SLD Framework Application Reference

🔄 Concordance-Discordance Model (C-SEP)

C-SEP evaluates whether a student's performance in a specific academic area is concordant with or discordant from a relevant cognitive reference point. When achievement falls significantly below the reference point (discordance), the weakness is considered unexpected — supporting an SLD determination. When achievement aligns with the reference (concordance), the pattern may reflect overall ability level rather than a specific disability. The model is applied independently to each SLD domain being considered.

ℹ️ This page describes practitioner-level cluster application. It does not reproduce decision tables, cutpoints, or proprietary methodology from any assessment manual or published framework. Always apply professional judgment in conjunction with all evaluation data.

📍 Step 1 — Select a Cognitive Reference Point

The reference point is the cognitive benchmark against which achievement is compared. Select one per evaluation based on what was administered and the referral concerns. Oral Language is the most commonly used reference point for reading and written language SLD referrals.

WJ-V Reference Points

Cognitive clusters most commonly used as C-SEP reference

Cluster	CHC	Notes
Oral Language Picture Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension	Gc	Primary reference for reading & written language referrals; reflects acquired language knowledge
General Intellectual Ability (GIA) Composite across COG batteries	Global	Broader cognitive estimate; use when math is a referral concern alongside language areas
Brief Intellectual Ability (BIA) Abbreviated cognitive composite	Global	Shorter composite; appropriate when full COG battery not administered
Fluid Reasoning Concept Formation, Number Series	Gf	Useful reference when evaluating math problem solving; less influenced by language experience

WISC-V as Supplemental Reference

When WJ-V COG is not administered or to supplement

Composite	CHC	Notes
FSIQ Full Scale IQ — 10 core subtests	Global	Global cognitive estimate; most commonly used when WJ-V COG not given
GAI General Ability Index — VCI + VSI + FRI	Global	Reduced WM/PS influence; useful when memory or speed weaknesses would suppress FSIQ
VCI Similarities, Vocabulary, Information	Gc	Verbal/language reference point; closest WISC-V proxy for WJ-V Oral Language
FRI Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights	Gf	Nonverbal fluid reasoning reference; useful supplement for math evaluations

📚 Step 2 — Achievement Clusters Compared Against Reference

The following WJ-V ACH clusters are the comparison targets. Select the clusters relevant to the suspected SLD domain(s). Each is compared against the selected reference point to determine concordance or discordance.

WJ-V ACH — Achievement Clusters by SLD Domain

SLD Domain	WJ-V ACH Cluster	Key Subtests
Reading	Basic Reading Skills	Letter-Word Identification, Word Attack
	Reading Comprehension	Passage Comprehension, Reading Recall
	Reading Fluency Skills	Sentence Reading Fluency, Oral Reading
Written Language	Basic Writing Skills	Spelling, Editing
	Written Expression	Writing Samples, Sentence Writing Fluency
	Writing Fluency	Sentence Writing Fluency
Mathematics	Math Calculation Skills	Calculation, Math Facts Fluency
	Math Problem Solving	Applied Problems, Number Matrices
	Math Fluency	Math Facts Fluency

🔍 Step 3 — Interpreting the Pattern

✅ Discordance

Achievement cluster falls significantly below the selected reference point. Weakness is unexpected relative to measured cognitive ability — supports SLD consideration in that domain.

↔️ Concordance

Achievement cluster is consistent with the reference point. Weakness may reflect overall cognitive ability level — SLD is less supported, though other data should still be considered.

⚠️ Mixed Pattern

Some achievement areas discordant, others concordant. Examine individual cluster data, exclusionary factors, and intervention history. Professional judgment is essential.

📌 Practice Notes

Apply C-SEP independently to each suspected SLD domain — a student may show discordance in reading but concordance in math.
Oral Language is the recommended reference for reading and written language referrals; consider GIA or Fluid Reasoning for math referrals.
If WISC-V is the only cognitive battery administered, convert composites to a common standard score metric before cross-battery comparison.
C-SEP findings are one part of the evaluation — pair with exclusionary factor analysis, intervention history, and informal/observational data.
For emergent bilingual students, ensure the reference point reflects educational language proficiency, not native language ability.

📊 Pattern of Strengths and Weaknesses (PSW)

PSW identifies a specific cognitive processing weakness that is unexpected given the student's overall ability level, co-occurring with a corresponding academic weakness in the same domain. The model also requires documentation of at least one relative cognitive strength. All three components must be present: (1) a cognitive weakness, (2) a corresponding academic weakness, and (3) a relative cognitive strength that is inconsistent with the identified weakness — establishing that the pattern is specific, not global.

ℹ️ PSW application varies by district protocol and school psychologist preference. This reference describes the general framework for cluster mapping, not a proprietary decision procedure. Coordinate with your school psychologist on the specific PSW approach used in your district.

🧠 Cognitive Processing Clusters

The cognitive weakness in PSW is identified using processing clusters from WJ-V COG, WISC-V composites, or a cross-battery combination of both. A weakness is unexpected when it falls significantly below the student's overall ability estimate.

WJ-V COG — Processing Clusters

Cognitive weakness identification

Cluster	CHC	Subtests
Fluid Reasoning	Gf	Concept Formation, Number Series
Short-Term Working Memory	Gwm	Verbal Attention, Numbers Reversed
Processing Speed	Gs	Letter-Pattern Matching, Pair Cancellation
Long-Term Retrieval	Glr	Story Recall, Visual-Auditory Learning
Auditory Processing	Ga	Phonological Processing, Segmentation, Sound Blending
Visual Processing	Gv	Visualization, Picture Recognition
Oral Language (Gc)	Gc	Picture Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension

WISC-V — Index Composites

Cognitive weakness or ability estimate

Index	CHC	Core Subtests
VCI — Verbal Comprehension	Gc	Similarities, Vocabulary, Information
VSI — Visual Spatial	Gv	Block Design, Visual Puzzles
FRI — Fluid Reasoning	Gf	Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights
WMI — Working Memory	Gwm	Digit Span, Picture Span
PSI — Processing Speed	Gs	Coding, Symbol Search
Overall ability estimates: FSIQ (full composite) or GAI (VCI + VSI + FRI — reduced WM/PS influence). Use GAI when WMI or PSI are identified weaknesses to avoid suppressing the ability estimate.

🔗 Cognitive–Achievement Correspondence

The cognitive weakness identified must correspond to an achievement weakness in the same domain. Use this table to identify expected academic links for each processing area.

Cognitive Processing Weakness	Battery	Linked WJ-V Achievement Clusters
Auditory Processing (Ga)	WJ-V	Basic Reading Skills (phonological decoding), Reading Fluency — strongest and most direct link to foundational reading
Short-Term Working Memory (Gwm)	WJ-V WISC-V WMI	Basic Reading Skills, Basic Writing Skills, Written Expression, Math Calculation Skills — links across all academic areas
Processing Speed (Gs)	WJ-V WISC-V PSI	Reading Fluency, Writing Fluency, Math Fluency — primarily fluency clusters across all domains
Fluid Reasoning (Gf)	WJ-V WISC-V FRI	Math Problem Solving, Reading Comprehension — higher-order reasoning and application tasks
Long-Term Retrieval (Glr)	WJ-V	Basic Reading Skills (sight word acquisition, phonological decoding), Written Expression — storage and retrieval of learned verbal associations
Visual Processing (Gv)	WJ-V WISC-V VSI	Math Calculation Skills, some reading tasks involving visual discrimination — generally a weaker link than Ga or Gwm for SLD
Crystallized Knowledge / Oral Language (Gc)	WJ-V WISC-V VCI	Reading Comprehension, Written Expression — language-dependent comprehension and expression tasks

📌 PSW Practice Notes

The "unexpected" criterion: The cognitive weakness must fall meaningfully below the overall ability estimate (FSIQ, GAI, or GIA) to establish that it is specific and not simply reflective of global ability.
Selecting GAI vs. FSIQ: When WMI or PSI are identified weaknesses, use GAI as the ability estimate so the weakness does not artificially lower the reference point.
Cross-battery cognitive: WJ-V and WISC-V can be combined when both are administered — e.g., WISC-V WMI supplements WJ-V Short-Term Working Memory for a stronger Gwm picture.
The strength requirement: At least one processing area must be documented as a relative strength — this differentiates SLD from a global ability pattern.
School psych coordination: PSW determination often involves school psychologist judgment; confirm your district's preferred PSW protocol before finalizing.

🔀 Cross-Battery Assessment (XBA)

XBA builds a CHC-organized cognitive and achievement profile using indicators from multiple batteries, ensuring that each broad ability area is represented by at least two measures. When WJ-V COG and WISC-V are both administered, they provide overlapping and complementary coverage across major CHC domains. Scores within each CHC category are averaged or compared to evaluate that ability area; a classification is applied only when two or more indicators converge.

ℹ️ The two-indicator-per-ability rule and cross-battery averaging procedures are established practitioner conventions in the XBA literature. This reference maps which subtests and clusters from each battery contribute to each CHC domain — it does not reproduce XBA normative data or proprietary worksheets.

🗂️ CHC Broad Ability → WJ-V + WISC-V Indicator Mapping

Each row shows the CHC ability, which WJ-V subtests/clusters contribute, and which WISC-V subtests/composites contribute. Two measures from either battery (or one from each) satisfy the two-indicator requirement for that domain.

Gc Crystallized Intelligence / Comprehension-Knowledge

WJ-V Indicators

Oral Language cluster: Picture Vocabulary, Oral Comprehension
General Information, Academic Knowledge

WISC-V Indicators

VCI: Similarities, Vocabulary, Information, Comprehension
Strong Gc coverage — VCI + WJ-V Oral Language = solid cross-battery Gc

Gf Fluid Reasoning

WJ-V Indicators

Fluid Reasoning cluster: Concept Formation, Number Series
Number Matrices (extended)

WISC-V Indicators

FRI: Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Picture Concepts
Strong convergence when both batteries show low Gf — important for math and reading comprehension SLD

Gwm Short-Term Working Memory

WJ-V Indicators

Short-Term Working Memory cluster: Verbal Attention, Numbers Reversed
Object-Number Sequencing (extended)

WISC-V Indicators

WMI: Digit Span, Picture Span, Letter-Number Sequencing
Strongest cross-battery pair — WMI + WJ-V STW provides robust Gwm picture

Gs Processing Speed

WJ-V Indicators

Processing Speed cluster: Letter-Pattern Matching, Pair Cancellation

WISC-V Indicators

PSI: Coding, Symbol Search, Cancellation
Task demands differ slightly (PSI = accuracy + speed; WJ-V Gs = pattern matching + scanning) — note any discrepancy

Gv Visual Processing

WJ-V Indicators

Visual Processing cluster: Visualization, Picture Recognition

WISC-V Indicators

VSI: Block Design, Visual Puzzles
VSI is primarily Gv; Block Design also has some Gf demand — interpret in context of full profile

Ga Auditory Processing

WJ-V Indicators

Strong Ga coverage: Phonological Processing, Segmentation, Sound Blending, Sound Patterns
WJ-V is the preferred Ga battery in most XBA models

WISC-V Indicators

WISC-V does not provide meaningful Ga coverage.
Supplement with CTOPP-2 (Phonological Awareness, Phonological Memory, RAN composites) for a two-indicator Ga picture alongside WJ-V Ga subtests.

Glr Long-Term Retrieval

WJ-V Indicators

Long-Term Retrieval cluster: Story Recall, Visual-Auditory Learning
Retrieval Fluency (extended) — associative memory and fluency of retrieval

WISC-V Indicators

WISC-V does not provide meaningful Glr coverage.
WJ-V is the preferred battery for Glr. CTOPP-2 RAN composites may supplement retrieval speed.

📌 XBA Practice Notes

Two-indicator rule: Each CHC broad ability should have at least two measures before a classification is applied. A single subtest is insufficient on its own.
Cross-battery convergence: When WJ-V and WISC-V indicators for the same CHC domain yield similar scores, confidence in the classification is higher. Large discrepancies (15+ points) between same-domain indicators from different batteries warrant investigation — consider task demands, linguistic load, and performance validity.
Ga gap: WISC-V provides no meaningful Ga coverage. For reading referrals, supplement with CTOPP-2 to ensure Ga has two indicators.
Glr gap: Similarly, WISC-V has limited Glr indicators. WJ-V Story Recall and Visual-Auditory Learning are the primary sources.
Don't overcollect: XBA doesn't require administering both full batteries. Select subtests strategically to fill CHC gaps left by the primary battery.

📈 Response to Intervention / MTSS (RTI)

RTI eligibility is built on documented evidence that a student has not responded adequately to research-based intervention across multiple tiers of instruction. The eligibility decision rests on the intervention data record — not on cognitive-achievement discrepancy or processing patterns. Standardized score data from WJ-V and WISC-V plays a supporting role: establishing current academic performance level, characterizing the nature of the deficit, and ruling out other explanations for underperformance.

ℹ️ In Texas, RTI as a standalone SLD eligibility model is less frequently used than PSW or C-SEP in most districts. RTI data is most often incorporated as supporting evidence within a broader evaluation framework. Confirm your district's preferred approach with your LSSP or special education director.

📋 Core RTI Documentation Components

📁 Intervention History (Required)

Documentation Element	What to Include
Tier history	Duration and frequency at each tier (Tier 2: minimum 8–10 weeks; Tier 3: minimum 8–10 weeks or per district protocol)
Intervention programs	Named programs with research base documented; instructor, group size, session frequency
Fidelity documentation	Fidelity checks conducted; implementation logs; percent adherence to program protocol
Progress monitoring	CBM data collected at regular intervals (biweekly or weekly); slope analysis relative to peer/normative benchmark; MTSS data team review documentation
Responsiveness determination	Data team or campus decision that progress is inadequate despite appropriate intervention — this is the core eligibility-driving documentation

📊 Role of WJ-V and WISC-V in RTI Evaluations

Standardized battery scores do not drive the RTI eligibility determination but are essential for characterizing the student's current performance and ruling out exclusionary factors.

WJ-V — Role in RTI Evaluation

Use	Relevant Clusters
Establish current academic level	ACH clusters in the deficit domain (Basic Reading, Math Calculation, Written Expression, etc.) — documents severity of academic need
Rule out ID	GIA or BIA (COG) — ensures underperformance is not attributable to intellectual disability
Characterize deficit nature	Processing clusters (Ga, Gwm, Gs, Glr) — describes the processing pattern associated with the academic need; informs intervention planning
Bilingual/EB considerations	Administer in dominant language; pair with WMLS-R CLI data and TELPAS levels to address exclusionary factor of language acquisition

WISC-V — Role in RTI Evaluation

Use	Relevant Composites
Rule out ID	FSIQ — primary cognitive estimate for intellectual ability documentation
Characterize cognitive profile	WMI, PSI, FRI — identify processing areas that inform instructional planning and service needs
Support educational need	Cognitive profile helps ARD determine appropriate instructional supports and related services even when intervention data is the eligibility anchor

🌐 Exclusionary Factor Documentation — Emergent Bilingual Students

⚠️ Critical for RTI + EB Students

In RTI evaluations, the exclusionary factor for lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math and limited English proficiency must be documented before eligibility can be confirmed. The following must be addressed in the evaluation:

TELPAS levels — current proficiency level and years at each level; document trajectory
Years in U.S. schools — establishes whether the student has had adequate exposure to English instruction
Home Language Survey & LPAC data — documents language background and instructional history
WMLS-R CLI — language dominance determination to confirm which language(s) to administer standardized measures in
Instruction type — bilingual program, ESL, general education immersion — must document that language is not the primary determinant of academic difficulty

📌 RTI Practice Notes

The strength of an RTI evaluation rests on the quality and completeness of the intervention documentation — weak MTSS records undermine the eligibility determination regardless of how compelling the score data is.
RTI and PSW/C-SEP are not mutually exclusive — many evaluations incorporate RTI data alongside a cognitive-achievement framework. The primary model used should be clearly stated in the report.
Progress monitoring data (CBM slope) is the most directly relevant RTI evidence. Flat or declining slopes across two or more tiers, with documented fidelity, is the core of the eligibility argument.
Score data remains essential for special education eligibility even in an RTI model — it documents educational need, informs disability category, and supports annual goal development.