education psychologist

[drwitch]

Anybody got any hints or advice about how to get a private consultation. Ds (11)really struggles at dealing with things he finds hard (even though he can do them really well when he calms down). - Gets either really angry or really teary and neither response is when he moves up to secondary school. Its making him happy and stopping him learning at the rate of his peers. Not looking for a formal diagnosis as such but more some help in teaching him to deal with these feelings

Flanks, fundamentally, we don't disagree, I think we are both sceptical, and sympathetic, both at the same time, but maybe come down in different places on these debates, but on a case by case basis, we might sometimes agree, or not be far apart.

I have a "dyslexia" diagnosis, by the way, and have never heard of Elliot, but have been actively involved in the research done in the UK over the past 30 years..not so much over the last 10.

.

As far as employment, or special consideration go,. I would normally say " I am dyslexic, therefore please can I have....." one example is a different coloured keyboard. That is fine when I am communicating a need, and briefly explaining why.

However, I have very specific (very severe) neurological impairments, and in the average lesson needed nothing what so ever at school.

It is completely different when teaching, being told a child is "dyslexic" tells me nothing. being told a child is "gifted" tells me nothing.

You have given one definition of dyslexia, but there are many others.

As for keyboards, I've done a lot of work with school leavers and young adults, trying to undo the damage of keyboard over use, and reprogramme using handwriting, it it is process that can take many years, and for many, particularly those with worse SEN, the damage is irreparable. Some people never develop the skills they have lost.

I don't think we are so different. I find private ed psych reports fairly useless and a waste of parents money and schools time. You don't seem to. Ok

I expect if we were actually working in the same school with the same pupils, we would each want to teach them the best we could, and our conclusions for individuals would not be so different.

I expect if we were actually working in the same school with the same pupils, we would each want to teach them the best we could, and our conclusions for individuals would not be so different.

Absolutely.

I am a critical reader, I expect to be convinced and I question all assumptions in my reading. When I assess, I fundamentally am looking to NOT find a specific difficulty, that way if I do state the existence of one then I know I can sleep.

I tend to find ed psych reports very bland and samey, which can be frustrating. A good one though should be very digestible from the Summary at the front, and the conclusions at the back. If any specific detail needs explaining then the relevant comments should be next to each test (my reports average 35 odd pages).

That there is a neurobiological condition that impacts acquisition of literacy I do not doubt. That our understanding of it needs improvement I also do not doubt. But that many students struggle with barriers to learning because so many schools refuse any outside voice is a source of sadness for me daily when I meet students who, after assessment, it is clear that they have been thrown out of school because they lack literacy skills and no one bothered to check.

So which of the two Educational Psychologists reports on my desk should I follow? Some recommendations are against the advice of the SaLT report also on my desk and contrary to the "dyslexia" specialist's views ...any suggestions?

Contact them and ask them to talk to each other and sort it out? They do have a professional duty to discuss these things with each other.

No I said the child and parent are best placed to decide if the school is meeting the child's needs

So who should decide whether the advice is appropriate? It would be a brave/foolish teacher who decides unilaterally to override an experienced professional's advice.

The discrepancy model of diagnosing dyslexia based on IQ was dropped from the DSM in 2012

Yet parents turn up in schools brandishing ed pysch reports demanding access to keyboards all the time. There is often no point in trying to discuss, or argue, or show evidence, or anything like that. We just ignore the report, as we are entitled to do, it being private.

No, you really aren't entitled to ignore a report simply because it is private, zoe. Although it sounds to me from your other posts that that's not quite what you meant to say.

I maybe find something useful in around half, but even then, there is the question of time, resources and simply trying to memorise what has been said.... walking round a class of 30, I really couldn't quote you page after page verbatim of each child's records

No-one expects that. The expectation would be that the advice that needs to be acted on gets summarised and incorporated into the child's provision plan. In legal terms, failing to give a child the provision he needs because the teacher forgot would be no defence. Likewise, if you don't keep proper and accessible records for children with SEN, you're liable to get into difficulties with Ofsted. If you don't have the resources, you should be considering whether to apply for an EHC needs assessment because the child's needs can't be met within the school's resources.

Likewise, if you don't keep proper and accessible records for children with SEN, you're liable to get into difficulties with Ofsted the trouble is not shortage of records! For one class of last year I had 19kg of records I was supposed to carry round with me! I contacted my union rep, who weighed them!

AugustaFinkNottle why do you assume that the professionals involved haven't talked to each other. They have.

The discrepancy model of diagnosing dyslexia based on IQ was dropped from the DSM in 2012

Not true mrz.

They changed wording to accommodate advances in research, but discrepancy absolutely. The manual references sufficient 'intellectual ability' instead if 'intelligence' (from memory). The change recognises evidence that Dyslexia can occur without a clear discrepancy, but maintains that where such a discrepancy occurs it is still dyslexia.

Be of no doubt, that without the discrepancy definition dyslexia would never have been in DSM in the first place.

" The DSM-5 Neurodevelopmental Work Group concluded that the many definitions of dyslexia and dyscalculia meant those terms would not be useful as disorder names or in the diagnostic criteria"

The reason gifted appears so often, is because one of the simplest ways to recognise dyslexia is for there to be a discrepancy between a person's IQ and their literacy skills. IQ testing has more evidence as a predictor of academic achievement than any other single test or assessment, although it is certainly not infallible, and so this discrepancy (with associated behaviours) is the easiest way to recognise dyslexia.

No because that criteria hasn't been used since 2012.

The DSM-­5 diagnostic criteria for LD reflect two major changes, each of which necessitated other changes:

1. one overarching category of SLD with specifiers to characterize the specific manifestations of learning difficulties at the time of assessment in three major academic domains namely reading writing, mathematics
2. elimination of the IQ -­ achievement discrepancy requirement and its replacement with four criteria (A – D), all of which must be met.

AugustaFinkNottle why do you assume that the professionals involved haven't talked to each other. They have.

You referred to this in the context of contradictory reports. It's up to them to aim to resolve contradictions. If you're still not sure what to do with the reports, it's probably a case where the child needs an EHC needs assessment so someone else can decide which advice to follow.

I have no idea where you are getting your information on DSM5 from mrz, but let me quote the APAs own words:

'Because of the changes in DSM-5, clinicians will be able to make this diagnosis by identifying whether
patients are unable to perform academically at a level appropriate to their intelligence and age.'

Feel free to link or quote a source that suggests the APA have given contradictory guidance. However, there is a reason that tests of underlying ability are mandated in a diagnostic assessment, and it is discrepancy.

From the DSM-5 Flanks

www.dsm5.org/Documents/Specific%20Learning%20Disorder%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
And the International Dyslexia Association

Once again mrz, your ability to inform a discussion is astounding. I quote DSM to you, and it is ignored.

What DSM5 did was allow for SpLD to be recognised with specific subtypes.

Discrepancy remains significant because without it it is very hard to establish whether a student is underperforming. The risk would be that all poor readers become dyslexic, all poor maths students become dyscalculic, etc.

Intelligence, and therefore discrepancy, remains relevant within a more developed understanding of SpLDs for this reason.

Ask your GP for a recommendation?

We cross posted.

Now read sentence 1 of paragraph 4 of your own evidence.

"For many years, dyslexia was a term used to differentiate between two groups of poor readers. Those with dyslexia were considered to be poor readers with high IQs. In contrast, so-called, ‘garden variety’ poor readers were those where there appeared to be no discrepancy between their IQ and reading ability. The power of this conception lay in the affirming message that the person with dyslexia was of high intellectual ability, and the application of the label was able to counter often humiliating and hurtful experiences where some poor readers were treated in ways that were demeaning and failed to acknowledge their true cognitive abilities. However, a raft of research studies (see Elliott and Grigorenko, 2014, pp.22–26, for detailed discussion) demonstrated that this distinction was not meaningful in terms of differentiation, treatment or prognosis, and the difficulties that were encountered by poor decoders applied across the full range of intellectual ability. This should be contrasted with reading comprehension difficulties, however, where a relationship with measured IQ is clearer (Vellutino et al., 2004), and cognitive tests may help to shed light upon the specific nature of a child’s higher-order reading comprehension difficulties involving such processes as reasoning, inference and logical deduction (Christopher et al., 2012)..

"While the lack of relationship between decoding difficulties and IQ is readily accepted by the field, and is reflected by the official position of organisations such as the British Dyslexia Association and the International Dyslexia Association, it is discomforting that many clinicians continue to use the discredited discrepancy model (for review, see O’Donnell & Miller, 2011; Stanovich, 2005). Of course, such a discrepancy-based label is highly desired by parents and there will be few complaints when it is applied, largely because it helps to undermine any suggestion that the poor reader is lacking intellectually."

Siegel and Lipka (2008) reviewed over 100 articles from the Journal of Learning Disabilities from 1968 to 2007 in order to investigate how researchers translated conceptual definitions of Learning Disabilities into operational definitions. They found that the most prevalent components were ‘exclusion components’ and formula components using discrepancies relating to intelligence and achievement.

They concluded that exclusion components were problematic because some areas such as emotional factors cannot be objectively measured and the component of exclusion was often too vague to provide guidance on what areas to assess and the tools to use. They also concluded that the discrepancy formula component was also suspect. Firstly, there were too many variations in the type of tests used. Siegel (1999) found that different tests of the same skill may yield different scores and she found that there was great variation in the choice different school areas/districts made when selecting tests. Secondly, there was debate on the cut-off point to use in the discrepancy formula, and there was even variation in the cut-off criteria for average IQ. Furthermore, Siegel and Lipka suggested that IQ scores do not appear to be predictors of the cognitive processes involved in reading, spelling, language skills and memory tasks. Therefore, they concluded that, in the analysis of children with learning disabilities, the IQ test is irrelevant.

Article title please, so I can read the full one before responding.

A response to the fact that dsm5 guidance you linked still references intelligence would be good too!

The fact is IQ discrepancy is no longer a criteria in making the diagnosis
DSM-5 requires four criteria to confirm a clinical diagnosis of SLD.
The difficulties must have persisted for at least six months, despite the provision of intervention to target them;
the affected academic skills must be well below what is expected for the person’s age and impair that person’s functioning at school, work, or in the activities of daily living;
the difficulties must have started in the school years, even though they may not become fully manifest until later;
and the learning difficulties must not be attributable to other factors, such as uncorrected vision or hearing, or lack of proficiency in the language of instruction.

Note not IQ discrepancy.

Never mind, I found it.

I link and reply to dsm5, you give me a review piece by Dr Elliott who I mentioned already in this thread.

Siegel has argued her case for years, and her research has been criticised even by those who agree with her aims. She basically proves that people who can't read can't read... Clever! She also straw man's the intelligence testing and describes them in a way they do not describe themselves.

Tests of underlying ability will remain, because imperfect though the tests are they remain the most accurate predictors of academic achievement we have at this moment.

DSM5 retain the use of intelligence in the guidance you linked, the BDA (linked in your article) still require assessors to test underlying ability (it is the only mandatory test).

Why? Because there is a need to describe and distinguish between learning difficulties. Are they global or specific? To what degree of severity? What are realistic aims if adjustments are made?

DSM5 Changes, as I said above already, are an update due to progress in research. A discrepancy definition alone excluded a large number of people unfairly and research had shown this. However, to strip it out entirely would also exclude people underperforming and being denied support because they are doing 'ok'.

So it very much remains, but in a broader assessment process. No longer can an assessor run two tests, use a regression equation and consider job done. Good, it was a horrible method which often discriminated unfairly.

But you can not ignore that all these organisations, with support of researchers, continue to require tests of ability, and a SE of the term intelligence.

Note not IQ discrepancy.

Note, they still reference intelligence in the document.

It doesn't change the fact that the discrepancy model is no longer used for diagnosis

The importance of handwriting research -
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211949312000038

Interesting thread. This is from the the SASC guidance:

Underlying Ability / Achievement differentials

Although a discrepancy between underlying ability and attainment in literacy skills is not a diagnostic criterion (Frederickson & Reason 1995, Howe 1997, Miles 1996, Stanovich & Stanovich 1997, Siegel 1999), where such discrepancies do exist, they provide further supporting evidence.
Gathering information about underlying ability is an important component of
assessment. The assessment of verbal and non-verbal ability throws light on the
extent to which students are likely to be able to develop compensatory strategies, and informs specialist teaching intervention. The effect of SpLD on a student’s learning can be evaluated more effectively when underlying ability is taken into account.