2
KENTUCKY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
SCHOOL PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICS
INTEGRATED ASSESSEMENT REPORT
REVIEWVIEW, KENTUCKY 40000-2212
March 29, 2012
NAME: ANDERSON, Robert Scott STUDENT ID#: 101010
SCHOOL: Kentucky Middle School RACE/GENDER: W/M
GUARDIAN: Ramona Wagner DATE OF BIRTH: 05/1/1997
ADDRESS: 151 North Avenue, 40000 C.A.: 14-8
TELEPHONE: 502-412-2011 GRADE: 8
YEARS IN SCHOOL: 9
Evaluation Procedures Person Responsible Date
Record Review G. Handley, school psychologist 03/05/2012
Child Developmental History R. Wagner, grandmother 01/16/2012
Student Interview G. Handley, school psychologist 03/12/2012
Intelligence Test G. Handley, school psychologist 03/12/2012
Achievement Test A. Beard, diagnostician 03/22/2012
Behavioral Observations A. Beard, diagnostician 02/27/2012
G. Handley, school psychologist 03/08/2012
Adaptive Behavior S. Wallich, special education teacher 03/06/2012
Communication Written Report K. Sanders, speech language pathologist 02/23/2012
Language Assessment Summary K. Sanders, speech language pathologist 02/23/2012
REASON FOR REFERRAL
Robert was referred for a multidisciplinary reassessment due to timelines for three-year reevaluation. During reevaluation planning, Ms.Wagner requested a full reevaluation given concerns about his academic performance and his transition to high school. Assessment data will be used to assist in determining if Robert continues to meet eligibility criteria as a student with a Mild Mental Disability (MMD). It will also provide assistance and support to teaching personnel in their educational planning.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Robert presently resides with his grandmother/legal guardian, grandfather, two younger siblings, and an older sister in Riverview, Kentucky. His grandmother noted that, in the home environment, Robert gets along “fair” with parents, other adults, and peers. He gets along “poor” with siblings. She noted that Robert often plays outside, sometimes uses the computer, uses the phone, spends time with family and friends, and watches television. Robert enjoys using exercise equipment. He has had the opportunity to visit libraries, parks, neighborhood centers, as well as participate in church groups or activities, organized after-school activities, and sports events. His chores at home include cleaning up the kitchen, completing yard work, and various other tasks as needed. In the last twelve months, Ms.Wagner did not report any significant or stressful events with the family. There is no history of physical/sexual/emotional abuse and neglect. She checked the following characteristics in describing her grandson: caring, acts immature for age, sometimes argues, kind, oversensitive, generally happy, lacks selfconfidence, helpful, athletic, friendly, poor peer relationships. She noted she would like to see him improve his confidence. Ms.Wagner reported that Robert generally disliked elementary school but currently does like middle school. She has concerns with his academic and social skills. He has missed a half day of this school year.
Robert reported that he enjoys school and wants to do his best work. His favorite class is gym. Robert enjoys body building and wants to develop big muscles like the wrestlers on TV. Robert reported that he has one friend in his math and language arts class.
Robert attended Head Start preschool program in the Kentucky County Schools. He was referred for special education services in the first grade and was served in first through third grades as a student with a Developmental Delay. Robert was reevaluated in the third grade, 2006, and was identified as a student with a Mild Mental Disability. He continues to be served as a student with a Mild Mental Disability.
Robert is an eighth grader at Kentucky Middle School. His current Individual Education Program (IEP) dated January 4,2012, includes goals for receptive/expressive language, math, reading, written language, and social skills. Robert participates in resource room for math, reading, written language and social skills. He participates in the regular eight grade class for social studies, science and electives. A special education teacher serves as a co-teacher in his social studies class relative to reading, written language and social skills goals. Robert also receives speech/language therapy for 30minutes twice a week in a pull-out resource setting. Robert receives supplemental aids and services of teacher modeling, use of a calculator, use of manipulatives, pairing words with pictures, providing choices, positive reinforcement, and access to technology including text reading software.
A review of progress data revealed that Robert ’s ability to appropriately respond to “why” questions (critical thinking skills requiring inference and identifying a solution to a given scenario) improved from 15% accuracy to 65% accuracy during structured learning tasks. However, during classroom instruction, responding appropriately to “why” questions continue to be a challenge. Current baseline in this area is 30%. Language instruction has included vocabulary building by identifying synonyms for content-related words. Progress data revealed an increase in Robert’s skill in using synonyms (from 45% to 60%) when using content-related vocabulary.
Regular and Special Education Teachers reported that Robert has difficulty comprehending information presented auditorially, and he often asks that information and questions be repeated or re-phrased (baseline: an average of 4 requests per 15 minute lesson). Analysis of a spontaneous language sample confirmed that Robert often has difficulty understanding and gaining meaning from the context of a conversation. Additionally, Robert’s teacher reported that he often provided answers to questions that appear to be out-of-context or unrelated to the topic (an average of 3 related responses per 5 responses). Robert has difficulty understanding figurative language, which often resulted in an inappropriate literal response to a comment from peers and adults (gives appropriate responses 1 out of 5 opportunities).
Given analysis of progress data, when given an instructional level text (4.0 grade level), Robert read one syllable words with 90% accuracy and multi-syllable words with 60% accuracy. In a one minute time oral reading of a 100-word instructional level passage, Robert read 50 words total (36 words read correctly, 14 errors). Miscue analysis revealed that Robert attempted initial sounds on (3 words), struggled with initial and ending blends on (2 words), and mostly skipped unknown words (9 words). Robert made progress in the use of reading comprehension strategies. Given an instructional level text, Robert demonstrated the following levels of accuracy on understanding these reading strategies: context clues (70% accuracy), text features (55% accuracy), and paraphrasing of the main idea and key details (65% accuracy). Data showed that Robert benefited from pre-teaching of vocabulary words, pictures or diagrams, and background knowledge about the subject. When given a reading passage at his instructional level, Robert answered literal comprehension questions (who/what/where/when) with greater accuracy (80%) as compared to inferential questions (60% accuracy). Robert struggled with analysis of text including identifying a central theme, making comparisons, and evaluating an argument.
Given an oral reading of a grade level text (8.0 grade level), Robert answered orally posed literal questions with 70% accuracy and higher order application questions with 35% accuracy. Robert used text reading software to read grade level text (e.g., assignments in social studies and science class). Robert required a step by step assistance from peer or adult as he used the basic functions of the text reading software (80% accuracy) (e.g., locate the passage on the CD, highlight the passage for oral reading). He has not mastered full use of the text reader software, including the re-read function, vocabulary definitions (20% accuracy).
Robert made progress in writing planning, sentence construction and paragraph construction. Robert used prewriting strategies more consistently (from 20% to 65% e.g., listing key points, graphic organizer). He constructed simple sentences with 90% accuracy (contain at least one noun, one verb and capitalization and end punctuation). Robert used an editing routine to ensure proper simple sentence components (from 20% to 90% accuracy). Robert correctly placed commas in a series with 80% accuracy. Robert explored complicated sentence structures with 40% accuracy including compound, complex sentences. Robert made progress in paragraph construction. He identified the parts of a paragraph with 70% accuracy, however he is just beginning the generation of paragraph components (40% accuracy). Robert needed a variety of supports for written language instruction including visuals, models, word banks and color coding. Robert made progress using a keyboarding software program (types 15 words per minute).
Robert made significant progress in math calculation. When given math problems requiring addition, subtraction, multiplication and division of whole numbers, Robert solved the problems with 80% accuracy (increased from 60%) with the use of a calculator. Sam required manipulatives, diagrams and drawings to compute a fraction problem. He adds, subtracts, and compares fractions when participating in a cooperative group activity with 85% accuracy. Given manipulatives, Robert forms and orders fractions for 1/2, 1/3, and 1/4. However, even with the benefit of manipulatives and teacher prompting, Robert could not explain the process of multiplying and dividing fractions (30% accuracy). Robert solved one- and two-step algebraic equations with the use of a graphic organizer with 80% accuracy (increased from 45%). Applying learning to real world situations is extremly difficult for Robert for he does not recognize similarities of a situation. He requires a step by step guide to complete an application problem (40% accuracy). Based on Curriculum Based Measures, Sam’s Quantile score is 635Q (within 5th grade level) as compared to his same age peer Quantile range of 730Q to 1020Q.
Robert has made progress in social skill instruction in the area of building friendships. Given explicit social skill instruction, Robert can identify the four steps to beginning a conversation (4/4 steps). He can identify desired behaviors in a scripted and non-scripted role play and video clips. However, he has not mastered application of this skill in structured practices (3/5 practice sessions) and non-structured settings (0/5 practice sessions). Given behavior observation and teacher report, Robert invades the personal space of others by standing too close or bumping his body against another person (4 times in three minute observation). When engaged in small group discussion with an adult or peer, Robert interrupts with extraneous comments (6 times in 3 minute observation).
Other information to be considered as part of Robert’s reevaluation includes his performance on repeated district assessments. Throughout the 2011-2012 school year, Robert was assessed in the areas of math, reading, and language at three intervals using the MAP assessment. In the fall 2011, Robert received a math score of 193, which placed him at a beginning 3rd grade level. In the winter 2012, Robert’s math score fell 11 points to 182, which placed his math skills between a beginning and mid-year 2nd grade level. In the spring 2012, Robert’s math score increased 10 points to 192, which placed him at a beginning 3rd grade level. In the fall 2011 in the area of reading, Robert received a score of 194, which placed his reading skills at a mid-year 3rd grade level. In the winter 2012, Robert’s reading score fell 3 points to 191, which placed him between a beginning and mid-year 3rd grade level. In the spring 2012, Robert’s reading score fell 23 points to 168, which placed him between a beginning and mid-year 1st grade level. In the area of language, fall 2011 score was 193, which placed his language skills between a beginning and mid-year 3rd grade level. In the winter 2012, Robert’s language score fell 4 points to 189. This placed Robert’s language skills between a mid-year and end-of-the-year 2nd grade level. In the spring 2012, Robert’s language score fell another 7 points to 182, which placed his language skills below 2nd grade level.
ASSESSMENT RESULTS
A graphic representation of the data and specific test scores are found in the last section.
Communication Functioning
The Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) was administered to assess Robert’s receptive and expressive language skills. The CASL provides an in-depth, research-based assessment of oral language skills, and includes 15 individually administered sub-tests given in a multiple-choice response format. Administration of the test requires no reading or writing. Based on referral information, eight subtests of the CASL were administered. Test results indicated that Robert has relative strengths in the use of grammatical morphemes (e.g., -ing word ending, plural s, possessive s, -ed). The CASL also revealed that Sam exhibits an expressive language deficit resulting in difficulty naming synonyms (words that have the same meaning) and constructing/completing sentences using correct word order.
Analysis of a conversational language sample confirmed that Robert uses appropriate morphological markers to signify possession, present progressive verb forms, regular past tense and regular plurals (baseline: 0 morphological errors within a 20 minute language sample). Analysis also revealed that Sam’s conversational speech often consists of short, simple sentence construction (mean length of utterance was 8.34). When speaking in longer, more complex sentences, it was determined that syntactically incorrect sentence formation was common.
The Test of Problem Solving- 2 Adolescent (TOPS- 2 Adolescent) was administered to assess Sam’s critical thinking abilities. The TOPS uses a natural context of problem-solving situations related to adolescent experiences to measure a student’s language strategies using logic and experience. Items are presented verbally and in print to minimize possible auditory memory or reading deficiencies. Test results revealed severely impaired critical thinking skills and understanding of idiomatic language. Test results indicated that Sam has difficulty with inferences (e.g., “Why does ___”), determining solutions (“How could ____”), and problem solving (“What could you do to ____”).
Classroom observation and informal assessment revealed intelligible speech and age-appropriate articulation, voice and fluency skills.
Physical Functioning
Ms.Wagner noted that Robert ’s overall health is “good,” and he sleeps ten hours per night without any difficulties. In the past, he has had been diagnosed with environmental allergies that he controls with over the counter medication when needed. He has not had any difficulties with hearing or vision.
Cognitive Functioning
Robert, a 14-year-old male, was first observed by this examiner on March 12,2012. When the examiner went to get him, he willingly accompanied her to the library where they engaged in the assessment. During the assessment, Robert presented as being very friendly and worked well with the examiner. He was observed to work somewhat slowly on timed tasks but seemingly tried his best on all the items he was given. He had some difficulty with the tasks that required visual memory, but he did much better with auditory memory and nonverbal problem solving. There were no unusual behaviors noted during the assessment session. Overall, due to his willingness to try and his cooperation and rapport with the examiner, it is felt that this is a relatively good estimate of his potential.