Utility of KTEA-3 Error Analysis for the Diagnosis of Specific Learning Disabilities

Abstract

Through the use of excerpts from one of our own case studies, this commentary applied concepts inherent in, but not limited to, the neuropsychological literature to the interpretation of performance on the Kaufman Tests of Educational Achievement-Third Edition (KTEA-3), particularly at the level of error analysis. The approach to KTEA-3 test interpretation advocated here parallels the cognitive process-oriented approach used by McCloskey and colleagues in their interpretation of the Wechsler scales. This approach is also advocated by Hale and Fiorello as part of their cognitive hypothesis testing model and is inherent in the neuropsychological assessment and interpretation frameworks proposed by Miller and Dehn. For the purpose of this commentary, we describe how this approach to KTEA-3 test interpretation fits within our own Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC)-based approach to specific learning disabilities (SLD) identification. To derive maximum benefit from error analysis, practitioners must pay careful attention to the manner in which students respond to test items and copiously document their observations during test administration.

A Misuse of IQ Scores: Using the Dual Discrepancy/Consistency Model for Identifying Specific Learning Disabilities

“…Flanagan et al [41] first developed the idea of using XBA to identify a SLD. The method has gone by multiple names but is currently called DD/C [38].…”

“…4.Flanagan et al [41] developed the method in 2002 as part of their guidelines for using XBA to identify SLD. Since then, they have not been consistent with their use of terms.…”

Dyslexia in the Schools: Assessment and Identification

“…School personnel can then identify appropriate measures to use in an evaluation and link data from the evaluation to the development of an individualized education program (IEP). One approach to eligibility determination is a process put forth by Flanagan and colleagues (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Dynda, 2006a; Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2002, 2006). Figure 1 shows how Monica, along with other members of the eligibility team, might proceed through the eligibility process with Sam.…”

“…Figure 1 shows how Monica, along with other members of the eligibility team, might proceed through the eligibility process with Sam. The process, as outlined in Figure 1 (adapted from Flanagan et al, 2002; Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2006), is designed to address many of the SLD eligibility criteria.…”

Test Review: Insight Test of Cognitive Abilities by A. L. Beal

“…Recognizing that Insight was intended to have an empirical footing in CHC theory, instrument construction began with the implementation of an expert consensus study (CTC, 2011a). A total of 37 individuals were identified in alignment with criteria outlined within the Achievement Test Desk Reference, such as needing to have a strong working knowledge of CHC theory (Flanagan, Ortiz, Alfonso, & Mascolo, 2002). After recruitment and selection procedures were completed, 13 experts remained and were informed that Insight represented a group-administered test that had been developed to measure the broad cognitive abilities specified within CHC theory.…”