JCPSLP - March 2018

literacy skills were assessed using the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC; Snowling et al., 2009), the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (2nd ed.) (CTOPP-2; Wagner, Torgesen, Rashotte & Pearson, 2013), the Woodcock Reading Mastery Test (3rd ed.) (WMRT-III; Woodcock, 2011), and the Written Expression subtest of the Oral and Written Language Scales II (OWLS II; Carrow-Woolfolk, 2011). A selection of Emma’s assessment profile appears in tables 2, 3, 4 and 5.

this subtest, which is considered to be within the average range for her age group. It is important to note, however, that Emma’s output as well as rate were low, and she was observed to write cautiously, frequently re-reading much of what she had written. As this was not a timed assessment, it may not be an accurate measure of her capacity to retrieve information, plan an essay and write a response under timed conditions.

Table 5. WMRT-III: Summary of results

Table 2. YARC: Summary of results Ability score Standard score

Subtest

Standard score

Percentile rank

Description

Percentile rank (%)

Descriptive term

Word identification

76

5

Below average

Reading rate (fluency)

71

79

8

Severe difficulty Below average

Word attack

78

7

Below average

Comprehension

55

80

9

Results of the literacy assessment revealed that Emma was performing in the below average range in a number of key areas including reading rate, accuracy and comprehension as well as in her word attack skills. Her written expression was considered to be just within the average range (when untimed). Phonological processing scores suggest weak rapid naming and phonological memory, with average development of phonological awareness. A key issue Emma clearly has significantly delayed oral language skills in the presence of extremely weak reading accuracy and written comprehension. If she had not been diagnosed with DLD, it is highly likely that she would receive a diagnosis of SLD (after 6 or more months of evidenced-based intervention targeting her specific areas of weakness – which in this case would be word attack strategies). However, as she has a diagnosis of DLD, she is not eligible for a diagnosis of SLD – and this will prevent her from applying for additional time in her WACE examinations. How does this work? The dilemma for both Emma and the speech pathologist working with her is that DLD is not currently recognised by any of the Australian state or territory education jurisdictions as being sufficient grounds for the provision of special examination arrangements, even in cases where severe functional impact is demonstrated. This means that unless an additional (and significant) contributor to her difficulties can be identified, she will not be eligible to apply for extra working time in her final exams. This situation raises a number of questions, including: • Should students who present with a primary diagnosis of DLD also be entitled to a secondary diagnosis of SLD? • Should students who have DLD be entitled to apply for additional time for examinations? • Should consideration be given to alternative accommodations that are more likely to be approved (e.g., a scanning pen)? If we think about the case of Emma, then these questions matter very much. The most common reason cited for a special examination arrangements (SEA) application is SLD (in particular a reading disorder, commonly referred to as dyslexia), and the most common arrangement provided is 10 minutes per hour of additional working time. In order for the extra time to be approved, the state-based examination authority

Summarisation

48

–

–

Average

Table 3. CTOPP-2: Summary of results

Percentile (%)

Standard Score

Description

Elision

25

8

Average

Blending Words

9

6

Below average

Phoneme Isolation

75

12

Average

Memory for Digits

5

5

Poor

Nonword Repetition

37

9

Average

Rapid Digit Naming

25

8

Average

Rapid Letter Naming

5

5

Poor

The standard scores obtained from the CTOPP-2 were then combined into composite scores for the three areas of phonological processing (Table 4).

Table 4. CTOPPS-2: Composite scores

CTOPP-2

Sum of SS

Percentile Composite score

Description

Phonological awareness Phonological memory

26

30

92

Average

14

12

82

Below average

13

8

79

Poor

Rapid automatic naming

In addition to the WRMT-III (Table 5), the Written Expression subtest of the OWLS II (Carrow-Woolfolk, 2011) was administered to assess Emma’s written language ability in the absence of time constraints. This test measures linguistic and structural aspects of the writing process (working memory, vocabulary, grammar, and reasoning). In addition, conventions such as spelling and punctuation as well as text structure and content were also evaluated. Emma achieved a standard score of 89 (23rd percentile) in

31

JCPSLP Volume 20, Number 1 2018

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au