Integrating Cognitive Assessment in School Neuropsychological Evaluations

Flanagan, Dawn P.; Alfonso, Vincent C.; Ortiz, Samuel O.; Dynda, Agnieszka M.

doi:10.1002/9781118269855.ch6

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This evidence vindicates Das and colleagues (see Das, 1973;Das et al, 1979Kirby & Das, 1977;Kirby et al, 1996;Leong et al, 1985;Naglieri & Das, 1987;Papadopoulos, Parrila, Das, & Kirby, 1997) who envisioned intelligence as a set of independent, yet interrelated, cognitive processes. Because of its process-oriented nature, the PASS theory of intelligence fits well within an integrative framework of neuropsychological assessment (Flanagan, Alfonso, Ortiz, & Dynda, 2009) and provides direction to the intervention of reading (Hayward et al, 2008) and mathematics difficulties (Das & Janzen, 2004). The celebration of PASS theory's 40th anniversary (Das, 1973) should mark the starting point for new studies examining the role of intelligence on achievement and bridge the gap between theory and practice.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Intelligence Relevant in Reading “μάνα” and in Calculating “3 + 5”?

Georgiou¹,

Manolitsis²,

Tziraki³

2015

Cognition, Intelligence, and Achievement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is Intelligence Relevant in Reading “μάνα” and in Calculating “3 + 5”?

Georgiou¹,

Manolitsis²,

Tziraki³

2015

Cognition, Intelligence, and Achievement

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Therefore, intelligence batteries are more similar today than they were in the past, particularly those that are based explicitly on CHC theory. Nevertheless, specific cognitive ability deficits may manifest differently on tests that purport to measure the same broad (and even narrow) ability constructs, simply because cognitive constructs are measured in different ways (e.g., memory tasks can vary in terms of output [vocal or pointing] and content [words or numbers]; fluid reasoning tasks can vary in terms of type of visual stimuli [meaningful or nonmeaningful] and type of response [oral or visual‐motor]) and successful performance on any subtest is based on multiple processes (see Flanagan, Alfonso, Ortiz, & Dynda, 2010).…”

Section: Third‐methods Approaches To Sld Identificationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhancing practice through application of Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification

Flanagan¹,

Fiorello

Ortiz³

2010

Psychology in the Schools

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article demonstrates how the broad and narrow abilities and processes that comprise Cattell -Horn -Carroll (CHC) theory and their relations to specific academic outcomes have begun to transform our current understanding of the definition of and methods for indentifying specific learning disability (SLD), particularly in the school setting. The manner in which CHC theory has been used to guide evaluation of the academic and cognitive capabilities of students who are suspected of having SLD is described. Current psychometric methods for identifying SLD that have a foundation in CHC theory are highlighted. These newer methods are based on what is known as the "third method," a provision for SLD identification included in the federal regulations (34 CFR 300.540-543) accompanying the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act that permits the use of alternative, research-based approaches. A method based on an integration of existing third-method approaches, called the Hypothesis-Testing CHC Approach (HT-CHC), was proposed. The HT-CHC method is expected to be carried out within the context of a Response to Intervention (RTI) service delivery model. Benefits of this approach over ability -achievement discrepancy and RTI-only methods and future directions in SLD identification research are discussed. C 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

show abstract

“…Additionally, more specific estimates of effect sizes were reported by grouping studies into narrower categories. The generally small effect sizes were interpreted as evidence against the general use of cognitive/neuropsychological tests in special education evaluations as well as discrediting SLD identification approaches using cognitive testing (e.g., Naglieri and Johnson, 2000;Dehn, 2008;Feifer, 2008;Flanagan et al, 2010a;Fiorello et al, 2014). After coding, only four articles included in Burns et al (2015) met three or four criteria and as such, these articles used a methodological approach that could potentially provide a valid effect size estimate between cognitive/neuropsychological tests and intervention outcomes as defined in the current review (Table 2).…”

Section: Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence-Based Use of Cognitive Testing for Academic Interventions: A Critical Appraisal of Meta-Analytic Methodologies

Decker

Luedke

2021

Front. Educ.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research suggests Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) are directly linked to specific neurocognitive deficits that result in unexpected learning delays in academic domains for children in schools. However, meta-analytic studies have failed to find supporting evidence for using neurocognitive tests and, consequently, have discouraged their inclusion in SLD identification policies. The current study critically reviews meta-analytic findings and the methodological validity of over 200 research studies used in previous meta-analytic studies to estimate the causal effect of neurocognitive tests on intervention outcomes. Results suggest that only a very small percentage (6–12%) of studies used in previous meta-analytic studies were methodologically valid to estimate a direct effect of cognitive tests on academic intervention outcomes, with the majority of studies having no causal link between neurocognitive tests and intervention outcomes. Additionally, significant reporting discrepancies and inaccurate effect size estimates were found that warranted legitimate concerns for conclusions and policy recommendations provided in several meta-analytic studies. Given the lack of methodological rigor linking cognitive testing to academic interventions in current research, removing neurocognitive testing from learning disability evaluations may be premature. Suggestions for future studies evaluating the impact of neurocognitive tests on intervention outcomes as well as guidelines for synthesizing meta-analytic findings are discussed.

show abstract

Integrating Cognitive Assessment in School Neuropsychological Evaluations

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

Is Intelligence Relevant in Reading “μάνα” and in Calculating “3 + 5”?

Is Intelligence Relevant in Reading “μάνα” and in Calculating “3 + 5”?

Enhancing practice through application of Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory and research: A “third method” approach to specific learning disability identification

Evidence-Based Use of Cognitive Testing for Academic Interventions: A Critical Appraisal of Meta-Analytic Methodologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About