I was able to find both screens at the sites below.
 
http://www.seakingwdc.org/ld/learningneedstool.pdf <http://www.seakingwdc.org/ld/learningneedstool.pdf>  - Empire State Screening Tool
 
www.ncwd-youth.info/assets/guides/assessment/ - Washington State Screening Tool
 
Sue McGilloway
Coordinator, Volunteers in Partnership
CAFL Career Advisor
Community College of Baltimore County
410-285-9933 (Phone)
410-285-9557 (Fax)
smcgilloway at ccbcmd.edu   
 

________________________________

From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov on behalf of Andrea Wilder
Sent: Mon 6/9/2008 7:15 PM
To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List
Subject: [LearningDisabilities 2027] Re: LD Screening


Glenn-- 

How do I get these? 

Andrea 

On Jun 9, 2008, at 4:22 PM, Glenn Young wrote: 


	The Washington State Screen (for English speakers) 
	The Empire State Screen (for Spanish speakers) 
	
	Glenn Young 
	CSLD 
	530 Auburn Ave 
	Buffalo NY 14222 
	Cell 703-864-3755 
	Phone/Fax 716-882-2842 
	website: glennyoungcsld.com 

	From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Kim Bellerive 
	Sent: Monday, June 09, 2008 2:37 PM 
	To: The Learning Disabilities Discussion List 
	Subject: [LearningDisabilities 2023] Re: LD Screening 
	
	"And most screens of the good screens are public domain free to use and require limited training" 
	
	Glen, can you please point me in the direction of said screening tools?   
	 


	 


	From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of Glenn Young 
	Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 9:19 PM 
	To: 'The Learning Disabilities Discussion List' 
	Subject: [LearningDisabilities 2016] Re: LD Screening 
	
	No - LD screening is not used widely ... and it is very unfortunate ... and where there is some screening ... this is limited data collection so we don't even really know what the screening is finding. 
	
	And the issue has been greatly confused by many people stating what screening will "lead to" great expense  ... which is false 
	
	And we really need to understand that the issue is not that programs become obligated to test ... but it comes down to what is the 
	
	"Essential element of the task"  which is ADA language" and in most cases this is to teach someone how to read ... 
	
	The obligation to prove the disability is not inherent in adult education policy or law ... the first obstacle that that occurs for most of the ABE students is when the get the level of having to take the GED ... almost all of what would be considered "accommodations" can be described as "teaching approaches or enhancements"  
	
	In ABE ... screens can be used to find indicators ,,, develop interventions based on the screens and look at accommodations approaches to compensate for the impact of the disability  ... all without having to have formal testing .... And to make referral to other programs that could test ... related to their essential function 
	
	And without screens there is no  hope of finding out if there is an underlying disability that makes standard literacy training mostly useless ... and not allow people to get to other services 
	
	So there is no reason not to screen other than ...  I'm on a role today ... Socrates ... now FDR   "Fear its self" 
	
	And most screens of the good screens are public domain free to use and require limited training 
	
	So why not ... and collect data so we get some kind of profile of what the screening is showing ... without that data we can't hope to change policies and procedure 
	
	
	Glenn Young 
	CSLD 
	530 Auburn Ave 
	Buffalo NY 14222 
	Cell 703-864-3755 
	Phone/Fax 716-882-2842 
	website: glennyoungcsld.com 

	From: learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov [mailto:learningdisabilities-bounces at nifl.gov] On Behalf Of RKenyon721 at aol.com 
	Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2008 5:07 PM 
	To: learningdisabilities at nifl.gov 
	Subject: [LearningDisabilities 2013] LD Screening 
	
	Hi Glenn, 
	
	There is certainly no simple answer when it comes to the process of LD screening.  You have, however, included many important aspects about screening in your response. 
	
	I want to take one step back. In my travels, I find that most adult education and literacy providers are not asking which screening tool is best, but instead, should we screen.... or shouldn't we bother~  
	
	Unfortunately, it appears that the answer in many cases is not to bother.  What I hear is --- "it is too expensive;" "it takes too much time," "it takes someone who is trained," "it is not something we want to promote," "we don't want to open that up if it means we have to provide or pay for diagnostic testing."  
	
	Do you and other subscribers think that LD screening is widespread in adult education and literacy or not?  Is it considered a universal 'best practice? 
	
	I would like to hear as many opinions by members as possible. 
	
	As always, I appreciate your participation. 
	
	
	Thanks, 
	
	Rochelle 
	
	
	Rochelle Kenyon 
	Moderator, NIFL/LINCS Learning Disabilities Discussion List 
	Center for Literacy Studies at the University of Tennessee 
	RKenyon721 at aol.com  
	
	To post a message: 
	Learningdisabilities at nifl.gov 
	
	To subscribe: 
	http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/LearningDisabilities 
	
	To read archived messages: 
	http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/2008/date.html 
	
	
	
	A simple question can not really get a simple answer.  The issue is of what screen to use is based on what you are trying to determine ... what is the purpose of the screen? 
	And to make the simple question even harder , we once again come to a question of definition ... are you defining dyslexia as any reading problem (dys - lexia)_ or are you defining dyslexia as a reading problem based in neurological disorder (or as the old term goes minimum brain dysfunction)? 
	Or to put in another way that Socrates would have liked ... While all dyslexics have reading disorders not all persons with reading disorders are dyslexics  (or are they?)  The truism or non-truism of this statement in is in how you define dyslexia. 
	For the purpose of this reply ... I am looking at dyslexia as a disorder that is part of the general term Learning Disabilities (as used in the US not the UK) and is not a reading disorder based in lack of access or opportunity but a reading disorder based in neurological disorder) 
	
	This distinction is critical in both looking for the disorder and intervention .... And type of success expected and level of accommodations needed to "achieve" literacy.  However far too detailed of a conversation here .. back to the screen question  
	There are two main types of screens out there ... ones that are "correlation" screens and "causation" screens  (both Socrates and correlation and causation in the same e-mail ... my college professors would be proud of me) 
	
	The correlation screens look at a set of issues that tend to be common with people who are LD/dyslexic and assess "risk" based on these correlations 
	The other screens use "manifestations in reading " that are common to people with LD and see the "causation" in these reading events 
	So the first type of screen tends to look at case history (special ed background, troubles in certain jobs, remembering events, etc) and the second screen tends to ask people to perform tasks such as reading words or recalling sequences.   
	
	The two screens are clearly both valuable for different needs ...  If you just trying to see if the person is likely LD or not ... then the "correlation" screens are of best use, and the Washington State screen is the only truly validated screen in English ... again ...  only for risk factors for LD (including dyslexia and such) ... and remember this screen is based on the notion that person attended American schools for at least till about the 8

	th

	grade, and can work if they went to school for a shorter time ... but it is less reliable  ... 
	This screen was developed by looking at low-income poor reading adults , including women .... of many races and cultures .... So it is far more appropriate for our populations and really got us far away from the idea that dyslexics were all "fair haired left handed boys with allergies from the suburbs" ... and believe me ... twenty years ago ... that was the basis for most of the screening tools ... 
	There are also "correlation screens in use in UK that are different then the US ... and in the UK there are some that are a hybrid of the two types. 
	These "correlation screens" do not address what is going on in reading skill (or looking at "function") but only on the likelihood of LD ( or looking at  "form")  -- 
	This screen is used primarily by programs to determine if the persons is a likely candidate for full scale testing in order to determine them as eligible for classification of being a person with LD  ... for future accommodations or for eligibility or modification in services. 
	This type of screen says little or nothing on what this person actually will need in the form of literacy interventions ...  since LD/dyslexia  is very individualized ... we can not really build a "classroom" intervention based only on this type of screen.  The "causation" screens are far better for "classroom" interventions ... 
	
	If you're looking for screens to look for actual manifestations of dyslexia, and the individual impacts of dyslexia (causation) ... for classroom issues ... etc ... there are a ton of them and most of them seem to have some basis of success and I hesitate to recommend any over another ... however there are key elements that seem common to the best 
	Also --- not being a teacher ... I will now be going into elements that others can handle best ... but here is a rough evaluation of what seems to work well 
	
	But for the sake of screening ... you can use mostly the same tools for both general groups (all reading failure, and specific reading failure due to neurological disorders) and ...  
	The most successful are screens those that mainly use nonsense words and syllables ,,, since this tends to eliminate "sight" and "memory" reading ,,, 
	
	So a person sees "dog" enough ... they have memorized it to the point of having relatively instant recall ... but can not use "dog" to build upon, "dog" is like a single letter to them with that single sound ...  so the word "dogma" is completely foreign  ... 
	So for testing of there skill levels ... you need to use nonsense words and syllables so you can see if they have "phonetic and phonic skills" 
	
	Also ,,, as research has clearly shown ... phonemic awareness is something that is critical for adults (and children) with literacy limits regardless of if its overt dyslexia or lack of access or other issues ...  
	So screens that test if the person can actually hear and distinguish fine tones are critical .... And then that they have the ability to link the fine tones to a given letter or collection of letters ... and recall them consistently is key to any good screen. 
	
	And again, the classic issue of sequencing ... screens that include issue of sequencing and recalling in sequence is very important ... so giving a set of unrelated numbers and or letters ... and seeing how many the person can recall in the right order ... etc. 
	So ... screens or a combination of screens that include these components seem to be the best ... in identifying a person at risk of dyslexia ... and  Please remember always ... screens are not diagnostic tools ... only screens for likelihood 
	
	Glenn Young 
	CSLD 
	530 Auburn Ave 
	Buffalo NY 14222 
	Cell 703-864-3755 
	Phone/Fax 716-882-2842 
	website: glennyoungcsld.com 
	
	

	

	Get trade secrets for amazing burgers. Watch "Cooking with Tyler Florence" on AOL Food. 
	---------------------------------------------------- 
	National Institute for Literacy 
	Learning Disabilities mailing list 
	LearningDisabilities at nifl.gov 
	To unsubscribe or change your subscription settings, please go to http://www.nifl.gov/mailman/listinfo/learningdisabilities 
	Email delivered to andreawilder at comcast.net

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 22633 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.nifl.gov/pipermail/learningdisabilities/attachments/20080609/0934f84b/attachment.bin