10/20/2016

1

Quickly and Reliably Screen Students for Language/Literacy Disorders—including Dyslexia

Michele A. Anderson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP

WELCOME

• Webinar Housekeeping Document– Download from the “Handouts” pane– Download at bit.ly/screen-with-TILLS

• 10% Brookes Publishing Discount– Use code TILLSWEB10– Good thru November 17, 2016

• Not valid with any other offers or discounts• ASHA CEUs

– Provided in partnership with Maryland Speech-Language Hearing Association

• Questions? – Type them into “Questions” pane– Email: brookeswebmeeting@brookespublishing.com

10/20/2016

2

Disclosure/Acknowledgments

• Grant R324A100354 from the U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences to Western Michigan University. Note that opinions in this presentation are those of the authors and not the U.S. government.

• Many graduate students, colleagues, test administrators, teachers, parents and students contributed to this research

• As co-author of the TILLS SLS, Michele Anderson expects to receive royalties.

Goals for the Webinar

• Participants will be able to list two psychometric criteria to consider when choosing a language/literacy assessment screening tool.

• Participants will be able to explain how to interpret TILLS SLS screening results which indicate an increased likelihood of a disorder—including dyslexia—and the need for further assessment, or those for whom RtI services may be appropriate.

10/20/2016

3

Why do we need a screening tool?

Why do we need a screening tool?

Limited Time Limited Resources

10/20/2016

4

cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00

Ways to Categorize Language Skills

Oral Written

cc: prosto photos - https://www.flickr.com/photos/44492812@N00

Expressive Receptive

Ways to Categorize Language Skills

10/20/2016

5

Quadrant Model

Good listening comp + sentence formulation

when talkingLow reading decoding +

fluency + spelling + word inflection when

writing

Average in both

Low Reading + Low Oral Language

High sound/word skills and surface reading

Good Reading Decoding + Poor Comprehension

Sentence/Discourse Ability

Sound/Word Ability

Dyslexia(Spoken > Written)

Specific Comprehension Deficit(Written > Spoken)

Spoken + Written Disorder

Normal Language(Written = Spoken)

(Bishop & Snowling, 2004; Catts, Adlof, Hogan, & Weismer, 2005; Catts, Adlof, & Weismer, 2006; Ramus, Marshall, Rosen, & van der Lely, 2013)

DWord

Recognition

COral Language

Comprehension

RReading

Comprehension

Pattern of DyslexiaListening comprehension > Reading comprehension

(Badian, 1999; Stanovich, 1994)

VocabularyPart of C

Simple View of Reading (SVR; Gough & Tunmer, 1986)Simple View of Reading Redux (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012)

N. W. Nelson, Western Michigan U., 2016

10/20/2016

6

More information for Identifying Dyslexia Using TILLS

TILLS Screener and Assessment

10/20/2016

7

Contents of the Box

TILLS Student Language Scale (SLS)

10/20/2016

8

Section One: 12-items

• Descriptive statements

• 7 pt Likert-like scale• Rate the student

“compared with other students of the same age”

• Items 1-8 linguistic• Items 9-12 cognitive-

social

Results of EFA

10/20/2016

9

Section Two: Ability checkmark section

• Gardner (1983)-theory of multiple intelligences

• Linguistic and nonlinguistic items

• Mutually exclusive between first set (easeist) and second set (hardest)

Section Three: Open-ended Question

• Allows a wide variety of responses

• Prioritizes area of concern

• Comparison across informants may reveal themes

10/20/2016

10

Using the SLS-who can be an informant?

Using the SLS-how to administer

10/20/2016

11

Using the SLS-3 Purposes

• screening for dyslexia and other language/literacy disorders;

• gathering input from teacher, parent, and student perspectives to contribute to planning; and

• promoting home-school communication for students with and without language/literacy concerns.

Purpose 1: Screening

10/20/2016

12

Using the SLS-how to score

Consider teacher, parent, and student input on the SLSMultiple sourcesCo-norming Student Rating Scale

Correlation between Items 3-4 and Sound/Word Composite:Teachers = .671** Parents = .595**

10/20/2016

13

Purpose 1: Screening/Re-screening

May not have failed but concern-RtI?

Monitor progress to RtIby re-screening

Purpose 1: Screening

Not Just for Early Elementary Grades

Catts, Compton, Tomblin, & Bridges, 2012

10/20/2016

14

Purpose 2: Multi-informant Perspectives

• Required by IDEA (2004)

• Helps educational teams document concerns

• Parents contribute as part of the team

Purpose 3: Home-School Communication

10/20/2016

15

Predictive Validity

Teachers• Are 2 or more ratings <5?à High sensitivity93% of 69 students with LLD identified accurately as having problems

Parents

• Are all (but 1) ratings >5? àHigh specificity90% of 206 students with NL identified accurately as nothaving problems

• Are 2 or more ratings <5?à Good sensitivity85% of 239 students with LLD identified accurately as having problems

• Are all (but 1) ratings >5? àGood specificity83% of 1065 students with NL identified accurately as not having problems

Concurrent ValidityTable 8. Correlation Coefficients Providing Evidence for Concurrent Validity Based on Correlations of Combinations of SLS Ratings by Teachers, Parents, and Students with Student Performance on Related Sections of the TILLS or the Total TILLS Standard Score

NT

Pearson r for

Teachers

NP

Pearson r for

Parents

NS

Pearson r for

Students

SLS items 3,4 (Sound/Word Items) with Sound/Word Composite on TILLS

330 .671** 1810 .595** 677 .299**

SLS items 1,2,5-8 (Sent/Discourse Items) with Sentence/Discourse Composite on TILLS

322

.720**

1762

.570**

668

.302**

SLS items 1-8 (Language/Literacy Factor) with Total TILLS

321

.752**

1749

.613**

663

.329**

SLS items 9-12 (Cognitive/Social Factor) with Total TILLS

323 .536** 1762 .336** 677 .078*

SLS items 1-12 (Total SLS) with Total TILLS

318 .725** 1736 .572** 652 .279**

NT = Number of teachers in each analysis; NP = Number of parents in each analysis; NS = Number of students in each analysis; SLS = Student Language Scale; TILLS = Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills; ** p < .001, p < .05

10/20/2016

16

Reliability-12 item scale

Omega• Teachers .96• Parents .94• Students .84

Coefficient Alpha• Teachers .96• Parents .93• Students .84

Intra-rater Reliability

10/20/2016

17

Purpose 1 screening for dyslexia

Case Studies

8;9 Grade 3 BoyNo IEP In our Language Literacy Risk (LLR) group:

RtI services for Reading Fluency 30 min, 1X/day, 5 days/week21st %ile on Star Reading77 SS, 6th %ile on WRMT Word Attack

Should he be tested/identified?

10/20/2016

18

8;9 Grade 3 BoyParent SLSTeacher SLS

Student SLS

10/20/2016

19

Grade 3 boy (age 8;9)

8;9 Grade 3 Boy

¡ Core subtests§ Vocab Aware§ NW Spell§ NW Read§ WE-Discourse

Sound/word 53

Sentence/discourse 63

Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?

10/20/2016

20

8;9 Grade 3 Boy

Good listening comp & sentence formulationLow reading

decoding & fluency & spelling

High in both?

Low in both?

High sound/word skills and surface

reading?Low comprehension

in listening and reading?

Sentence/Discourse Ability

Sound/Word Ability

Example of isolated focus on Reading Fluency

It was fine but there were many other problems

Not classic dyslexia

Could say:Dyslexia + Language Dis:

Vocab Delayed Story RetellSocial Comm

7;10 Grade 2 GirlNo preschool servicesPositive family history of reading problemsHas an IEP with reading decoding and fluency goalsLD as primary eligibility (Reading)No S/LI as secondary eligibility – Should there be?

10/20/2016

21

Teacher and Parent SLS for 7;10, Grade 2

Parent SLSGen Ed Teacher SLS

Grade 2 girl (age 7;10)

10/20/2016

22

7;10 Grade 2 Girl

Sound/word 50Sentence/discourse 71

¡ Core subtests§ Vocab Aware§ Phoneme Aw§ NW Rep

Consistent with diagnosis of dyslexia?

7;10 Grade 2, Girl

Good listening comp & sentence formulationLow reading

decoding & fluency & spelling

High in both?

Low in both?

High sound/word skills and surface

reading?Low comprehension

in listening and reading?

Sentence/Discourse Ability

Sound/Word Ability

LD as primary eligibility (rdg).Also gets help in class (co-taught by special edteacher and other assignments read to her).

Reading decoding and fluency goals on IEP.

Should there be goals related to oral language?Written expression and spelling?

10/20/2016

23

Summary

• Useful for screening individual or large groups of students across the school-ages

• Minimal costs in teacher or student time and district money

• Evidence supports predictive validity as shown by high sensitivity/specificity for teachers and good for parents

• Good internal consistency and factor structure• Good intra-rater and test-retest reliability• Qualitatively important to collaborative planning