Formal and Informal Assessment for Dyslexia Flashcards

A student scores at the 16th percentile on the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-2 (CTOPP-2) Phonological Memory composite but at the 50th percentile on Phonological Awareness and Rapid Symbolic Naming composites. Which interpretation is most defensible when considering a dyslexia diagnosis?

Answer: The student's phonological memory deficit alone is insufficient to confirm dyslexia; the profile suggests working memory difficulties that may reflect a distinct processing disorder requiring further differential assessment.

Dyslexia is characterized by a phonological processing deficit, but the profile must be interpreted holistically. An isolated phonological memory weakness without corresponding phonological awareness or RAN deficits does not constitute the classic dyslexia profile. The CALT must consider whether this reflects a working memory issue, anxiety, or a co-occurring disorder rather than defaulting to a dyslexia label. Further differential assessment (e.g., working memory batteries, ruling out ADHD or auditory processing disorder) is warranted before confirming dyslexia.

During an informal reading inventory, a 4th-grade student reads a passage at 94% accuracy with adequate fluency but scores only 40% on comprehension questions. The CALT suspects dyslexia but also considers other explanations. Which finding from a subsequent formal assessment would most strongly support dyslexia as the PRIMARY explanation for this comprehension failure?

Answer: Average listening comprehension but significantly below-average scores on a timed phonological decoding measure and nonword repetition tasks.

The Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tunmer) frames reading comprehension as the product of decoding and language comprehension. If a student's listening comprehension is average but timed decoding and phonological processing are weak, the comprehension failure is attributable to decoding automaticity breakdown — a hallmark of dyslexia. The high accuracy (94%) may reflect effortful, slow decoding that depletes cognitive resources for comprehension. This profile — intact oral language, weak timed decoding, and poor phonological processing — is the hallmark dyslexia presentation that explains the comprehension gap.

A CALT is conducting a curriculum-based measurement (CBM) oral reading fluency probe with a 3rd grader suspected of dyslexia. The student reads 68 words correct per minute (WCPM) with 91% accuracy on a grade-level passage. According to Hasbrouck & Tindal (2017) norms, the 50th percentile for 3rd grade, mid-year is approximately 93 WCPM. The CALT should interpret this data as:

Answer: Borderline fluency that, combined with the accuracy rate, suggests the student is working in the frustration range and additional phonological and decoding data are needed before drawing conclusions.

91% accuracy falls at the border of instructional and frustration level (instructional is typically 95–98%, frustration is below 90–94% depending on the framework). A student scoring 68 WCPM on a frustration-level passage cannot yield valid fluency conclusions — the passage is too hard, inflating error rates and suppressing rate. The appropriate next step is to gather data across easier and harder passages to establish a true instructional level, then supplement with formal phonological processing and decoding measures. CBM fluency alone cannot diagnose dyslexia; it screens for risk and informs instructional planning.

A psychoeducational report notes that a 10-year-old student earned a Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ-IV) Basic Reading Skills cluster standard score of 79 (7th percentile) and a Broad Written Language cluster score of 81 (10th percentile), with a Full Scale IQ of 95. The evaluating psychologist did not administer phonological processing measures. The CALT is asked to provide supplemental assessment. Which action reflects the most appropriate and ethically defensible role for the CALT in this situation?

Answer: Administer standardized phonological processing measures and informal assessments within the CALT scope of practice, document findings in a supplemental report, and use findings to guide intervention planning — noting dyslexia characteristics if supported — while coordinating with the evaluating psychologist.

CALTs are credentialed to assess phonological processing, decoding, fluency, spelling, and related language-based literacy skills using both formal and informal tools. When an existing evaluation is incomplete (lacking phonological processing data), a CALT may ethically conduct supplemental assessment within their scope, document the findings formally, and characterize the pattern as consistent with dyslexia characteristics if evidence supports it. The CALT should coordinate findings with the original evaluator rather than independently reinterpreting the psychologist's data. Full diagnostic labeling authority varies by state law, but describing patterns consistent with dyslexia is within CALT scope.

A CALT administers the Gray Oral Reading Tests-5 (GORT-5) and obtains the following scaled scores: Rate = 6, Accuracy = 5, Fluency = 5, Comprehension = 9, Oral Reading Index = 72. The student's parents report that the student 'reads everything slowly but always understands what she reads.' Which advanced interpretation of this profile is most clinically accurate?

Answer: The discrepancy between Fluency (scaled score 5) and Comprehension (scaled score 9) is consistent with a compensated or 'stealth dyslexia' profile, where intact higher-order language skills mask decoding automaticity deficits — a pattern requiring additional timed decoding and phonological processing measures to characterize fully.

The profile — impaired rate/accuracy/fluency with relatively preserved comprehension — is a hallmark of what some researchers call 'stealth dyslexia' or a compensated dyslexia profile. Strong oral language, vocabulary, and higher-order reasoning allow the student to extract meaning despite labored decoding, masking the severity of the phonological deficit. Comprehension scores can be average or even above average in dyslexia if language comprehension is strong. The GORT-5 alone does not diagnose dyslexia; additional phonological processing (CTOPP-2) and single-word decoding measures (TOWRE-2, WJ-IV) are needed to complete the diagnostic picture.

When using Dynamic Assessment (DA) as an informal measure within a dyslexia evaluation, the primary diagnostic advantage over static standardized testing is that DA:

Answer: Reveals the student's responsiveness to mediated learning — distinguishing between a student whose low scores reflect a genuine phonological deficit versus one whose performance is limited by inadequate prior instruction or language difference.

Dynamic Assessment uses a test-teach-retest paradigm to measure learning potential and responsiveness to instruction rather than static acquired knowledge. Its primary diagnostic value in dyslexia evaluation is differentiating true phonological processing deficits (which persist despite high-quality, targeted mediation) from performance deficits attributable to inadequate instruction, cultural/linguistic difference, or limited English exposure. A student who rapidly improves with mediation may have a performance deficit rather than a processing deficit — critical for avoiding misidentification of English Language Learners or students from under-resourced educational settings as having dyslexia.