Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Identification, Testing & Assessment Help with Scores Re Learning Disability?

Hi, Can someone help? (aeh!?) School has sent back my son's eval and has found no learning disability. Which I am happy about. However, I do not trust them as they told me twice my older son had no learning disability and he has severe dysgraphia.

So, here are some of the scores (I have more) for my son's most recent eval:

He has two particularly low scores on the WJ-IV-COG - in Letter Pattern Matching he scored in the 23rd percentile, deemed "low average" and in Story recall he scored in the 29th percentile. Those seems so low to me especially considering all of the other scores for that assessment are in the Superior and Very Superior range.

Here are the PAL scores, WIAT and TOWL scores. I bolded some I think are concerning.

Process Assessment of the Learner Second Edition Reading Writing (PAL II RW):
Alphabet Writing Automatic Legible Letter Writing (AWAL) Total 9, 37th, Average
Alphabet Writing Legible Letter Writing (AWL) Total 14, 91st, Superior
Alphabet Writing Total Time 9, 37th, Average

Copying-Task A Automatic Legible Letter Writing (CPAAL): Total 7, 16th, Low Average
Copying-Task A Legible Letter Writing (CPAL) 15 95th Superior
Copying-Task A Total Time (CPATT) 8 25th Average
Copying- Task B Legible Letter Writing at 30 seconds (CPBL-30) 8 25th Average
Copying- Task B Legible Letter Writing at 60 seconds (CPBL-60) 10 50th Average
Copying- Task B Legible Letter Writing at 90 seconds (CPBL-90) 9 37th Average
Copying- Task B Copy Accuracy (CPBCA) 9 37th Average
Handwriting Total Automatic Letter Legibility Composite (HWGTALC) 7 16th Low Average
Handwriting Total Legibility Composite (HWGTLC) 13 84th High Average
Handwriting Total Time Composite (HWGTTC) 8 25th Average
Orthographic Spelling (ORS) Word Choice Accuracy (WCA) Total 13 84th High Average
Word Choice Fluency (WCF) Total 13 84th High Average

The Test of Written Language-Fourth Edition (TOWL-4)
Descriptive Category
Contrived Writing 114 82nd Above Average
Vocabulary 13 84th Above Average
Spelling 10 50th Average
Punctuation 9 37th Average
Logical Sentences 12 75th Average
Sentence Combining 13 84th Above Average
Spontaneous Writing 99 47th Average
Contextual Conventions 11 63rd Average
Story Composition 8 [b]25th Averag[/b]e
Overall Writing 110 75th Average

WIAT III
Total Reading 109 73rd 105-113 Average
Basic Reading 110 75th 106-114 Average
Reading Comprehension and Fluency 107 68th 101-113 Average
Word Reading 118 88th 114-122 Above Average
Pseudoword Decoding 102 55th 98-106 Average
Reading Comprehension 117 87th 109-125 Above Average
Oral Reading Fluency 94 34th 87-101 Average
Oral Reading Accuracy 87 19th 77-97 Average
Oral Reading Speed 95 37th 87-103 Average
Mathematics 141 99.7th 135-147 Superior
Math Problem Solving 138 99th 131-145 Superior
Numerical Operations 140 99.6th 133-147 Superior
Written Expression
Spelling 87 19th 81-93 Average

So, no learning disability? Or should we look further ? Or are certain discrepancies not being acknowledged?

Oh and I am not sure why there are no scores for "written expression" It is blank just like in my post.

This is exactly my concern. And I notice that the the descriptors "average" "above average" and "superior" can be so misleading. Without really know how to interpret scores - a parent sees "average and "above average" and thinks "okay no issue." Thanks Portia!

I'll answer the last, clerical question first: There are no scores for the Written Expression composite because they did not administer Sentence Composition and Essay Composition, which are required to compute that composite. This is because the structure and nature of those tasks would duplicate those in the TOWL-4. That category of information is encompassed in the TOWL composite and subtest scores, specifically in the Sentence Combining subtest and the Spontaneous Writing composite.

It is true that there are no measures below the average range, on any reported component of the evaluation (which is likely why the finding was of no learning disability). It is also true that some of the weakest skill areas are quite divergent from the highest skill areas

In general, his pattern of relative weaknesses is in all timed tasks, not only speeded fine motor-involved tasks, but also tasks requiring no hand skills (oral reading fluency). Writing speed for both words and letters is at the low end of the Average range, as is oral reading speed. No math fluency, so we don't know about rate when writing math facts. Untimed measures are all at least in the upper quartile, with math, of course, exceptionally high, and the following other exceptions:

Writing mechanics are consistently in the Average range, with one of the measures of spelling bordering on Below Average.

Extended spontaneous writing is at the bottom of the Average range, fully a standard deviation below overall contrived writing, and up to nearly two standard deviations between specific spontaneous and contrived writing tasks (story composition vs vocabulary, sentence combining). Without the protocol in front of me, I can't say for sure, but among the questions I would have would be: How did his story compare in length with others his age (even anecdotally)? Did he use a comparable amount of the time allowed for the story, vs others his age? Were there relevant clinical observations (such as stopping frequently to shake out his hand, complaints about hand pain or fatigue, going back to correct, revise, or scratch out work, expressions of frustration, qualitative changes in legibility for short versus long writing samples, etc.)?

On the two tests from the WJ that you mention: both are in fact in the Average range, albeit the lower end thereof. The first is timed, so no shocker there. The second is harder to interpret in isolation, but it's a contextualized memory task, using narratives. Given that he's obviously a math kid, it may just not have fit his learning preferences. Another possibility: sometimes it's associated with weaker auditory working memory (phonological memory), which does have some relationship to dyslexia/dysgraphia.

It is notable that his reading accuracy falls that much on the fluency task, when reading in connected text, as compared to in isolation, at the word level. All in all, there are several pieces of data that are consistent with global weaknesses in automaticity (which we've discussed elsewhere as one of the core deficits that can result in both dyslexia and dysgraphia). The impact on applied skills, however, appears to be noteworthy only in written expression.

Given that he has cognitive scores largely in the Superior and above ranges, the Story Composition and Spelling scores (both of them) would typically be considered discrepantly low. Despite being in the Average range. As would all of the Automatic Legibility measures (which are in the Low Average range).

So one of the reasonable interpretations of the data would include something on the dysgraphic spectrum. Where a district places the functional cutoff for Specific Learning Disability-Written Expression vs student-with-dysgraphic-tendencies is another question altogether.

Thank you so much, AEH! This makes so much sense.

I wonder if it is worth it to request an IEE and have a private practice look at the testing (they did a lot of testing so it could probably just be a review of the already existing testing) and see what they say and if they would recommend perhaps an iep or 504.

Thoughts, anyone?

I am also worried about these WIST scores:

Word Identification (assess a student's ability to read words aloud accurately): Standard score 107 (average):

Spelling(asses a student;s ability to spell words accurately from dictation): Standard score 105 (average);

Fundamental Literacy Ability Index: Standard score 106 (average);

Sound-Symbol Knowledge(assess a student's ability to produce sounds, i.e.,phenomes,associated with specific letters, i.e, graphemes) Standard score 95 (average);

Items Sets were all labeled "At/Above grade level" with no scores or any other info. EXCEPT "letter Sounds" which was simply labeled "below grade level"

A bit suspicious about these results for two reason - 1) school psych never mentions them again in the report and (2) labeled average with letter sounds coming in "below average"

Also here are the full WJ IV COG scores:

Oral Vocab: 123, 94th percentile), Superior
Number series: 144, 99th percentile, Very Superior
Verbal Attention: 121, 92nd percentile, Superior
Letter Pattern Matching: 89, 23rd percentile, Low Average
Story Recall 92, 29th percentile, Average
Visualization: 106, 66th percentile, Average

I mean the difference between Letter Pattern (23rd percentile) and the top two scores of 94th percentile and 99th percentile has to be two standard deviations, no?

I am less concerned about the WIST scores. They suggest that decoding skills have normalized, which is consistent with the other achievement data. The related areas with lingering mild delays are in reading fluency and spelling, with spelling results somewhat variable across instruments. And letter sounds on the WIST is a bit harder than on some other measures because if you don't name every sound that a specific consonant can make (even though you can read it in real words), you don't get full credit. E.g., how many adults can name all the sounds of "o" off the top of their heads?

On the WJCog:

The standard global measure for the WJ (analogous to the WISC FSIQ) is the GIA. The reasoning measure without speed and working memory (analogous to the GAI on the WISC) is the Gf-Gc.

Yes, the differences are 34 and and 55 SS respectively, which are +2 and +3 (nearly 4) SD. But this really just references fine-motor speed, which hypothetically can be accommodated with extended time and typed response. Not saying it isn't a real deficit, but that district and state regs vary on how this would be supported. I'm less concerned with this processing speed weakness per se, and would pay more attention to the quality of response on extended writing (both spelling and story composition).

Thank you very much AEH!

Oh and should I request a Gf-Gc be calculated to get a better idea of what is IQ score is?

If all of the Subtests of the WJIV that were administered are already listed, then you don't have enough subtests for the Gf-Gc. The GIA is derived from one Subtest from each of the core cluster areas, while the Gf-Gc requires two from each of the Comprehension-Knowledge and Fluid Reasoning clusters, which are currently represented by Oral Vocabulary and Number Series, respectively.

The BIA (Brief Intellectual Ability) has only the first three subtests (verbal knowledge, fluid reasoning, and verbal working memory tasks), without the speed and long-term retrieval tasks that you've observed are among his lower scores. That's probably the closest you can get using existing data. The GIA is generally considered a more robust measure, but comparing the BIA and GIA could be an exercise with some utility, at least for you and your child. I'd be hesitant to call it a strong argument with the school, though, since it's essentially a cognitive screener.

The Gf-Gc would need two more subtests.

Ahh I see. Okay thanks. One more question, do you think I should request an IEE given these scores?

Depends a bit on your state regs. If you're required to state the defect in the school's eval, it might be a bit more challenging, since there isn't definitively an obvious thing to point to. If you're not (i.e., you can generically dispute the findings) then that would be something to consider.

Also think about what you hope to obtain as a result of the IEE, in terms of specific accommodations, specialized instruction/services, etc.

I'm in PA ( I think you know a little bit about PA)

I definitely know what accommodations and services I would want. Honestly, I think a 504 would probably be fine. Not sure if schools offer that, even when a kid does not qualify for special ed but has a weakness or if I would need an IEE to even get that.

Update! So, reassured by AEF, I took my son's full evaluation report with the data to a private neuropsych and paid her for her expert unbiased opinion (this neuropsycologist is also a certified PA School psychologist (she used to be a school psychologist and is now in private practice). She called me yesterday and also opined that the eval report and data indicate a learning disability (albeit not as severe as I am used to with my older son) and that the school psych who wrote the report is not taking in to account and basically dismissing his giftedness as well as the discrepancies that exist in the data due to that. I have a meeting with the school psych on Thursday. I plan on telling her about the outside independent consult and that two other psychologist, both certified PA school psych as well, say there is an LD and her report is not taking into accounted his gifted iq and that is why she is saying there is no LD. I may end up requesting an IEE as a result. Thoughts? Advice? Insight?

You already have a connection with a specialist in your area, so if you don't get anything out of further conversations with your district personnel, the IEE conversation might be one you could explore a bit with your consultant, in terms of what she might recommend as an approach. It might not require a lot of additional testing, since you already have multiple formal and informal consults stating that the existing data are supportive of an LD.

Okay so this is getting weird. So the child at issue in this post/thread was identified as gifted in 2nd grade via IQ and brief achievement testing) aand then just recently evaluated for a needs based iep because I thought his writing and spelling were extremely poor (he is in 5th grade) and when I found out he was 2 grade levels below in spelling. School evaluates and says no iep needed. He has significantly discrepant scores in spelling, writing, PAL. You can see his scores posted above. School denies IEP and the reason they are denying is that he is fine in school and performing on grade level "mostly." He is currently getting intervention in spelling and writing mechanics but he is "fine." Okay, now the school OT in the eval report said this kid couls use soem OT intervention. I ask about this at the ER meeting today and they tell me oh he will call you. OT just called and says he recommends that my son be pulled out for some OT sessions for a "tune up" to give the "teachers a break" So basically they denied he needs an IEP, that say he is operating on grade level but now he needs an unofficial OT tune up? for letter formation? Seriously???? This is making me very suspicious. I already requested an IEE and have not heard back yet, of course, but they knew it was coming. I just think this is a lot of unofficial help and intervention for a kid who is supposedly fine and on grade level. I told them I had to think about the OT pulling him out. I want my kid helped but I am not sure if agreeing to 'unofficial,' off-the-record help that they are officially denying he actually needs make sense and would hurt in the long run.

Does this make any sense to anyone? What should I do? I am really at a loss.
Maybe I should move this to Twice Exceptinal board?

So in this case, my alarm bells mostly go off on behalf of the district's interests. If I were in their place, I would be very concerned about opening oneself up to compliance issues, as this is taking an officially-general ed student out of the general setting (hence losing time on learning and access to the general education curriculum, and illegally putting them in a separate setting for an undocumented pull-out related service).

There is actually a legal, official way to do this, which is to write a 504 for accommodations and related service provision. They would, however, have to acknowledge the existence of an educationally-relevant disability. You might ask for clarification; are they proposing a 504 for related services?

Thanks, aeh. I specifically asked if they were offering a 504 and they said no.

Late to this post, but our district has been denying my 10yo son services for stealth dyslexia for years but mostly to shut me up, I guess, keeps offering "on the side" stuff. One year it was some extra work with phonics (but not with dyslexia curriculum or anything), last year it was including him in a social skills group (also not in his IEP). Though this year he never really went because his teacher couldn't find a time to send him and since it wasn't in his IEP...