TRANSCRIPT
Standardized Assessments for Students who are DB, DHH, and VI
4/13/26

>>Brenna: So here to talk about standardized assessments for students who are Deafblind, Deaf/hard of hearing, and VI. My name is Brenna Brillhart and I am a Deafblind education consultant. Previous to this I was an educational diagnostician and teacher of the Deaf. I wanted to show you some pictures of me. I like to go places. I like to travel. I like to make things like sweater and grow strawberries. And my college experience, SFA, Texas Tech. Places I have worked, Arlington ISD, Mesquite RDSPD and now I'm at TSBVI. If you could just type yes or no or Y or an N into the chat box. Who here has been part of a multidisciplinary team evaluating a student who is Deafblind, Deaf/hard of hearing, or VI? Okay. This is what I was expecting. A whole bunch of yeses. Yes, yes, yes. Love it! Okay. So I'm really excited that you guys all have some experiences collaborating with the team that you can reflect back on. I want you to think, in your experience collaborating with an evaluation team with a diagnostician, with an LSSP, with an SLP, with that whole team, how do you think that the team collaborated? We're going to go on a scale of one to ten. Do you think there was 1, no collaboration. 5, okay collaboration, or 10. You guys had the most collaborative evaluation session. I'm curious to see where you fall on that spectrum with your experiences. I'm loving this. Okay. So we've got like -- it depends on the team. Every team is different but I'm seeing some 5, 6, 7, 8, 9s. I love that. That's really exciting. I hope that after this session today, maybe you'll be a little bit more equipped to collaborate deeper in the future and be able to speak the same language as some of your evaluation staff. Last question -- you can answer this in your head or you can put it in the chat box. But just real quick: What was your biggest challenge in collaborating with other members of the evaluation team? Biggest challenge. Role expectations, time. Report writing. Having different views on what's appropriate and accessible. Pressure to fall in line. Timelines. Oh, timelines, especially when someone's evaluation has to happen before someone else's evaluation and they're behind and it can be a whole domino effect. Okay. There are many different reasons that working on a multidisciplinary team, evaluating a child who has hearing or vision differences can be challenging. But I am hoping that maybe I can help alleviate one of those little challenges today. Yeah. Alex Driver. Honestly, most people on my team are going to look at me to help guide them. That is so true. And that can be a challenge if you don't fully understand what the other people on your team are doing. So that's one of the reasons that we're here to talk about standardized assessments. And I'm coming at this from the diagnostician point of view and I want to help build collaboration and a shared language for diagnosticians and teachers of students who are visually impaired or teachers of the deaf or hard of hearing to really be able to speak the same language and have appropriate expectations of each other. So we're going to do some true/false up front. We're going to real interactive today. True or false. T or F. Is it legally required to administer a standardized assessment as part of a comprehensive full and individual evaluation? What a smart group of people I am with. I am so glad that you guys understand this is false. That in conducting an evaluation, there's no legal requirement for what types of instruments you have to use in the evaluation. You have to use a variety of assessment tools and you have to make sure that those tools are gathering relevant information. But there is no legal requirement that you have to administer a standardized assessment and report out a score. Because sometimes it's not appropriate for all kids. All right. True or false. Again, T or F in the chat. Standardized assessments should not be administered to students who are Deafblind, deaf/hard of hearing, or VI as part of a comprehensive full and individual evaluation. So this is a mostly false but, again, it depends on the kid. But you shouldn't make blanket statements that we can't provide, you know, a standardized assessment for this kid. You need to look at the tools that you have and make sure that you have appropriate tools that you're using. Again, federal regulations. Everything I talk about I try to bring it back to the law. Yeah. So we have to make sure that the assessments that we're using, that they are selected and administered. So if they are administered to a child with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills, the assessment results accurately reflect the child's aptitude or achievement level or whatever the test is measuring rather than reflecting the child's impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills. Okay. I see some exciting information happen in the chat. You can use assessments informally. You can say, make some statements on how a test was normed. We've got -- we're getting there. We've got some slides to talk about that. All right. I think we've got one more true/false. Appropriately certified or licensed evaluation staff, they're not going to need any additional support from the teacher of students with visual impairments, TDHH, TDB. False, false, false. Yes. Okay. I can tell you as someone who was a teacher of the deaf and then went through a program to become an educational diagnostician, I did not get any specialized training on children with sensory differences. And no one else I know, who has being a diagnostician that I worked with has really received any intense, specialized information while they are training to become certified. There are some people who pick up things on the job or pick up things through having, you know, close mentorships with other people who are in this unique crossover field or who take opportunities to come to professional development online like this or others that are offered, like California School for the Blind. But evaluation people out there, they need your help. They really do. They don't know what they don't know and, unfortunately, that can be dangerous sometimes. So school districts are responsible to making sure that these assessments are administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel. That they are administered in accordance with any instructions that are provided by the producer of the assessment. That means what is in the test manual but also there are additional technical reports that Pearson or Riverside, they publish the address assessing children with sensory disabilities. It's not in the manual and people aren't going to know about it unless they explicitly go hunting for it. But above all, our goal is to make sure we are using these assessments or measures where they are valid and reliable. Validity is going to be the big concept that I want everyone to understand and walk away feeling comfortable talking about with other people on this team. Asking is this assessment valid for this child? Why or why not? So there's different kinds of standardized assessments. Norm-referenced assessments. This is where we're taking the student and we're comparing them versus a large peer group. I put the word "peer group" in air quotes in the little bunny ears because you'll see that in most assessments, the normative group does not contain children that look like the children that we work with. It does not include children who are blind or low vision. It may include children who have a hearing difference that's been corrected with amplification or, you know, very minor things. And it's very few and far between. So a norm-referenced test is letting us know how does the student's development compare to the average child their age. So in essence, we're taking our deaf, Deafblind, or visually impaired child and comparing their development against a group of children that they are not represented in. That may or may not be appropriate, depending on the assessment. Standardization on norm-referenced test is very high. And you'll see them used more frequently. So for cognitive assessments or academic achievement assessments, language assessments, you're going to see norm-referenced tests where people are reporting out standard scores and percentile ranks. There are also criterion-referenced assessments. This is where we're looking at the student and comparing them against a specific skill or criterion. Has the kid mastered this skill or not? They're moderately standardized and they're used less frequently. So for the purpose of the time we have today, we're going to be focusing on norm-referenced assessments. The normative sample. We have a beautiful picture of a bell curve right here for everyone to see. So what is the normative sample and why does it matter? So the normative sample is a construct. The test publisher looks at the makeup of the American population in regards to, you know, gender, race, parents, educational attainment and they craft a group of 2,000 or so kids and they call them the normative sample. When they are developing the test, they administer the test to these individuals or children or test subjects, if you will, and they plot those scores along a bell curve and that's where they determine, okay. Scores in this range are average. Scores in this range are below average. And this can matter. This is very important information sometimes, for some kids, if it's valid. Because it lets us know developmentally how our child is doing compared to a quote, unquote average child. So people usually ask, like, I have seen teachers they know to ask. Oh, are there any Deafblind children in the normative sample? Or, oh, this test isn't a good fit for this kid because there are no deaf or hard of hearing children in the normative sample. And that's a great question to be asking. I'm excited that people are asking questions, you know, about norm-referenced assessments but that's not necessarily the question that we should be asking. What we should be asking and putting our emphasis in is validity. And we're going to get to that in a minute. We're going to stick to the normative sample for a couple more slides. These are just some examples I wanted to make you guys aware of. The Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement, Third Edition, KTEA-3, it is a norm-referenced standardized assessment of academic achievement commonly used in the school setting. When you look at the technical and interpretive report manual, it tells you that there's specific exclusion criteria for the standardized sample and that individuals with sensory disabilities could not complete the test in a standardized manner. We're not part of this group. And I can say that in an effort to standardize a test you would want to administer to a group of people standardized, the way it was meant to be taken, so you can build your norms from that. There are special groups and you can see there were special groups that were included in the development of the normative sample for this assessment. We've got specific learning disability, speech/language impairment. ADHD, intellectual disability and developmental delay. You can see there weren't any children with sensory differences who were included in the normative sample for this assessment that the test was developed around. I want to talk about another assessment. My favorite assessment. The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition. This is probably, in my mind at least, the most commonly used measure of cognitive abilities for school-age children. There is a separate technical report that goes along with it. You can't find this information in the manual. You have to go to the publisher and locate it. But it lets you know that the normative sample for this test, it didn't include individuals with uncorrected hearing loss. Those are the words that the publisher used. Uncorrected hearing loss. So there were some individuals in the normative sample that did have potentially a mild hearing loss that have been aided. But there were no individuals in the normative group who used sign language as a primary language. However, you might think, well, okay, so there's no individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing with uncorrected hearing loss in the normative group. That means that we can't use this test. It's not a good fit for our kid. That's not necessarily true because we know that research on cognitive functioning within the DHH population, it suggests that nonverbal measures of cognition, they're distributed along the bell curve in the same way as the general population. And this has been researched and suggested and, you know, documented for decades now. So even though individuals who are not deaf and hard of hearing are not part of this normative group, this assessment may still have some utility for that population because of this outside additional research that we know. So, some assessments provide useful and accurate information even when they don't have our kids in the normative sample. Remember, reports for standardized assessments, they need to include more than just the standard score. Any kind of report -- if we are taking the time to evaluate a kid, I hope that whoever is writing this report is putting more in it than just the standard score and percentile rank. There should be some really rich qualitative data about, you know, how did that student act? How did that student respond? Are there any, you know, the questions that they got correct, the questions they got wrong, are there any similarities between those? There should be more information. Sometimes the scores are the least important part. So we always want to say a narrative that has those strengths and weaknesses listed. And every child on this planet has a strength. Period. Period. We should always have strength listed for children. Okay. To highlight potential in a student outside the norm, deviation is necessary. So these children that we're supporting, that we're working with, they don't fall in this normative group. They're outside that normative group and we have to deviate from what we would typically do. And that's okay. Validity. This is the big concept of the day. So what is validity and why does it matter? Validity is asking is this assessment actually measuring what it says it's measuring? Sometimes you will have an assessment and it might say that it is measuring a math skill but, really, it's measuring a child's visual skills. Maybe there's a visual piece to it that they have to look at and process, potentially in a short amount of time before they can respond. And even though the way that test is written is it is saying it's testing a math skill, it could also be potentially testing some visual efficiency skills and we want to make sure that any test that we're giving our kids is reflecting what they can do and is not reflecting their sensory differences or environmental barriers. So validity is not typically what people ask about but this is the question we should be asking: Is this assessment valid for individuals who are Deafblind, Deaf/hard of hearing, or visually impaired. Is this assessment valid for the individual child that our team is testing and working with? So we're going to do some validity thought exercises here. We're going to talk about two different subtests that are part of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fifth Edition. There are two tests that test working memory. There's one that's called digit span. So for me to administer digit span, I, the evaluator -- or the child. The child would listen to a list of numbers that are read out loud and then repeat those numbers back orally. So I, as the examiner go 3, 2, 1. And then I'm expecting the child to repeat back 3, 2, 1. So is that a valid measure for children who are blind or have low vision? Is that measuring what it says it's measuring for a child who is blind or has low vision? Yes, it is. Digit span is a valid subtest for a child who is blind or has low vision. So now let's consider this same subtest. This test is made to where the examiner orally says the numbers and then the child orally repeats them back. If I were to administer this subtest to a child who utilizes American Sign Language, is this test still valid? Right. It's not valid. There are times where when you change the modality -- oftentimes we think of taking something that's oral and administering it in sign as an accommodation. Well, on tests it can actually be a modification. So this would not be valid. If you were administering this in sign and then having the child answer in sign but then you're comparing their score to a group of children who did that same task using a different modality, that would not be valid to administer it to a child who is DHH. Now we're going to talk about another subtest on the same test. It's called picture span. It's another test of working memory. So the child has an iPad and the child is presented with a picture that shows up on the iPad for, like, three seconds. And then it disappears. And then another screen on the iPad comes up and there's four pictures. And the child has to select the picture that was just presented to them on the screen before. Is that a valid measure for a student who is blind or has low vision? We're asking them to look at a picture for a short amount of time and then select that picture from a field of other pictures. No. We're not really measuring their working memory. It could be a reflection of an environmental barrier. So that would not be a valid measure on a child who is blind or has low vision. If we took that same subtest, the picture span, and we administered it to a child who is deaf or hard of hearing, it would be a valid measure. So we know that our children who are Deafblind fall on a very wide spectrum of, you know, access, experience, life experiences that they've had. Background schema they have been able to build. So it's a little bit more straightforward, answering these questions for students who are DHH or VI. But as you know, each child whose Deafblind, is very unique so you have to think of, okay, well, maybe if this was a student who is Deafblind but they have, you know, a profound hearing loss and a vision loss that mainly only affects their fields, if they can be positioned in a way where they have visual access to the stimulus, it may be an appropriate measure for that individual child. But, again, these are conversations that the TDHH, TSVI need to be having with the diagnostician or LSSP. You really need to be meeting together and looking at the assessments together to talk about is this valid for our individual student. I also wanted to talk about if a subtest is not valid, you cannot take the score of that subtest and use it with scores on other subtests that may or may not be valid to create a composite score. Because that composite score will also not be valid. So for example, this is just a picture from WISC-5. It illustrates the full-scale IQ you would typically give these seven subtests that are in teal. But our hypothetical deaf and hard of hearing child or Deafblind child who communicates using sign language, digit span would not be a valid test to give them. Similarities and vocabulary would also not be valid tests to give them. So it would be unfair to calculate a full-scale IQ and attribute it to that child based on a composite score from subtests that were not valid. We're going to talk about my least favorite assessment in the whole wide world. I have a favorite and a least favorite. We're going to talk about Developmental Profile 4. So far the tests are administered one-on-one with an evaluator and a child and the child is able to meaningfully participate in some standardized back and forth tasks. For very young children, typically is where I see this used. Or children that may have just, you know, significant -- a significant impact from a variety of disabilities and medical challenges. People tend to fall back on the Developmental Profile 4. It is a checklist-style cognitive assessment. You can meet with the parent and ask them a list of questions and then at the end you can go, yep. I calculated this kid's IQ without ever laying eyes on this kid. Sketchy, right? So on the cognitive scale, the part of this assessment that you use to calculate a child's IQ, the first question is the child. Do their eyes follow something that is moved? Is that a fair question to ask about a child who is blind or has low vision and then attribute their ability to track a moving object to their IQ? No. There are plenty of people in this world who have average, above average IQs who cannot track things that are followed in front of them because their vision differences. Second question that's asked: Does this kid turn or look at a new source of sound? And then whether the child can do this or not, it's going to impact what we say this kid's IQ is. So that's not a valid measure for, you know, any of our children. And it might be something that we can talk about a skill that they have or a skill that they don't have. But saying that, oh yeah, this kid can't follow or look at a new sound source and then attribute it to them having a cognitive deficit, that's not appropriate when it comes to kids who have known sensory differences. And then the last one: Do they turn towards a noise and then change direction when that noise source is moved? Maybe, maybe not but that's definitely not a great way to capture a child's cognitive abilities when you know they have sensory differences for vision or hearing. I'm not going to go on with this assessment but I will let you know those are the first three questions that are administered. So I really ask you, if you're doing a team evaluation for, you know, early childhood, 3 is 3 and you're doing your part and the diagnostician is talking to the parents and checking along their list. And then at the end they say, oh, yeah. This kid's definitely ID, I would ask that you say hold on a minute. I would like to sit down and look at the items the child missed to see if those are even valid items that we should be attributing to this child's cognition. This is another one that our sweet run of the mill evaluation staff don't get. Louder, bigger, and closer do not guarantee access. The amount of times I have heard people say, well, oh, I talked really loud when I gave the test. Ma'am, it does not matter how loud you talked, this child does not have auditory nerves. Like, that is not helping. Or people who, you know, enlarge things. Comically large to the point where it's not providing the child access the way that they think it is. What access looks like is individualized for every child and the diagnostician or LSSP or SLP, you're going to need to meet with them and talk about the findings of your FIE, LMA, deaf and hard of hearing assessment to help them understand how they can provide access instead of just making things louder, bigger, closer, and hoping for the best. Hex in the chat is saying it's true. As a deaf person, it doesn't guarantee access but it will also know what you ate earlier. We see standardized tests for FIEs. It's part of the FIE process. Why do we do FIEs? To figure out is this a child with a disability in the content of the child's IEP. So the good news is for the kids that we're here talking about today, we know they have a disability and a standard score isn't what's going to qualify them or not qualify them as being, you know, blind, low vision, or Deafblind. So the content of the child's IEP. This is the most important thing. When we're talking about standardized assessments, we need to be doing it, yes, to get standard scores if possible. But also when we are writing the FIE, we need to remember this is what we're using to help develop the IEP. Do we want to see an FIE where the person only reports out the standard scores, the percentile rank, and the qualitative description? Or do we want to see where they talk about the strengths and weaknesses of what the child can do individually? I wrote out two examples here, but basically the first one is Sally got a standard score of 50. She's in the first percentile. How is that going to help anyone, you know, write a PLAAFP, develop some goals. It's lacking in some areas and some important information, no doubt, if it's valid. But we really want to make sure our evaluators are capturing, okay. Sally attended to the examiner throughout the duration of the instructions. She successfully participated in the teaching items by naming the picture. Throughout the session, Sally independently used her dome magnifiers to view pictures on the stimulus book. She was able to name these objects. These other objects she was not able to name but she did share a short story about each picture indicating she had some level of understanding of the item, even if she didn't know a specific name. And maybe she was unable to name a kiwi and observed to sit in silence until prompted for an answer. There's a lot of good information in those strengths and weaknesses that are listed out that can be used in the development of an IEP. And the qualitative information we can gather through the administration of standardized assessments is just as important as the quantitative information that we gather, if not more important. 

>>Kaycee: This is Kaycee. Sara shared in the chat an important point. Even if there's not visual stimuli needed to complete a subtest, a lot of language tests, like the ones used by SLP, include visual concepts such as colors or appearances. And so that can be considered for validity as well. And then May shared some helpful resources in the chat, as well as she shared earlier an upcoming training. 

>>Brenna: Yeah. May, thank you for sharing the new -- I say "new," the Riverside document that came out. Sara, you're right. Even if there's not visual stimuli to complete, there still is visual concepts. This slide is about how do we collaborate better? What do we need to ask each other? What does our TSVI need to be asking the diag? What does the diag need to be asking the TSVI? It's kind of the same thing and the big concept is can we meet? Can we sit down and look at some assessments that you may want to give this kid? As a diag I would have a hypothesis of the assessments and then I would meet with the TSVI and I would say can we go through these? And not just looking at the first one or two items in each area, because often the first two items, if there are visual demands, they will be very simple. As you get further in the test, those visual demands may increase and it may get to a point where they're not appropriate for that specific student. So I would encourage you to physically get the test you want to administer with the child and physically get in the same location. The TDHH, the TSVI, the diag, and really look at those assessment tools together and think about is this valid? Is this test actually measuring what it says it's measuring? And then if you have the opportunity, ask them: Do you have any recommendations for other evaluation staff who are more experienced in this that I could connect with? Maybe you're meeting to review, you know, an assessment that you want to give to a kid who is blind or low vision and you're meeting with that TSVI and you find out that, oh, she's had really good collaboration with another diag that she's worked with for the last ten years. Maybe that person is a good resource that you could go talk to and just get some collaboration from someone within your same field who has more experience. And then I always say the more the merrier when it comes to testing sometimes with these kids. You can ask, especially for diags who have never worked with a child who is blind or low vision before or worked with a child who is deaf or hard of hearing. Ask your TSVI or TDHH can I observe your portion of the assessment so that I can understand the student better? And, you know, begin building rapport with the student. If that child uses personal amplification your run of the mill diag is not going to know how to make sure the equipment is connected and working properly. If it is a diag that has never worked with a child with no vision before, they're not going to understand the difference in the language that needs to be used. Just little things, like as you're navigating through the hallway talking about what's coming up or not saying things like, oh, yeah. You can go get that thing over there. That could be a shock to people who don't have much experience working with individuals who are blind or have low vision. And then of course the diag can always ask you. Can I schedule a portion of my testing at a time when you can be present to observe and make sure that what they're asking is, you know, fully accessible or as accessible as it can be? So there should be constant conversations around the evaluation of this child before you're testing the kid. Potentially while you're testing the kid. After you've tested the kid. To make sure we're giving valid assessments, someone from the sensory team needs to meet with the run of the mill evaluator to look at the assessment tools being utilized and administered and really hash out together is this valid. Okay. So this is the plan. What's the plan? Select assessment tools, as a team, that are valid. You know, the diag should have some working knowledge of the assessments they have that they can get to easily. Some assessments have built-in accommodations. KABC-II, Kaufman, normative update. It is another widely-used test of cognitive skills and it can be administered with time points or without time points. It's been standardized that way. So maybe you have a child who has low vision and they can still access visual stimuli but it's not fair to put them in a situation where they're being timed where they're accessing that visual stimuli. You can give them that assessment with that built-in accommodation of not scoring it using time points. You also need to consider which assessment tools work best with the student's accommodations and also their unique selves. So like the new Woodcock-Johnson-V that came out is only available in iPad format. You may have a high-tech guru and they are just fine with putting their iPad underneath a Vizio book and navigating that way. You may have a child more comfortable utilizing a paper-based assessment where they can physically put their dome magnifier over it. The WISC-V, it comes in a paper version and an iPad version. So you also need to consider what's going to work best with this kid, just their individual style and how they access things. So when you administer the assessment, first of all, always read the manual. Always consult the manual. But if you administer an assessment in a non-standardized way but you are only providing accommodations, report those accommodations. Report the scores that are obtained with a cautionary statement and provide quantitative and qualitative data. If you are administering an assessment in a non-standardized way where you are modifying the test and you are modifying it in such a way that you have deviated from the way the test was meant to be given in such a way that you shouldn't report scores, that's okay. You can still report that you gave the test. You can talk about the modifications that were given. Don't report the scores. But you should still be able to gather some really rich qualitative data to talk about strengths andweaknesses for that student. Again, you're going to have to talk with your sensory team and diag about what is the best for this kid to get the best view of what their skills actually are. Can we do something that is accommodated and score it? If that's not possible, you might be able to give something and modify it. Maybe you can't give all of it because it just wouldn't be fair or valid. But maybe there are some parts you can administer. Reminders. We're going to focus on validity over inclusion in the normative sample. We're always going to consult the assessment manual and additional information from the publisher. We're going to remember that qualitative data is more useful with developing the content of an IEP than quantitative data is. Scores don't have to be reported out every time you give a standardized assessment. Standardized assessments are not even legally required. They're not a legally-required component in the FIE. And then always, the least-dangerous assumption. When you are in a situation where you don't know and you question, okay, did this child score poorly on this because we don't know enough about their visual access and they don't have enough language to tell us? So maybe we're seeing an environmental barrier. Or maybe it's a child with a significant cognitive disability. It's going to be least dangerous for that child to make the decision that maybe we shouldn't call this kid ID yet. Maybe it's not time. Because we don't know enough information. And for us to assume that these deficits are because of a cognitive deficit, as opposed to an environmental barrier. That can be dangerous. So when we are making big decisions for kids, we need to weigh -- if we don't have all the data that indicates to something 100% and we have got two things to go back and forth between, which is going to have the least negative impact in that child's educational future? What do I do if...? I had a sweet TSVI reach out to me earlier this year and she said I'm concerned that the evaluation staff want to find a 3-year-old, a young child, eligible for intellectual disability based on an assessment that's not valid. What do I do? I always like to call staffing. I think that getting everyone together in one place to talk about things is a lot more productive than sending e-mails back and forth. I would sit down and ask everyone to come to a staffing and I would sit down as a group and review that assessment and data as a team. I would look at all of the individual items and questions that were administered and determine if the kid missed it because it's a reflection of a sensory difference or a true deficit. This is something you're going to see or should be having more conversations about when it comes to very young children who are administered things like Developmental Profile 4 where those first three questions for determining a kid's IQ are can they see, can they hear, can they see and hear. Diags are not going to key into the fact that, oh, maybe this isn't appropriate for this child because of their sensory differences. And they're just in such a role of got to evaluate. Got to evaluate. Another kid. Another kid. Another kid. That sometimes we have to hold them accountable. Sometimes we have to have staffing sit down and say I understand where you have collected this data from but I'm not sure that it's valid and I think that this is a dangerous assumption that we're making for the child at this time. Okay. Question in the chat. I would have to look this one up. I know that every time a child is -- so every time a child is having an initial evaluation for VI, you have to include that O&M evaluation. If it was an additional DB evaluation and the child was -- so you need to be reevaluating every time before your DNQing. That kid needed a full evaluation before you could make the decision to DNQ. Thank you, May. May is so smart and so lovely. We're going to revisit our pulse check from the beginning. Yes or no. Who now feels better equipped to work in an eval team with other people? Yes, you feel more equipped. I hope everyone. Yes, yes, yes in the chat. Okay. Whatever your biggest challenge was, I hope maybe it feels a little bit smaller now or at least maybe your understanding of standardized assessments and how to ensure that diags are using them in a way that is valid feels a little bit less challenging now. And then if there is anything anybody wants to share real quick, we have three minutes. 

>>Kaycee: Brenna, you have a question. What cognitive assessment would you recommend for a 3-year-old who has a complete loss of vision? 

>>Brenna: There is not a good and clear answer, specifically for a child that age. If it is a child who truly just has a vision loss and there's no language delay or complicating factor, I would probably look at -- I can't think of anything that would be better than anything else, honestly. I would check out the new WJ-V because it is the only assessment that has a technical report specifically regarding children with visual impairment. And it will let you know if there are specific subtests that you could pull from WJ-V COG that would be appropriate. Earlier in the chat the link was shared for the WJ-V guidance document. I'll dump it in the chat again but I would start here with this. But then also remember you can give an assessment and you do not have to report a score. You can just talk about strengths and weaknesses. Even if that kid got three points on one subtest that was a valid subtest, talk about that and make sure that when you're talking about the things that the child didn't do, the weaknesses, try and parse out is it an actual weakness because the student has a deficit in that area or is it a weakness that can be attributed to the sensory difference.