Is this being floated on the dyslexia list? Sorry forgot what it's
called. If not I think it should be and PATOSS might like to add to it?

Chris Baxter
0115 8486163 voice and text
0115 8484371 fax
[log in to unmask]
http://www2.ntu.ac.uk/sss/disability/
 

This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private
or confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, you
must take no action on it nor show a copy to anyone. Please reply to
this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this
email which do not relate to the business of Nottingham Trent University
shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the university.


-----Original Message-----
From: David Grant [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 25 June 2003 16:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Educational Psychologists reports for prospective students

A colleague [Debs Viney] who is not on the dis-forum mail list has sent
me
the following email as a contribution to this thread. I suspect Debs
will
be attending the NADO conference so feel free to discuss her comments
directly with her.


David Grant, PhD., Chartered Psychologist

e-mail: [log in to unmask]

----------
>From: <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "David Grant" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: Educational Psychologists reports for prospective students
>Date: Wed, Jun 25, 2003, 12:36 am
>

>Hi David
>
>
>I am no longer on dis-forum so please feel free to circulate these
comments
>if you think they are a useful contribution to the debate.

>
>I am very concerned about the idea that people feel that the WAIS
should not
>be restricted to Chartered Psychologists when used for the diagnosis of
>dyslexia (and I strongly agree with your point that this is only one of
a
>range of specific learning difficulties which it could be used to help
>identify, in skilled hands, especially I would like to see more
distinction
>between acquired and developmental SpLDs).
>
>To use a controversial analogy: this is like allowing a person who has
only
>undertaken a one year part time counselling skills (say 140 hours like
the
>one I did) course to "diagnose" psychiatric disorders! They might be
>familiar with the labels used, but they are not well-qualified enough
to
>make the assessment and diagnosis safely - either for themsleves or for
the
>patient. A psychiatrist has 5 years of medical UG training followed by
>years of post-grad clinical training....
>
>Firstly I must point out this decision is not ours to make in any case:
the
>WAIS is owned by an American Company and they decide who can purchase
and
>use it legitimately. They can and do "police" this, I believe that is
right
>because such a test can be mis-used.
>
>But also I want to use my own experience to demonstrate a few things
about
>the WAIS:
>
>I am a psychology graduate and I have a strong interest in psychometric
>instruments, so I took an extra interest in issues like validity and
>reliability when I was studying (and folks, I am feeling controversial
>tonight: if you are not ABSOLUTELY certain you know the difference
between
>those and how they would / should be measured for a specific
psychometric
>test, you should not be using any tests!).
>
>As a PG I took on a research job for which I was trained to use the
WAIS as
>a research instrument - a set of measures of various cognitive
functions,
>not for diagnostic purposes - I used it that way for more than 3 years
>during which I conducted hundreds of full WAIS assessments. But I am
still
>not qualified to use the WAIS for diagnostic assessment and that is
>absolutely right. I do, through experience, understand much better
than
>most people what the scores mean and how they can be interpreted, but I
am
>in no way qualified to use this complex measuring instrument in any way
>other than the one in which I was trained.
>
>Therefore (in my opinion) anyone who believes that someone who has
completed
>a relatively brief qualification specific to dyslexia should be allowed
to
>make diagnoses using the WAIS is lacking in a grasp of why this test is
>valuable! It is the best instrument I have seen for this purpose,
but it
>is still limited (inevitably) by the qualities and experience of the
person
>using it.
>
>A further demonstration is that in the last few years I have seen
examples
>of assessments conducted by a range of people (including, I regret to
say,
>some Chartered Educational Psychologists and some people with RSA Cert
/ Dip
>qualifications) where people with other complicating conditions have
been
>"assessed" and "diagnosed" as "dyslexic" WHEN THOSE COMPLICATING
CONDITIONS
>HAVE BEEN BARELY MENTIONED AND CERTAINLY APPEAR NOT TO HAVE BEEN
ADEQUATELY
>CONSIDERED AS POSSIBLE CONTRIBUTIONS to the specific learning
difficulties
>which the student is experiencing. Those conditions have included:
some
>visual impairments; severe brittle diabetes (constant fluctuations in
blood
>sugar level would ineviatbly affect cognitive function in a range of
ways -
>as I know from personal experience), and various forms of pre-existing
brain
>damage (accident, surgical intervention etc.). I am not saying these
>students are not dyslexic, we cannot know without a more detailed
assessment
>whichb addresses all of their history, I am saying that insufficient
>consideration was given to the other possibilities which could account
for
>their symptoms - developmental SpLDs are a set of dysfunctions,
acquired
>SpLDs even if they appear superficially similar, may not have the same
needs
>or responses to specialist support.
>
>I have also seen the British tests of various sorts used without
>acknowledgement of the limitations for students whose first language is
not
>English (which invalidates any results unless you have test norms for
>non-English speakers). I've seen adults tested on instruments where
the
>age ceiling is 14 years...again without justification or comment. I've
also
>seen a few false positive and false negative test results from various
>tests.... Etc., etc......
>
>A couple of further thoughts: if you want to be able to make "dyslexia
>diagnoses" you will need to feel confident and competent enough to
stand up
>in court and answer cross-examination by an opposing barrister if you
get it
>wrong and the student sues you (whether they sue because you said they
were
>dyslexic, or because you said they were not). A Chartered
Psychologist
>should be in that position (a good training or CPD would have covered
the
>skills for that too!) .... would someone with a lower level of
qualification
>be that confident?
>
>Finally I think one of the most important reasons for using a qualified
Ed
>Psych (or Neuro Psych or Occupational Psychologist come to that) is
that
>they are at least reprepsented by a single national profssional body -
the
>applicable division of the British Psychological Society. This means
that
>if you are dissatisfied with a Chartered Psychologist's work, or their
>ethics, or whatever, you have a place to complain to and they have
formal
>procedures which can be followed. That is quite a lot of cover for
YOUR
>back, if you let the Psychs do the diagnosis colleagues!
>
>I want to point out that my comments are not intended as personal
criticism
>of any of my colleagues - the examples I have cited are likely to be
>replicated in other institutions.
>That's enough controversy for tonight!
>regards, Deb
>
>
>Deb Viney
>Personal email account
>