archive.brookespublishing.comarchive.brookespublishing.com/...Assistant_V2_8-11_FINAL.docx · Web...

1

REPORT WRITING TEMPLATE

INTRODUCTION

The Test of Integrated Language and Literacy SkillsTM (TILLSTM)[Name] was assessed with the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS; Nelson, Plante, Helm-Estabrooks, & Hotz, 2016, © Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.) on [date] in a [setting]. The TILLS has been validated for assessing oral and written language in students ages 6 through 18 years for three purposes: (1) identifying language/literacy disorder; (2) describing patterns of strengths and weakness, and (3) tracking change over time (6 month periods or longer). This is a report of the scores earned, their implications for identifying language/literacy disorder, and a description of [Name]’s present levels of language and literacy performance.

The Student Language Scale (SLS)This report also describes input from [Name]’s teacher, parent, and from [Name] using the Student Language Scale (SLS; Nelson, Howes, & Anderson, 2018, © Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.). The SLS is a tool that has been validated to screen for language/literacy disorders and to provide input from teachers and parents, along with students’ self-reports to document a student’s strengths, weaknesses, and priority needs, and to facilitate home-to-school communication.

Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills™ and TILLS™ are trademarks of Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Excerpted with adaptations from the TILLS™ Examiner’s Manual, and TILLS™ by Nickola Wolf Nelson, Ph.D., Elena Plante, Ph.D., Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, Sc.D., and Gillian Hotz, Ph.D. Copyright © 2015 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved.

Information for the Examiner: This template is provided to assist in report writing for a student who has completed the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy SkillsTM (TILLSTM) and, possibly, the Student Language Scale (SLS). It includes segments of text that can be copied and pasted into students’ individualized reports, with opportunity to edit as needed. Not all components of the report may be appropriate for use with a given student. Please note that the boiler plate language in this template is NOT meant to replace clinical judgment and interpretation. Final reports should be proofread carefully prior to sharing, and protections under FERPA and HIPAA should be ensured.

Information for the Examiner: Use this section to introduce the assessments that have been administered (TILLS and/or the SLS).

2

IDENTIFICATION

When student is 8–11 years old and student’s identification core score falls below the age-level identification core cut-score of 34…

[Name]’s identification core composite of [##] is less than 34, the cut score for 8–11-year-olds. This is consistent with having a language/literacy disorder. Scientific evidence for this age group for the TILLS showed 88% sensitivity and 85% specificity when this cut score is used with this group of subtests. (Note: Tests are considered to have good sensitivity when they identify at least 80% of individuals with disorders; tests have good specificity when they identify at least 80% of individuals without disorders as not having them.)

When student is 8–11 years old and student’s identification core score falls at or ABOVE the age-level identification core cut-score of 34…

[Name]’s identification core composite score of [##] is above 34, the cut score for 8–11-year-olds. This score is NOT consistent with presence of a language/literacy disorder. Scientific evidence for the TILLS showed 88% sensitivity and 85% specificity when this cut score is used with this group of subtests to identify disorder for this age group. (Note: Tests are considered to have good sensitivity when they identify at least 80% of individuals with disorders; tests have good specificity when they identify at least 80% of individuals without disorders as not having them.) These results are NOT consistent with identification of a language/literacy disorder. Any areas of potential concern that should be monitored are described in later sections of this report.


Information for the Examiner: Use the identification section to convey one of three decisions, yes (meets identification criteria), no (clearly does not meet identification criteria), or maybe (does not fully meet identification criteria, but results of some subtests, and possibly the SLS, suggest reasons for concern). Select the correct decision and corresponding text for the student’s score and age and fill in the missing information.

YES. When student’s identification core score is BELOW the age-level cut score…

NO. When student’s identification core score is ABOVE the age-level cut score…

POSSIBLE IMPAIRMENT. When the student’s identification core score is SLIGHTLY ABOVE the age-level cut score, more clinical discretion is needed in score interpretation. This is because the measurement error inherent to all test scores could place the child’s true ability just above or below the cut score, based on the confidence interval for the Identification Core Composite. These range from 2–4 points depending on the confidence interval used and the age of the child. Evidence from other valid measures, parent or teacher concern, or some TILLS subtests that reveal areas of concern should serve to strengthen the clinician’s confidence in their final diagnostic decisions in these cases.

Information for the Examiner: The “possible impairment” choice is appropriate when a student earns a borderline score and other evidence suggests that the student has a disability, perhaps affecting areas that are not in the Identification Core for the student’s age. In some cases, clinical judgment may be needed to describe a situation in which the

3

When student is 8–11 years old and student’s identification core score falls AT OR SLIGHTLY ABOVE the age-level identification core cut-score of 34, and other TILLS results reveal areas of concern…

[Name]’s identification core composite score of [##] is at or above 34, the cut score for 8–11-year-olds. This identification core score is NOT consistent with identification as having a language/literacy disorder, but other evidence to be discussed later in this report suggests that a language/literacy disorder may be present. Scientific evidence for the TILLS showed 88% sensitivity and 85% specificity when this cut score is used with this group of subtests for this age group. (Note: Tests are considered to have good sensitivity when they identify at least 80% of individuals with disorders; tests have good specificity when they identify at least 80% of individuals without disorders as not having them.) It is possible for a student to score above the cut score but still have low scores in subtests that are not part of the identification core for the student’s age range. This can signal language difficulties in specific areas that justify extra attention, but may or may not justify special education.


Information for the Examiner: The “possible impairment” choice is appropriate when a student earns a borderline score and other evidence suggests that the student has a disability, perhaps affecting areas that are not in the Identification Core for the student’s age. In some cases, clinical judgment may be needed to describe a situation in which the

4

TILLS PROFILE AND PATTERNS OF STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES

TILLS Raw Scores, Standard Scores, and PercentilesThe TILLS has 15 subtests that yield 17 scores (because the Written Expression subtest yields 3 scores). Attachment 1 is the Scoring Chart that summarizes [Name]’s subtest raw scores, standard scores (standardized to have a mean of 10 and standard deviation of 3), and percentile ranks. Note that the TILLS normative data report actual percentile ranks and not standardized Normal Curve Equivalents, so these scores may look unusual. That is, TILLS percentiles represent the actual percentage of students in the normative sample who scored lower than the student in question. Because these are developmental skills, the data often do not conform to a normal bell curve, so relationships of percentile ranks to standard scores will vary. It is also possible for a student to earn a zero-percentile rank on the TILLS if no students in the normative sample scored lower than the student with a language/literacy disorder. The TILLS Scoring Chart includes composite scores that can be used in interpreting TILLS results, and it shows the component subtests that make up the student’s Identification Core Score, based on the student’s age. Composite scores are used in decisions regarding the presence of a language/literacy disorder, as described in the first section of this report.

Scientific evidence supports the validity of the TILLS for identifying patterns of strengths and weakness at the sound/word level compared to the sentence/discourse level. Sound/word level subtests assess the student’s word structure knowledge (phonological and morphological components of words), both spoken and written. Sentence/discourse level subtests assess the student’s knowledge of meaningful vocabulary, syntax, and discourse (stories, informational texts, directions, and conversation). Attachment 2 is the Profile Chart that arranges subtest standard scores by whether the subtests are Oral or Written and whether they are part of the Sound/Word Level composite or the Sentence/Discourse Level composite. This visual arrangement shows which of the student’s scores fall within the gray shaded range considered “average” (i.e., standard scores of 10 to 7, within 1 standard deviation above to below the mean), or “above average” (i.e., standard scores of 11 or above). It will also show clearly, which subtest scores fall below the gray area (i.e., standard scores of 6 or lower), and hence are “below average,” and which are “borderline average” (i.e., standard scores of 7). Interpreting Scoring Patterns in Relationship to the TILLS Quadrant ModelTest of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills™ and TILLS™ are trademarks of Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Excerpted with adaptations from the TILLS™ Examiner’s Manual, and TILLS™ by Nickola Wolf Nelson, Ph.D., Elena Plante, Ph.D., Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, Sc.D., and Gillian Hotz, Ph.D. Copyright © 2015 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved.

Information for the Examiner: The EasyScoreTM software generates the chart that can be incorporated as Attachment 1 to this report. To convert raw scores to standard scores and percentile ranks and generate the Scoring Chart, go to www.tillseasyscore.com and follow the instructions. You can use the chart from EasyScore™ or fill in the blank template in Attachment 1 (using values either generated within EasyScore™ or converted using the look-up tables in the back of the Examiner’s Manual). Attachment 2 is the Profile Chart that you need to create by hand based on the standard scores for each subtest (either generated within EasyScore™ or converted using the look-up tables in the back of the Examiner’s Manual). You may either attach the hard copy of the chart to this report or scan/ photograph it to attach it electronically. Attachment 3 is the Tracking Chart (which also can be found on the inside back cover of the Examiner Record Form) if you are reporting a TILLS retest session (which should only be administered at least 6 months after the prior testing).

5

Patterns of strengths and weaknesses can be understood better when they are compared to the TILLS quadrant model, as illustrated here. As this model shows, the four quadrants are defined by plotting scores from low-to-high along the Sound/Word Level and Sentence/Discourse Level dimensions (also called factors). Low scores for the Sentence/Discourse Level are plotted on the lower half of the model, and low scores for the Sound/Word Level are plotted on the left side of the model. Average-to-high scores are plotted on the right side for the Sound/Word Level and on the top half for the Sentence/Discourse Level.

TILLS Composite ScoresTILLS Composite SS Interpretation of Composite Scores

Sound/Word [##] This score reflects [LOW/HIGH] ability in the areas of phonology and word structure knowledge.

Sentence/Discourse [##] This score reflects [LOW/HIGH] ability in the areas involved in language comprehension and formulation.

Note: SS = standard score. On a scale with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 15, a score <85 may be considered LOW; a score of 85 or above is considered average-to-high and called HIGH in the quadrant model; however, these ratings have some room for clinical judgement. In the case of a young student or a student with extreme difficulty with word decoding, the student’s Reading Comprehension score (which is part of the Sentence/Discourse composite) may be depressed due to the inability to read the stimuli for this subtest well enough to be able to comprehend what they say. If the student’s oral Sentence/Discourse subtest scores are within normal limits, however, the examiner might argue that this score fits the HIGH category better than LOW.


Information for the Examiner: Enter the Student’s composite scores in this chart and select the identifier as to whether the score should be considered LOW or HIGH. Consider the “Note” with this table when deciding which quadrant best reflects the student’s profile.

6

Interpretation of the TILLS Profile According to the Quadrant Model

[Name]’s Sound/Word composite score of [##] can be categorized best as [LOW/HIGH] and the Sentence/Discourse composite score of [##] can be categorized best as [LOW/HIGH]. This combination suggests that this student’s TILLS performance fits best in the quadrant labeled [Typical Language/Literacy Skills, Oral-Written Language Disorder, Dyslexia, Specific Comprehension Deficit], which is described further below.

Typical Language/Literacy SkillsStudents who score HIGH (i.e., within the average range or higher) on both Sound/Word and Sentence/Discourse composite scores may be characterized as having typical language and literacy skills, particularly if their identification core score is at or above the cut score for the student’s age group. This pattern may be confirmed if the teacher and parent SLS ratings also suggest no difficulties (ratings at the level of 6 or 7 for almost all items). Even so, some students with typical language/literacy skills have other difficulties, such as social skills problems or attention deficits. Some students with a history of dyslexia may score in this range, but still may experience fatigue or problems with reading and writing when academic demands are extensive.

Oral-Written Language DisorderStudents who score LOW (i.e., below average) on both Sound/Word and Sentence/Discourse composite scores are likely to demonstrate problems at both levels and in both oral and written language modalities. Problems with phonological awareness, reading decoding, and spelling may be prominent, at least in the early elementary years, but students with this profile are likely to experience some difficulties with both reading and listening comprehension as they move through their school-age years. Oral and written expression difficulties also may be observed as less complex forms, as well as in word- and sentence-level errors. Students with low vocabulary awareness scores also may have difficulty with the semantic, as well as the syntactic aspects of verbal expression (both spoken and written).

DyslexiaStudents who score LOW (i.e., below average) on the Sound/Word Level, particularly on Nonword Reading, Reading Fluency, Nonword Spelling, and Written Expression–Word scores, but HIGH (i.e., demonstrating average or above scores) on the Sentence/Discourse Level, particularly on the oral measures, fit the pattern of dyslexia. This pattern may be supported by evidence, particularly in the early school-age years, of Listening Comprehension higher than Reading Comprehension, but this difference may disappear with intervention and age.

Specific Comprehension DeficitStudents who score HIGH (i.e., average or above) on the Sound/Word Level, but LOW (i.e., below average) on the Sentence/Discourse Level may exhibit a less recognized pattern called Specific Comprehension Deficit. The “specific” element in this label refers to specific difficulty Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills™ and TILLS™ are trademarks of Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Excerpted with adaptations from the TILLS™ Examiner’s Manual, and TILLS™ by Nickola Wolf Nelson, Ph.D., Elena Plante, Ph.D., Nancy Helm-Estabrooks, Sc.D., and Gillian Hotz, Ph.D. Copyright © 2015 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. All rights reserved.

Information for the Examiner: Select the label from the quadrant that best fits the student’s High/Low profile in the first paragraph and delete the rest. You may want to retain only the paragraph for the quadrant that best fits the student’s profile, or you might want to include all four descriptions for contrast.

7

comprehending what has been read aloud accurately. In other words, reading decoding is surprisingly good compared to reading comprehension, which is problematic. Listening comprehension also is low, as is verbal expression, spoken or written, even though such problems might be less obvious because the student sounds okay when talking and can appear to understand when listening, even though comprehension is incomplete, particularly when attempting to comprehend high-level academic discourse, orally or in writing.


8

TRACKING CHANGE OVER TIME

Because [Name] has taken the TILLS two times more than 6 months apart, the standard scores earned by [Name] at Time 2 on [date], at age [years;months], can be compared to scores [Name] earned previously at Time 1 on [date], at age [years;months]. The chart shown in Attachment 3 makes it possible to compare scores earned to values that identify whether a standard score change is significant. These results are summarized in the following table.

Subtests with Significant Improvement

Subtests Within or Above Average Range with No Change

Subtests with Significant Decline Subtests Below Average Range with No Change

[name of subtest] [name of subtest] [name of subtest] [name of subtest]

Note: Subtests with Significant Decline or with scores in the Below Average range that do not change may signal areas that need additional attention.


Information for the Examiner: In order to complete the summary chart below, you must first complete the Tracking Chart on the inside back cover of the Examiner Record Form following the instructions there. Then complete the summary chart that is embedded with this report as follows:Any Y+ scores are “Subtests with Significant Improvement”Any Y- scores are “Subtests with Significant Decline”Any N scores <7 are “Subtests Below Average Range with No Change”Any N scores >7 are “Subtests Within or Above Average Range with No Change”

When scores decline, or below-average scores do not change, students may need more attention in those areas, but this does NOT mean that assessment tasks should be adopted as intervention tasks. That would not be best practice and would invalidate further testing with the TILLS. Nor should goal areas be dropped simply because the student is making measurable progress.

9

STUDENT LANGUAGE SCALE RESULTS

The Student Language Scale (SLS) is designed to gather input from multiple informants about the student’s language and literacy skills. Informants were asked to complete a 7-point rating scale in which they rated [Name]’s language and literacy skills from “not good” (1) to “very good” (7) by circling a number to rate how good this student was at the named skill in comparison to peers of the same age. This scale has been validated as a screener for language/literacy disorder and to provide input for planning and other discussions between teachers, parents, and students. Copies of completed SLS forms are attached to this report. For [Name], the SLS was completed by:A teacher: _____________________________A parent: ______________________________The student: ____________________________

Ratings by the student’s teacher met the criterion for [passing/failing] the screening. The teacher’s lowest ratings were on [provide numbers and descriptions of items] and highest ratings were on [provide numbers and descriptions of items]. Ratings by the student’s parent met the criterion for [passing/failing] the screening. The parent’s lowest ratings were on [provide numbers and descriptions of items] and highest ratings were on [provide numbers and descriptions of items]. The teacher identified areas easiest for the student to be [list here] and hardest areas to be [list here]. The parent identified areas easiest for the student to be [list here] and hardest areas to be [list here]. The teacher said the most important thing to help the student do better at school would be [“insert teacher comment”]. The parent said the most important thing would be [“insert parent comment”]. [Describe further any points of agreement or discrepancy that stand out, and any input from the student.]


Information for the Examiner: The following paragraph provides a template for how to report results from the Student Language Scale if it has been completed by a teacher, parent, and/or the student. Fill in the missing information to complete this portion of the report.

Information for the Examiner: Do not explain the criteria for passing or failing the screening to parents or teachers or in this report to avoid biasing their ratings. The criteria for pass/fail decisions for teachers and parents are as follows:Pass—no more than 2 ratings on the first 8 items below 5.Fail—more than 2 ratings on the first 8 items below 5.

10

SUMMARY

Attachment 1. TILLS Scoring Chart


Information for the Examiner: You can tailor the summary for the student and set of measures used. This would include a recap of all of the sections used in this Report Writing Assistant.Information for the Examiner: The Scoring Chart can be completed using TILLS EasyScoreTM and then inserted into this Attachment. Alternatively, it can be completed by hand using the template below, or scanned/photographed, and then attached to the report. We strongly recommend using EasyScoreTM (https://www.tillseasyscore.com/ ) . It’s free, easy to use, and you are far less likely to make errors in scoring.

https://www.tillseasyscore.com/

11

Attachment 2. TILLS Profile Chart

Note: This chart shows the student’s Standard Scores by Language Level (Sound/Word and Sentence/Discourse) and Modality (Oral and Written)

Note: Subtest standard scores (SS) are shown on a standard scale with a mean of 10 and standard deviation (SD) of 3. Subtests scores that are within the gray area are +1 SD of the mean. SS of 7 are considered borderline and categorized as weaknesses.


Information for the Examiner: Use the TILLS Profile to get a clear picture of the student’s strengths and weaknesses. You can use blank Profile Chart below or scan/photograph the filled-in chart from the back cover of the Examiner Record Form.

12

Attachment 3. Table of TILLS Subtests

Note: This table includes brief descriptions of the TILLS subtests, and this Student’s Standard Scores

Oral Language Subtests SS Written Language Subtests SS

Soun

d/W

ord

Lev

el S

kills

Phoneme Awareness (PA) Assesses awareness of individual speech sounds that is critical for reading decoding and spelling.

# Nonword Reading (NW Read) Assesses reading decoding ability, which contributes to reading comprehension and academic success.

#

Nonword Repetition (NW Rep) Assesses ability to perceive and reproduce the phonological structure of words when speaking, which is related to reading decoding and spelling.

# Reading Fluency (RF) Assesses ability to read real words in context automatically, providing an index of reading proficiency in context.

#

Digit Span Forwards (DSF) Assesses ability to listen attentively to a series of numbers and hold auditory information in memory, which contributes to other language skills in the classroom.

# Nonword Spelling (NW Spell) Assesses ability to spell novel words using knowledge of sounds, morphemes, and letter patterns.

#

Digit Span Backwards (DSB) Assesses working memory for listening attentively to auditory input and manipulating it mentally; often required for academic tasks.

# Written Expression-Word score (WE-Word) Assesses ability to select and spell real words in meaningful contexts, which is essential for producing written language.

#

Sent

ence

/Dis

cour

se L

evel

Ski

lls

Vocabulary Awareness (VA). Assesses ability to identify and explain semantic relationships for one word-pair before identifying a second pair from the same set of three words, as required for language comprehension and formulation.

#

Listening Comprehension (LC). Assesses the ability to understand spoken language with complex academic syntax and relational terminology and to monitor language comprehension, as required for academic learning.

# Reading Comprehension (RC) Assesses the ability to read and understand written language with complex academic syntax and relational terminology and to monitor language comprehension, as required for learning from texts.

#

Following Directions (FD) Assesses ability to follow spoken directions involving shapes and symbols using paper and pencil, as required for mathematics, art, and other forms of procedural instructions.

#

Story Retelling (SR) Assesses ability to listen to and retell a story as required for participating actively in conversations and interpreting human goals and interactions.

# Written Expression-Discourse score (WE-Disc) Assesses ability to include complete information when rewriting a story, reflecting complex integrated skills for understanding and producing written language.

#

Delayed Story Retelling (DSR) Assesses ability to retell a story later, which is an important skill for remembering narrative material across the curriculum.

# Written Expression-Sentence score (WE-Sent) Assesses ability to combine short sentences into more complex ones when rewriting a story, reflecting complex integrated skills for understanding and formulating written language.

#

Social Communication (SC) Assesses ability to say what a character would say in a social situation and how the character would say it, as required for understanding and participating in social situations.

#

Note: SS = standard scores are based on a scale with a mean of 10 and SD of 3.


Information for Examiner: To complete this portion of the report, simply fill in the student’s standard scores.

13

Attachment 4. Tracking Chart

Results showing changes in the student’s scores based on testing at two points in time more than 6 months apart.


Information for the Examiner: Use the Tracking Chart for reports that include a comparison with prior administration of the TILLS. To incorporate this table, use the blank Tracking Chart included below or scan/photocopy the filled-in chart from the inside back cover of the Examiner Record Form. Use this Tracking Chart to complete the data for the table included with this optional section of the report.

archive.brookespublishing.comarchive.brookespublishing.com/...Assistant_V2_8-11_FINAL.docx · Web...

Documents

Transcript of archive.brookespublishing.comarchive.brookespublishing.com/...Assistant_V2_8-11_FINAL.docx · Web...