Student: JR
DOB: April 16, 2008
Grade: Middle of 5th
Gender: Male
Background Information
JR is a 10 year old fifth grade student. He lives with his parents and younger brother. Both Mom and Dad have reported that there is history of dyslexia and learning difficulties in the family. English in the primary language spoken in the house. JR is involved in the afterschool program, Crossroads, and is part of the 5th and 6th grade basketball team. He loves being outdoors and playing Minecraft. JR says his favorite subject is math and he has the most confidence in that area. He seems to learn best when he can have information presented visually and with a hands on approach. JR was reportedly born at 30 weeks, weighing 3 pounds, 10 ounces. According to his mother, he was placed in the NICU at birth and spent one month in an incubator as his lungs were not fully developed and he needed supplemental oxygen. JR passed a vision and hearing screening given by the school nurse in October 2017. He did wear glasses when he was in 2nd grade, but a follow up vision screening revealed he does not require glasses. He does not currently take medication for his ADHD. Currently, it would appear that JR is demonstrating behaviors across the school and home settings that would be suggestive of an Attention-Deficit/ Hyperactivity Disorder, Predominantly Inattentive Type – as supported by the results the Conners 3 and, as well as behaviors observed during the testing sessions and within the classroom. Within the realm of inattentiveness, both his mother and teacher reported that JR fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork or other activities, does not seem to listen when spoken to directly, has difficulty organizing tasks and activities, avoids, dislikes, or is reluctant to engage in tasks that require sustained mental effort, and is easily distracted by extraneous stimuli. Furthermore, JR’s mother indicated that her son has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities and loses things necessary for tasks or activities; while his classroom teacher remarked that JR is forgetful in daily activities. Within the realm of hyperactivity/impulsivity, both his mother and teacher reported that he fidgets with his hands or feet or squirms in his seat. His mother has noted that JR blurts out answers before questions have been completed and interrupts or intrudes on others; while his teacher remarked that he is “on the go” or acts as if “driven by a motor.” JR is right-handed and is working on learning cursive letters during is OG lessons.
Educational History
JR was referred to EST at the end of 2nd grade and has received services using the Orton Gillingham program for the past 2 years. JR was evaluated in beginning of 2018 when he was in the fourth grade for an initial comprehensive special education evaluation. He was identified as demonstrating sufficient evidence of ADHD predominantly Inattentive Type in the category of Other Health Impairment. Further evidence of a Learning Disability in the areas of Math Calculations and Math Reasoning, Basic Reading Skills, Reading Comprehension and most predominantly, Written Expression was found. His high visual spatial skills may aid him in math units of geometry. When new information is presented in the classroom, JR may benefit if visual aids supplement verbally presented content. For example, he will learn best if teachers present lessons using the chalkboard, overhead projector, and/or computer screen. Providing opportunities for visually based learning may help JR understand and remember new ideas. JR’s fluid reasoning skills appear strong compared to his working memory skills. Children with this pattern of performance may find it easy to understand information while they are looking at it, but then later have difficulty recalling it. Because JR has fluid reasoning strengths, it may be helpful to teach him to remember visual information by encoding it into words. For example, rather than simply looking at a picture, he might name different objects in the picture, so that he remembers them better later. It may also be helpful for him to learn to visualize new information in his mind as he is learning it. Currently, JR receives individualized instruction for 45 minutes three times a week for reading using the Orton-Gillingham Approach 1:1, and 30 minutes two times a week in a small group for writing with a special educator.
Formal Standardized Testing Information
JR is currently on an Individualized Education Plan for a specific learning disability in reading and writing. Below, shows his cognitive and academic testing results from the comprehensive evaluation in beginning of 2018.
Cognitive Testing
JR was administered ten subtests of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V). The Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) is derived from seven of these subtest scores and is usually considered the most representative estimate of global intellectual functioning. JR’s general cognitive ability fell within the average range of cognitive functioning, as measured by his FSIQ. His overall thinking and reasoning abilities exceed those of approximately 66% of his peers (FSIQ = 106; Confidence Interval = 101-110). A further analysis of the WISC-V Primary Index Scores indicates that JR is functioning within the high average range in the areas related to Visual Spatial Index, VSI = 114) and fluid and inductive reasoning (as measured by the Fluid Reasoning Index, FRI = 118). Additionally, he is performing within the average range in the areas related to verbal reasoning (as measured by the Verbal Comprehension Index, VCI = 100), visual spatial processing (as measured by the working memory (as measured by the Working Memory Index, WMI = 91), and perceptual speed (as measured by the Processing Speed Index, PSI = 95)On the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fifth Edition (WISC-V), Josh attained the following composite scores:
Composite Scores Summary
Scale Composite Score Percentile Rank 90% Confidence Interval Qualitative Description
Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) 106 66% 101-110 Average
Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) 100 50% 94-106 Average
Visual Spatial Index (VSI) 114 82% 106-119 High Average
Fluid Reasoning (FRI) 118 88% 111-123 High Average
Working Memory Index (WMI) 91 27% 85-98 Average
Processing Speed Index (PSI) 95 37% 88-103 Average
Specific subtest scores listed below provide further evidence of JR’s intellectual ability. The score following each subtest is based upon an average of ten for the student’s age, with scores from 8 to 12 being considered to be within the average range.
Verbal Comprehension Index
Subtests Scale Score Percentile Rank Performance Level
Similarities 8 25% Average
Vocabulary 12 75% Average
The Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI) measured JR’s ability to access and apply acquired word knowledge. Specifically, this score reflects his ability to verbalize meaningful concepts, think about verbal information, and express himself using words. JR’s performance on the VCI was diverse, but overall was typical for his age (VCI = 100). His scores on verbal comprehension tasks, while average for his age, were weaker than his performance on tasks that required him to process and evaluate visual spatial information and use logic to solve problems.
Visual Spatial Index Subtests
Subtests Scale Score Percentile Rank Performance Level
Block Design 11 63% Average
Visual Puzzles 14 91% Above Average
The Visual Spatial Index (VSI) measured JR’s ability to evaluate visual details and understand visual spatial relationships in order to construct geometric designs from a model. This skill requires visual spatial reasoning, integration and synthesis of part-whole relationships, attentiveness to visual detail, and visual-motor integration. During this evaluation, visual spatial processing was one of JR’s strengths, with performance that was somewhat advanced for his age (VSI = 114). High scores in this area indicate a well-developed capacity to apply spatial reasoning and analyze visual details. JR quickly and accurately put together geometric designs using a model. This reflects his ability to understand and apply visual perceptual and visual spatial information. His performance in this area was particularly strong in relation to his performance on verbal comprehension tasks. His visual spatial performance was also particularly strong when compared to his performance on working memory tasks and tests of processing speed.
Fluid Reasoning Index
Subtests Scale Score Percentile Rank Performance Level
Matrix Reasoning 11 63% Average
Figure Weights 15 95% Above Average
The Fluid Reasoning Index (FRI) measured JR’s ability to detect the underlying conceptual relationship among visual objects and use reasoning to identify and apply rules. Identification and application of conceptual relationships in the FRI requires inductive and quantitative reasoning, broad visual intelligence, simultaneous processing, and abstract thinking. JR’s performance on the FRI was diverse, but overall was above average for his age. These subtests emerged as one of JR’s strongest areas of performance during the current assessment (FRI = 118). High FRI scores indicate a well-developed ability to abstract conceptual information from visual details and to effectively apply that knowledge. Additionally, JR’s performance on fluid reasoning tasks was particularly strong when compared to his performance on tasks that involved language-based skills. His relatively stronger fluid abilities might be further examined to determine if the difference between his fluid and crystallized abilities is primarily related to a preference for visual rather than verbal stimuli. Moreover, JR’s overall performance on the FRI was stronger than performance on tasks that measured working memory and processing speed. It appears that he is well able to solve complex problems despite having difficulty on other tasks.
Working Memory Index
Subtests Scale Score Percentile Rank Performance Level
Digit Span 10 50% Average
Picture Span 7 16% Below Average
The Working Memory Index (WMI) measured JR’s ability to register, maintain, and manipulate visual and auditory information in conscious awareness, which requires attention and concentration, as well as visual and auditory discrimination. Working memory was one of JR’s weakest areas of performance, with scores that were similar to other children his age (WMI = 91). JR recalled and sequenced series of pictures and lists of numbers at a level that was average for his age. His performance on these tasks was a relative weakness when compared to his performance on visual spatial tasks. His working memory performance was also a relative weakness when compared to his performance on logical reasoning tasks.
Processing Speed Index
Subtests Scale Score Percentile Rank Performance Level
Coding 9 37% Average
Symbol Search 9 37% Average
The Processing Speed Index (PSI) measured JR’s speed and accuracy of visual identification, decision making, and decision implementation. Performance on the PSI is related to visual scanning, visual discrimination, short-term visual memory, visuomotor coordination, and concentration. The PSI assessed JR’s ability to rapidly identify, register, and implement decisions about visual stimuli. His overall processing speed performance was typical for his age (PSI = 95). JR’s performance on processing speed tasks, though average for his age, was weaker than his performance on visual spatial tasks. Additionally, his performance on processing speed tasks was a weakness relative to his performance on tasks requiring him to use logic-based reasoning.
Academic Testing
JR's scores on the KTEA-3 are as follows: Subtest——————–SS———–%ile——–AE——–Descriptor
Written Expression——-74———-4th———6:10——–Below Avg Spelling———————78———-7th———-7:4——–Below Avg
Writing Fluency———–70———-2nd——–<7:1——-Below Avg
Written Expression————-76—————5th———–Below Avg
JR's scores on The WIAT-III are as follows: Subtest——————–SS———–%ile——–AE——–Descriptor
Sentence Comp———–74———-4th———-1.8———7:0
Essay Comp—————78———–7th———-3.0———8:0
Spelling———————76———–5th———–1.9———7:4
Written Expression—–72—————-3rd————Below Average
When comparing JR's IQ to his composite scores above, a discrepancy does exist in the area of writing on the KTEA-3 and WIAT-III. Writing is an area of weakness for JR and where he has the least amount of confidence. He has a difficult time writing complete sentences even when given specific words to use or when writing in context and given only a topic. He often gives up before trying as he becomes overwhelmed by the task and only writes the first few words that come to mind. JR requires significant support regarding organization and encouragement that he is able to write about his knowledge by complete one task at a time. JR does use punctuation consistently, but rarely capitalizes words, even the first one in a sentence. He also has come confusion between commas and quotations as he uses them interchangeably.
JR's results on the KTEA -3:
Subtest——————–SS———–%ile——–AE——–Descriptor
Reading Comp————89———-23rd——–8:7———-Average
Letter & Word Recog—-76———-5th———-7:4———-Below Avg
Nonsense word Decode———————80———–9th———6:7———-Below Avg
Silent Reading Fluency———————90———-25th——–8:7———-Average
Reading Vocabulary—–91———-27th——–8:7———-Average
Letter Naming Facility———————-59———-0.3———<5:0———Low
Word Recognition Fluency————–79———-8th———6:10——–Below Avg
Decoding Fluency——–73———4th———<8:1———Below Avg Reading————————–81—————-10th———–Below Average
Reading Understanding——88—————-21st———–Average Decoding————————-76—————-5th————Below Average
Since JR displays many characteristics of dyslexia, he was administered the Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR) which can give more detailed information about his particular type of dyslexia and possible interventions. This assessment reports scores in terms of Standard Scores (SS) where 90 – 109 is considered average. The Index scores also include a percentile rank which is the percentage of students who took this assessment that Josh did the same as or better than.
Subtest/Index————————-Standard Score—————-%ile
Phonemic Awareness—————————-100
Nonsense Word Decoding———————-76
Isolated Word Reading Fluency—————69
Oral Reading Fluency—————————-71
Positioning Sounds——————————-104
Phonological Index——————————–81——————10th
Rapid Automatic Naming————————-86
Verbal Fluency————————————–123
Visual Perception———————————–75
Irregular Word Reading Fluency—————-61
Orthographical Processing———————–71
Fluency Index—————————————-76——————5th
Mixed Index——————————————77——————6th
Semantic Concepts———————————105
Word Recall——————————————-117
Morphological Processing————————-76
Silent Reading Fluency: Comprehension——116
Comprehension Index—————————–105——————–63rd
FAR Total Index————————————-84———————-14th
Silent Reading Fluency: Rate——————–74
When comparing JR’s IQ with his composite scores above, a discrepancy does exist on the FAM and KTEA-3. Similar to math, JR's lowest index score on the FAR was in the area of Fluency which is consistent with surface dyslexia and problems with orthographic processing. This means that JR over-relies on the phonological properties of the words and under appreciates the orthographic or spatial properties of the visual word form. This is demonstrated through his significantly lower Object and Letter Naming subtest scores on the KTEA-3. Readers that are unable to attend to the visual word form have a tendency to skip lines when reading, skip smaller words in print, overlook important characteristics of the word (plural vs. singular) and reverse letters. JR's Phonological Index was also low but the subtests that make up the Index score and would indicate dysphonetic dyslexia (phonological Awareness, Position Sounds and Nonsense Word Decoding) had 2 out of 3 scores in the high average range. Readers with this subtype of dyslexia will over-rely on the visual/orthographic cues and tend to guess based on the first few letters of the word. JR does not display this trait on a regular basis and his Silent Reading Fluency ability (KTEA-3) which measures rates and understanding is average and his Silent Reading Fluency Rate on the FAR is much lower than his Comprehension scores. Also, the subtests that do not have visual representations (Associational Fluency, Word Recall, and Verbal Fluency) are all in the high average range. JR appears to be better at utilizing the phonemic strategy to recognize words in print as his Irregular Word reading score in significantly below average. This also suggests that he has trouble with immediate word recognition due to orthographic issues. His high Semantic Concepts and Verbal Fluency scores indicates he does not struggle with language and stores information in a categorical fashion. It may be helpful to incorporate some morphological cues (prefix/suffixes) to his program since he is more apt to remember words when given a semantic cue.
According to the FAR and KTEA-3, JR does have a discrepancy in the area of Basic Reading Skills and Reading Comprehension. According to the WIAT-III and KTEA-3, JR does have a discrepancy in the area of Written Expression.
Orton Gillingham Tutoring Pre and Post-Testing:
Age at pre-test (10-4)
Test of Word Recognition Efficiency (TOWRE)
T=Timed
ET= Extended Time Raw Score
T ET Scaled Score
T ET Percentile
T ET Age Equiv.
T ET
Sight Word Efficiency —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–
● Pretest 47 67 74 95 4 37 7-6 9-3
● Posttest
Phonemic Decoding Efficiency —– —– —– —– —– —– —– —–
● Pretest 12 22 69 81 2 10 <6-0 6-3
● Posttest
Total Pretest 59 89 143 176 6 47 —– —–
Total Posttest —– —–
PAT nonsense Word Test
(Scores out of 10 possible) Pretest Postest
VC words 9
CVC words 7
Consonant Digraphs 8
Consonant Blends 3
Vowel Digraphs 3
R-Controlled vowels 5
CVCe Words 5
Diphthongs 1
TOTAL 41/80
Pre-Testing (September, 2018) Post-Testing
Spelling Inventory
(Did Level I and Level II) 13/25
Reading a passage (Fountas and Pinnell leveled text) -Level N 97% accuracy
7/10 comprehension (satisfactory)
-1/3 fluency
Writing Sample Very low stamina for writing. 2-sentence sample with incorrect spelling, such as colering for coloring and evin for even. Had sight words spelled correct (of, my, is, a).
Phonogram Assessment (sound checklist) Missed: e (short), i (short), g, o (long), e (long), i (long), ng, nk, ir, ur, ee, ea, ai, ay, oa, oo, ie, oum ow, aw, oi, oy, tch, s=z, ed=d, ed=t,
Orton Gillingham Therapy
JR receives one-on-one sessions with the special educator 3 times per week for 45 minutes using the Orton Gillingham Approach. His OG lessons take place first thing in the morning when he arrives at school in the special education office, outside of his general education classroom.
JR requires repetition of concepts and frequent review of past concepts learned. It is important to pay special attention to vocabulary building within the OG lesson for JR. JR needs frequent reminders on what his body should look like when he is writing. He benefits from taking a quick break during the OG lesson to help with his attention and engagement. He also benefits from practicing and utilizing a self-regulation tool to self-monitor on task behaviors. JR has made great progress over the course of the school year so far, not only in his literacy skills, but also in his self-confidence. His parents feel OG has helped him academically, as well as socially and look forward to years of OG instruction to continue.