Presentation on theme: "Assessing children with Language Impairments using Dynamic Assessments Dr Natalie Hasson City University July 2012."— Presentation transcript:
Assessing children with Language Impairments using Dynamic Assessments Dr Natalie Hasson City University July 2012
Why should SLTs use Dynamic Assessments? Because- Static formal tests are not always reliable or representative of a child’s performance It is not always naturalistic, comfortable or helpful to test without giving feedback
And.. Static tests are not standardised for children with EAL, ASD, ADHD, Hearing Impairment etc etc You might need a whole battery of tests (or at least a multi-subtest test) to get a complete picture And then still not have ideas for what to do in therapy
Differentiate SLI children from those achieving poor language scores for other reasons e.g. EAL Why is the child doing poorly on the language test? You might be able to..
And.. Standardize and possibly quantify methods for measuring responsiveness to language learning in the individual child Which children would benefit the most quickly from intervention or from the least amount of intervention? Identify which types of intervention benefit a particular child Which cues or facilitations really help the child?
BUT.. Procedures for the dynamic assessment of language are still few and in the experimental stages of development So – develop your own!
How do you carry out a Dynamic assessment ? Two main methods- - Test – teach - retest - Graduated Prompts BUT- Do NOT ‘dynamize’ or teach a standardized test
Test – Teach - Retest Testing may be standardized, or static and use the same task for both test and re-test Teach phase should not teach the test but should concentrate on developing strategies for problem solving, teaching content and rules, and giving feedback Post test evaluates the transfer of this learning to the original task
Clinical Applications of DA Main advocate - Feuerstein Clinical applications usually use test- teach-retest Use mediation in teach phase to scaffold learning and facilitate transfer Mediation is individualised for each child
Example Pre and post-test RAPT Practice materials – parallel structures, new pictures
What has been done to the dog?
Child PromptResponses – A1=first response, A2/ A3 =best response RMI Level RWhat has been done to the dog? A1: He’s wearing mother’s suit A2; The dog is wearing a coat because he’s cold A3: Someone, someone put the coat on the dog ‘cos he’s cold 5454 MWhat has been done to the dog? A1: He does put a scarf on A2: Somebody put a scarf on him (imit) 1010 LWhat has been done to the dog? A1: The dog put your blanket on his neck A2; Somebody -- put- the blanket in his neck 1
Example (Hasson and Botting 2010) Pre and post test - ‘Sentence Assembly’ subtest of the CELF-3 Child was asked to rearrange a series of words into 2 different sentences Training phase - 48 items devised, arranged according to grammatical structures, allowing a few items of increasing length of complexity within each grammatical structure
RESULTS Pre-Post tests
Graduated prompting Need to construct a hierarchy of facilitative cues from least supportive to most Start with giving the child the smallest amount of support for him to achieve the task Record the number of cues that enabled the child to succeed Give feedback and encourage the child to reflect on what he has done
Graded prompts Utilize pre-determined hierarchy of prompts (may be delivered by computer) Enables quantitative measure ie.number of prompts required Standardized and therefore replicable and reliable procedure
A Hybrid design Graduated prompts but with detailed training at each level Record and describe the nature and intensity of the cues required by the child Enables quantitative scoring by number of cues required AND Qualitative information about learning needs of the individual
The DASS (Hasson, Dodd and Botting 2012) Task – based on Sentence Assembly subtest of the CELF-3(UK), but with new materials – require 2 sentences to be constructed Items controlled for grammatical structure tapping those known to be difficult for children with SLI eg. Questions, reversible structures, datives.
The DASS Prompts are delivered hierarchically, from least to most directive 5 levels of prompts Individualised scaffolding (mediation) is allowed at each level of prompting – as and when required by the individual child
Prompt Levels 1.Child formulates sentence spontaneously without prompting 2.Child prompted to draw on previous knowledge or experience 3.Child given cues to find strategies or problem solve 4.Task broken down into parts 5.Child given item specific feedback and instruction
Watch the video- Which level of prompting is this? What qualitative information does it give you about the child’s language and learning?
After solving the item.. When a correct solution is presented, Child is prompted for a reflective response 1. judgement of grammaticality and sense 2. evaluation by the child of own strategies and level of difficulty he experienced. Enabled informal assessment of child’s metalinguistic knowledge and metacognitive awareness Improves generalization and facilitates metacognitive development
Scoring No of prompts required (out of 5) for each sentence Total prompts No of each level of prompts Inter-rater reliability between experimenter and independent SLT - Spearman's Coefficient rs =.874**, p<0.01
Interpretation of the DASS Qualitative data re: Grammatical structures, Effect of sentence length Strategy use Transfer of learning Metalinguistic knowledge Metacognitive awareness
The Trial Participants 24 children with primary LI Aged 8-10 Currently getting therapy in resource base or special school Within Normal IQ on Ravens CPM No ADHD on SDQ Below 1.25 SD on CELF-3(UK)
Differentiation between participants CELF-3(UK) Standard scores 20 out of the 24 children at least 2.5 SD below the mean for age, i.e. std score of 3; = < 1 st percentile. DASS (possible range ) Mean and standard deviation of 20.72
Results Correlation between DASS and CELF DA score and CELF-3 raw scores Spearman Correlation coefficient rs = * p =.017 Approximately half of the variance of the DA scores is related to ability on the language task itself
Research has shown… That DA can reliably differentiate between EAL children with SLI and typically developing EAL children That DA can predict readiness for change in preschoolers with language delay That DA can differentiate potential to learn in a population of children with SLI
So - DA might be able to.. Help you plan your service delivery – how much time to allocate Prioritize clients on your caseload Reduce time spent in assessment and trial therapy Improve outcomes
PS. DA has also been shown to be useful with adults especially with TBI and schizophrenia Is highly applicable to cognitive difficulties in clients of all ages Is excellent for addressing executive function