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.


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.  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 not arguing that only psychologists should carry out diagnoses of the
dyslexias and dyspraxis - I am of the opinion that it is such an important
and complex task it requires that an assessment must include a WAIS - III
assessment [or equivalent].  I am also of the opinion that some
psychologists have much to learn about the assessment of students.


The integrity of a diagnosis is vital to serving the needs of all students.


David


David Grant, PhD., Chartered Psychologist
dyslexia diagnosis - a specialist service for students
3 Rosebank Road
Hanwell
London W7 2EW

Tel: 020 8579 1902

e-mail:  [log in to unmask]

----------
>From: Peter Hill <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: dyslexia assessors
>Date: Mon, Aug 26, 2002, 5:05 pm
>

>Hi
>
>David Grant wrote:
>
>> Iain's response is so succinct it may help if I unpick it a little, and
>> address some of the other points that have been raised.
>>
>
>snip...
>
>
>>
>> Given the psychological importance to an individual of a diagnosis, not to
>> mention the assess - or denial of access - to additional support and
>> financial funding [often in excess of £6,000 over three years], the key
>> question should be one of how can we ensure that a diagnosis is one of
>> integrity.
>>
>>
>> The Educational Testing Service in the USA publish the criteria that an
>> assessment must meet before they will accept a 'diagnosis'.  An assessment
>> by a SLD Diplomate would not suffice.  Why should we accept lower standards?
>
>
>
>The following is from the ETS website in the USA:
>
>'For example, the following professionals would generally be considered
>qualified to evaluate specific learning disabilities provided that they
>have additional training and experience in evaluating adolescent and
>adult learning disabilities: clinical or educational psychologists;
>school psychologists; neuropsychologists; learning disabilities
>specialists; medical doctors with training and experience in the
>assessment of learning problems in adolescents and adults.'
>
>Those criteria would invalidate assessments carried out by some school
>psychologists (little or no experience of evaluating adolescents and
>adults).
>
>I believe, by the way, that some of the test instruments not available
>to UK Diplomatists are available (albeit subject to training) to
>non-psychologists in the USA.
>
>I'd assume that 'learning disabilities specialists' would include
>RSA/OCR Diplomatists (or the US equivalkent) and quite a few others too.
>
>Also, David, any comment on the following?
>
>
>It is worth pointing out that if the WAIS3 (sorry not WAIS-R) were a
>compulsory component of a dyslexia assessment, then the whole
>dyslexia/DSA process would fall apart - as there are simply far too few
>psychologists available to pick up the caseload.
>
>
>Regards
>
>Peter Hill
>
>
>
>
>
>--
>01527 500324
>[log in to unmask]
>www.study-pro.com
>
>Dyslexia Consultancy and Resources