Dyslexia Supplement Map — Barber Sped Hub

What this tool is for

Built for the evaluator staring at a dyslexia referral for the first time, unsure what data earns a place in the supplement versus what's interesting but beside the point. It walks the territory in five passes: what connects, what to test, how to write it up either way, when timing itself needs a judgment call, and where it all lands on the actual form.

A note on tool names: everything in this reference is organized by skill, not by battery. Multiple tools measure the same construct under different names — a standardized battery, a curriculum-based screener like DIBELS or Acadience, or an informal probe can all populate the same supplement row. Where you'll see specific instrument names is on the Dyslexia Reference page, which covers battery-level interpretation. This page tells you what to test and why it matters; it deliberately doesn't tell you which tool to use to get there.

Language note: educational language throughout, consistent with hub conventions — "educational impact," not "clinical presentation." Dyslexia is identified for special education purposes as a pattern of educational need, not diagnosed as a medical condition.

Where this fits: Texas does not require an IQ–achievement discrepancy to identify dyslexia or SLD. What the supplement asks for instead is a coherent pattern: a specific, unexpected weakness in word-level reading skills, distinguished from a general language or cognitive weakness. Everything in the next tabs exists to help you build — or rule out — that pattern with real data.

The convergence map

Dyslexia isn't identified from a single score. It's identified from a convergence — specific oral-language and cognitive-processing skills lining up around a word-reading weakness that a student's broader ability and language comprehension don't predict.

Oral Language

Phonological Awareness GaBlending, segmenting, manipulating sounds in words. The single strongest predictor of word-reading difficulty — the core of the pattern, not a supporting detail.

Rapid Naming GsSpeed naming familiar letters, numbers, colors, objects. Predicts fluency problems independently of phonological awareness — a student can pass PA tasks and still show a naming-speed-driven fluency deficit.

Phonological / Verbal Working Memory GwmHolding and manipulating sound-based information. Explains why multisyllabic decoding breaks down even when single-syllable decoding looks fine.

Vocabulary & Listening Comprehension GcUnderstanding words and connected speech heard aloud. Usually a relative strength in dyslexia — the comparison point that makes the weakness "unexpected."

↘ ↙

Word-Level Reading & Spelling Decoding · Word Reading · Encoding

↓

The Supplement's Core Question Is there a specific, unexpected pattern — and does it affect educational performance?

Pattern present
→ Qualifies

Pattern absent or explained otherwise
→ Does not qualify

Cognitive (CHC / "G") Areas

Auditory Processing GaPhonetic coding, sound discrimination. Overlaps heavily with phonological awareness — often the same construct measured a different way.

Processing Speed GsSpeed of simple, over-learned cognitive tasks. Tracks alongside naming speed; a shared depression in both is a strong convergent finding.

Working / Short-Term Memory Gwm GsmVerbal span and memory manipulation tasks. Mirrors the oral-language working-memory piece — convergence here strengthens the case either way.

Crystallized Knowledge GcAcquired knowledge, verbal reasoning. Typically the relative strength used to show the reading weakness isn't explained by general ability.

Reading/Writing GrwThe academic outcome domain itself. Not a predictor — this is where the weakness actually shows up and gets measured directly.

Ga and Grw are easy to blur together in casual conversation but represent different things in the supplement — Ga is a cognitive processing input, Grw is the academic outcome it helps explain. Keep that distinction explicit in the write-up.

What to test & pull

Not everything you administer carries equal weight in the supplement. Here's what each skill does for the write-up and what commonly pulls into it — named by what it measures, not by the instrument you use to measure it.

Core · Ga

Phonological Awareness

Blending, segmenting, deleting, and manipulating phonemes and syllables. This is the construct the whole pattern is built around.

Elision (sound deletion) Blending Phoneme isolation Segmenting

Pulls into: the phonological-processing determination question and the primary evidence paragraph — usually the first data point cited, not the last.

Core · Grw

Word Reading — Real Words and Nonwords

Nonword (pseudoword) reading matters as much as real-word reading — it isolates decoding ability from sight-word memorization built up through repeated exposure. A student can look like a competent reader on real words while nonword decoding reveals the gap.

Word reading — accuracy Word reading — speed/automaticity Nonword decoding — accuracy Nonword decoding — speed

Pulls into: the "specific and unexpected weakness" language directly — often the single most persuasive data point in either direction.

Core · Gs

Rapid Naming

Naming speed for letters, numbers, colors, or objects. A slow-but-accurate profile (good phonological awareness, weak naming speed) points toward a fluency-driven presentation rather than an accuracy-driven one — both still count, but the instructional implications differ.

Rapid letter naming Rapid digit naming Rapid object/color naming (younger students)

Pulls into: the fluency evidence and, downstream, into instructional recommendations regardless of eligibility outcome.

Supporting

Reading Fluency & Spelling

Rate, accuracy, and spelling error patterns. These show impact — how the underlying weakness plays out in actual reading and writing tasks a student does every day.

Oral reading fluency (rate + accuracy) Prosody Spelling accuracy Spelling error-pattern analysis

Pulls into: the educational-impact language and needs statement, not just the eligibility determination.

Supporting

Cognitive Processing (Ga, Gs, Gwm)

When available from a cognitive battery, these corroborate the oral-language findings — confirmatory, not required. Texas does not condition dyslexia identification on a specific cognitive profile.

Pulls into: strengthens the "specific" half of "specific and unexpected" when present; its absence isn't disqualifying.

Comparison point · Gc

Listening Comprehension & Verbal Ability

This is what makes the pattern "unexpected" rather than "generally low." A student whose listening comprehension and general verbal ability are age-appropriate, paired with a specific decoding weakness, is the textbook unexpected pattern. A student who is weak across the board is a different picture — and that difference belongs in the write-up either way.

Pulls into: the comparison language that answers "unexpected relative to what?" — don't skip stating this explicitly even when it seems obvious from the scores.

Documenting both outcomes

A supplement that only answers "yes" or "no" wastes the data you just gathered. Both outcomes deserve a full explanation — the parent and the teacher both need to know why, not just what.

When the pattern is present

Name the specific data points that show the phonological/decoding weakness — cite scores, don't just assert the conclusion.
State the comparison explicitly: what strength (listening comprehension, verbal ability, or both) makes this weakness unexpected rather than general.
Connect the pattern to educational impact in the actual classroom — this is what makes the eligibility determination usable, not just technically correct.
Feed the fluency and spelling data into instructional recommendations, not just the eligibility box.

When the pattern is not present

Say what the data did show, not only that dyslexia characteristics were absent — a bare "no" gives the ARD committee nothing to act on.
If weaknesses are present but broad-based rather than specific (e.g., listening comprehension and decoding are both low), name that pattern — it points toward a different kind of need, not toward "nothing's wrong."
If scores are simply within range, say so plainly and note what continued monitoring, if any, is appropriate.
Ruling out dyslexia doesn't end the conversation if other data (grades, progress-monitoring, teacher report) suggested a concern — reconcile that explicitly rather than leaving it unaddressed.

Age & timing

Parents have the right to request a full evaluation at any time — that right isn't gated by a student's age or how much reading instruction they've had. But screening and comprehensive evaluation are answering two different questions, and knowing which one a given referral can actually answer is where professional judgment earns its keep.

The tension, named: a parent requesting an FIIE for a 5½-year-old kindergartner in the first semester isn't asking an unreasonable question. The evaluation just can't yet answer it the way a later evaluation could — and saying so honestly, in the report, is more useful to the family than either refusing the request or forcing a premature determination.

What research supports: risk indicators, very early

Phonological awareness, rapid naming, verbal working memory, and letter-sound knowledge are measurable and predictive of risk from roughly age 3–4 onward — well before formal reading instruction begins. Early screening is legitimate and evidence-supported at this age; it is not "too soon."

What's harder to demonstrate: the "unexpected" pattern

A dyslexia determination rests on showing a weakness that's unexpected relative to instruction received. A student in the first semester of kindergarten has had very little formal decoding instruction to be unexpectedly resistant to — the instrument is being asked a question the timeline hasn't caught up to yet.

Where Texas's own screening calendar lands

State-required universal dyslexia screening happens at the end of kindergarten and by January 31 of first grade — not the first semester of kindergarten. That's the state's own judgment about when enough instructional exposure has accumulated to screen meaningfully, and it's a useful reference point in a parent conversation.

The professionally defensible middle path

Honor the request. Conduct the evaluation. Weight risk/precursor measures (phonological awareness, rapid naming, letter-sound knowledge, oral language) more heavily than discrepancy-from-instruction measures at this age, and say plainly in the report what the data can and can't establish yet — including whether continued monitoring, rather than an eligibility determination either way, is the most honest recommendation.

Language for the parent conversation

"I want to test what we can meaningfully test right now, rather than run measures built for a child who's had a full year of reading instruction your child hasn't had yet."

Frames the limitation as methodological, not a refusal — you're not saying no, you're saying what the tool can and can't tell you at this point.

"Early risk indicators are real and worth looking at now — that's different from a full dyslexia determination, and I'll be clear in the report about which one we're able to answer."

Validates the parent's concern (early signs are legitimate) while separating it from a premature diagnostic claim.

"If the picture is unclear at this age, the recommendation may be continued monitoring rather than a yes-or-no answer — that's not the evaluation failing, that's an honest reading of where your child is."

Sets the expectation that "inconclusive at this age" is a legitimate, defensible outcome — not a dodge.

The actual supplement, annotated

Your domain table and determination questions, with the "Source of Data" column annotated to show what an evaluator would typically enter by skill — including exactly where elision, blending, phoneme isolation, and segmenting land.

DYSLEXIA

TEA Dyslexia Handbook (Updated 2024) domains — annotated

Academic Skills	Source of Data (annotated by skill)	Score of Performance	Strength / Average / Weakness
Letter Knowledge (name and associated sound)	Typically entered Letter naming fluency Letter-sound correspondence Alphabet knowledge	— entered per student —	— entered per student —
Reading words in isolation	Typically entered Word reading — accuracy Word reading — speed/automaticity	— entered per student —	— entered per student —
Decoding unfamiliar words accurately	Typically entered — nonword/pseudoword reading Nonword decoding — accuracy Nonword decoding — speed	— entered per student —	— entered per student —
Reading Fluency (rate, accuracy, prosody)	Typically entered Oral reading fluency (WCPM) Prosody rating	— entered per student —	— entered per student —
Reading Comprehension	Typically entered Reading comprehension Informal retell / cloze	— entered per student —	— entered per student —
Spelling	Typically entered Spelling accuracy Error-pattern analysis (phonetic vs. orthographic) Writing sample review	— entered per student —	— entered per student —
Phonological / Phonemic Awareness	Typically entered — see the breakdown below Elision (sound deletion) Blending Phoneme isolation Segmenting	— entered per student —	— entered per student —
Rapid Naming (symbols or objects)	Typically entered Rapid letter naming Rapid digit naming Rapid object/color naming (younger students)	— entered per student —	— entered per student —

Where elision, blending, phoneme isolation, and segmenting specifically go

All four — plus rapid naming — live in the two shaded rows above. They're skills within the Phonological/Phonemic Awareness and Rapid Naming domains. Whatever tool your district uses (a standardized battery, DIBELS/Acadience, or an informal probe), it's testing one of these:

ElisionSay a word, then say it again with a sound removed — isolates phoneme deletion.

BlendingCombine spoken sounds into a whole word — the synthesis half of phonological awareness.

Phoneme IsolationIdentify a single sound's position in a word (beginning/middle/end).

SegmentingBreak a word into its individual sounds — the analysis half of phonological awareness.

Determination Questions

Question 1 Does the data show the characteristics of dyslexia?

Feeds from: Reading words in isolation, Decoding unfamiliar words, Reading Fluency, and Spelling rows — the primary characteristics named in the definition above the table.

Question 2 Do these difficulties result from a deficit in the phonological component of language?

Feeds from: the two shaded rows specifically — Phonological/Phonemic Awareness and Rapid Naming. This is the question those two rows exist to answer.

Question 3 Are these difficulties unexpected for the student's age, relative to other abilities, and given effective classroom instruction?

Feeds from: the comparison point on the Convergence Map tab — listening comprehension, verbal ability (Gc), and cognitive processing data, plus the instructional/intervention history gathered elsewhere in the FIE. Nothing in the domain table above answers this by itself; it's the table's findings held up against the rest of the record.

Conclusion: synthesizes all three answers into whether the student does or does not meet criteria for SLD, with or without the concurrent condition of Dyslexia.