Introduction

Educational assessment is an ongoing process of gathering and analyzing data to improve students’ learning and teachers’ instruction by identifying students’ strengths and targeted areas of need that require additional, differentiated, or specialized instruction. Assessment is also an integral part of the special education process of determining the presence of a disability. The appropriate identification of all disabilities, including a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and SLD/Dyslexia, requires a comprehensive evaluation process completed by the student’s planning and placement team (PPT), which includes qualified professionals and the parent(s) of the child. This process determines the student’s Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance, which, as stated in the Connecticut IEP Manual (CSDE, 2022b), “should be used to provide a holistic view of the student through a variety of means, including current classroom-based assessments, district and/or state assessments, and classroom-based observations, which includes parent, student and general education teacher input in all relevant areas. The determination of the student’s present levels of performance should use a variety of technically sound assessment tools and strategies to gather academic and functional information” (p. 10).

Purpose of the Resource Guide

The Resource Guide was developed to support PPT efforts to design and implement a comprehensive evaluation process for kindergarten through 12th grade (K-12) students suspected of having a reading or writing disability, utilizing both general education and special education data sources. A description of this comprehensive evaluation process of designing a comprehensive evaluation for students suspected of having an SLD is detailed in Connecticut’s Guidelines for Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities (CSDE, 2023a), which is a valuable resource for professionals interested in learning more about assessment and instruction that is beyond the scope of this guide.

More information about SLD and SLD/Dyslexia, including the CSDE Working Definition of SLD/Dyslexia, which states “Dyslexia usually results from a significant deficit in phonological processing (i.e., a persistent difficulty in the awareness of and ability to manipulate the individual sounds of spoken language),” is available on the CSDE’s Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and SLD/Dyslexia webpage, within the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) (2023b). The FAQs also provides guidance to PPTs regarding who can identify a child with this disability and information regarding an individualized evaluation and appropriate instruction for a child suspected of having a specific learning disability in reading, including SLD/Dyslexia, and/or in written expression.

Elements of the Resource Guide

This resource guide seeks to support a comprehensive analysis of a student’s strengths and areas of concern in relation to the various research-based components of reading, oral language, spelling, and written language. This guide defines component skills and provides examples of technically sound screening measures, tests, and subtests that can support a comprehensive analysis of these discrete component skills for identification and/or instructional purposes. These kinds of data can inform a PPT’s determination of a student’s Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance and, when indicated, appropriate identification of a specific learning disability in reading, including SLD/Dyslexia, and/or in written expression. A list of the screening measures, tests, and subtests included in this guide is provided in appendix A with links to online reference information.

The Resource Guide also includes the CSDE’s Approved Menu of Research-based Grades K-3 Universal Screening Reading Assessments (2022a), merging them as assessment examples within their respective reading-related components.

Pursuant to Section 10-14t(a) of the Connecticut General Statutes (C.G.S.), the CSDE has revised the Approved Menu of Research-based Grades K-3 Universal Screening Reading Assessments (2022a) for mandated use by local and regional boards of education for screening and progress monitoring, effective July 1, 2023. These reading assessments have been approved for use by districts to identify students in kindergarten to grade three, inclusive, who are below proficiency in reading, and to assist in identifying, in whole or in part, students at risk for SLD/Dyslexia, or other reading-related learning disabilities. Such assessments shall:

• measure phonics, phonemic awareness, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, and rapid automatic naming (RAN) or letter name fluency;
• provide opportunities for periodic formative assessment during the school year;
• produce data that is useful for informing individual and classroom instruction; and
• be compatible with current best practices in reading instruction and research.

The Approved Menu of Research-based Grades K-3 Universal Screening Reading Assessments (2022a) only consists of General Outcome Measurement measures (GOM measures), sometimes termed curriculum-based measures (CBMs). GOM measures are the most appropriate for use as universal screening and progress monitoring tools in kindergarten through third grade (K-3) for identifying students experiencing reading difficulties, and students at risk of SLD/Dyslexia, or other reading-related learning disabilities, because they assess the specific skill areas involved in learning to read. GOM measures are brief reading assessments that are highly sensitive to early reading skills growth, have a demonstrated utility in predicting reading acquisition, track individual students’ growth and development in critical reading skills over time, and allow educators to reliably determine the extent to which a student is making progress toward long-term goals. In addition to using GOM measures in Grades K-3, local and regional boards of education may continue to use computer adaptive assessments, however, these assessments are not appropriate for use as screening tools to assist in identifying, in whole or in part, students at risk for SLD/Dyslexia, or other reading-related learning disabilities. Therefore, computer adaptive assessments are not referenced in this resource guide, as they concurrently measure a number of component reading skills in comparison to an individual test or subtest that focuses on assessing a specific skill area. Since it is difficult to isolate the component areas of reading being measured in these assessments, they have been omitted. PPTs may find computer adaptive assessment data useful in determining a student’s Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance. Additional information can be found in the CSDE Grades K-3: Universal Screening Reading Assessments Frequently Asked Questions (2022c).

Format of the Resource Guide

Universal screening reading assessments in this resource guide are marked with an asterisk (*) and are included along with tests and subtests within each relevant component area of reading, oral language, spelling, and written language. Please note: The CSDE does not endorse any particular test or subtest listed in this guide.

In addition to tools appropriate for assessing the phonological processes that play key roles in reading, such as phonological and phonemic awareness, this resource guide also includes assessment tools useful in determining Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance in other component reading skills, as identified by the National Reading Panel (2000), such as fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. Additional test and subtest options are offered to assess spelling, written expression, and oral language comprehension and expression as well. These literacy domains should be assessed within a comprehensive evaluation for SLDs that affect literacy. This kind of evaluation can provide valuable information to the student’s PPT when differentiating between reading disability subtypes (i.e., specific word recognition disabilities, abbreviated as SWRD; specific reading comprehension disabilities, abbreviated as SRCD; mixed reading disabilities, abbreviated as MRD). Educators should note that not all of the assessments listed in this resource guide can be administered to a whole group. Additionally, specific credentials are required to administer some of the assessments listed in this resource guide. See the publisher webpages (hyperlinked in appendix A) for the assessment qualification level.

Using the Resource Guide

A comprehensive evaluation of a student suspected of having a disability is an individualized process (i.e., it should not rely on the same set of prescribed assessments for all students). Qualified professionals will find the Resource Guide useful in isolating and evaluating those component reading skills (and other areas of oral language and literacy, including writing) that present as areas of concern for a student suspected of having a specific learning disability in reading, including SLD/Dyslexia, and/or in written expression. Certain key components of reading should be consistently assessed in all students (e.g., word recognition, word attack, oral vocabulary, broad oral comprehension, broad reading comprehension). However, teams will not usually need to assess every single area specified in this guide; rather, they will want to put more emphasis in some areas and less or none in others, depending on previously available assessment data, including universal screening and progress monitoring data, and the suspected reading disability subtype. For instance, consider a student suspected of having SWRD, most commonly associated with SLD/Dyslexia, whose core oral language comprehension abilities have never been highlighted as an area of weakness. For a student with this kind of profile, more in-depth testing of areas involving phonological skills, word decoding, and reading fluency is necessary; however, beyond a broad measure of oral comprehension and an oral vocabulary measure, more in-depth testing of areas of oral language (e.g., multiple measures of vocabulary, syntax, pragmatics, etc.) is likely not needed.

PPTs are reminded that there is no single “best” or “approved” diagnostic battery. Many different assessment measures can tap into the same construct, such as word attack or vocabulary. Teams should consider which reliable and valid measures are available to them; which measures they have been properly trained to administer, score, and interpret; and which measures are most suitable for their student population. Also, teams should have a range of measures available to them to ensure that they are able to adequately develop a comprehensive evaluation for students referred for evaluation.

In selecting assessment tools, it is important to review the demographic information about the normative sample of the targeted test to determine if the student being assessed shares comparable characteristics, culture, and language background as the subjects in the sample. Comprehensive assessment of English learners (ELs)/multilingual learners (MLs) suspected of having a reading disability is a complex process and requires determining the student’s oral language proficiency as a first step. A guidance document prepared by the Connecticut Administrators of Programs for English Language Learners (CAPELL) entitled, English Language Learners and Special Education: A Resource Handbook (2011), can support PPTs in this process. Educators can further enhance their understanding of this process by accessing the online learning module, Distinguishing between Typically Developing English Learners (ELs) and Students with Reading Difficulties (see the CSDE’s Specific Learning Disability (SLD) and SLD/Dyslexia webpage for additional information on this and other professional learning opportunities). Additional information on this topic is also included in Connecticut’s Guidelines for Identifying Children with Learning Disabilities and other state eligibility guidelines.

Although many of the assessment tools in this guide measure specific component skills, it is also important for the assessment process to include broad measures of reading comprehension, written expression, listening comprehension, and communication (e.g., collecting and analyzing a spontaneous language sample). When these different types of assessments are considered in conjunction with each other, the results can help teachers pinpoint why a particular student might be struggling in a broad area such as reading comprehension. This allows teachers to target instruction for that student more effectively. Information gleaned from a variety of assessment sources can provide valuable information for PPTs to consider in determining disability-related needs that require specialized instruction via special education.

When a PPT considers the information from all assessments, patterns of evidence reflecting data consistencies or inconsistencies will emerge. Qualified professionals will need to analyze a student’s evaluation results in relation to what each test or subtest is measuring and how the student is being assessed (Farrall, 2012). This involves examining the response requirements of the test (e.g., single words vs. sentences; oral vs. written), the testing format or structure provided (e.g., open-ended vs. cloze vs. multiple choice), and the types of supports or cues offered (e.g., pictures, allowing reference to the text as the student responds to a question). Synthesizing all of this information will yield a more comprehensive perspective of a student’s individual strengths and areas of difficulty and will support appropriate identification and the process of determining a student’s need for specialized instruction. PPTs should also consider individual students’ developmental patterns over time, when these data are available. For example, a student with a specific reading comprehension disability may evidence mild weaknesses in oral language comprehension in the early grades that do not begin to impact reading comprehension until the middle or upper elementary grades, when the reading comprehension demands of schooling increase.

Limitations of the Resource Guide

The Resource Guide has some limitations.

• It does not include the breadth of general education “diagnostic assessments” as described in Using Scientific Research-Based Interventions: Improving Education for All Students (CSDE, 2008) that could be “… used both by general educators and specialists to clarify and target the difficulties of individual students when the information provided by universal common assessments is not sufficient to do so” (p. 20). These include reading and writing inventories that can provide valuable instructional information.
• It is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of all tests and subtests that could be used to screen, identify, or provide instructional data regarding a student with a specific learning disability in reading, including SLD/Dyslexia, and/or in written expression.
• It does not include assessment options that PPTs would need to consider if a student presents with co-occurring types of learning difficulties (e.g., executive functioning, motor skills, etc.).