I'll start from the CELF: overall, it looks like his language ability is pretty much intact, with the only mildly weak scores in subtests with significant impact from ADHD/working memory deficits. (Recalling Sentences, Number Repetition). The remaining scaled scores are uniformly in the Average range, with word definitions high average/above average.
This is consistent with the WJIII Verbal Comp, which is solidly average as well. It is not, however consistent with the working memory task on the WJ, Numbers Reversed, where he scored in the average range, in contrast with the CELF Number repetition, especially the backwards portion of it. Given the pre-existing Dx of ADHD, I would suspect that this inconsistency is related to fluctuating attention, as the two tasks are nearly identical.
As to the rest of the WJ Cognitive, I see that he has a significant relative strength in fluid reasoning, the cluster with the most resemblance to what we classically have conceptualized as general intelligence (g). Some might say that this suggests that your DS13 is more like gifted than not. A significant distinction when it comes to advocating for services (assuming you are in a district that will accept the discrepancy, PSW, concordance-discordance, or similar models of LD). Processing speed is a relative weakness, which is often found in individuals with LD, ADHD, or both.
WRT achievement: on the whole, he is achieving consistent with his fluid reasoning, rather than his General Ability or other cognitive clusters. The exceptions are Letter-Word ID and Math Fluency, where his performance is more like Verbal Comp and (somewhat) processing speed (that's Visual Matching). I mention this in case the district LD model is PSW (pattern of strengths and weaknesses) or concordance-discordance, which both look for academic strengths and weaknesses matched with relevant cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
There's an asterisk in the discussion with regard to Spelling. If what you are reporting is an accurate interpretation of the report, then a nonstandard scoring of Spelling was used. The spelling of words on Writing Samples and Writing Fluency is as you have described (unless item scoring criteria specifically call for accurate spelling, words just have to be identifiable), but not Spelling. I would seek clarification on that, as you would not have obtained meaningful normative information on actual on-demand spelling skills if the subtest was not scored according to the manual.
If the Spelling score is legitimate, then that is not an area of academic weakness, even using his Superior fluid reasoning as a standard of comparison.
The most curious part of his results is the Reading cluster, which has fluency consistent with his fluid reasoning, but decoding accuracy relatively weaker. If there is a good explanation for this, it would be that he is able to use meaning and context to read short bursts of text, but that his decoding in isolation is relatively weak (though solidly in the average range). Plus, you only need to get the sense of the readings, not perfect accuracy, to score well, which means he could be making a lot of miscalls and still zipping his way through. A better oral reading fluency test, with a little more depth and precision, would be the GORT-4 or the WIAT-III ORF subtest. If his Spelling score is legit, this means that he encodes better than he decodes, which is highly unusual, especially in dyslexics (or ADHD, actually). One often sees compensated dyslexics (older and/or higher functioning) who have reached a more-or-less normalized level of decoding (usually at slower than normal rate), but still have a lot of vulnerabilities in on-demand spelling. The reverse is not expected. I would be interested to know 1) if the Spelling score is a real one, and, 2) how he would score on nonsense words for spelling (the WJ subtest is called Phoneme/Grapheme knowledge) and reading (Word Attack). A high-functioning LD individual can brute force his way to having a decent reading and spelling vocabulary, but will still be exposed as having vulnerabilities on novel vocabulary, such as nonsense words.
Another area of assessment to look at would be a more sophisticated measure of phonological awareness, such as the CTOPP or CTOPP-2, looking in particular at the nonsense word subtests, and more complex measures of phoneme manipulation, such as phoneme reversal (only on the CTOPP) or phoneme isolation (CTOPP-2). He did fine on WJIII Sound Blending, but that is one of the easier forms of phoneme manipulation, and can be mastered by high-functioning dyslexics without necessarily addressing the underlying weaknesses that lead to problems with orthographic mapping, and, thus, labored reading of connected text.
His struggles with expressing himself in classroom writing, especially at the middle school level, may have multiple causes, as the attentional and organizational demands of paragraph+ length writing are considerably more than those of single sentences or phrases. I would say that, regardless of LD/dyslexia diagnosis, his existing Dx of ADHD warrants a closer look at his extended writing, preferably through a gold standard instrument like the TOWL-4. The written language subtests of the WJ are no more than sentence length tasks, which do not require him to employ his (likely) deficient executive function (planning, organization, initiation, sustained attention) skills. He already has documentation of a disability (ADHD, which is usually classified as Other Health Impaired or Neurological, depending on the state), and it is irrelevant what the qualifying disability is; if he is eligible as ADHD, and he is found to have deficiencies in written expression and processing speed, then he should have accommodations and services as warranted for them, even if the district doesn't agree that he is dyslexic.
At the very least, between ADHD and low processing speed, he ought to be able to get a 504 for extended time.
Last edited by aeh; 07/28/14 07:34 PM. Reason: typos
