on the Standard Battery and a K-TEA Computation score of 72. The 16-point difference between the two scores is significant (a 10~

point difference is needed).

THE CAS AND ABILITY/ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY OR CONSISTENCY: A NEW METHOD

The significance of the difference between PASS scores and achievement can be used to determine if an ability/achievement discrepancy is present, in much the same way as has been done with traditional IQ tests. In many places such a determination contributes to the conclusion that the child may be eligible for special services, because the discrepancy has provided infor~

mation indicating that the child's actual level of achievement is not consis- tent with the level predicted by the IQ score. This method, however, only demonstrates that there is an unexplained difference between ability and academic achievement; it yields little information about why the discrepancy exists. Assuming that the academic weakness is not due to poor instruction, sensory limitations, emotional problems, and so forth, we have identified a child as disabled partially on the basis of not finding an intellectual reason.

The CAS often detects if there is a cognitive explanation for an academic

problem, as well as detecting ability/achievement discrepancy. When a child's Full Scale or separate PASS Scale standard scores are significantly higher than achievement, a "traditional" discrepancy is found. In addition, the CAS can help determine whether there is a weakness in a specific area of achieve r ment (e.g., reading decoding) that is related to a specific weakness in a PASS area (e.g., successive processing). Thus, it is possible to find a

consistency

be- tween two scores (reading decoding and Successive) as well as a

discrepancy

between other CAS scales and achievement. The consistency between read- ing decoding and successive processing is indicated by a nonsignificant dif- ference between these scores. This finding allows the practitioner to suggest that reading decoding and successive processing are related, as suggested by Kirby and Williams (1991), and such a suggestion has intervention implica~

tions (see sections on intervention, later in this chapter).

To apply the discrepancy/consistency method, compare each of the PASS and Full Scale scores to achievement. In the example of Leslie, her Math Calculation score is significantly lower than her Full Scale, Simultaneous, Attention, and Successive scales. Her Planning score, however, is not signifi- cantly different from her achievement in math. The lack of a significant dif~

ference between Planning and Math Calculation scores (a relationship antic- ipated from previous research summarized by Das et al., 1994) provides an explanation for the academic problem. Considering the strong relationships found between math calculation skills and planning processing (Das et al.,

1994; Kirby & Williams, 1991), this connection is warranted.

The discrepancy/consistency relationship is illustrated in Figure 2.3. The figure shows the triangular relationship among the variables. At the base of the triangle are the two weaknesses, one in achievement (K-TEA Math Calcu- lation) and one in cognitive processing (Planning). At the top of the triangle are the child's high scores. When this relationship is found, the practitioner has detected a cognitive weakness and an associated academic weakness, both of which warrant intervention. Should an academic weakness be found without an associated PASS processing difficulty, it would be appropriate to consider variables in the environment that may be responsible for the aca~

demic failure, such as quantity and quality of instruction, motivation of the child, and so on. In such an instance, direct instruction in the academic area should be considered.

A CASE ILLUSTRATION: INTERPRETING AND COMMUNICATING CAS RESULTS

AND SUGGESTING INTERVENTION

The practitioner needs a good understanding of the PASS theory and the na- ture of the four types of processing to adequately use the CAS and commu- nicate the results in oral and written form. Readers of this chapter might want to refer to other sources, such as Naglieri (1999), Naglieri and Das (1997b), or

FIGURE 2.3

Using PASS scores and achievement scores for the discrepancy / consistency method. Note: * - significant

difference (p = .05), from Naglieri (1999) Table 4.10.

Das et al. (1994), for more information on PASS or its foundation. In this sec- tion we provide a case example to illustrate how the information about the test results can be communicated.

The Case of Leslie

Leslie is a young girl who attends a school for children with learning disabil~

ities. This child, whose name has been changed, is one of the subjects who participated in a math intervention study reported by Naglieri and Gottling (1997). Both CAS interpretation and results of the classroom intervention will be provided in this example; Leslie's CAS scores have already been reported in Table 2.2. The following text describes Leslie's performance on the CAS and the K-TEA Mathematics Computation achievement test, but without adz ditional test results that might normally be included in a full report. Thus, this example is not intended to provide a complete case study with all other test data that typically would accompany a full evaluation. The aim is to show how the PASS and Full Scale results might be used to identify an appropriate instructional approach.

Test Results and Interpretation

Leslie earned a CAS Full Scale standard score of 88, which falls within the Low Average classification and is ranked at the 21st percentile. This means

that her overall score is equal to or greater than 21% of the scores obtained by the children her age who were included in the standardization group.

There is a 90% probability that Leslie's true Full Scale score falls within the range of 84-90. There was, however, significant variation among her scores on the four separate PASS Scales that constitute the CAS, which means that the Full Scale scores will be higher and lower than those of the separate scales included in the test. For example, her scores ranged from 81 in Plan- ning to 98 in both the Attention and Successive scales. In this case, the Full Scale score does not accurately represent all of the separate scores from which it is made, and it therefore should not be reported. The range of scores does indicate, however, important variation within Leslie's PASS Scales that warrants consideration. The Planning scale score, in particular, is signifi- cantly lower than the mean of the four PASS Scales. This indicates that an im- portant cognitive weakness has been found.

Leslie earned a significantly low score on the CAS Planning scale. This cognitive weakness reflects the difficulty she had using efficient and effective strategies for problem solving, self-monitoring, and revising her plans of ac- tion. She had difficulty making decisions about how to complete many of the questions and failed to monitor the quality of her work. For example, when required to record a specific code that corresponded to one of four different letters, she did so in a way that showed no apparent plan or method. This is in contrast to about 90% of children her age who have an effective plan to solve these questions.

Leslie's poor performance in Planning is particularly important because it is a weakness both in relation to her average PASS score and relative to the scores of her peers. The cognitive weakness in Planning suggests that Leslie will have difficulty with tasks that demand development and/or use of strategies to solve problems, make decisions about how to do things, gener- ally control behavior, self-monitor, and self-correct. These activities are es- pecially important, for example, in academic areas such as mathematics computation.

Leslie's poor performance on the K-TEA Mathematics Computation (76;

5th percentile) is consistent with her Planning score of 81 (there is no significant difference between these scores). These two low scores both are significantly lower than her Simultaneous, Attention, and Successive scores, thus providing evidence of an ability/achievement discrepancy. Her low scores in mathematics computation and Planning processing are likely re- lated, and this consistency has implications for intervention (see later sec- tion of this report).

Leslie's Attention was assessed by subtests that required her to focus on specific features of test questions and to resist reacting to distracting parts of the tests. She was able to focus concentration well enough to earn a score of 98 on the CAS Attention Scale, which ranks at the 45th percentile and falls within the Average classification (90% range is 91-106). Attention was measured by subtests that required her to respond only to specific stimuli

(for example, the number 1 when it appeared in an outline typeface) and not to respond to distracting stimuli (when the number 1 appeared in a regular typeface). Leslie's Attention score indicates that she demonstrated typical performance in both identifying targets and avoiding responses to distract- ing stimuli.

Leslie earned a score of 89 on the Simultaneous processing scale (90%

confidence interval - 83-96). This score ranks her at the 23rd percentile and falls at the juncture of Average and Low Average classifications. These tests required that she relate parts into a group or whole, understand relation- ships among words and diagrams, and work with spatial relationships.

Leslie's score on the Simultaneous scale illustrates that she can integrate in- formation into groups at a level that is just below average.

Leslie also earned an Average score of 98 on the Successive processing scale, which is ranked at the 45th percentile (90% confidence interval - 92- 105). Her successive processing was assessed by tests that required her to work with information in a specific linear order (e.g., repeating words in or- der as spoken by the examiner or comprehending information that is based on word order).

In conclusion, Leslie earned CAS scores that ranged from 81 to 98 and showed evidence of a cognitive weakness in Planning. This cognitive weak- ness in Planning is accompanied by a comparable score on the K-TEA Math Computation subtest because both measures demand careful control of thinking and acting, selection of appropriate strategies to complete the math or nonacademic problems, and checking of her work (self-monitoring). These results indicate that interventions that address both the mathematical and Planning processing demands of these tasks should be considered.

D e s i g n of an Intervention for Leslie

In order to improve Leslie's use of planning processes in doing math compu- tation, the intervention described by Naglieri and Gottling (1995, 1997) was applied. Consultation between the school psychologist and the teacher re- sulted in an intervention plan to assist Leslie within the context of an in- struction given to the entire class. The teacher taught in half-hour sessions, following the format of 10 minutes of math worksheet activity, 10 minutes of discussion, and 10 minutes of math worksheets. The math worksheets included problems covered in the class during the previous weeks. During the 10-minute discussion period, the teacher facilitated an interaction that encouraged all the children to reflect on how they completed the work and how they would go about completing the pages in the future. The teacher did not attempt to reinforce or otherwise encourage the children to complete the math in any special way. Instead, the children were encouraged to think about how they did the work, what methods were effective, why some meth- ods work better than others, and so on. The goal was to teach the children to

be self-reflective and self-evaluative when they think about what they are do- ing. (See Naglieri, 1999, for a planning facilitation handout.)

R e s p o n s e to Intervention

Leslie reported that she used several strategies for completing the math pages. First, she found it difficult to concentrate because she was sitting next to someone who was disruptive. Her solution was to move to a quieter part of the room. Second, she noticed that she often did not keep the columns of numbers straight, so she drew light lines to make columns. Third, Leslie re~

alized that she did the mathematics problems quickly and with little check- ing, which caused errors. Fourth, she realized it was better to solve the prob- lems correctly rather than just get as many finished as she could in the time allotted. These new insights were applied to the math pages she completed during the intervention phase.

The results of intervention were positive. Leslie got more math problems correct per page over the course of the intervention sessions. These results show that, by improving Leslie's use of planning processes, her performance in math calculation improved considerably over her initial level. For more in- formation on this and other interventions, see Naglieri (1999).

INTERVENTION FOR READING DISABLED CHILDREN:

PASS READING ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM (PREP)

The PREP (Das, 1999a) is based on the PASS theory of intelligence. Is it an advantage that a remedial program be heavily grounded in a reasonable the- ory? Yes! The program is understood in the framework given by the PASS the- ory; hence, it provides us with a program that is prescribed for improving reading.

The training tasks in PREP are recommended for those with generally poor reading skills and for those with specific reading deficits, such as dyslexia, in order to promote the same processes that are basic to reading, spelling, and comprehension. The pathway starts with the cognitive and learning difficul- ties that lead to reading disability; with the application of PREP, the cognitive difficulties are reduced along with the learning problems, and, consequently, reading is improved. Understanding the program's underlying theory is an important aspect of its use. The PASS profiles of dyslexics and generally poor readers are different; therefore, remediation can be focused according to the cognitive difficulties revealed by the CAS.

A typical dyslexic has very poor ability for decoding words, that is, a difficulty in phonological coding but not in comprehension. The dyslexic's profile shows a significant weakness in the Successive processing scale. This

is especially true among beginning readers. The generally poor reader often shows a pervasive difficulty in more than one of the PASS processes. Poor reading as well as poor comprehension may be present. Both successive and simultaneous processing may be weak. Ideally, it is recommended that the PREP tasks be selected for emphasizing the weak processes as assessed by CAS.

What Is PREP? What D o e s It Do?

PREP aims at improving the information processing strategiesmnamely, sir multaneous and successive processingmthat underlie reading, while at the same time avoiding the direct teaching of word-reading skills. PREP is also founded on the belief that the transfer of principles can be made easier through ex- periencing the tasks and guided discovery rather than by direct teaching and learning of rules. Accordingly, the program is structured so that strategies are learned tacitly rather than through direct teaching. Thus, those who have been given PREP are likely to use these self-learned strategies in appropriate ways. Attention and planning are also involved in each task. Specifically, atten- tion is required and used in performing each task, and planning is challenged by encouraging the children to come up with their own strategies as they en~

gage in discussions, both during and following their performance.

What Are the Structure and Content of PREP?

The PREP program consists of 8 to 10 tasks that vary considerably in con- tent and the requirements of the student. Each task involves both a global training component and a curriculum~related bridging component (see Fig- ure 2.4). The global component includes structured, nonreading tasks that require the application of simultaneous or successive strategies. These tasks also provide children with the opportunity to internalize strategies in their own way, thus facilitating transfer (Das, Mishra, & Pool, 1995). The bridging component involves the same cognitive demands as its global component and provides training in simultaneous and successive processing strategies, which have been closely linked to reading and spelling (Das et al., 1994).

PREP encourages participants to develop their own strategies, focus on what is relevant, and move away from irrelevant items or events.

The global tasks begin with content that is familiar and nonthreatening, so that strategy acquisition occurs in small stages (Das et al., 1994). Complex- ity is introduced gradually, and only after a return to easier content. Through verbal mediation (i.e., through specific discussions of strategies used), the global and bridging components of PREP encourage children to apply their strategies to academic tasks such as word decoding. The global and bridging components are further divided into three levels of difficulty; this allows the

FIGURE 2.4

Illustration of a PREP training task, joining shapes (successive).

child to progress in strategy development and, for those who already have some successful processing strategies in place, to begin at an appropriate level.

A system of prompts is integrated into each global and bridging compo- nent. The series of prompts creates a scaffolding network that supports and guides the child, to ensure that tasks are completed with a minimal amount of assistance and a maximal amount of success. A record of these prompts provides a monitoring system that helps teachers determine when material is too difficult for a child or when a child is able to successfully progress to a more difficult level. A criterion of 80% correct responses is required before a child can proceed to the next level of difficulty. If this criterion is not met, an alternate set of tasks, at the same difficulty level, is used to provide the ad- ditional training required.

Efficacy of PREP

Children model the adults in their family and later in their community; this modeling facilitates internalization of the language, which reflects thoughts.

The adults act as "middlepersons" and help to pass on a literate culture, and children's zone of potential learning expands. Every child has some room to develop, as advocated by Vygotsky (1962) in his seminal work, Thought and Language. Disadvantaged children have a much broader zone than children who are advantaged and who get exposure to language and thinking that ad- equately prepares them for participation in a literate society. The Carlson and