Today I want to talk treatment. That thing that we need to plan for as we are doing our assessments. But are we starting our treatments the right way? The answer may surprise you. I often see SLPs phrasing questions regarding treatment the following way: “I have a student diagnosed with ____ (insert disorder here). What is everyone using (program/app/materials) during therapy sessions to address ___ diagnosis?”
Of course, the answer is never that simple. Just because a child has a diagnosis of a social communication disorder, word-finding deficits, or a reading disability does not automatically indicate to the treating clinician, which ‘cookie cutter’ materials and programs are best suited for the child in question. Only a profile of strengths and needs based on a comprehensive language and literacy testing can address this in an adequate and targeted manner.
To illustrate, reading intervention is a much debated and controversial topic nowadays. Everywhere you turn there’s a barrage of advice for clinicians and parents regarding which program/approach to use. Barton, Wilson, OG… the well-intentioned advice just keeps on coming. The problem is that without knowing the child’s specific deficit areas, the application of the above approaches is quite frankly … pointless.
There could be endless variations of how deficits manifest in poor readers. Is it aspects of phonological awareness, phonics, morphology, etc. What combination of deficits is preventing the child from becoming a good reader?
Let’s a take a look at an example, below. It’s the CTOPP-2 results of a 7-6-year-old female with a documented history of extensive reading difficulties and a significant family history of reading disabilities in the family.
Results of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-2 (CTOPP-2)
|Subtests||Scaled Scores||Percentile Ranks||Description|
|Elision (EL)||7||16||Below Average|
|Blending Words (BW)||13||84||Above Average|
|Phoneme Isolation (PI)||6||9||Below Average|
|Memory for Digits (MD)||8||25||Average|
|Nonword Repetition (NR)||8||25||Average|
|Rapid Digit Naming (RD)||10||50||Average|
|Rapid Letter Naming (RL)||11||63||Average|
|Blending Nonwords (BN)||8||25||Average|
|Segmenting Nonwords (SN)||8||25||Average|
However, the results of her CTOPP-2 testing clearly indicate that phonological awareness, despite two areas of mild weaknesses, is not really a significant problem for this child. So let’s look at the student’s reading fluency results.
Reading Fluency: “LG’s reading fluency during this task was judged to be significantly affected by excessive speed, inappropriate pausing, word misreadings, choppy prosody, as well as inefficient word attack skills. While she was able to limitedly utilize the phonetic spelling of unfamiliar words (e.g., __) provided to her in parenthesis next to the word (which she initially misread as ‘__’), she exhibited limited use of metalinguistic strategies (e.g., pre-scanning sentences to aid text comprehension, self-correcting to ensure that the read words made sense in the context of the sentence, etc.), when reading the provided passage. To illustrate, during the reading of the text, LG was observed to frequently (at least 3 times) lose her place and skip entire lines of text without any attempts at self-correction. At times she was observed to read the same word a number of different ways (e.g., read ‘soup’ as ‘soup’ then as ‘soap’, ‘roots’ as ‘roofs’ then as ‘roots’, etc.) without attempting to self-correct. LG’s oral reading rate was also observed to be impaired for her age/grade levels. Her prosody was significantly adversely affected due to lack of adequate pausing for punctuation marks (e.g., periods, commas, etc.). Instead, she paused during text reading only when he could not decode select words in the text. Though, LG was able to read 70 words per minute, which was judged to be grossly commensurate with grade-level, out of these 70 words she skipped 2 entire lines of text, invented an entire line of text, as well as made 4 decoding errors and 6 inappropriate pauses.”
So now we know that despite quite decent phonological awareness abilities, this student presents with quite poor sound-letter correspondence skills and will definitely benefit from explicit phonics instruction addressing the above deficit areas. But that is only the beginning! By looking at the analysis of specific misreadings we next need to determine what other literacy areas need to be addressed. For the sake of brevity, I can specify that further analysis of this child reading abilities revealed that reading comprehension, orthographic knowledge, as well as morphological awareness were definitely areas that also required targeted remediation. The assessment also revealed that the child presented with poor spelling and writing abilities, which also needed to be addressed in the context of therapy.
Now, what if I also told you that this child had already been receiving private, Orton-Gillingham reading instruction for a period of 2 years, 1x per week, at the time the above assessment took place? Would you change your mind about the program in question?
Well, the answer is again not so simple! OG is a fine program, but as you can see from the above example it has definite limitations and is not an exclusive fit for this child, or for any child for that matter. Furthermore, a solidly-trained in literacy clinician DOES NOT need to rely on just one program to address literacy deficits. They simply need solid knowledge of typical and atypical language and literacy development/milestones and know how to create a targeted treatment hierarchy in order to deliver effective intervention services. But for that, they need to first, thoughtfully, construct assessment-based treatment goals by carefully taking into the consideration the child’s strengths and needs.
So let’s stop asking which approach/program we should use and start asking about the child’s profile of strengths and needs in order to create accurate language and literacy goals based on solid evidence and scientifically-guided treatment practices.
Helpful Resources Pertaining to Reading:
- Earle, G. A., Sayeski, K. L (2017) Systematic Instruction in Phoneme-Grapheme Correspondence for Students With Reading Disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic. Vol. 52(5) 262–269
- The Florida Center for Reading Research (FCRR)
- Hasbrouck, J. & Tindal, G. A. (2006). Oral reading fluency norms: A valuable assessment tool for reading teachers. The Reading Teacher. 59(7), 636-644.
- O’Connor, R (2017) Reading Fluency and Students With Reading Disabilities: How Fast Is Fast Enough to Promote Reading Comprehension? Journal of Learning Disabilities
- Tolman, C (2005) Working Smarter, Not Harder: What Teachers of Reading Need to Know and Be Able to Teach IDA Perspectives pp. 15-23.
- Toste et al (2016) Reading Big Words: Instructional Practices to Promote Multisyllabic Word Reading Fluency Intervention in School and Clinic pp. 1–9
- Zipoli, R (2017) Unraveling-Difficult-Sentences: Strategies to Support Reading Comprehension. Intervention in School and Clinic, Vol. 52(4) 218–227. Intervention in School and Clinic, Vol. 52(4) 218–227