Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Martie, can you help me understand this?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="mistmouse" data-source="post: 13472" data-attributes="member: 289"><p>Martie,</p><p>Yes, the same test was used all three times; in August of 2003, in September of 2003 by the SD, and then in December of 2006 by an Occupational Therapist (OT) outside the SD. The test given was the Test of Visual Motor Skills-Revised in all three cases. I did have an opportunity to talk to the Occupational Therapist (OT) tonight as he called to make sure I had gotten the report. I was explaining to him that I needed some comparative measure to know where my daughter is now. He basically said the same thing you did about the age equivalent stuff, but I explained to him that in September of 2003 the SD didn't provide me with standard scores or percentiles or anything when they did their testing, they just said age equivalent of 8.7 years and she was 8 years and 9 months old at the time. The outside report was done when she was 8 years 6 months old and showed a motor age of 5.1, but he did give the standard score and it was 80. So, this Occupational Therapist (OT) said when he got home he would look it up so that he could give me that information for comparative value. He sent me an email saying that my daughters age equivalency is the same as it was in September of 2003. For that reason he added this paragraph to the report: </p><p>"Meghan was administered this specific test twice in 2003; once on August 8, and again on September 5. The results of these two administrations were significantly different, with a 3 year 6 month discrepancy in overall motor age between the two. This discrepancy could be due in part to a learned response in a test-retest situation since the instrument was administered so close together (less than 1 month apart). Thus, it is difficult to determine Meghans true progress in the area of visual motor skills by comparison with previous scores, as she made has made 3 years 6 months improvement when compared to one, and no improvement when compared to the other. The information to consider at this time is that current assessment shows that although Meghan falls in the low average range of overall visual motor skills, she does experience difficulties in the areas listed above, which compromises her ability to successfully complete handwriting tasks."</p><p></p><p>My thinking is regardless of whether she made 3 years 6 months progress from where she was on the Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation I had done, or no progress from the one the SD did, if she is still at an age equivalency or motor age of 8.7 years, then she definitely has visual/motor deficits since she is 12 years old, and they have been denying all along that she has any visual motor difficulties at all.</p><p></p><p>However, I do believe the memory is a bigger issue and I will be trying to get them to look at that on Friday. I did finally get a RIAS Extended Score Summary Table from the diagnostician. It doesn't give percentiles for verbal and nonverbal, but rather just gives a percentile for the composite memory index of 21%. Her raw scores for the verbal memory 6 and for nonverbal 87. The percentiles for the VIX is 61, NIX is 97, CIX is 87, and then like I said for CMX it is 21. On the summary table it gives a stanine for the above too with it being 6, 9, 7,and 3 respectively.</p><p></p><p>I do thank you for all your help. I know just enough, having only gotten a bachelors in psychology, and my own research to know that these kinds of discrepancies can and usually are significant. I will let you know how the IEP meeting goes on Friday. </p><p></p><p>mistmouse</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="mistmouse, post: 13472, member: 289"] Martie, Yes, the same test was used all three times; in August of 2003, in September of 2003 by the SD, and then in December of 2006 by an Occupational Therapist (OT) outside the SD. The test given was the Test of Visual Motor Skills-Revised in all three cases. I did have an opportunity to talk to the Occupational Therapist (OT) tonight as he called to make sure I had gotten the report. I was explaining to him that I needed some comparative measure to know where my daughter is now. He basically said the same thing you did about the age equivalent stuff, but I explained to him that in September of 2003 the SD didn't provide me with standard scores or percentiles or anything when they did their testing, they just said age equivalent of 8.7 years and she was 8 years and 9 months old at the time. The outside report was done when she was 8 years 6 months old and showed a motor age of 5.1, but he did give the standard score and it was 80. So, this Occupational Therapist (OT) said when he got home he would look it up so that he could give me that information for comparative value. He sent me an email saying that my daughters age equivalency is the same as it was in September of 2003. For that reason he added this paragraph to the report: "Meghan was administered this specific test twice in 2003; once on August 8, and again on September 5. The results of these two administrations were significantly different, with a 3 year 6 month discrepancy in overall motor age between the two. This discrepancy could be due in part to a learned response in a test-retest situation since the instrument was administered so close together (less than 1 month apart). Thus, it is difficult to determine Meghans true progress in the area of visual motor skills by comparison with previous scores, as she made has made 3 years 6 months improvement when compared to one, and no improvement when compared to the other. The information to consider at this time is that current assessment shows that although Meghan falls in the low average range of overall visual motor skills, she does experience difficulties in the areas listed above, which compromises her ability to successfully complete handwriting tasks." My thinking is regardless of whether she made 3 years 6 months progress from where she was on the Occupational Therapist (OT) evaluation I had done, or no progress from the one the SD did, if she is still at an age equivalency or motor age of 8.7 years, then she definitely has visual/motor deficits since she is 12 years old, and they have been denying all along that she has any visual motor difficulties at all. However, I do believe the memory is a bigger issue and I will be trying to get them to look at that on Friday. I did finally get a RIAS Extended Score Summary Table from the diagnostician. It doesn't give percentiles for verbal and nonverbal, but rather just gives a percentile for the composite memory index of 21%. Her raw scores for the verbal memory 6 and for nonverbal 87. The percentiles for the VIX is 61, NIX is 97, CIX is 87, and then like I said for CMX it is 21. On the summary table it gives a stanine for the above too with it being 6, 9, 7,and 3 respectively. I do thank you for all your help. I know just enough, having only gotten a bachelors in psychology, and my own research to know that these kinds of discrepancies can and usually are significant. I will let you know how the IEP meeting goes on Friday. mistmouse [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Parent Support Forums
Special Ed 101
Martie, can you help me understand this?
Top