Bilingual Assessment for School-Age Children
BILINGUAL ASSESSMENT IN SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN ASHA 2015
Jissel Anaya, M.A. CCC-SLP Alisa Baron, M.A. CCC-SLP
Disclosure We have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose. In other words, we don’t make any money!
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
IDEA (2004) • Assessment in the child’s native language, if feasible • Testing materials and procedures should be: • (a) selected so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory;; • (b) focused on measuring the child’s disability, not the English language skills;; • (c) validated for the purposes for which it is used • (d) administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel (Section 300.352)
IDEA (2004) • Should be gleaned from a “variety of sources, including.… • parent input • teacher recommendations • social or cultural background • adaptive behavior” (Sec. 300.535)
ASHA (1999 & 2004) • (a) appropriate use of translators or interpreters • (b) appropriate use of alternative assessment procedures including dynamic assessment • (c) appropriate use of formal standardized tests • (d) appropriate knowledge of interviewing techniques
ASHA (1999 & 2004) • Should provide “a nonbiased assessment of communication function in both the first (native/home) and second language of the student” (ASHA, 1999, p. 29) • A comprehensive review of the student’s case history that includes information regarding cultural, linguistic, and familial differences • Number of different sources, including family members, teachers, bilingual professionals, and culturally matched paraprofessionals • Assessing the child in varied settings would ensure that a realistic picture of both academic and social language has been obtained
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Background • Lack of training •
Only about 8% of school clinicians report having training in bilingual assessment (ASHA Schools Survey, 2008).
•
Lead to over and under identification • Latinos are 4 times as likely to be diagnosed as LI than their white peers in elementary school (Rueda, Artiles, Salazar & Higareda, 2002)
Background • Lack of assessment tools or poor assessment tools •
Often test only one of the languages or rely on translated tests
•
Tests that are developed for use in one language do not translate consistently to another and are difficult to score and interpret (Peña, 2007)
Background • Testing a bilingual child in a single language does not give the child credit for linguistic knowledge in both languages and could result in overidentification (Kayser, 1989).
• Language-minority students generally score lower than their monolingual peers on standardized tests (Jackson-Maldonado, 1999;; Pray, 2003).
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Purpose •
Fill the knowledge gap
•
Increase confidence in bilingual assessment
•
Summarize available bilingual assessment tools
•
Critique current bilingual assessment tools using an objective framework
Types of assessment • Formal • Norm-referenced • Criterion-referenced • Informal
Types of assessment • Formal • Norm-referenced • Criterion-referenced • Informal
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
What are the key factors when looking at diagnostic tests? •
Can it discriminate? True
False
LI
True Positive SENSITIVITY
False Positive
TD
False Negative
True Negative SPECIFICITY
What are the key factors when looking at diagnostic tests? •
Can it discriminate? True
False
LI
True Positive SENSITIVITY
False Positive
TD
False Negative
True Negative SPECIFICITY
What are the key factors when looking at diagnostic tests? •
Does it match the child we’re testing? • Language, dialect, geographic region, SES
•
Does the normative sample include children with atypical development?
What happens when we include children with disorders in our normative sample?
Pena, Spaulding, Plante (2006)
What happens when we include children with disorders in our normative sample?
Pena, Spaulding, Plante (2006)
Does the test have at least fair (.80+) sensitivity/specificity?
No
Yes
Is the child I’m testing represented in their normative sample?
Don’t use test
No
Don’t use test
Yes
Does the normative sample include atypical kids or monolinguals?
Yes
No
Does it have good reliability and validity?
Interpret results with caution!
No
Yes
Interpret results with caution!
USE TEST! J
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria 448 published assessment measures and procedures on ASHA’s website
93 suitable for a multicultural population
7 meet minimum diagnostic accuracy, are norm- referenced, and readily available
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Framework Conceptualization • Purpose • Intended Population • Item Content • Examiner Qualifications • Description of test procedures
Framework Operationalization • Normative sample (2) • no impaired, monolingual (2) • Validity • concurrent, construct, predictive (sensitivity (2), specificity (2)), content • Reliability • internal consistency, test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability • Scoring • basal/ceiling, percentiles, standard scores
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Articulation • Contextual Probes Articulation Competence - Spanish (CPAC-S) • Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA - Phonology) • Bilingual Articulation Phonology Assessment (BAPA) • Spanish Articulation Measures (SAM) • Preschool Language Scale-5 Screener (PLS-5)
Contextual Probes Articulation Competence - Spanish (CPAC-S) • Age: 3;;0 and up Strengths • Fair norms (76-258 participants per group) • Good sensitivity (.91) & specificity (.94) • Large sample size (n = 1127) • Considers various dialects • Has screener (not normed) • Online scoring
Contextual Probes Articulation Competence - Spanish (CPAC-S) Relative weakness • Some vocabulary not appropriate for all dialects (ex. habichuela, nevera) Doesn’t test articulation in connected speech
Score: Good (20/23)
BESA - Phonology Subtest • Age: 4-6;;11 Strengths • Good norms (100 or more in each subgroup) • Strong sensitivity & specificity • Does not penalize dialectical variation (ex. /s/) • Sample size (n=756) Weaknesses • Test-retest reliability • Doesn’t test articulation in connected speech
Score: Excellent (23/23)
Resources
Suggestions • Look at phonetic inventory of both languages • Determine the phonetic inventory of the child in both languages using single-word and connected speech samples. • Organize the inventory by place of articulation (e.g., bilabial, alveolar, etc.) and manner of articulation (e.g., stops, nasals, etc.)
Suggestions In a substitution error analysis: • Examine targets (including phonemes that the child does not attempt to produce) and substitutes (what the child is using in place of those target phonemes) • Account for cross-linguistic effects (using a phonological element specific to one language in the production of the other) • Dialect features (Goldstein & Iglesias, 2001) • Neither cross-linguistic effects nor dialect features should be scored as errors
Suggestions • Perform relational analyses to examine overall consonant and vowel accuracy in each language • Accuracy of shared elements and unshared elements • Significantly higher accuracy on shared elements compared with unshared elements, demonstrating interaction between the two languages (Fabiano, 2006;; Fabiano & Goldstein 2004a, 2004b) • The phonological pattern analysis should take into consideration that the type and frequency of phonological patterns vary across languages (Goldstein & Washington, 2001).
Keep in mind • Speech samples not parallel across the two languages (Goldstein, Fabiano, & Washington, 2005) • Developmental trajectories and structure may be different for each language, so the order of acquisition and phonological patterns will differ.
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Language • Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA - Semantic/Morphosyntax subtests) • Clinic Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4th Edition - Spanish (CELF-4) • Clinic Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool Second Edition (CELF-P2) • Preschool Language Scale-5th Edition Spanish (PLS-5) • Spanish Language Assessment Procedures (SLAP) • Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) • Test of Early Language Development 3rd Edition Spanish (TELD-3:S) • Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish-Bilingual Edition (EOWPVT) • Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish-Bilingual Edition (ROWPVT)
BESA - Semantics/Morphosyntax Subtests Age: 4;;0-6;;11 Strengths •
Good norm size (76-258 participants per group) •
• • •
Large sample size (n = 756)
Good sensitivity (88.9-96.0) & fair specificity (84.9-92.4) ITALK/BIOS Considers child’s best language in each domain
Weaknesses • Cannot derive separate receptive/expressive scores that parallel ICD-10 codes (F80.1 Expressive language disorder and F80.2 Receptive language disorder) • Appropriate for only a small age range Score: Excellent 23/23
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4- Spanish Edition (CELF-4 Spanish)
• Age: 5-21;;11 Strengths • Fair norms (50-80 participants per age group) • Good sensitivity (.96), fair specificity (.87)
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4- Spanish Edition (CELF-4 Spanish) Weaknesses • Included impaired populations • Include monolingual populations • Test-retest reliability below .9 • Takes a long time to administer – especially following directions subtest. • Can only derive/report Spanish score
Score: Good (19/23)
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool 2- Spanish Edition Age: 5;;0-6;;11 Strengths • Fair sensitivity (.85), fair specificity (.82) Weaknesses • Bilingual population defined as: English as the primary language +another language (including Spanish, Asian languages, Tagalog, German, etc.) • Spanish-speaking bilingual children make up less than half of the normative sample (42%) • Includes atypically developing children (13% of sample) • Can only derive/report Score: Good (20/23) Spanish score
Preschool Language Scales-5th Edition Age: Birth-7;;11 Strengths • Fair sensitivity (.85), fair specificity (.88) • Dual language scoring Weaknesses • Discrepancies between descriptions of language profile of norming population • one part of the manual “primary language is English” another “primarily Spanish-speaking children (whose home language is Spanish)” • Administration-constant change of stimuli • Low correlation between PLS-5 and CELF-P2 (.53) Score: Good (19/23)
Testing Outcomes L1
L2
Diagnostic Profile TD TD TD LI
Suggestions • Language sample • Differentiate between a language disorder and a language
difference (Gutierrez-Clellen, Restrepo, & Bedore, 2000;; Langdon, 1989) • More naturalistic
• SALT program databases for Spanish–English bilinguals and African American English-speaking children
Suggestions • Parent concern • One of the most reliable identifiers of language impairments in bilingual children • Parents are not always able to adequately describe their concerns when asked open ended questions (Patterson, 1998, 2000;; Restrepo, 1998;; Thal, Jackson- Maldonado, & Acosta, 2000)
Suggestions • Dynamic Assessment (DA) • Method that seeks to identify the skills that an individual child possesses as well as their learning potential • Emphasizes the learning process and accounts for the amount and nature of examiner investment. • Highly interactive • Process-oriented • Relates directly to intervention (Pena & Quinn 1992) • Test - Teach - Retest method
Suggestions - Pragmatics • Double interview (not normed) - Michelle Garcia Winner • Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV) • Pragmatics Domain • Role-taking • Short narrative • Question asking • BESA - Pragmatics subtest (not-normed)
Keep in mind • Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) • Nonliteral Language • Pragmatic Judgement • Idiomatic Judgement
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Stuttering Severity Instrument (SSI-4) •
Evaluates: • • • •
Frequency Duration Secondary behaviors Naturalness of speech
Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES) • • •
Self-report Frequency and type of stuttering events Impact of stuttering in multiple life situations
Communication Attitude Test for Preschool & Kindergarten Children who stutter (KiddyCAT) •
Self-report • Yes/No questions
•
Children under 6
Bilingual stuttering • Assessed in both languages to observe whether stuttering occurs in both (Finn & Cordes, 1997) ● Differences in fluency may be due to: ○ social context (Foote, 2013) ○ level of development of each language spoken
Bilingual stuttering ● Moments of stuttering or disfluency may be difficult to differentiate from typical disfluency ○ code switching ○ wording changes in order to maintain the grammatical integrity of the dominant language ○ word-finding problems
● Parents can provide perceptual ratings of fluency (Shenker, 2013)
Keep in mind • 3% and 10% dysfluencies (may not apply to bilinguals) • Conduct fluency counts in different environments • Secondary behaviors (quality over quantity)
• Emotional impact
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Case Study- Pablo
Age: 5;;2 Language history: speaks and listens to mostly Spanish at home. His parents have low English proficiency, though he has a 9 year-old sister who speaks English to him. He attends an English-only instruction Kindergarten at school because his parents want him to learn English as soon as possible. Media output tends to be in English (e.g. cartoons, games, etc.). Parent & teacher concerns: Mom’s reports that Pablo’s language skills are below his cousin Johanna’s skills. She notices this mostly when they visit her family in Mexico. She reports he knows a lot less words than her and often has to repeat her directions to him. She is worried they are confusing him by making him learn 2 languages and wonder if they need to learn English themselves. Teacher corroborates parents’ concerns. He reports Pablo is often looking to his peers to figure out what he needs to do because he doesn’t follow his directions. He has noticed his sentences are not as long or complex as his peers’ and he lags in terms of vocabulary size, reading, math, etc.
Case Study - Kim Age: 6;;0 Language History: Speaks Vietnamese at home and has been attending an English-only school for 6 months. Parent & teacher concerns: Kim is having difficulty in producing certain sounds including /d/, /g/, and /v/. It’s hard to understand Kim in English and has difficulty with longer words.
Where do I start? •
What sounds exist in each language? Which sounds are shared? • phonemic inventory • create a venn diagram
Where do I start? •
What sounds exist in each language? Which sounds are shared? • phonemic inventory • create a venn diagram
•
How are the sounds put into words? What are the phonotactics of the language?
Case Study- Roberto Age: 8;;5 Language History: He attends a dual language program and is in 3rd grade. He speaks mostly Spanish (Cuban dialect) at home. Parent and Teacher concerns: Teacher has noticed “stuttering” behavior mostly in English and has noticed he speaks at a faster pace than his peers. Mother doesn’t report any concern with excessively repeating sounds and syllables but she has noticed he frequently rephrases his words and sentences. During a brief observation at the library, you didn’t notice any secondary behaviors.
Take Aways • When looking at a diagnostic test it is most important to look at
sensitivity/specificity.
• Consider the implications when children with impairment are
included in the norming sample.
• When children are bilingual, find appropriate test(s) in both
languages to get a complete picture of full abilities.
• Take advantage of informal measures including;; spontaneous
samples, and parent/teacher concern.
References American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008). 2008 Schools Survey summary report. Rockville, MD: Author. Bedore, L., & Peña, E. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, 1–29. Bedore, L. M., Pena, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resendiz, M. D., Greene, K., ... & Gillam, R. B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(03), 616-629. Caesar, L.G., & Kohler, P.D. (2007). The state of school-based bilingual assessment: Actual practice versus recommended guidelines. Language Speech Hearing Services in the Schools, 38, 190-200. Dollaghan, C. A. (2004). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: What do we know, and when do we know it?. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 391-400. Fabiano, L. (2006). Phonological representation in Spanish-English bilingual children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Fabiano, L. & Goldstein, B. (2004a, May). Phonological representation in simultaneous and sequential bilingual Spanish-English speaking children. Seminar presented at the Child Phonology Conference. Tempe, Arizona. Fabiano, L. & Goldstein, B. (2004b, June). Phonological representation in simultaneous bilingual Spanish-English speaking children: Two case studies. Poster presented at the Symposium of Research on Child Language Disorders (SRCLD). Madison, Wisconsin. Goldstein, B., & Iglesias, A. (2001). The effect of dialect on phonological analysis: Evidence from Spanish-speaking children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 394–406. Goldstein, B. & Washington, P. (2001). An initial investigation of phonological patterns in 4-year-old typically developing Spanish-English bilingual children. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 153–164.
References (continued) Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., Restrepo, M. A., Bedore, L. M. (2000). Language sample analysis in Spanish-speaking children: Methodological considerations. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 88–98. Jackson-Maldonado, D. (1999). Early language assessment for Spanish-speaking children. Bilingual Review, 24, 35–53. Kayser, H. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Spanish–English speaking children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 357–363. Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 465–473. Langdon, H. W. (1989). Language disorder or difference? Assessing the skills of Hispanic students. Exceptional Children, 56, 160–167. McCauley, R. J., & Swisher, L. (1984). Psychometric review of language and articulation tests for preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 34-42. McLeod, S., & Verdon, S. (2014). A review of 30 speech assessments in 19 languages other than English. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 708-723. Patterson, J. L. (1998). Expressive vocabulary development and word combinations of Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 46–52. Patterson, J. L. (2000). Observed and reported expressive vocabulary and word combinations in bilingual toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 121–128. Pray, L. (2003). An analysis of language assessments used in the referral and placement of language minority students into special education (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 2003). Digital Dissertations (UMI #3084700). Restrepo, M. A. (1998). Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1398–1411. Thal, D., Jackson-Maldonado, D., Acosta, D. (2000). Validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and grammar for Spanish-speaking toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 87–101.
Jissel Anaya, M.A. CCC-SLP Alisa Baron, M.A. CCC-SLP
Disclosure We have no financial or non-financial interests to disclose. In other words, we don’t make any money!
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
IDEA (2004) • Assessment in the child’s native language, if feasible • Testing materials and procedures should be: • (a) selected so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory;; • (b) focused on measuring the child’s disability, not the English language skills;; • (c) validated for the purposes for which it is used • (d) administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel (Section 300.352)
IDEA (2004) • Should be gleaned from a “variety of sources, including.… • parent input • teacher recommendations • social or cultural background • adaptive behavior” (Sec. 300.535)
ASHA (1999 & 2004) • (a) appropriate use of translators or interpreters • (b) appropriate use of alternative assessment procedures including dynamic assessment • (c) appropriate use of formal standardized tests • (d) appropriate knowledge of interviewing techniques
ASHA (1999 & 2004) • Should provide “a nonbiased assessment of communication function in both the first (native/home) and second language of the student” (ASHA, 1999, p. 29) • A comprehensive review of the student’s case history that includes information regarding cultural, linguistic, and familial differences • Number of different sources, including family members, teachers, bilingual professionals, and culturally matched paraprofessionals • Assessing the child in varied settings would ensure that a realistic picture of both academic and social language has been obtained
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Background • Lack of training •
Only about 8% of school clinicians report having training in bilingual assessment (ASHA Schools Survey, 2008).
•
Lead to over and under identification • Latinos are 4 times as likely to be diagnosed as LI than their white peers in elementary school (Rueda, Artiles, Salazar & Higareda, 2002)
Background • Lack of assessment tools or poor assessment tools •
Often test only one of the languages or rely on translated tests
•
Tests that are developed for use in one language do not translate consistently to another and are difficult to score and interpret (Peña, 2007)
Background • Testing a bilingual child in a single language does not give the child credit for linguistic knowledge in both languages and could result in overidentification (Kayser, 1989).
• Language-minority students generally score lower than their monolingual peers on standardized tests (Jackson-Maldonado, 1999;; Pray, 2003).
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Purpose •
Fill the knowledge gap
•
Increase confidence in bilingual assessment
•
Summarize available bilingual assessment tools
•
Critique current bilingual assessment tools using an objective framework
Types of assessment • Formal • Norm-referenced • Criterion-referenced • Informal
Types of assessment • Formal • Norm-referenced • Criterion-referenced • Informal
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
What are the key factors when looking at diagnostic tests? •
Can it discriminate? True
False
LI
True Positive SENSITIVITY
False Positive
TD
False Negative
True Negative SPECIFICITY
What are the key factors when looking at diagnostic tests? •
Can it discriminate? True
False
LI
True Positive SENSITIVITY
False Positive
TD
False Negative
True Negative SPECIFICITY
What are the key factors when looking at diagnostic tests? •
Does it match the child we’re testing? • Language, dialect, geographic region, SES
•
Does the normative sample include children with atypical development?
What happens when we include children with disorders in our normative sample?
Pena, Spaulding, Plante (2006)
What happens when we include children with disorders in our normative sample?
Pena, Spaulding, Plante (2006)
Does the test have at least fair (.80+) sensitivity/specificity?
No
Yes
Is the child I’m testing represented in their normative sample?
Don’t use test
No
Don’t use test
Yes
Does the normative sample include atypical kids or monolinguals?
Yes
No
Does it have good reliability and validity?
Interpret results with caution!
No
Yes
Interpret results with caution!
USE TEST! J
Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria 448 published assessment measures and procedures on ASHA’s website
93 suitable for a multicultural population
7 meet minimum diagnostic accuracy, are norm- referenced, and readily available
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Framework Conceptualization • Purpose • Intended Population • Item Content • Examiner Qualifications • Description of test procedures
Framework Operationalization • Normative sample (2) • no impaired, monolingual (2) • Validity • concurrent, construct, predictive (sensitivity (2), specificity (2)), content • Reliability • internal consistency, test-retest reliability, inter-rater reliability • Scoring • basal/ceiling, percentiles, standard scores
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Articulation • Contextual Probes Articulation Competence - Spanish (CPAC-S) • Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA - Phonology) • Bilingual Articulation Phonology Assessment (BAPA) • Spanish Articulation Measures (SAM) • Preschool Language Scale-5 Screener (PLS-5)
Contextual Probes Articulation Competence - Spanish (CPAC-S) • Age: 3;;0 and up Strengths • Fair norms (76-258 participants per group) • Good sensitivity (.91) & specificity (.94) • Large sample size (n = 1127) • Considers various dialects • Has screener (not normed) • Online scoring
Contextual Probes Articulation Competence - Spanish (CPAC-S) Relative weakness • Some vocabulary not appropriate for all dialects (ex. habichuela, nevera) Doesn’t test articulation in connected speech
Score: Good (20/23)
BESA - Phonology Subtest • Age: 4-6;;11 Strengths • Good norms (100 or more in each subgroup) • Strong sensitivity & specificity • Does not penalize dialectical variation (ex. /s/) • Sample size (n=756) Weaknesses • Test-retest reliability • Doesn’t test articulation in connected speech
Score: Excellent (23/23)
Resources
Suggestions • Look at phonetic inventory of both languages • Determine the phonetic inventory of the child in both languages using single-word and connected speech samples. • Organize the inventory by place of articulation (e.g., bilabial, alveolar, etc.) and manner of articulation (e.g., stops, nasals, etc.)
Suggestions In a substitution error analysis: • Examine targets (including phonemes that the child does not attempt to produce) and substitutes (what the child is using in place of those target phonemes) • Account for cross-linguistic effects (using a phonological element specific to one language in the production of the other) • Dialect features (Goldstein & Iglesias, 2001) • Neither cross-linguistic effects nor dialect features should be scored as errors
Suggestions • Perform relational analyses to examine overall consonant and vowel accuracy in each language • Accuracy of shared elements and unshared elements • Significantly higher accuracy on shared elements compared with unshared elements, demonstrating interaction between the two languages (Fabiano, 2006;; Fabiano & Goldstein 2004a, 2004b) • The phonological pattern analysis should take into consideration that the type and frequency of phonological patterns vary across languages (Goldstein & Washington, 2001).
Keep in mind • Speech samples not parallel across the two languages (Goldstein, Fabiano, & Washington, 2005) • Developmental trajectories and structure may be different for each language, so the order of acquisition and phonological patterns will differ.
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Language • Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA - Semantic/Morphosyntax subtests) • Clinic Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4th Edition - Spanish (CELF-4) • Clinic Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool Second Edition (CELF-P2) • Preschool Language Scale-5th Edition Spanish (PLS-5) • Spanish Language Assessment Procedures (SLAP) • Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody (TVIP) • Test of Early Language Development 3rd Edition Spanish (TELD-3:S) • Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish-Bilingual Edition (EOWPVT) • Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish-Bilingual Edition (ROWPVT)
BESA - Semantics/Morphosyntax Subtests Age: 4;;0-6;;11 Strengths •
Good norm size (76-258 participants per group) •
• • •
Large sample size (n = 756)
Good sensitivity (88.9-96.0) & fair specificity (84.9-92.4) ITALK/BIOS Considers child’s best language in each domain
Weaknesses • Cannot derive separate receptive/expressive scores that parallel ICD-10 codes (F80.1 Expressive language disorder and F80.2 Receptive language disorder) • Appropriate for only a small age range Score: Excellent 23/23
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4- Spanish Edition (CELF-4 Spanish)
• Age: 5-21;;11 Strengths • Fair norms (50-80 participants per age group) • Good sensitivity (.96), fair specificity (.87)
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4- Spanish Edition (CELF-4 Spanish) Weaknesses • Included impaired populations • Include monolingual populations • Test-retest reliability below .9 • Takes a long time to administer – especially following directions subtest. • Can only derive/report Spanish score
Score: Good (19/23)
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool 2- Spanish Edition Age: 5;;0-6;;11 Strengths • Fair sensitivity (.85), fair specificity (.82) Weaknesses • Bilingual population defined as: English as the primary language +another language (including Spanish, Asian languages, Tagalog, German, etc.) • Spanish-speaking bilingual children make up less than half of the normative sample (42%) • Includes atypically developing children (13% of sample) • Can only derive/report Score: Good (20/23) Spanish score
Preschool Language Scales-5th Edition Age: Birth-7;;11 Strengths • Fair sensitivity (.85), fair specificity (.88) • Dual language scoring Weaknesses • Discrepancies between descriptions of language profile of norming population • one part of the manual “primary language is English” another “primarily Spanish-speaking children (whose home language is Spanish)” • Administration-constant change of stimuli • Low correlation between PLS-5 and CELF-P2 (.53) Score: Good (19/23)
Testing Outcomes L1
L2
Diagnostic Profile TD TD TD LI
Suggestions • Language sample • Differentiate between a language disorder and a language
difference (Gutierrez-Clellen, Restrepo, & Bedore, 2000;; Langdon, 1989) • More naturalistic
• SALT program databases for Spanish–English bilinguals and African American English-speaking children
Suggestions • Parent concern • One of the most reliable identifiers of language impairments in bilingual children • Parents are not always able to adequately describe their concerns when asked open ended questions (Patterson, 1998, 2000;; Restrepo, 1998;; Thal, Jackson- Maldonado, & Acosta, 2000)
Suggestions • Dynamic Assessment (DA) • Method that seeks to identify the skills that an individual child possesses as well as their learning potential • Emphasizes the learning process and accounts for the amount and nature of examiner investment. • Highly interactive • Process-oriented • Relates directly to intervention (Pena & Quinn 1992) • Test - Teach - Retest method
Suggestions - Pragmatics • Double interview (not normed) - Michelle Garcia Winner • Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV) • Pragmatics Domain • Role-taking • Short narrative • Question asking • BESA - Pragmatics subtest (not-normed)
Keep in mind • Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) • Nonliteral Language • Pragmatic Judgement • Idiomatic Judgement
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Stuttering Severity Instrument (SSI-4) •
Evaluates: • • • •
Frequency Duration Secondary behaviors Naturalness of speech
Overall Assessment of the Speaker’s Experience of Stuttering (OASES) • • •
Self-report Frequency and type of stuttering events Impact of stuttering in multiple life situations
Communication Attitude Test for Preschool & Kindergarten Children who stutter (KiddyCAT) •
Self-report • Yes/No questions
•
Children under 6
Bilingual stuttering • Assessed in both languages to observe whether stuttering occurs in both (Finn & Cordes, 1997) ● Differences in fluency may be due to: ○ social context (Foote, 2013) ○ level of development of each language spoken
Bilingual stuttering ● Moments of stuttering or disfluency may be difficult to differentiate from typical disfluency ○ code switching ○ wording changes in order to maintain the grammatical integrity of the dominant language ○ word-finding problems
● Parents can provide perceptual ratings of fluency (Shenker, 2013)
Keep in mind • 3% and 10% dysfluencies (may not apply to bilinguals) • Conduct fluency counts in different environments • Secondary behaviors (quality over quantity)
• Emotional impact
Outline • Guidelines • Background • Challenges • Purpose • Types of assessment • Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria
• Framework • Articulation • Language • Fluency • Case Studies
Case Study- Pablo
Age: 5;;2 Language history: speaks and listens to mostly Spanish at home. His parents have low English proficiency, though he has a 9 year-old sister who speaks English to him. He attends an English-only instruction Kindergarten at school because his parents want him to learn English as soon as possible. Media output tends to be in English (e.g. cartoons, games, etc.). Parent & teacher concerns: Mom’s reports that Pablo’s language skills are below his cousin Johanna’s skills. She notices this mostly when they visit her family in Mexico. She reports he knows a lot less words than her and often has to repeat her directions to him. She is worried they are confusing him by making him learn 2 languages and wonder if they need to learn English themselves. Teacher corroborates parents’ concerns. He reports Pablo is often looking to his peers to figure out what he needs to do because he doesn’t follow his directions. He has noticed his sentences are not as long or complex as his peers’ and he lags in terms of vocabulary size, reading, math, etc.
Case Study - Kim Age: 6;;0 Language History: Speaks Vietnamese at home and has been attending an English-only school for 6 months. Parent & teacher concerns: Kim is having difficulty in producing certain sounds including /d/, /g/, and /v/. It’s hard to understand Kim in English and has difficulty with longer words.
Where do I start? •
What sounds exist in each language? Which sounds are shared? • phonemic inventory • create a venn diagram
Where do I start? •
What sounds exist in each language? Which sounds are shared? • phonemic inventory • create a venn diagram
•
How are the sounds put into words? What are the phonotactics of the language?
Case Study- Roberto Age: 8;;5 Language History: He attends a dual language program and is in 3rd grade. He speaks mostly Spanish (Cuban dialect) at home. Parent and Teacher concerns: Teacher has noticed “stuttering” behavior mostly in English and has noticed he speaks at a faster pace than his peers. Mother doesn’t report any concern with excessively repeating sounds and syllables but she has noticed he frequently rephrases his words and sentences. During a brief observation at the library, you didn’t notice any secondary behaviors.
Take Aways • When looking at a diagnostic test it is most important to look at
sensitivity/specificity.
• Consider the implications when children with impairment are
included in the norming sample.
• When children are bilingual, find appropriate test(s) in both
languages to get a complete picture of full abilities.
• Take advantage of informal measures including;; spontaneous
samples, and parent/teacher concern.
References American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2008). 2008 Schools Survey summary report. Rockville, MD: Author. Bedore, L., & Peña, E. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11, 1–29. Bedore, L. M., Pena, E. D., Summers, C. L., Boerger, K. M., Resendiz, M. D., Greene, K., ... & Gillam, R. B. (2012). The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 15(03), 616-629. Caesar, L.G., & Kohler, P.D. (2007). The state of school-based bilingual assessment: Actual practice versus recommended guidelines. Language Speech Hearing Services in the Schools, 38, 190-200. Dollaghan, C. A. (2004). Evidence-based practice in communication disorders: What do we know, and when do we know it?. Journal of Communication Disorders, 37, 391-400. Fabiano, L. (2006). Phonological representation in Spanish-English bilingual children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA. Fabiano, L. & Goldstein, B. (2004a, May). Phonological representation in simultaneous and sequential bilingual Spanish-English speaking children. Seminar presented at the Child Phonology Conference. Tempe, Arizona. Fabiano, L. & Goldstein, B. (2004b, June). Phonological representation in simultaneous bilingual Spanish-English speaking children: Two case studies. Poster presented at the Symposium of Research on Child Language Disorders (SRCLD). Madison, Wisconsin. Goldstein, B., & Iglesias, A. (2001). The effect of dialect on phonological analysis: Evidence from Spanish-speaking children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 394–406. Goldstein, B. & Washington, P. (2001). An initial investigation of phonological patterns in 4-year-old typically developing Spanish-English bilingual children. Language, Speech, & Hearing Services in Schools, 32, 153–164.
References (continued) Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., Restrepo, M. A., Bedore, L. M. (2000). Language sample analysis in Spanish-speaking children: Methodological considerations. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 88–98. Jackson-Maldonado, D. (1999). Early language assessment for Spanish-speaking children. Bilingual Review, 24, 35–53. Kayser, H. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Spanish–English speaking children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 18, 357–363. Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43, 465–473. Langdon, H. W. (1989). Language disorder or difference? Assessing the skills of Hispanic students. Exceptional Children, 56, 160–167. McCauley, R. J., & Swisher, L. (1984). Psychometric review of language and articulation tests for preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 34-42. McLeod, S., & Verdon, S. (2014). A review of 30 speech assessments in 19 languages other than English. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 708-723. Patterson, J. L. (1998). Expressive vocabulary development and word combinations of Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 46–52. Patterson, J. L. (2000). Observed and reported expressive vocabulary and word combinations in bilingual toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 121–128. Pray, L. (2003). An analysis of language assessments used in the referral and placement of language minority students into special education (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University, 2003). Digital Dissertations (UMI #3084700). Restrepo, M. A. (1998). Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1398–1411. Thal, D., Jackson-Maldonado, D., Acosta, D. (2000). Validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and grammar for Spanish-speaking toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 87–101.
