Hi

(with apologies to those of you who are becoming bored witless with this
exchange).

David Grant wrote:

> In response to the points made by Peter:
>
> 1]  ETS 'test' approximately 11 million individuals each year.  They will
> make appropriate test accommodations subject to receiving satisfactory
> diagnostic evidence.  Because of real concerns about the very variable
> quality of this 'evidence' ETS published their diagnostic criteria.
>


ETS must be a very wealthy (and influential) organisation. It is a USA
service though and, as previously noted, eligibility for WAIS  training
and use may well be different there.


>
> The key issue is not the label of the diagnotician - it is whether that
> individual has made use of an acceptable Aptitude/Cognitive Ability test,
> such as the WAIS-III or Stanford-Binet as an integral part of their
> assessment.


Semantics - it amounts to the same thing - given that the tests are
available only to an elite group in the UK.


This would rule out most RSA/OCR Diplomatists irrespective of
> their experience or other skills.
>




>
> 2]  I note Peter's point about the lack of suitably qualified psychologists
> - but that is not a reason for accepting evidence that is less substantial.


I'm sorry David, but I feel that this is a 'cop out'.  You expressed
concern previously about misdiagnosis of the 'few students [whose]
...difficulties reflect low levels of intellectual attainment'.  This is
a valid concern, and I've little doubt that Diplomatists misdiagnose
more often than Ed Psychs.  However, whilst I acknowledge that
misdiagnosis is most unfortunate for those few involved, its impact
pales into insignificance compared with:

a) failing to assess at all, or
b) making students wait for months for an assessment, or
c) pricing an assessment beyond the means of the student - which is
where a refusal to accept 'less substantial' evidence inevitably leads
(not for a few students, but hundreds).

We could, of course, start querying just how crucial the WAIS (or
similar)  is to a diagnosis - especially given the ongoing controversy
about the very nature of dyslexia (how can you 'diagnose' what you can't
  adequately define?) but that would just muddy the water a little further.

However...the original question, as I recall, asked who can diagnose
dyslexia for DSA purposes.  The fact remains that the DfES have said
that OCR/RSA Diplomatists (and others) CAN diagnose - and they're the
ones providing the funding for this.  Psychologists may resent this, but
the inclusion of Diplomatists on the 'can do it' list was, I believe, a
response to a growing assessment crisis.  This seems reasonable to me -
given that it puts the needs of the student before vested interest.

It may be that the 'no diplomatists' stance taken by a small number of
LEAs is a consequence of deeply held concerns about the quality of
Diplomatists' assessments.  However, I've always suspected that those
LEAs policies are influenced/dictated by their own psychologists.  The
recent mailing about activities in East Anglia tends to confirm that.

Finally:

Few diplomatists would argue that their assessment techniques are ideal,
and many I know are anxious to improve the reliability of their
assessments and develop their practices generally.  Things are happening
in this regard.

Diplomatists' assessments are a fait accompli - the medium/long term aim
should be to ensure that they are of appropriate quality.

However, it would be difficult to move forward in the face of opposition
from fellow disability professionals.

Regards

Peter Hill







--
01527 500324
[log in to unmask]
www.study-pro.com

Dyslexia Consultancy and Resources