This form serves as a sample document. Modifications can and should be made dependent on district policy and procedure.

Student: ______DOB: ______I.D. #:______Grade: ______

Campus: ______Language of Instruction: ______Date of Assessment: ______

Evaluation Summary and Profile:

Ì Domains required to be assessed – The Dyslexia Handbook – Revised 2007, Updated 2010 - Procedures Concerning Dyslexia and Related Disorders. Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX. February 2007, Updated 2010.

1.  Is there a deficit in one or more of the Primary Characteristics of Dyslexia?
Are there at least one or more indicators documented in the “below average” range?
Emerging data suggests that dyslexia is manifested in distinctively varied ways in different languages (Katzir, Shaul, Breznitz, & Wolf, 2004).
Primary Characteristics / Assessment Instrument Applied / Composite
or
Subtest / Standard
Error of
Measure / Below
Average / Average / Above Average
ÌWord Reading –
[Reading “real” words in isolation] / S: / S: / S:
ÌWord Decoding / S: / S: / S:
ÌWritten Spelling
[Difficulty learning to spell.]
[Note: An isolated deficit in spelling would NOT be sufficient to identify dyslexia.] / S: / S: / S:
Because phonological decoding is easier to master in Spanish than in English, phonological dyslexics are harder to detect. Differences between good readers and the reading disabled become more apparent when pseudo-words or words with low frequency are used. For this reason, pseudo-word reading is the most commonly used task in Spanish to select dyslexic children characterized by difficulties in using the phonological route. (Carmen López-Escribano and Tami Katzir, “Are Phonological Processes Separate from the Processes Underlying Naming Speed in a Shallow Orthography”. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, Vol. 6(3), pg.646, 2008. [Citing R. Guzmán “Evaluación de la velocidad lectora de nombrar en las dificultades de aprendizaje de la lectura”. Psycothema, 16, 442-447, 2004 and J.E. Jiménez, “Do the effects of computer-assisted practice differ for children with and without IQ-achievement discrepancy”. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol. 36, 2003]).
The main observation is that the difficulties of Spanish dyslexic children are more noticeable when time is measured than when accuracy is measured. In other words, the deficit of the Spanish dyslexic children in terms of reading procedures and phonological processing skills becomes clearer when performance time is considered. (F. Serrano, S. Defior, “Dyslexia Speed Problems in a Transparent Orthography”. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 58, pg. 90, 2008.)
ÌFluency*
[Slow, inaccurate, or labored oral reading.]
Assessment Instrument Applied / Standard
Error of Measure / Below
Average / Average / Above Average / WCPM* / Level*
Rate / S: / S: / S:
Accuracy / S: / S: / S:
Fluency / S: / S: / S:

Region 10 ESC 3-2011

This form serves as a sample document. Modifications can and should be made dependent on district policy and procedure.

*Fluency scores obtained through curriculum based measures. Rate (words correct per minute), and accuracy level based on percent of words read correctly (independent, instructional, frustration) should be indicated.

“A Spanish-speaking child with a mild-to-moderate difficulty in phonological awareness may acquire word reading skills in Spanish with minimal difficulty, but manifest difficulties in fluency because of the more transparent orthography of Spanish relative to other alphabetic languages, such as English.” (R.K. Wagner, D.J. & R.D. Morris, “Identifying English Language Learners with Disabilities: Key Challenges and Possible Approaches”. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, Vol. 20, pgs. 6-15, 2005.)

While decoding, word recognition, accuracy, and spelling are important dyslexia indicators in the English orthography, in more transparent orthographies, such as Spanish, it has less influence. Spanish-speaking children usually have more problems related to reading speed and orthographic knowledge. Their main reading problem is slow, laborious decoding of words when task demand increase. (Carmen López-Escribano and Tami Katzir, “Are Phonological Processes Separate from the Processes Underlying Naming Speed in a Shallow Orthography”. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, Vol. 6(3), pgs. 641-666, 2008.)

Secondary Characteristics / Assessment Instrument Applied / Composite
or
Subtest / Standard
Error of
Measure / Below
Average / Average / Above Average
Reading Comprehension / S: / S: / S:
2A. Is there a deficit in Phonological/Phonemic Awareness? (Underlying causes of Dyslexia)
Is there an indicator documented in the low average range? The standard error of measure for scores that fall within the lower limits of the average should be considered. See note below for specific considerations related to phonological awareness.
Assessment Instrument Applied / Composite
or
Subtest / Standard
Error of Measure / Below
Average / Average / Above Average
ÌPhonological Awareness* / S: / S: / S:
Phonological Memory / S: / S: / S:
ÌLetter Knowledge** / S: / S: / S:
ÌRapid Naming*** / S: / S: / S:

*If phonological awareness is within the average range, please consider the following:

·  If a cluster score is used, look at the individual subtests to determine consistency of scores; and

·  Has the student received intervention that may have normalized the score? If so, there should be evidence of a prior weakness in phonological awareness.

*Developmental dyslexia in Spanish seems to be associated with reading-related cognitive deficits that involve verbal Working-Memory, naming speed, and impairment in two main phonological skills related to learning to read, phonemic awareness, and phonological Short-term Memory (These results lend support to the subgroup of dyslexics who experience the double-deficit-phonological impairment plus impairment in naming speed-which is the most serious dyslexic subgroup.) (Manuel Soriano and Ana Miranda, “Developmental Dyslexia in a Transparent Orthography: A Study of Spanish Dyslexic Children”. Advances in Learning and Behavior Differences, Vol. 23, pg. 95, 2010.)

**Letter Knowledge – name and associated sound are key to learning how to read and are not of and by themselves an indicator of dyslexia.

***Depending on the nature of the writing system in the student’s L1, rapid naming may be a better indicator of underlying cognitive deficits. (Carmen López-Escribano and Tami Katzir, “Are Phonological Processes Separate from the Processes Underlying Naming Speed in a Shallow Orthography”. Journal of Research in Educational Psychology, Vol. 6(3), pg. 647, 2008).

2B. Orthographic Processing
Dyslexic children performed worse on a task that required orthographic processing – homophone choice. (F. Serrano, S. Defior, “Dyslexia Speed Problems in a Transparent Orthography”. Annals of Dyslexia, Vol. 58, 2008).
Informal
Instrument Applied / Area Evaluated / Observation Data
3. Is there evidence of “unexpectedness”?
Unexpectedly low performance for the student’s age and educational level subject to:
·  Data show that student has received effective classroom instruction;
·  Data show that student has academic difficulties in reading and written spelling;
·  Data show that student exhibits one or more of the primary characteristics of Dyslexia – see Question #1A above;
·  Data show that student has/had a deficit in phonological/phonemic awareness (must include a deficit in rapid naming in Spanish) - see Question 2A above;
·  Data show that student has adequate intelligence (the ability to learn in the absence of print);
·  Data show that the student’s lack of progress is NOT due to sociocultural factors such as language differences, irregular attendance or lack of experiential background.
The Dyslexia Handbook – Revised 2007, Updated 2010 - Procedures Concerning Dyslexia and Related Disorders. Texas Education Agency, Austin, TX. February 2007, Updated 2010.
[Assessment data must be considered in conjunction with the other “variety of data”. Are the deficits indicated in the primary characteristics of dyslexia AND in phonological/phonemic awareness “unexpected”?]
A.  Is the student’s listening comprehension (ability to comprehend what he or she is listening to) stronger than deficit areas indicated in Question 1 and Question 2? q Yes q No
B.  Is listening comprehension stronger than the student’s reading comprehension? q Yes q No
Assessment Instrument Applied / Area Evaluated / Standard
Error of Measure / Below
Average / Average / Above Average
Listening Comprehension* / S: / S: / S:
*Attention or memory issues may impact (lower) the listening comprehension score; additional data can help substantiate possible difficulties such as teacher observations, parent observations, report card, etc.
C.  Is the student’s reading comprehension stronger than deficit areas indicated in Question 1 and Question 2?
q Yes q No
Assessment Instrument Applied / Area Evaluated / Standard
Error of Measure / Below
Average / Average / Above Average
Reading Comprehension / S: / S: / S:
D.  Is the student’s verbal ability stronger than deficit areas indicated in Question 1 and Question 2?
q Yes q No
Assessment Instrument Applied / Area Evaluated / Standard
Error of Measure / Below
Average / Average / Above Average
Verbal Ability / S: / S: / S:
Math Reasoning / S: / S: / S:

Additional Information:

Coexisting Factors/Complications as observed by Evaluator and/or documentation submitted from classroom teacher.
/

Comments

Attention
Handwriting
Vision
Hearing
Attendance
Family History of Reading Difficulties
Behavior Issues
Motivation
Speech Issues
Other: ______

Determination of Dyslexia:

In order to be identified as a child with Dyslexia, a monolingual Spanish speaking student:

·  Must demonstrate a deficit in one or more of the primary characteristics (word reading, word decoding, written spelling, or fluency) of dyslexia as addressed in Question 1;

·  May demonstrate a deficit in phonological processing (must include a deficit in rapid naming in Spanish) as addressed in Question 2A;

·  Must demonstrate “unexpectedness” as addressed in Question 3.

Dyslexia Evaluation Completed by:

______
Dyslexia Assessor

Region 10 ESC 3-2011