Educational Therapy Flashcards

A 14-year-old student scores at the 60th percentile on the TOWRE Phonemic Decoding Efficiency subtest, the 45th percentile on TOWRE Sight Word Efficiency, but the 2nd percentile on GORT-5 Reading Comprehension. Oral language comprehension measured by the CELF-5 falls at the 4th percentile. Applying the Simple View of Reading framework, which conclusion is MOST defensible?

Answer: Language comprehension is the primary deficit driving the reading comprehension impairment

The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer) holds that Reading Comprehension = Decoding × Language Comprehension. This student's decoding is solidly average, ruling out decoding as the primary barrier. The severely low oral language comprehension (4th percentile on CELF-5) directly accounts for the comprehension deficit, pointing to a language comprehension disorder rather than dyslexia. Working memory may be a contributing factor but is not directly evidenced by the data provided.

During morphological analysis instruction, an educational therapist introduces the Latin root 'rupt' (break) using the words 'disrupt,' 'erupt,' and 'interrupt.' A student then encounters 'corrupt,' correctly segments 'cor + rupt,' identifies the root, but cannot identify 'cor-' as a prefix or assign it meaning. This difficulty MOST likely reflects a gap in which morphological concept?

Answer: The student has not yet learned assimilated (absorbed) prefixes, where 'com-' becomes 'cor-' before certain roots

'Corrupt' derives from Latin 'com-' (together/with) + 'rumpere' (to break), but the prefix 'com-' assimilates to 'cor-' before the root-initial 'r' to ease articulation. This is an assimilated prefix — an advanced morphological concept where a prefix changes its surface form. The student correctly identified the root, demonstrating morpheme segmentation ability; the gap is specifically knowledge of prefix assimilation patterns.

On the CTOPP-2, a 10-year-old scores at the 16th percentile on Phonological Awareness, the 5th percentile on Phonological Memory, and the 37th percentile on Rapid Symbolic Naming. Which interpretation of this profile is MOST consistent with a primary phonological processing deficit with secondary working memory involvement, rather than a double-deficit profile?

Answer: Phonological Memory is disproportionately impaired relative to Rapid Naming, which falls in the low-average range

Wolf and Bowers' double-deficit hypothesis specifically requires co-occurring deficits in phonological processing AND rapid automatized naming (RAN). Here, Rapid Naming falls at the 37th percentile — low-average but not deficient — while Phonological Memory is severely impaired. This asymmetry (phonological/working memory weakness without a true RAN deficit) argues against a double-deficit profile and instead points to a phonological processing deficit with a working memory component.

A CALT is using curriculum-based measurement in oral reading fluency (ORF-CBM) to monitor a student with dyslexia receiving Tier 3 intervention. After 8 weeks, the student's growth slope is 0.8 WCPM per week; research benchmarks for adequate Tier 3 response suggest approximately 2.0 WCPM per week. Following data-based decision-making principles, what is the MOST appropriate immediate next step?

Answer: Intensify the intervention by adjusting frequency, duration, or instructional targets, and continue progress monitoring

When a student's slope of improvement is substantially below the expected benchmark, data-based decision-making within a tiered model calls for intensifying the intervention — increasing session frequency, extending duration, or refining instructional components — while continuing to collect progress monitoring data. Waiting without modification ignores the signal of insufficient response. Immediate referral without intensification skips a required tier step. Changing the monitoring tool breaks data continuity and does not address the inadequate response.

A student reads 'island' correctly by recalling, 'My teacher told me it starts with a silent i,' but cannot apply any letter-sound strategy to decode unfamiliar words containing atypical grapheme-phoneme correspondences. According to Ehri's phase theory of sight word learning, this student is MOST likely functioning in which phase?

Answer: Partial alphabetic phase, because the student uses selective letter cues rather than complete grapheme-phoneme mappings

In the partial alphabetic phase, learners anchor word recognition to salient but incomplete letter cues — such as a memorable silent letter — rather than systematically mapping every grapheme to a phoneme. The student's inability to generalize to novel words with similar patterns confirms that full alphabetic processing (complete phoneme-grapheme connections) has not yet developed. Pre-alphabetic readers use no letter-sound knowledge at all; consolidated readers chunk morphemes and larger spelling patterns automatically.

An educational therapist working within an Orton-Gillingham framework notes that a student accurately decodes all CVC, CVCE, and vowel team words in isolation but reads connected decodable text at only 42 WCPM with noticeable cognitive effort. The student self-reports 'having to think hard about every word.' Which instructional priority BEST addresses the gap between accuracy and automaticity as defined in structured literacy practice?

Answer: Provide repeated readings of decodable texts containing only mastered patterns to build fluency through successful, low-effort practice

Automaticity requires moving from effortful, accurate decoding to rapid, effortless recognition — a shift achieved through high-repetition, successful practice at the student's current mastery level. Repeated reading of decodable texts containing only known patterns allows the student to consolidate grapheme-phoneme mappings into automatic responses without cognitive overload. Introducing new syllable types increases difficulty before fluency is established. Shifting to comprehension prematurely leaves the fluency gap unaddressed. Re-evaluation is not indicated when the pattern clearly reflects an automaticity deficit rather than a diagnostic question.