I
found this week’s reading to be very helpful and informative. Sharing and interpreting data is
something that I do during the IEP process, but I do not remember explicitly
learning the “dos” and “don’ts” of interpretation sessions. There are definite differences between
sharing results of a multi-disciplinary evaluation and sharing a student’s
academic and functional progress, but the information is still relevant, and
will be helpful for me in future IEP meetings.
Both
the textbook and the Tinsley & Bradley article (1986) discussed the importance
of looking at information holistically and determining how it all fits
together. Sometimes there are discrepancies
in data, which need to be given careful thought in interpreting. An example of this occurred with me
lately when developing an IEP for one of my 7th grade boys. This particular boy has met his reading
decoding (ability to read sight words) goal, and is now able to decode words on
grade level. However, his weekly
scores for his reading fluency goal (reading fluency is the words correct per
minute he reads) have been stagnant.
He is assessed on the 4th grade level for fluency, so the
fact that he is on grade level for decoding did not match up. This particular student previously had
speech and language instruction, but was dismissed from this service 3 years
ago. However, almost all teachers
had expressed their concern with his speech fluency (how “smoothly” he talks –
he tends to have difficulty getting particular words “out.”) Looking deeper into things, his reading
teacher agreed that his speech fluency has a negative impact on his scores, as
his speed of reading is affected.
Because his speech has been impacting his academic progress, he is now
going to be re-evaluated by the speech therapist to determine a need to re-instate
speech and language services.
The
Tinsley & Bradley (1986) article also emphasized the importance of
discussing results while keeping the client’s goals in mind and in general
relating the things the client would want to know. I never thought of the fact that, when relaying test results,
one should also interpret how the information may affect a person’s
future. I am wondering what
articles or studies are out there that indicate typical correlations between
various test scores and post-secondary achievement. Along the lines of intelligence, Tinsley & Bradley
(1986) recommended avoidance of using terms like “intelligence.” They suggest instead using the terms “scholastic
aptitude” or “ability to learn things from books.” It seems to me that the term “intelligence” is more widely
understood than “scholastic aptitude,” but I could be wrong. I think that “ability to learn things
from books” sounds rather simple and somewhat unintelligent, probably because
of the usage of the word, “things.”
It also does not help that books are not the only method of learning “things.”
I liked the recommendation by Drummond
& Jones (2010), who suggest using the term “learning ability” test instead
of intelligence test. I think I
will use this terminology during my interpretation session, and perhaps explain
that the scores help us understand how successfully one is able to learn (and
apply or generalize??) information. I still would like to know more about
typical correlations of IQ scores and success in post-secondary schooling so
that I can discuss long-term goals with my client during our meeting.
I
appreciated the thorough information and examples in the readings this week,
and feel more prepared for my interpretation session.
Drummond, R. J. & Jones, K.
(2010). Assessment procedures for counselors and helping
professionals.
(7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:Pearson.
Tinsley, H.E.A, & Bradley, R.W.
(1986). Testing the test: Test interpretation. Journal of
Counseling and
Development, (64)462-466.
No comments:
Post a Comment