Daniel C. Miller

Critical Issues in Response-To-Intervention, Comprehensive Evaluation, and Specific Learning Disabilities Identification and Intervention: An Expert White Paper Consensus

Developed in concert with the Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA), this White Paper regarding specific learning disabilities identification and intervention represents the expert consensus of 58 accomplished scholars in education, psychology, medicine, and the law. Survey responses and empirical evidence suggest that five conclusions are warranted: 1) The SLD definition should be maintained and the statutory requirements in SLD identification procedures should be strengthened; 2) neither ability-achievement discrepancy analysis nor failure to respond to intervention alone is sufficient for SLD identification; 3) a “third method” approach that identifies a pattern of psychological processing strengths and weaknesses, and achievement deficits consistent with this pattern of processing weaknesses, makes the most empirical and clinical sense; 4) an empirically-validated RTI model could be used to prevent learning problems, but comprehensive evaluations should occur for SLD identification purposes, and children with SLD need individualized interventions based on specific learning needs, not merely more intense interventions; and 5) assessment of cognitive and neuropsychological processes should be used for both SLD identification and intervention purposes.

Performance of brain-injured versus healthy adults on three versions of the category test

Abstract Forty-nine healthy adults and 45 brain-injured adults were tested using one of three versions of the Category Test. Membership based on brain-injury versus non-brain-injury produced a significant main effect on the total error score for all subtests, except Subtest 2, of the Category Test. No significant differences between versions of the Category Test on total error score or an interaction between Category Test version and group membership was found. Analysis of individual subtest error scores indicated significant differences between versions on Subtest 3 and Subtest 6, with the traditional version fairing least well in differentiating brain damage. These data support the contention that the Category Test is robust to changes in the form of administration.

Neuropsychological Profiles of Written Expression Learning Disabilities Determined by Concordance-Discordance Model Criteria

Children with specific learning disabilities (SLD) have disparate neuropsychological processing deficits that interfere with academic achievement in spelling, writing fluency, and/or written expression (WE). Although there are multiple potential causes of WE SLD, there is a paucity of research exploring this critical academic skill from a neuropsychological perspective. This study examined the neuropsychological profiles of WE SLD subtypes defined using the concordance-discordance model (C-DM) of SLD identification. Participants were drawn from a sample of 283 children (194 boys, 89 girls) aged 6 years to 16 years old (Mage = 9.58 years, SD = 2.29 years) referred for comprehensive neuropsychological evaluations in school settings and subsequently selected based on C-DM determined spelling, writing fluency, and WE SLD. WE SLD subtypes differed on several psychomotor, memory, and executive function measures (F range = 2.48–5.07, p range = .049 to <.001), suggesting that these children exhibit distinct patterns of neuropsychological processing strengths and weaknesses. Findings have relevance for differential diagnosis of WE subtypes, discriminating WE SLD subtypes from low WE achievement, and developing differentiated evidence-based instruction and intervention for children with WE SLD. Limitations and future research will be addressed.

Neurocognitive Applications of the Woodcock–Johnson IV

Abstract The purpose of this chapter is to review the application of the WJ IV (Woodcock–Johnson—Fourth Edition) batteries from a neuropsychological perspective. The first section of the chapter presents a reclassification of the WJ IV tests into a neuropsychological conceptual framework. The second section of the chapter provides a review of what basic neurocognitive constructs are addressed and assessed by the WJ IV tests of cognitive, oral language, and achievement. The final section of the chapter provides an example of how the learning and memory tests may be interpreted from a neuropsychological perspective.

Performance of healthy adults versus individuals with brain injuries on the supplemental measures of the WAIS-R NI

The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Revised as a Neuropsychological Instrument (WAIS-R NI) provides methods to uniformly interpret atypical responses or response patterns. To date, little research has examined the primary population for which the supplemental measures of the WAIS-R NI were intended. The purpose of the present study was to compare the performance of individuals with brain injuries versus healthy adults on the supplemental measures of the WAIS-R NI. Forty-nine healthy adults and 45 individuals with brain injuries were tested. MANOVA indicated a significant main effect for group membership and the results suggest the WAIS-R NI supplemental measures differentiate individuals with brain injuries from healthy adults.

Comparing Three Patterns of Strengths and Weaknesses Models for the Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities.

Processing Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW) models have been proposed as a method for identifying specific learning disabilities. Three PSW models were examined for their ability to predict expert identified specific learning disabilities cases. The Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model (DD/C; Flanagan, Ortiz, & Alfonso, 2013) as operationalized by the Cross Battery Assessment Software (X-BASS; Ortiz, Flanagan & Alfonso, 2015), the Concordance-Discordance Model (C-DM; Hale & Fiorello, 2004), and the Psychological Processing Analyzer software (PPA v3.1; Dehn, 2015b) were evaluated. The DD/C approach as represented with the X-BASS system had a 100% agreement with the expert panel in the identification of specific learning disabilities and non-specific learning disabilities cases. The C-DM model was more conservative, identifying only 45% of the specific learning disabilities cases. The PPA software was too limited to be used in the study and is not recommended for use in identifying specific learning disabilities via a PSW approach. Although more research is needed, the results of this study would suggest that the DD/C and X-BASS provide the greatest utility for a PSW approach to identifying specific learning disabilities.

Performance of brain-injured versus non-brain-injured individuals on three versions of the category test

To date, no research exists examining criterion-related validity of alternate, computerized forms of the Category Test. The intent of this study was to address criterion-related validity of three full forms of the Category Test. In that, the goal was to examine equivalency of each version in their ability to differentiate brain-injured from non-brain-injured individuals. Forty-nine (N = 49) healthy adults and 45 (N = 45) brain-injured adults were tested using three versions of the Category Test, the BDI, and the WAIS-R NI. ANOVA indicated no significant differences between versions of the Category Test or an interaction between Category Test version and group membership on the total error score. MANOVA performed between versions of the Category Test and Subtest error scores indicated significant differences between versions on Subtest 3 and Subtest 6. Group membership (brain-injured v. non-brain-injured) produced a significant main effect on all subtests of the Category Test except Subtest 2. Several exploratory analyses were performed examining the relationship between neuropsychological impairment, group membership based on Category Test error scores, and the WAIS-R NI. Clinical applications, such as the use of serial testing to index neurorehabilitation gains, were discussed.