MARCH 2019

Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions:

A Dyslexia Toolkit
Kristina Breaux, PhD, Senior Research Director, Clinical Assessment
Tina Eichstadt, MS CCC-SLP, Senior Product Manager, Clinical Assessment

Pearson Clinical Assessment offers a dyslexia toolkit with resources for screening, identification,
intervention, and progress monitoring. This report will be updated periodically as new tools
become available.

Up to 1-in-5 people exhibit symptoms of dyslexia, SCREEN ASSESS

a very common language-based reading disorder.
Although developing and implementing an
evidence-based assessment and intervention
plan is crucial, very often the most important
factor is early identification.

Pearson’s dyslexia toolkit includes clinical and

classroom resources for screening, diagnostic
evaluations, intervention, and progress
monitoring. Included are tools that can be used
across a wide range of professional groups and
user qualification levels.
MONITOR  INTERVENE
INTERVENTION
Pearson’s Dyslexia Toolkit
SCREEN ASSESS INTERVENE MONITOR
Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™ Kaufman Test of Educational Intervention Guide for LD
Achievement™, Third Edition (Learning Disability) Subtypes
(KTEA™-3) Comprehensive Form
Wide Range Achievement Test, Process Assessment of the Learner, Process Assessment of the aimswebPlus
Fifth Edition (WRAT5™) Second Edition™: Diagnostics Learner (PAL™) reading and
for Reading and Writing (PAL™-II writing lessons
Reading and Writing)
Kaufman Test of Educational Wechsler Individual Achievement KTEA-3 teaching objectives Growth Scale Value (GSV)
Achievement™, Third Edition Test®, Third Edition (WIAT®-III) and intervention statements Scores
(KTEA™-3) Brief Form (US normed edition) WIAT-III intervention
goal statements
Dyslexia index scores from the Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests™, SPELL-Links™
KTEA-3 and WIAT®-III (US- Third Edition (WRMT™-III) to Reading & Writing
normed edition) SPELL-Links Class links
for Classrooms™

Learn more at PearsonClinical.ca

2 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

When reviewing this

white paper, please
consider the following
important notes:
• Identifying individuals with •L
 ocal processes and procedures •E
 ach resource in this toolkit
dyslexia is a multi-step, across the US (and globally) shows strong empirical evidence
collaborative process. Supporting vary greatly within the dyslexia on its own. The power of a toolkit
individuals who are academically context. Tool choices, and each comes from understanding
at-risk or who have dyslexia is tool’s appropriate use, must be the need for multiple tools and
not a “quick fix” and may require considered carefully against the how they fit together to guide
layers of effort from simple available scientific evidence and clear decision making, giving the
accommodations to special best practices in educational and collective effort additional
education intervention. clinical contexts. power. Clear data, a sufficient
knowledge base, and team-based
decision-making allow the best
path forward.

Understanding Dyslexia
The International Dyslexia Association (IDA) established the following
definition of dyslexia in 2002, which has since been adopted by many U.S.
federal and state agencies:

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is and reduced reading experience that can impede
neurobiological in origin. It is characterized by growth of vocabulary and background knowledge.16
difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word
recognition and by poor spelling and decoding In 2015 a unanimous Senate vote for the Cassidy-
abilities. These difficulties typically result from a Mikulski Resolution (Resolution 275)32a called on
deficit in the phonological component of language Congress, schools, and state and local educational
that is often unexpected in relation to other agencies to recognize the significant educational
cognitive abilities and the provision of effective implications of dyslexia that must be addressed.
classroom instruction. Secondary consequences Then in 2017, the U.S. Senate voted unanimously as
may include problems in reading comprehension part of the S.Res. 28432b to establish the following
definition of dyslexia:

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

3 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Prevalence estimates suggest that up to 20% of

(1) an unexpected difficulty in reading for an the population show symptoms of dyslexia.9, 17
individual who has the intelligence to be a Dyslexia is a language-based reading disorder that
much better reader; and (2) most commonly typically results in lifelong impact to an individual.
caused by a difficulty in phonological processing Diagnosis of dyslexia can be made through medical
(the appreciation of the individual sounds of or educational processes.
spoken language), which affects the ability of an
individual to speak, read, and spell, and often, Many professional and parent groups—including
the ability to learn a second language.32b parents, school and clinical psychologists, speech-
language pathologists, educational diagnosticians,
reading specialists, general and special education
Both definitions refer to the unexpected nature teachers, school administrators, and government
of dyslexia, which is often revealed by an uneven stakeholders—support individuals with dyslexia in a
cognitive profile in which basic skill deficits are variety of ways. Collaboration among these groups
surrounded by a “sea of strengths” in areas such as is key to facilitating a productive, robust, evidence-
reasoning, problem solving, vocabulary, and listening based assessment and intervention plan.
comprehension.34

A Hybrid Model of
Dyslexia Identification
Implementing an evidence-based process for
dyslexia screening, identification, intervention, and
progress monitoring is paramount to improving
student outcomes. The tests and products
recommended in this toolkit are designed to be used
most effectively within a comprehensive framework
such as a hybrid model for dyslexia identification.
Approaches to identification that rely on a single
criterion are prone to measurement error and show
poor stability over time.19, 20 In contrast, a hybrid
model incorporates multiple sources of information, stability of classification over time, and signals that
as well as the degree to which the student has the reading problem is persistent and not due to
responded to treatment. Students who do not inadequate instruction.13, 38 The hybrid model shown
respond to high quality instruction may be more in Figure 1 summarizes the symptoms, causes and
likely to have an underlying cognitive deficit that correlates, and risk factors that may be considered
manifests as dyslexia. For this reason, incorporating as part of a dyslexia evaluation.
treatment response data as one essential criterion
for dyslexia reduces false positives, improves

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

4 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Symptoms
Before the onset of formal schooling, parents
or caregivers may observe early risk factors for
dyslexia. For example, some children with dyslexia
begin speaking later than most other children, have

11 2 3 4 5
problems with pronunciation, or use vague terms
because they have difficulty recalling the specific

234 5
word for an object.34

The symptoms of dyslexia are most commonly

observed at school or during reading and writing a number of other reasons such as intellectual
tasks. Before learning to read, children with dyslexia disability and socioemotional problems.
may exhibit difficulties with alphabet writing,
An individual with dyslexia may not exhibit every
letter identification, and/or phonics (letter-sound
symptom at a given point in time, and his or her
correspondence).3 After exposure to reading
areas of weakness may change over time. To
instruction, individuals with dyslexia may have
improve the stability of dyslexia identification and
difficulties with decoding pseudowords, word
reduce the likelihood that a student will qualify
reading, reading fluency (oral reading fluency, in
one year and not the next, some researchers
particular), spelling, and written expression. In
recommend a criterion of n or more (e.g., 3 or
addition, reading comprehension is relatively poor
more, or 4 or more) symptoms, requiring that poor
compared to listening comprehension among
treatment response is one of those symptoms.38
individuals with dyslexia.38
Evaluators are advised to assess other skill areas
Collecting information about the examinee’s
as well to identify additional areas of strength
educational history, including any accommodations,
and weakness in the individual’s learning profile.
services, and specialized instruction received, is
For example, assessing skill levels in the areas of
important for ruling out insufficient instruction as a
math (computation, problem solving, and fluency)
primary cause of academic difficulty. Poor response
is recommended because a subset of individuals
to instruction is considered an important symptom
with dyslexia experience math difficulties as well.18
for identifying individuals with dyslexia because
In addition, assessing vocabulary and grammar
it indicates that the individual’s difficulties cannot
(morphological-syntactic) skills is important for
be attributed to lack of appropriate instruction.38
understanding whether a more pervasive oral and
However, poor treatment response is not sufficient
written language disorder may be contributing to
on its own to reliably identify dyslexia because
literacy difficulties.3, 37
students may fail to respond to instruction for

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

5 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Causes/Correlates
The causes and correlates of dyslexia include
Dyslexia
areas of cognitive processing weaknesses, which are
less easily observed than symptoms. The symptoms
of dyslexia are typically either attributed to or related
to weaknesses in one or more of the following areas:
phonological processing (including phonological
awareness and phonological coding), rapid automatic
naming (the phonological loop of working memory),
auditory verbal working memory, processing speed,
long-term storage and retrieval, associative memory, Symptoms
and orthographic processing. Assessing the first
Lack of response to treatment
three areas is considered paramount for a dyslexia
evaluation according to the IDA guidelines.18 Pre-reader difficulties
• Alphabet writing
Although weaknesses in one or more aspects
• Phonics/Letter knowledge
of phonological processing are often associated with
dyslexia,18 a single cognitive deficit cannot adequately Reader difficulties
explain the symptoms of dyslexia • Word reading/Decoding
in all cases.30 Rather, the causes of dyslexia are likely • Reading fluency
multiple, interacting, and probabilistic.29 • Spelling
For this reason, a hypothesis-testing approach
• Written expression
to assessment that explores multiple causes
and correlates is helpful for understanding an • Reading comprehension < Listening
comprehension
individual’s overall learning profile.

Risk Factors
Causes/ Correlates
Considering hereditary and correlated risk factors for
dyslexia alongside behavioural symptoms supports a • Phonological processing
more robust model of dyslexia identification.38 In • Rapid automatic naming
addition to low scores on a dyslexia screening test, • Auditory working memory
the risk factors for dyslexia involve aspects of an
• Processing speed
individual’s family history and developmental history,
which are typically assessed through self or parent • Long-term storage and retrieval
report. Individuals with the following characteristics • Associative memory
are at increased risk for dyslexia: a family history • Orthographic processing
of dyslexia,39 a history of language impairment, and/
or weaknesses in receptive vocabulary.37
Most individuals with dyslexia have at least age-
appropriate receptive vocabulary and general Risk Factors
language skills; however, vocabulary weaknesses may • Family history
be seen in conjunction with a specific language
• Language impairment/Poor receptive
disorder or as a correlate of dyslexia if individuals vocabulary
spend less time engaged in reading and language
activities.10, 18, 37
Figure 1. Hybrid Model of Dyslexia Identification

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

6 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Possible Strengths
Many individuals with dyslexia exhibit relative
strengths in areas such as fluid reasoning and
problem solving, oral language (including listening,
speaking, vocabulary, and grammar), and math.34
These strengths may be identified and highlighted
during the course of a dyslexia evaluation using
a hybrid model approach to assessment. For
intervention purposes, strategies and methods that
utilize an individual’s cognitive processing strengths
for remediating weaknesses is preferred.31

Pearson Dyslexia Toolkit

Screen Assess Intervene Monitor

The Pearson dyslexia toolkit includes clinical assessments and resources for screening, diagnostic evaluations,
intervention, and progress monitoring. To assist the varied groups of professionals who support individuals
with dyslexia, this toolkit includes tools used across professional groups and user qualification levels.

Screening Tools
The Pearson toolkit for dyslexia screening includes the following measures:

• Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™ • Dyslexia Index scores, newly developed for

• Wide Range Achievement Test, Fifth Edition the KTEA–3 Comprehensive Form and the
(WRAT5™) US-normed edition of Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test®, Third Edition (WIAT®–III)
• Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement,
Third Edition (KTEA™–3), Brief Form

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

7 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

The Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen35 is a brief teacher BA-3 to yield the student’s Academic Skills Battery
survey for identifying students at risk for dyslexia. (ASB) composite. The subtests used in the ASB also
This assessment is intended for use with students provide domain composites in Reading, Math, and
experiencing academic difficulties, but it can also Written Language. If the results from the ASB or
be used to screen all students. Teachers can domain composites suggest the need for further
complete the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen for a student testing, administration of the KTEA–3 Comprehensive
in less than 5 minutes, using an online form. Form is recommended. The Comprehensive Form
Digital administration and scoring in Q-global, the includes supplemental subtests that are useful for
Universal Screening application, or aimswebPlus exploring specific aspects of academic functioning.
provides evaluators with immediate results and All standard scores from subtests administered
reporting capabilities for individuals and groups of using the Brief Form can be applied to either Form A
students. The classification accuracy data indicate or Form B of the KTEA–3 Comprehensive.
moderately high sensitivity and specificity for
all forms. Clinical validity data indicate that the The KTEA–3 and WIAT–III Dyslexia Index Scores
Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen correctly classified 71% of (US-normed edition) (Breaux, 2018a, 2018b) were
kindergarten students, 85% of first-grade students, designed to provide theoretically sound, reliable, and
80% of second-grade students, and 85% of third- clinically sensitive composite scores for identifying
grade students.36 risk for dyslexia among students in grades K–12 and
adults. In 15 minutes or less, practitioners can obtain
The WRAT547 is a widely used screening test of a Dyslexia Index score to screen for dyslexia and
reading, spelling, and math skills in individuals ages identify individuals who may benefit from a
5–85+ years (grades K–12+). This test includes four comprehensive evaluation or a more intensive
subtests (Word Reading, Sentence Comprehension, intervention approach. A single score such as the
Spelling, and Math Computation) and one Reading Dyslexia Index is not sufficient to diagnose dyslexia.
composite, all of which can be administered in about Rather, a diagnosis of dyslexia is based on a
20–30 minutes. Examiners have the flexibility to convergence of evidence gathered from multiple
administer a single subtest or any combination of sources. However, the Dyslexia Index results may
the four subtests. Clinical validity data indicate that contribute to a more in-depth evaluation.
students with dyslexia/reading disorder performed
significantly lower than the matched control group As shown in Table 1, the subtests included in each of
on all subtests except Math Computation, with large the Dyslexia Indexes differ for grades K-1 and grades
effect sizes observed. 2-12+. he composite structures were based on
clinical data with a strong empirical foundation. The
The KTEA–3 Brief Form24 is used to screen for results provide a standard score that corresponds to
weaknesses in reading, writing, and mathematics, six categories of risk for dyslexia ranging from very
and to obtain a general estimate of academic low to very high. The Dyslexia Index Scores Manuals,
achievement for grades PK–12+ (ages 4–25). The which are available for purchase in either paper
three-subtest Brief Achievement (BA-3) composite or digital format, provide norms tables for hand
for grades K–12+, which includes measures of scoring, administration, technical, and interpretive
word reading, spelling, and math computation, is information. The materials needed to administer and
especially useful for this purpose. Results may be score the Dyslexia Index subtests are available as
used to identify students who need a comprehensive part of the KTEA-3 or US-normed WIAT-III. However,
evaluation. To obtain more complete information the following reproducible forms are provided in the
across all three academic areas, three additional Dyslexia Index Scores Manuals: Response Booklet
subtests are administered and the scores are pages for the Spelling subtest, Dyslexia Index Score
combined with the three subtest scores from the Computation Form, and Graphical Profile.5a,5b

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

8 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Table 1 summarizes the reliability coefficients, clinical validity data,

and administration time for these dyslexia screening measures. The
industry standard criterion for evaluating the quality of a screening
instrument is the Area Under the Curve (AUC) estimate, which is
the area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve.
Traditional benchmarks suggest that values ≥ 0.9 are excellent, ≥ 0.8
are good, ≥ 0.7 are fair, and < 0.7 are poor. The AUC estimates for the
dyslexia screening tools in Table 1 range from .81 to .94, indicating
that the screeners have good-to-excellent accuracy in separating
children at risk for dyslexia from those not at risk.

Table 1. Technical Characteristics of Dyslexia Screening Measures

Grade/ Mean Effect Administration

Test or Index score Subtests/Items AUC
Age Reliability size time (min.)

Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™: Form 0 Kindergarten 10 items .87 1.48 .81 <5

Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™: Form 1 1 12 items .90 1.78 .89 <5

Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™: Form 2 2 10 items .94 2.06 .92 <5

Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen™: Form 3 3 10 items .95 2.38 .94 <5

1–12+ Word Reading + Sentence

WRAT5 Reading Composite .96 1.70 .89 10–20
Ages 6–89+ Comprehension

Letter & Word

K–12+
KTEA™-3 Brief: BA-3 composite Recognition + Spelling .98 2.11 .93 20
Ages 5–25
+ Math Computation

Phonological Processing
KTEA™-3 Dyslexia Index: K–1
+ Letter Naming Facility + .92 1.79 .90 18–20
Grade K–1 Ages 5–7
Letter & Word Recognition

Word Recognition
KTEA™-3 Dyslexia Index: 2–12+
Fluency + Nonsense Word .97 1.76 .89 12–15
Grade 2–12+ Ages 7–25
Decoding + Spelling

WIAT®–III Dyslexia Index: K–1 Early Reading Skills

.94 1.66 .88 12
Grade K–1 (US-normed) Ages 5–7 + Spelling

Oral Reading Fluency

WIAT®–III Dyslexia Index: 2–12+
+ Pseudoword .98 1.84 .90 12–15
Grade 2–12+ (US-normed) Ages 7–50
Decoding + Spelling

Notes. AUC = Area Under the Curve estimate. Data for KTEA–3, WIAT–III, and WRAT5 were derived from age-based standard
scores. Alpha reliability is reported for the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen forms; split half reliability is reported for all other tests.
All scores from the dyslexia groups were significantly (p < .01) lower than those of the nonclinical matched control groups.
Clinical n-counts for the KTEA–3 and WIAT–III Dyslexia Index scores at grades K–1 were insufficient (< 20) for group
comparisons; for this reason, group means, effect sizes, and AUC estimates were based on samples of students in grades
1–4 (KTEA–3) and grades 2–3 (WIAT–III).

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

9 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Diagnostic Assessment Tools

The Pearson toolkit for dyslexia evaluations includes
four diagnostic achievement tests: Diagnostic
• Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement™,
Third Edition (KTEA™–3) Comprehensive Form
Assessment
• Process Assessment of the Learner, Second
Edition: Diagnostics for Reading and Writing
(PAL–II Reading and Writing)
• Wechsler Individual Achievement Test®, Third
Edition (WIAT®–III) (US normed edition)
• Woodcock Reading Mastery Tests,
Third Edition (WRMT™–III)

Table 2 summarizes the key features of the KTEA–3 Comprehensive Form, PAL–II Reading and Writing, WIAT–III,
and WRMT–III.

Table 2. Key Features of Diagnostic Achievement Tests

Key features KTEA™-3 PAL™-II WIAT®–III (US norms) WRMT™–III

Publication date 2014 2007 2009 2011

Grades PK–12 Grades PK–12 Grades K–12

Grade and age ranges Grades K–6
Ages 4–25 Ages 4–50 Ages 4–79

Forms 2 parallel forms 1 form 1 form 2 parallel forms

Reading/writing related • Phonological Processing Skill Domains: •E

 arly Reading Skills •P
 honological Awareness
subtests • Object Naming Facility •P
 honological Decoding •R
 eading Comprehension •R
 apid Automatic Naming
• Letter Naming Facility •M
 orphological Decoding •W
 ord Reading •L
 istening
• Listening Comprehen- •S
 ilent Reading Fluency •P
 seudoword Decoding Comprehension
sion •H
 andwriting •O
 ral Reading Fluency •W
 ord Comprehension
• Letter & Word •O
 rthographic Spelling •L
 istening •P
 assage Comprehension
Recognition •N
 arrative Compositional Comprehension •W
 ord Identification
• Reading Fluency •S
 pelling •W
 ord Attack
Comprehension •E
 xpository Note Taking •S
 entence Composition •O
 ral Reading Fluency
• Nonsense Word and Report Writing •E
 ssay Composition
Decoding •A
 lphabet Writing
• Reading Vocabulary Processing Domains: Fluency
• Word Recognition •O
 rthographic Coding
Fluency •P
 honological Coding
• Decoding Fluency •M
 orphological/Syntactic
• Silent Reading Fluency Coding
• Spelling •R
 AN/RAS
• Written Expression •O
 ral Motor Planning
• Writing Fluency •F
 inger Sense
•V
 erbal Working Memory

• Hand score •H
 and score
Administration and •H
 and score
• Q-global •H
 and score •Q
 -global
scoring options •Q
 -global
• Q-interactive •Q
 -interactive

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

10 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

The KTEA–3 Comprehensive Form22 is designed to with the largest differences from the matched
provide information about normative and personal control group on the following six-subtests: Early
strengths and weaknesses in reading, writing, math, Reading Skills, Reading Comprehension, Word
oral language, and key processing areas relevant Reading, Pseudoword Decoding, Oral Reading
to dyslexia. The KTEA–3 assessment information Fluency (Fluency, Accuracy, and Rate scores), and
may be used to make eligibility, placement, and Spelling. Similarly, the dyslexia group scored the
diagnostic decisions, plan intervention, and monitor lowest on the following five composites: Total
progress over time. The clinical validity data reported Reading, Basic Reading, Reading Comprehension
in the manual23 indicate that, with the exception of and Fluency, Written Expression, and Total
Associational Fluency, all subtest and composite Achievement.
scores for the dyslexia (SLD-reading/writing) group
were significantly (p < .01) lower than those of The WRMT–III49 provides a comprehensive battery
the matched control group with large effect sizes. of tests that measure reading readiness and reading
Although the dyslexia group scored significantly achievement for the purpose of developing tailored
lower than the control group across nearly every intervention programs. According to the clinical
academic measure, mean scores for the dyslexia validity data reported in the manual,50 the mean
group were lowest (below 85) on the reading, scores for the dyslexia group were significantly
reading-related, and spelling subtests. (p < .01) lower than those of the matched control
group for all scores except Rapid Automatic Naming:
The PAL–II Reading and Writing2 is designed to Number and Letter Naming. All effect sizes were
measure reading and writing skills and related large except those for Listening Comprehension
processes in order to facilitate the differential and Rapid Automatic Naming: Number and Letter
diagnosis of dyslexia, dysgraphia, and oral and Naming, which were moderate.
written language learning disability (OWL-LD) and
to link assessment results with interventions. The
PAL–II, which is often used to complement an
evaluation that includes the KTEA–3, WIAT–III, or Table 3 lists the key skill areas
WRMT–III, is ideal for pinpointing why a student recommended for dyslexia assessment
struggles in reading and/or writing. by the International Dyslexia
Association,18 as well as secondary
The WIAT–III27 provides information about areas that are important to consider,
normative strengths and weaknesses in reading, and the relevant measures provided
math, written expression, and oral language. by the KTEA–3, PAL–II, WIAT–III, and
Results obtained from the WIAT–III can be used to WRMT–III. The measures listed include
inform decisions regarding eligibility for educational subtests, subtest component scores,
services, educational placement, or a diagnosis supplemental scores, and error
of a specific learning disability, and the results analysis classifications.
include suggestions for instructional objectives and
interventions. According to the clinical validity data
reported in the manual,28 with the exception of
Alphabet Writing Fluency, all subtest and composite
scores for the dyslexia (SLD-reading/writing) group
were significantly (p < .01) lower than those of the
matched control group. Effect sizes were large for
all reading and writing subtests except those for
Alphabet Writing Fluency and Essay Composition,
which were small and moderate, respectively. The
dyslexia group scored the lowest (below average)

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

11 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Table 3. Content Coverage of Diagnostic Achievement tests

KTEA™-3 WIAT®–III (US norms) WRMT™–III

Key areas for PAL™-II
grades PK–12 grades PK–12 grades K–12
dyslexia assessment grades K–6
ages 4–25 ages 4–50 ages 4–79

Phonics skills/ • Letter & Word Recognition •L

 etters •E
 arly Reading Skills skills •L
 etter Identification
Letter knowledge • Letter Naming Facility analysis (SA): Naming
Letters;
• Letter Checklist
•L
 etter-Sound
Correspondence

Decoding pseudowords • Nonsense Word Decoding • Pseudoword Decoding • Pseudoword Decoding • Word Attack

Word reading • Letter & Word recognition • Word Reading • Word Identification

Reading fluency • Word Recognition Fluency  AN-Words

•R • Oral Reading Fluency • Oral Reading Fluency
• Decoding Fluency  orphological Decoding
•M • Psudoword Decoding Speed
• Silent Reading Fluency Fluency • Word Reading Speed
•S
 entence Sense

Spelling • Spelling  ord Choice

•W • Spelling

Written expression • Written Expression  entences: Writing

•S • Sentence Composition
• Writing Fluency  ompositional Fluency
•C • Essay Composition
 xpository Note Taking
•E
and Report Writing

Receptive vocabulary • Reading Vocabulary  re They Related?

•A • Listening Comprehension: • Word Comprehension
Receptive Vocabulary

Rapid naming • Object Naming Facility  AN-Letters

•R • Rapid Automatic Naming
• Letter Naming Facility  AN-Letter Groups
•R

Phonological • Phonological Processing • Rhyming • Early Reading Skills SA: • Phonological Awareness
awareness • Syllables Phonological Awareness
• Phonemes
• Rimes

Auditory working •P
 honological Processing •S
 entences: Listening • Oral expression: Sentence
memory •E
 rror Analysis: Blending •L
 etters Repetition
(phonological memory) • Early Reading Skills SA:
•W
 ords
Blending Sounds

Secondary areas

Reading • Reading Comprehension  entence Sense

•S • Reading Comprehension • Passage Comprehension
comprehension Accuracy score

Listening • Listening Comprehension • Sentences: Listening • Listening Comprehension: • Listening

comprehension Oral Discourse Comprehension
Comprehension

Orthographic • Orthographic Processing •R

 eceptive Coding
processing composite  xpressive Coding
•E
 ord Choice
•W

Grammatical Ability • Oral Expression • Does it Fit? • Oral Expression

• Sentence Structure

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

12 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Assessment of Intellectual Functioning

The Pearson toolkit for dyslexia evaluations also The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children®, Fifth
includes tests of intellectual functioning. Within the Edition42 (WISC®–V; Wechsler, 2014) is one of the
context of a dyslexia evaluation, tests of intellectual most commonly used school-age tests of intellectual
functioning are used for the following purposes: functioning. The WISC–V is linked with the WIAT–III
• To identify dyslexia using a pattern of strengths and and the KTEA–3, and it includes measures that
weaknesses (PSW) approach, whereby individuals differentiate individuals with dyslexia (SLD-R) from
with dyslexia show consistency between areas matched controls. The clinical validity data reported
of cognitive processing weakness and academic in the manual43 indicate significant difficulties among
weakness coupled with a significant discrepancy the dyslexia group with immediate paired associate
between areas of cognitive processing strength learning, naming speed, verbal comprehension, and
and cognitive processing weakness.14, 15 working memory. The mean scores for the dyslexia
group were significantly (p < .01) lower than those
• To develop individualized approaches to of the matched control group for all primary index
intervention that consider areas of processing scores except the Processing Speed Index (p < .05),
weakness as well as cognitive strength.25 with largest effect sizes observed for the Working
• To facilitate the differential diagnosis of dyslexia, Memory Index (WMI) and the Verbal Comprehension
developmental disability, and a more pervasive Index (VCI). Mean standard scores (M = 100, SD = 15)
language impairment, which involves the for the dyslexia group ranged from 89 to 93 on the
assessment of overall cognitive ability, verbal primary index scores. All global composites had large
reasoning, and nonverbal reasoning.33, 1 effects as well. Table 4 summarizes the key cognitive
• To identify students with complicated learning processing areas measured by the WISC–V that may
profiles, such as gifted students with dyslexia, be impaired for individuals with dyslexia.
and better understand their unique learning profile
and needs.18

Table 4. WISC–V Measures of Key Cognitive Processing Areas for a Dyslexia Evaluation

Cognitive processing area WISC®–V index score

Auditory working memory (phonological memory) Auditory Working Memory Index (AWMI)

Rapid automatic naming Naming Speed Index (NSI)

Verbal comprehension and reasoning Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI)

Processing speed Processing Speed Index (PSI)

Long-term storage and retrieval Storage and Retrieval Index (SRI)

Associative memory (learning efficiency) Symbol Translation Index (STI)

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

13 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Other Pearson tests of intellectual functioning and weaknesses (PSW) analysis for the identification of a
cognitive abilities that may contribute to a dyslexia specific learning disability such as dyslexia.
evaluation include the Differential Ability Scales™,
Second Edition8 (DAS™–II); the Kaufman Assessment The WRMT–III uses the AAD predicted-difference
Battery for Children, Second Edition,21 normative method in its approach to comparing intellectual
update (KABC™–II NU); NEPSY®, Second Edition26a ability to academic achievement. WRMT–III reading
(NEPSY®–II); the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale®, achievement scores are predicted from broad-based
Fourth Edition40 (WAIS®–IV); the Wechsler Preschool intellectual functioning measures (e.g., Full Scale IQ,
and Primary Scale of Intelligence, Fourth Edition41 General Ability Index), verbal-based measures (e.g.,
(WPPSI®–IV); and the Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Verbal Comprehension Index, VCI), and nonverbal-
Ability44 (WNV®). based measures (e.g., Nonverbal Index, NVI).

Table 5 summarizes the cognitive ability linking Cognitive ability test KTEA™-3 WIAT®–III

studies available for the two comprehensive WISC®–V X X

achievement tests included in the dyslexia toolkit: WPPSI®–IV X
KTEA–3 and WIAT–III. A linking study is conducted by
WAIS®–IV X
administering a diagnostic achievement test and a
cognitive ability test to the same group of examinees DAS™–II X X
for the purpose of reporting correlations between KABC™-II NU X
their scores. These studies provide the necessary
WNV® X
data for conducting an ability-achievement
discrepancy (AAD) or a pattern of strengths and Table 5. Cognitive Ability Linking Studies

Assessment of Oral Language Skills

The Pearson toolkit for dyslexia diagnostic (reading, writing). The CELF–5 is designed primarily
evaluations also includes tests of oral language. to identify and provide follow-up evaluations for
Within the context of a dyslexia evaluation, tests of language and communication disorders in students.
oral language are used for the following purposes:
In addition, the CELF–5 may be used to assess
• To establish oral language skills as either a several language areas that are relevant to a dyslexia
protective factor or a risk factor in dyslexia evaluation. Table 6 lists the CELF–5 measures
screening6 that may be used to assess some of the key skill
• To develop individualized approaches to areas recommended for dyslexia evaluations
intervention that consider areas of oral language by the International Dyslexia Association18 as
weakness and strength6 well as secondary areas that are important to
• To facilitate the differential diagnosis of dyslexia, consider. Results support the development of
developmental disability, and a more pervasive an Individualized Education Program that takes
language impairment such as oral and written into account the student’s communication needs
language learning disability (OWL-LD)1, 6 and for planning interventions in accordance
with the Individuals with Disabilities Education
The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals®, Improvement Act (IDEA) Amendment of 2004.
Fifth Edition (CELF®–5)45 provides a comprehensive According to the clinical validity data reported in
battery of tests for language assessment, including the technical manual,46 students diagnosed with a
measures of oral language and written language learning disability in reading and/or writing scored

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

14 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

significantly (p < .05) lower on nearly all tests and Table 6. CELF®-5 Measures of Key Language Areas for a
composites, with the exception of the Sentence Dyslexia Evaluation
Comprehension test, as compared to students with
typical language skills. With the exception of the Language Area CELF®-5
Pragmatics Profile (effect size .40), score differences Auditory working memory
Recalling Sentences
(phonological memory)
for all tests showed medium to large effect sizes,
Linguistic Concepts
ranging from .62 to 1.20. Receptive Vocabulary Word Classes
Word Definitions
Other Pearson tests of oral language skills that may Written Expression Structured
contribute to an interdisciplinary dyslexia evaluation
Secondary Areas
process include the Auditory Skills Assessment11
Following Directions
(ASA™); the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test™, Fifth Semantic Relationships
Edition7 (PPVT™–5; Dunn, 2018), and the Expressive Listening Comprehension Sentence Comprehension
Understanding Spoken
Vocabulary Test, Third Edition48 (EVT™–3; Williams, Paragraphs
2018). The use of these tools by a speech-language Reading Comprehension Reading Comprehension
pathologist or similarly trained professional may
Formulated Sentences
support team decision-making in a differential Recalling Sentences
Grammatical Ability
diagnosis, a profile of strengths and weaknesses, Sentence Assembly
Word Structure
and intervention planning.

Intervention Tools
The Pearson dyslexia toolkit for intervention includes about the student’s cognitive processing, language,
the following resources: and achievement skills may be obtained from
• Intervention Guide for Learning Disability (LD) assessments in Q-global; however, other test results
Subtypes as well as qualitative data are also considered. Seven
reading-related subtypes are supported, including
• SPELL-Links™ to Reading & Writing™26b and phonological dyslexia, orthographic dyslexia, and
SPELL-Links™ Class Links for Classrooms™26c mixed phonological-orthographic dyslexia. The
• Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL™) following examples of intervention suggestions were
Research-Based Reading and Writing Lessons provided by the Intervention Guide for a student,
• KTEA–3 teaching objectives and intervention Jeanette, with a learning profile consistent with
statements phonological dyslexia:

• WIAT–III intervention goal statements • As a strategy for spelling, assess whether Jeanette
can recognize when a word is spelled correctly
The Intervention Guide for LD Subtypes, which is or incorrectly. If so, teach Jeanette to generate
accessible through Q-global (see PearsonClinical. alternative spellings for a word that “doesn’t look
com), compares an examinee’s skill level profile right.” Then she can utilize visual recognition to
with the theoretical profiles of specific LD subtypes. identify the correct spelling.
The report provides tailored, research-supported
• To connect layers of language for reading, ask
intervention suggestions. Students may benefit
Jeanette to sort words using suffixes to mark tense
from the interventions provided in the report
or number. For example, include words with plural
regardless of whether or not they have been
pronounced /ez/ (horses), /s/ (bats), or /z/ (knees),
identified or diagnosed with dyslexia. Information
and words with no suffix (geese).
Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.
15 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

SPELL-Links™ to Reading & Writing26b and •E

 xample of a teaching objective for an error norm
SPELL-Links™ Class Links for Classrooms™26c (see weakness in the Silent Letter category for the
PearsonClinical.com) use a speech-to-print word Letter & Word Recognition subtest: Given a list of
study approach that leverages the brain’s innate, ___ words containing silent letters as part of the
biological wiring and organization for oral language. sound pattern, the student will pronounce each
Students first learn how to attend to the sound word with no more than ___ silent letter errors.
structure of spoken English words and then how •E
 xample of an intervention suggestion for errors
to connect and combine sounds (phonology), letter made on the Letter & Word Recognition subtest:
patterns (orthography), and meanings (semantics, Scavenger Hunt - Ask the student to look in his or
morphology) to read and spell words. SPELL-Links her lesson book to find examples of words that
to Reading & Writing delivers all components begin with, end with, or contain a particular sound.
of assessment and instruction identified by the
US Department of Education-funded Center on The WIAT–III score reports in Q-global and
Instruction as crucial for developing reading and Q-interactive provide customizable intervention goal
spelling skills in every student. SPELL-Links Class statements based on skills analysis results. These
Links provides everything you need to deliver a statements include instructional recommendations
year of high-quality Tier 1 classroom instruction to for writing annual goals and short-term objectives
meet all the educational development standards for based upon the results of the skills analysis or,
spelling, word decoding, reading fluency, vocabulary, for subtests without skills analysis, overall subtest
reading comprehension, and writing. performance.

The PAL Research-Based Reading and Writing •E

 xample of an intervention goal statement for the
Lessons4 (see PearsonClinical.com) is available for category of Schwa Vowel Sounds for the Word
purchase on its own, or as a downloadable PDF Reading subtest: Given a list of ___ (circle/enter:
within the User’s Guide of the PAL–II Reading and one, two, three, ____) -syllable words containing ___
Writing. Fifteen lesson sets are included: five sets schwa vowel sounds, the student will read the list
for Tier 1/early intervention, five sets for Tier 2/ aloud with no more than ___ schwa vowel errors.
curriculum modification, and five sets for Tier 3/ Schwa vowel sounds will include (circle): a, e, i,
tutorials for dyslexia and dysgraphia. The PAL–II o, u, y. Schwa vowel (a) examples: above, alone,
provides guidance for linking results with specific disappoint.
lesson sets.The KTEA–3 score reports in Q-global
and Q-interactive include customizable teaching
objectives and intervention suggestions based on
error analysis results.

Progress Monitoring Tools

The Pearson dyslexia toolkit for progress monitoring •R
 elative Performance Index scores are provided in
includes the following tools: the WRMT–III

• Growth scale values are provided in the KTEA–3, • aimsweb™Plus

WIAT–III, WRAT5, WRMT–III, CELF–5, PPVT–5,
and EVT–3

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

16 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Growth scale values (GSVs) are preferred over describe the probability of successfully performing
standard scores and percentile ranks for measuring a task, not relative standing in a group. An RPI score
growth because GSVs reflect the examinee’s always represents the same relative performance,
absolute (rather than relative) level of performance. regardless of developmental changes in reading
GSVs are useful for comparing an examinee’s ability.50 Changes in RPI scores over time provide one
performance on a particular subtest or composite method of measuring progress, provided that the
relative to his or her own past performance, whereas educational team establishes criteria for sufficient
standard scores and percentile ranks are useful growth based on RPI scores.
for comparing performance relative to peers. For
tests with two forms (KTEA–3, WRAT5, WRMT–III), aimsweb™Plus offers enhanced screening and
GSVs obtained on one form are directly comparable progress monitoring measures for grades K–8.
to GSVs obtained on the other form. A significant In addition to CBM measures, aimsweb™Plus
change in GSV scores indicates that the confidence standards-based assessments provide more
intervals around the GSVs do not overlap and the information about each student’s reading
examinee has demonstrated significant progress. performance and suggest what kind of intervention
GSV analyses and charts are available in Q-global for may be most effective. The Early Literacy measures
the KTEA–3 and WIAT–III. The CELF–5, PPVT–5, and in aimsweb™Plus are intended for grades K–1 and
EVT–3 also include GSVs. However, GSVs are not include Print Concepts, Letter Naming Fluency,
comparable across tests or subtests. Please refer Initial Sounds, Auditory Vocabulary, Letter Word
to the respective test manuals for interpretation Sounds Fluency, Phoneme Segmentation, Word
guidance and statistically significant change Reading Fluency, and Oral Reading Fluency. The
information, where provided. Reading assessment system developed for grades
2–8 includes the measures Vocabulary, Reading
Relative Performance Index (RPI) scores provide Comprehension, Silent Reading Fluency, and Oral
a way of translating a normative score into task- Reading Fluency.
performance terms. The RPI is expressed as
a quotient: the numerator is the examinee’s The use of GSV and RPI scores within diagnostic
probability of success on the target items, and the achievement tests are intended to measure growth
denominator is the probability of success of the over extended periods of time, such as annually.
average individual in the reference group—which is In contrast, aimsweb™Plus progress monitoring
always 90%. An RPI of 70/90, for example, indicates measures are designed to be sensitive to growth
that the examinee will perform with 70% accuracy over short periods of time; depending on the
on items that the average individual in the same intensity of the intervention and other factors,
grade or age performs with 90% accuracy. RPI scores progress can be monitored as often as once a week.

Interpreting Assessment Data

for Dyslexia Identification
Table 7 provides a sample summary of dyslexia Consider cross-validating assessment data across
assessment data for each of the indicators included multiple sources of information, both qualitative and
in the hybrid model for dyslexia identification. quantitative.

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

17 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

Table 7. Sample Summary of Dyslexia Assessment Data

Low/ High/
IDA key Test/ At risk (Y)/ N/A or Not
Skill/Ability/Indicator Below Average Above
Indicatora Source Not at risk (N) observed
average average

Treatment responseb

Alphabet writing

Letter knowledge and phonics √

Symptoms of Difficulty

Decoding pseudowords √

Word reading √

Reading fluency √

Spelling √

Written expression √

Reading comprehension <

— — —— — —— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Listening comprehensionc

Phonological processing √

Rapid automatic naming √

Causes/Correlates

Auditory verbal working memory √

Processing speed

Long-term storage and retrieval

Associative memory
(Learning efficiency)

Orthographic processing

Dyslexia screening results

Risk Factors

Family history

History of language impairment

Receptive vocabularyd √
Possible Strengths

Fluid reasoning

Oral language: Listening, speaking,

vocabulary, grammar

Math: Calculation, problem

solving, fluency

a
The key skill areas recommended for dyslexia assessment by the International Dyslexia Association.18
b
Including poor response to instruction and n or more symptoms as inclusionary criteria may improve the stability of dyslexia
identification over time.
c
Greater impairment in reading comprehension relative to listening comprehension is a symptom of dyslexia.
d
Receptive vocabulary may be either a risk factor for dyslexia at a young age when associated with a language impairment, a
correlate among older individuals with dyslexia who read less than their peers, or a relative strength for individuals with dyslexia.

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

18 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

How the Pearson Dyslexia Toolkit Works:

Two Scenarios
School-based processes and procedures for dyslexia identification vary widely. The following two scenarios
exemplify how different school systems may implement the dyslexia toolkit.

Scenario 1 Scenario 2
A school district implements a universal A school district administers aimsweb™Plus to
screening process whereby all students, starting all students as a benchmark screener. Students
with Kindergarten, are screened for dyslexia with low performance on the reading benchmark
using the Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen. Those are further screened with the Shaywitz
students who are identified as “at risk” are given DyslexiaScreen. Students identified as “at risk”
a follow-up behavioural screener, using the based on these measures are administered
KTEA-3 Dyslexia Index score. Following this two- three subtests from the KTEA-3 Brief to obtain
step screening process, the student support the BA-3 composite score. Based on these
team meets to determine next steps. Students at results, the child study team meets to determine
risk are given supplemental instruction, using a next steps and the most appropriate intervention
multi-linguistic word study program for 9–12 approach. aimsweb™Plus is used to monitor
weeks. To monitor academic progress, progress and the team continually evaluates
curriculum-based measures are administered the progress monitoring data to determine
weekly, and the KTEA-3 subtests from the if instructional adjustments are needed. The
Dyslexia Index score are re-administered using child study team refers students for a special
the alternate form every 3–4 months. The education evaluation based on insufficient
subtest growth scale values (GSVs) are charted response to instruction. The special education
and compared over time to determine if assessment process includes assessments
significant progress has been observed. from multiple disciplines, including language,
Underperforming students are referred for a achievement, ability, and cognitive areas. The
comprehensive evaluation that includes child study team considers these test results and
cognitive, language, and achievement measures. other sources of information to determine what
The student support team considers these test services a student is qualified to receive and how
results and other sources of information, such as best to improve the student’s performance.
school grades/test scores, classroom
observation, teacher reports, and parent/
caregiver interviews (family history/background
information), to determine what services a
student is qualified to receive and how best to
improve the student’s performance.

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

19 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

References
1
Berninger, V. (2011). Evidence-based differential diagnosis 14
Hale, J. B., & Fiorello, C. A. (2004). School neuropsychology: A
and treatment of reading disabilities with and without practitioner’s handbook. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
comorbidities in oral language, writing, and math: Prevention, 15
Hale, J. B., Kaufman, A., Naglieri, J. A., & Kavale, K. A. (2006).
problem-solving consultation, and specialized instruction.
Implementation of IDEA: Integrating response to intervention
In D. P. Flanagan, & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of specific
and cognitive assessment methods. Psychology in Schools, 43,
learning disability identification. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
753–770.
2
Berninger, V. W. (2007). Process assessment of the learner: 16
International Dyslexia Association (2002). Definition of dyslexia.
Diagnostic assessment for reading and writing (2nd ed.). San Retrieved from dyslexiaida.org.
Antonio, TX: NCS Pearson.
17
International Dyslexia Association (2012). Dyslexia basics. In
3
Berninger, V. W. (2015). Interdisciplinary frameworks for schools: Just the facts: Information provided by the International Dyslexia
Best professional practices for serving the needs of all students. Association. Retrieved from dyslexiaida.org.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
18
International Dyslexia Association (2016). Dyslexia assessment:
4
Berninger, V., & Abbott, S. P. (2003). Process assessment of the What is it and how can it help? In Just the facts: Information
learner: Research-based reading and writing lessons. San provided by the International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved
Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. from dyslexiaida.org.
5a
Breaux, K. C. (2018a). Dyslexia index scores manual. Kaufman 19
Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., & Petscher, Y. (2010). Improving the
test of educational achievement (3rd ed.). Bloomington, MN: accuracy of a direct route screening process. Assessment for
NCS Pearson. Effective Intervention, 35, 131–140.
5b
Breaux, K. C. (2018b). Dyslexia index scores manual. Wechsler 20
Johnson, E. S., Jenkins, J. R., Petscher, Y., & Catts, H. W. (2009).
individual achievement test (3rd ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS How can we improve the accuracy of screening instruments?
Pearson. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 174–185.
6
Catts, H. W., McIlraith, A., Sittner Bridges, M., & Corcoran Nielsen, 21
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2018). Kaufman assessment
D. (2017). Viewing a phonological deficit within a multifactorial battery for children (2nd ed., normative update) [Measurement
model of dyslexia. Reading and Writing, 30(3), 613–629. instrument]. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
7
Dunn, D. M., 2018, Peabody picture vocabulary test (5th ed.). 22
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2014a). Kaufman test of
Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. educational achievement (3rd ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS
8
Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential ability scales (2nd ed.). San Antonio, Pearson.
TX: NCS Pearson. 23
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (with Breaux, K. C.). (2014b).
9
Ferrer, E., Shaywitz, B. A., Holahan, J. M., Marchione, K., & Kaufman test of educational achievement (3rd ed.): Technical
Shaywitz, S. E. (2010). Uncoupling of reading and IQ over time: and interpretive manual. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Empirical evidence for a definition of dyslexia. Psychological 24
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2015). Kaufman test of
Science, 21(1), 93–101. doi:10.1177/0956797609354084
educational achievement brief form (3rd ed.). Bloomington, MN:
10
Gallagher, A., Frith, U., & Snowling, M. J. (2000). Precursors of NCS Pearson.
literacy delay among children at genetic risk of dyslexia. 25
Kaufman, A. S., Raiford, S. E., & Coalson, D. L. (2016). Intelligent
Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, 41(2), 203–213.
testing with the WISC–V. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
11
Geffner, D., & Goldman, R. (2010). Auditory skills assessment. 26a
Korkman, M., Kirk, U., & Kemp, S. (2007). NEPSY (2nd ed.).
Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson
13
Gilbert, J. K., Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Early 26b
Learning By Design (2012). SPELL-Links™ to reading & writing: A
screening for risk of reading disabilities: Recommendations word study curriculum. Evanston, IL: Author.
for a four-step screening system. Assessment for
Effective Intervention: Official Journal of the Council for
26c
Learning By Design (2017). SPELL-Links™ class links for
Educational Diagnostic Services, 38(1), 6–14. http://doi. classrooms™. Evanston, IL: Author.
org/10.1177/1534508412451491

Copyright © 2019 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved.

20 | Pearson Clinical Assessment Solutions: A Dyslexia Toolkit

27
Pearson (2009a). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.). 38
Spencer, M., Wagner, R. K., Schatschneider, C., Quinn, J. M.,
Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. Lopez, D., & Petscher, Y. (2014). Incorporating RTI in a hybrid
model of reading disability. Learning Disability Quarterly, 37(3),
28
Pearson (2009b). Wechsler individual achievement test (3rd ed.):
161–171.
Technical manual. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
39
Thompson, P. A., Hulme, C., Nash, H. M., Gooch, D., Hayiou-
29
Pennington, B. F. (2006). From single to multiple deficit models
Thomas, E., & Snowling, M. J. (2015). Developmental dyslexia:
of developmental disorders. Cognition, 101, 385–413.
Predicting individual risk. Journal of Child Psychology and
30
Ramus, F., & Ahissar, M. (2012). Developmental dyslexia: Psychiatry, 56(9), 976–987.
The difficulties of interpreting poor performance, and
the importance of normal performance. Cognitive
40
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale (4th ed.).
Neuropsychology, 29, 104–122. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
41
Wechsler, D. (2012). Wechsler preschool and primary scale of
31
Reynolds, C. R. (1981). Neuropsychological assessment and the
intelligence (4th ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
habilitation of learning: Considerations in the search for the
aptitude x treatment interaction. School Psychology Review, 42
Wechsler, D. (2014a). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th
10(3), 343–349. ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
32a
S. Res. 275, 114th Cong. (2015). 43
Wechsler, D. (2014b). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th
ed.). Technical and interpretive manual. Bloomington, MN:
32b
S. Res. 284, 115th Cong. (2017).
NCS Pearson.
33
Saklofske, D. H., Weiss, L. G., Breaux, K., & Beal, A. L. (2016).
WISC–V and the evolving role of intelligence testing in
44
Wechsler, D., & Naglieri, J. A. (2006). Wechsler nonverbal scale of
the assessment of learning disabilities. In L. G. Weiss, D. ability. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
H. Saklofske, J. A. Holdnack, & A. Prifitera (Eds.), WISC–V 45
Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013a). Clinical evaluation
assessment and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives, of language fundamentals (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS
(pp. 237–268). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Pearson.
Press. 46
Wiig, E. H., Semel, E., & Secord, W. A. (2013b). Clinical evaluation
34
Shaywitz, S. E. (2005). Overcoming dyslexia. New York, NY: of language fundamentals (5th ed.): Technical manual.
Alfred Knopf. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
35
Shaywitz, S. E. (2016a). Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen. Bloomington, 47
Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2017). Wide range
MN: NCS Pearson. achievement test (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
36
Shaywitz, S. E. (2016b). Shaywitz DyslexiaScreen: Manual. 48
Williams, K. T., 2018, Expressive vocabulary test (3rd ed.).
Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
37
Snowling, M., Bishop, D. V. M., & Stothard, S. E. (2000). Is 49
Woodcock, R. W. (2011a). Woodcock reading mastery tests
preschool language impairment a risk factor for dyslexia in (3rd ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(5), 50
Woodcock, R. W. (2011b). Woodcock reading mastery tests
587–600.
(3rd ed.): Manual. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.

866.335.8418 | PearsonClinical.ca
Copyright © 2019 Pearson Education. All rights reserved. CLINA15778 - 17835 SR 3/19-09/21-can