Formal and Informal Assessment for Dyslexia Flashcards

A CALT administers the CTOPP-2 to a student and obtains a Phonological Awareness Composite standard score of 82 with a reported SEM of 4. When constructing a 68% confidence interval to communicate the student's true score range, which range is MOST psychometrically accurate?

Answer: 78–86, because the 68% confidence interval spans ±1 SEM around the obtained score

At the 68% confidence level, the true score range is the obtained score ± 1 SEM. With an obtained score of 82 and SEM of 4, the interval is 82 − 4 = 78 to 82 + 4 = 86. The ±1.96 multiplier applies to the 95% confidence interval, not the 68% level. Confidence intervals are always bidirectional and centered on the obtained score.

A second-grade student suspected of dyslexia scores at the 16th percentile on the GORT-5 Oral Reading Index but at the 50th percentile on the CTOPP-2 Phonological Memory Composite and the 45th percentile on the CTOPP-2 Phonological Awareness Composite. Which interpretation is MOST clinically defensible?

Answer: The profile is consistent with a naming-speed or processing rate deficit that can manifest as dyslexia even without depressed phonological awareness or memory composites

Dyslexia does not require deficits across all phonological processing domains. Wolf and Bowers' double-deficit hypothesis identifies rapid automatized naming (rate) as a separable deficit from phonological awareness. A student with a rate/fluency deficit may show intact phonological awareness and memory composites yet still present with significant oral reading fluency impairments consistent with dyslexia. Phonological scores in the average range do not exclude the diagnosis.

A CALT is conducting a reading evaluation for a 9-year-old recently arrived from Brazil who speaks Portuguese at home. The student demonstrates weak phonological awareness skills in English. Which assessment approach provides the MOST diagnostically valid evidence for differentiating dyslexia from typical English language acquisition challenges?

Answer: Use a test-teach-retest dynamic assessment paradigm in both L1 and L2, comparing the student's responsiveness to phonological instruction across languages

Dynamic assessment — presenting a skill, providing brief targeted instruction, then re-assessing — reveals whether the student can acquire phonological skills with support, which is a hallmark of language acquisition rather than a processing disorder. Dyslexia manifests across languages, so persistent difficulty in BOTH L1 and L2 despite instruction is more diagnostically significant than a static single-language snapshot. Deferring evaluation is inappropriate and delays intervention; the IQ-discrepancy model is no longer the recommended diagnostic standard.

While evaluating a first-grader with severe reading difficulties, a CALT notes that the student obtains raw scores of 0–2 across most subtests of a phonological processing battery, resulting in standard scores at or near the test's lowest reportable value. Which is the MOST appropriate clinical response to this pattern?

Answer: Recognize that floor effects prevent meaningful score differentiation and supplement standardized results with informal developmental probes targeting earlier phonological milestones

When a test's norms do not adequately sample performance at the low end, raw scores bunch at the floor and the resulting standard scores cannot reliably distinguish between levels of deficit severity. This is a floor effect. The appropriate response is to acknowledge the limitation in the written report and supplement with informal tasks — such as syllable clapping, rhyme detection with manipulatives, or phoneme isolation at the word onset — that target pre-phonemic or early phonemic milestones below the test's measurement range.

When using an Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) with a student suspected of dyslexia, which pattern of findings would be MOST diagnostically distinguishing from a student with 'garden-variety' reading difficulty (i.e., global low reading achievement)?

Answer: A marked discrepancy between listening comprehension level and oral reading accuracy level, with listening comprehension substantially intact while oral reading is severely depressed

The defining characteristic of dyslexia — as opposed to global reading difficulty — is an intact language comprehension system undermined by a specific decoding deficit. On an IRI, this presents as a student who can understand text when it is read aloud (high listening comprehension ceiling) but cannot accurately decode that same text independently (depressed oral reading accuracy). Garden-variety poor readers typically show depressed listening comprehension as well as decoding, because language comprehension itself is weaker. This discrepancy pattern is the IRI analog to the classic Simple View of Reading dissociation.

In curriculum-based measurement (CBM) for reading, a CALT conducting a survey-level assessment finds that a fourth-grade student reads at instructional level on second-grade ORF probes. The CALT then shifts to a diagnostic-level assessment. Which statement BEST describes the clinical purpose of this transition?

Answer: To identify the specific subskill breakdown — such as consonant blends, vowel patterns, or multisyllabic word structure — that is driving the accuracy deficit within the identified instructional level

Survey-level CBM answers the question 'At what level is the student currently performing?' by moving up and down the curriculum until an instructional level is identified. Diagnostic-level assessment then drills into WHY the student is struggling at that level — using error analysis, phonics screeners, or decoding inventories to pinpoint the specific skill gap (e.g., r-controlled vowels, VCe patterns, three-syllable words). This informs intervention target selection and is distinct from norm-referenced comparison or eligibility determination, which are separate processes.