Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment"— Presentation transcript:

1 Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment
CDL Consortium Opportunity for ELL and Special Education to Intersect as a Collective Body Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment Lynnette Padilla, MA, CCC-SLP Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP


3 OBJECTIVES Present current trends in bilingual assessment
Address language disorder vs. language difference Present methods for establishing language dominance Discuss assessment with interpreters/ELL teachers

4 MONOLINGUAL SLPs More clearly define the role of a monolingual SLP in a bilingual assessment -Monolingual SLP role working with a bilingual SLP -Monolingual role working with an interpreter/ ELL teacher

5 BILINGUAL SLPs Share your own resources and procedures Learn more about other approaches

6 BASIC OUTLINE Present two recent articles published in the area of bilingual assessment Go over basic components of bilingual assessment process Present case study #1 Present case study #2 (if time permits) Share bilingual resources Question and answer time with panel of bilingual SLPs

CONCEPTUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a response regardless of the language in which it is produced (Pearson et al. 1993) MONOLINGUAL SCORING- scoring the meaning of a response based on the language in which it is produced

Historical approach to bilingual assessment was a) Test the student in his/her dominant language b) Monolingual SLP tests in English, bilingual SLP tests in Spanish

Limitations to historical approach Some but not all vocabulary overlaps across languages Even typically developing bilinguals may present as delayed in both languages in earlier stages (under age 5)

Limitations to historical approach Total knowledge of bilinguals in a single language is not comparable to monolinguals Code switching is used to add knowledge Vocabulary is influenced by frequency of exposure to specific words and context


Two studies on the semantic skills of typically developing (TD) bilingual children STUDY 1- To what extent do bilingual children produce overlapping responses? STUDY 2- Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results?

STUDY 1 -55 TD bilingual children (4;0-7;11) 11 primarily English (PE)- 80% or more 7 bilingual English (BE) 13 bilingual Spanish (BS) % 24 primarily Spanish (PS)

Naming characteristic properties of familiar items (different items in S + E), expressive and receptive Same concepts were targeted (object shapes, colors, sizes, functions) but with different questions ex: describe a school bus/dime como es un camion/troca

Item content taken from concepts familiar to preschool children as indicated by teacher-child interaction data collected in bilingual preschool Literature review on language development and cultural relevance in each language

Three sets of scores generated Monolingual Score: English question + Correct English response= 1 point Total Response Score: English question + correct English response + correct Spanish response= 2 points Conceptual Score: English question + correct Spanish or English response= 1 point

Study 1 Results Only significant differences between total and conceptual scores for the BE children on Spanish subtest Lower variability in conceptual score than total score PS, BS, BE groups: Monolingual scores moderately lower than total/conceptual scores -total/conceptual scores were not significantly different than monolingual scores

Study 1 Results Children produce more vocabulary in dominant language Even PE and PS students knew vocabulary in non- dominant language TD children from bilingual backgrounds likely to produce unique vocabulary (based on environmental demands in each language)

STUDY 2 Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results? Naming characteristic properties of familiar items (Phase 2 of Study 1 items) 40 TD bilingual children (5;0-6;1) age/lang background closely matched Study 1 participants

Expressive items from semantic subtest -characteristic properties, functions, analogies, linguistic concepts, similarities and differences, comprehension of passages Example: Functions -What do you do with scissors? -Spanish (What do you do with a bat?)

Study 2 For Spanish-speaking bilinguals, conceptual score more likely to be in average range than monolingual For testing in English, monolingual and conceptual scores were similar BS and BE group provided more responses in English during Spanish subtest than Spanish items during English subtest

Study 2 Results: Table 4. Percentage of participants who were accurately classified as typically developing when primarily Spanish- or primarily English-speaking children’s average monolingual score was used to set the cutoff. Spanish conceptual Score Spanish monolingual score English conceptual score English monolingual score BS 80 70 90 BE 50 100

Bilinguals will benefit from conceptual scoring Results from translated tests (CELF 4 Spanish) must be carefully considered (children may consider these requests for new info, may not display overlapping knowledge) All students (even PE + PS) likely to have some unique skills in their non-dominant language

Allowing (and encouraging if necessary) children to code switch facilitates use of full range of vocabulary * to do this effectively, children must be aware that administrator is bilingual To what extent are cutoff points (e.g., -1.5 SD, -2SD) useful tools for determination of eligibility with bilingual children? Further studies needed to establish normative data on conceptual scoring

Limitations to Study Relatively small sample size Only assessed vocabulary development Restricted to typically developing children Presents a testing approach for which valid/reliable tools are rare/may not exist

26 BESA- Bilingual English Spanish Assessment
Three subtests (in both Spanish and English) to address morphosyntax, semantics, and phonology The test norms were derived using data from over 600 bilingual children living in the US including 16 dialects Normed for children (ages 4 years, 0 months through 6 years, 11 months) who have varying levels of Spanish-English bilingualism

27 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
ARTICLE INFORMATION Lexical Diversity and Omission Errors as Predictors of Language Ability in the Narratives of Sequential Spanish–English Bilinguals: A Cross-Language Comparison Peggy F. Jacobsona and Patrick R. Waldena American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 22 • 554–565 • August 2013

28 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF STUDY This study explored the utility of two commonly employed (Language Sample Analysis)LSA measures in English and Spanish during a standard narrative retell task.

29 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
Second LSA measure: the total number of word and morpheme omission errors First LSA measure: lexical diversity, determined by calculating the number of different words (NDW) and the D statistic.

30 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
ABILITY VS. PROFICIENCY Ability refers to a child’s individual capability for learning language, whereas proficiency indicates a child’s relative attainment of each language. Proficiency improves over time, but ability shapes the rate and extent of growth in proficiency. Part of bilingual assessment: separating ability from proficiency.

31 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
BILINGUAL LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENT Consistent with linguistic and processing deficits, children with BLI perform lower on behavioral language measures relative to other bilingual children having similar amounts of exposure to the language in question. Moreover, children with BLI exhibit slower rates of vocabulary acquisition and higher rates of grammatical errors and are likely to experience persistent academically related language difficulties (Peña & Bedore, 2009).

32 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
INFORMATION ABOUT LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Generally, bilinguals do not receive equal amounts of input in each language. Semantic development is driven more by input. Alternatively, morphosyntactic development is driven by a combination of input (exposure) and output (language use). Language experience corresponds, in part, to the type of bilingualism (Simultaneous vs. Sequential)

33 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
PARTICIPANTS IN THE STUDY 48 children, 26 Typically Developing (TD) and 22 with BLI The overwhelming majority (46/48, 96%) were early sequential bilinguals. Estimates of relative language proficiency were obtained using the Woodcock Munoz Language Survey (WMLS) in English and Spanish.

34 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
HOW DATA WAS COLLECTED Language samples were collected in Spanish and English Lexical diversity was calculated two ways: NDW (Number of Different Words) and the use of the D statistic Grammatical errors counted were omissions of single words and bound morphemes across languages. Description of D Statistic: As the length of the sample grows, the probability of introducing new words increases. Thus, to control for corpus length, D calculates a type-token ratio (TTR) over a range of tokens. Generally, the higher the D statistic, the higher lexical diversity is interpreted to be. Calculation of D is a newer technique that is claimed to be a more robust measure of children’s lexical diversity compared to the traditional TTR or NDW (Owen & Leonard, 2002).

35 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013)
RESULTS The omission of words and bound morphemes was found to be the best predictor of impairment across languages and age levels. Lexical diversity was not the best predictor of language ability. Most common omission errors: English (regular past tense –ed) Spanish (clitic pronouns, articles, and third person plural verb inflection –n (e.g., está for están)

36 ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY (Jacobsona and Waldena, 2013
QUESTIONS ASKED IN THE STUDY Do lexical diversity measures and omission errors predict BLI? Is there an advantage for using the newer D statistic over the standard NDW measure to estimate lexical diversity? How are lexical diversity and the number of omission errors tied to oral language proficiency?

37 ABILITY AND PROFICIENCY (Jacobsona and Waldera, 2013)
CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS Language Sample Analysis is a valuable tool in bilingual assessment. Measures for this study can be readily applied to other languages.

-Comment/concern from school provider/ administrator -Comment/concern from parent -Classroom observation -Other??

39 ASSESSMENT PROCESS I. Classroom observation
B) Screening I. Classroom observation II. Screening tool- formal or informal III. Language sample IV. Informal conversation with teacher

40 ASSESSMENT PROCESS I. Demographic Info II. Parent Interview
C) Referral I. Demographic Info II. Parent Interview -languages at home, literacy level of parents, home activities, developmental history, health information III. Language Proficiency -ELL teacher report, ACCESS/CELA scores, supports provided

41 ASSESSMENT PROCESS IV. Education history
C) Referral (ct’d.) IV. Education history -history in/out of district, interventions, language of instruction, ESL supports V. Educational team members -names, titles, and contact info

42 C) Referral Adams 12 Referral Form Aurora Referral Form

43 ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation *Establishment of dominant language
-Parent report -School provider report -Informal pre-assessment -other options: language proficiency screening (Student Oral Language Observation Matrix), recess/lunch observation

44 ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation *Establishment of dominant language
-ASK THE STUDENT! -Woodcock Munoz Language Survey -Different types of language dominance: receptive vs expressive

45 ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation I. “Standardized” Assessment
II. Language Sample -language sample sentence length, grammar skills, vocabulary, amount and type of code-switching, length of sample, organization, overall level of comfort III. Classroom observation

IV. Student Records- CELA, ACCESS, grades, incident reports, etc. V. Gathering of additional information if necessary- parent report, school provider report, additional testing, additional observation

47 ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores
IDEA guidelines: use a variety of measures and tools, and do not rely on any single measure Limitations of standardized tests that are in other languages and/or norm-referenced on individuals who speak a language other than English: - linguistic and cultural biases - standardization samples do not take education levels, acculturation levels, background experiences, bilingual abilities, or dialect differences into account

48 ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores
Students who are not reflected in the normative group for the test’s standardization sample: test scores are invalid Formal tests may be administered informally to gather more information about the student’s language abilities, but the scores are invalid - rewording, providing additional prompts, repeating items, asking student to explain incorrect answers - conceptual scoring

49 ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation: Reporting Standard Scores
Many scores should not be reported All scores should be interpreted with caution Example statements

50 ASSESSMENT PROCESS Colorado Severity Rating Scales
Appendix discusses use with CLD students Can be used as additional data point in body of evidence -should not be overemphasized or used alone Must be used in collaboration with ELD teacher

51 Example statement #1: This evaluator has arrived at the conclusion that XXX difficulties in XXX are not primarily due to a lack of English proficiency or other cultural factors. XXX's speech and language skills must be considered within the context of XXX status as an English language learner. Though XXX communicated primarily in XXX, XXX did also demonstrate language skills in XXX. This evaluator has carefully considered these factors (as well as parent and teacher report, therapist observation, standardized assessment results, and a language sample) in determining XXX eligibility for special education services. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Fourth Edition (CELF 4) Spanish Edition was used to evaluate XXX language skills. The CELF 4 Spanish Edition is standardized for Spanish-language administration; however, so as to best account for XXX overall language skills, this evaluation was completed under the principles of conceptual scoring. Therefore, items were presented in both languages, and responses were accepted in both languages. For these reasons, standard scores are not reported. The results are considered to be an accurate reflection of XXX overall communication skills.

52 Example Statement #2 XXX's speech and language skills must be considered within the context of XXX status as an English language learner. Though XXX communicated primarily in XXX, XXX did also demonstrate language skills in XXX. This evaluator has carefully considered these factors (as well as parent and teacher report, therapist observation, standardized assessment results, and a language sample) in determining XXX eligibility for special education services. The Preschool Language Scales Fifth Edition (PLS 5) Spanish Edition was used to evaluate XXX's speech and language skills. The test is standardized for administration in both XXX and XXX. For this reason, items were presented in each language and XXX responded in each language. The results are considered to be an accurate reflection of XXX overall communication skills. Eric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP, XXX.

53 ASSESSMENT PROCESS E) Determination of Eligibility

I. Previewing information with the interpreter II. Confirm that observations of language dominance/overall performance is consistent with what is happening at home

55 ASSESSMENT PROCESS G) Guidelines for working with an interpreter when assessing a student in another language: slideshow presentation from Teresa Gillespie at DPS ( I. Meeting before the assessment (briefing) II. During the assessment III. After the assessment (debriefing) IV. Report of evaluation results with the use of an interpreter V. Helpful suggestions VI. Resources

56 ASSESSMENT PROCESS Speech Assessment
Phonemes develop similarly in each language Varying phonotactics create most speech difficulties Generally speaking, speech sound production impairments/delays will be present in both languages Observation and language sample are effective for evaluating intelligibility

Contextual Probes of Articulation Competence-Spanish Edition (CPAC-S) -Norm-referenced 3:0-8:11 WHEN IN DOUBT, ASSESS!!

58 CASE STUDY #1 I. Pre-screen and screening EMAIL #1 Lead SLP,
Kate suggested that I you about this student - Joe(Freshman) who has an eligibility review on 10/8. He states that he thinks in both Spanish and English (doesn't have to translate much). Very slow to answer questions in English and answers are very abbreviated. When asked an open ended question, does not supply specific information. The 2010 ER does not have testing data to support his decreased fluency/verbal output in English conversation. The 2010 ER did give him 160 minutes with the LS and/or SLP with goals in academics - none in speech.

59 #1 Ct’d. Following AR the SLP was removed from services. His grades are probably reflecting a lot of hard work and concerted effort on his part - working at his highest level. He has C's. He reports that French is the hardest. Kate, Jane, and I question his placement in this class. He is labeled as ELL. He doesn't really know what he wants to do after HS but I talked to him about a career in sports where he decided he would like to work for a team taking care of equipment. Parents: Dad works in carpet and is bilingual. Mom takes care of youngest sibling (age 1) and is trying to learn English. ***We'll need an interpreter for the IEP. He stated that he needs lots of help with spelling in both English and Spanish. Doesn't really have hobbies - plays video games (sports) and sports outside.

60 #1 Ct’d. So my questions are: What happened with the scars on his head? I did find out that he has a history of a benign neoplasm (brain surgery) - no date. Does he have a history of brain injury as a result of the surgery? Should he be tested "bilingual testing for SL eligibility? I think he is low in both languages but since I don't speak Spanish, not sure. Is there a waiting list to get bilingual testing at XHS and from my information, should this be explored? Thanks for your help – SLP #1

61 #2 SLP #1, You can contact Eric Schliemann, our bilingual SLP, to receive consultation and potential testing in Spanish for this student! Sounds complex! Lead SLP #3 Eric, Wanted to let you know that my time as sub is over Monday the 28th.  SLP #2 will be the FT SLP at XHS.  So please follow up with her on Joe’s referral for Bilingual testing. SLP #1

62 #4 Hi SLP, I did receive the referral packet for Joe.  Thank you for sending it.  At this point, it looks like the IEP has been completed so I am not sure how the Bilingual Consultation Team can be of assistance to you.  Please let us know! Eric #5 Hey Eric,  The team had the IEP meeting, but did not give Speech services, because we need more information to determine if there is a need.  The idea is that once the bilingual information/testing is completed, we will then have another meeting with the family and add speech services at that time through an amendment process, should this be needed.  If you have any additional questions, just let me know. Thanks! SLP #2

63 II. Referral Form/Information A) Parent Interview

64 II. Referral Form/ Information
B) Referral Form




68 II. Referral Form/ Information C. ACCESS/ CELA Scores
OVERALL PROFICIENCY 07-08 1 08-09 2 09-10 10-11 3 11-12

69 II. Referral Form/ Information C. ACCESS/ CELA Scores
ACCESS SCORES Listening 2.9 Speaking 6.0 Oral Language 4.4 Overall Language

70 III. Evaluation Results Receptive Language- 77 Expressive Language- 85
A. CELF 4 Spanish Edition Results Receptive Language- 77 Expressive Language- 85

71 III. Evaluation B. Language Sample In Spanish: The boy is fishing. The boy trapped a fish. He tried to get it out but he couldn’t. He thought it was a fish but it was a turtle. In English: The kid tries to get the turtle away from the dog. The turtle tries to chase. The leave to a safe place where they were before…the kid’s mad at the dog ‘cause the turtle dies…the frog is on top of the turtle and the dog’s happy.

72 IV. Additional Evaluation Information
A. CELF Teacher Rating Form



75 IV. Additional Evaluation Information
B. Teacher Report Teacher #1 Joe has quite a bit of difficulty following multiple step directions. He is unable to follow multiple steps without repeat and clarification. Understanding new ideas is the same. He understands simple concepts, but struggles with higher level thinking. Hope that makes sense. Joe can follow directions after a routine has been established. New directions and directions with multiple steps he struggles with. He appears to be progressing somewhat slower than his peers. Teacher #2 No concerns but he is in a class with three teachers.  We have a 1 to 6 ratio and that might be the difference.

76 IV. Additional Evaluation Information C. School-Based SLP Report
Limited interactions with student Not particularly outgoing English language skills appear slightly low though within functional limits

77 IV. Additional Evaluation Information
D. Bilingual Psych Report Report on Cognitive Testing results: I don’t think I will give him a Spanish language evaluation because the school psych gave him the KABC and he did okay.  He was quite low on working memory and a little low on long-term. Reasoning and visual processing is within the average range. He seems like a kid with the profile of a student with a learning disability.

78 IV. Additional Evaluation Information
E. Bilingual SLP Observation Used social language to interact with peers Limited participation in classroom discussion Responded to one teacher question with a complete sentence

79 V. Additional “Standardized” Testing
Results Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish Edition- 107 (for highest age range- 12) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition- 93

80 CASE STUDY #2 Background information: 4th grade student
Initial evaluation Lived and went to school in Mexico in kindergarten and first grade, has been in APS since second grade Parents sent him to US to live with his grandma Behavior issues due to separation from his parents Received interventions through RTI for reading and behavior since third grade, math since fourth grade

81 Language Proficiency:
CASE STUDY #2 Language Proficiency: Spanish is primary language spoken at home, but has an uncle and cousins that speak some English to him Student has been exposed to English for only 2.5 years His grandma reported that he uses more Spanish at home; student reported that he felt he was stronger in English 2nd grade CELA: Speaking-EI, Listening-B 3rd grade ACCESS: Speaking-2.5, Listening-2.9

82 CASE STUDY #2 Additional information:
On the referral form, the referring teacher said that his growth in English was behind his other ELL peers. During a cultural interview with the student’s grandma, she did not indicate any concerns with his communication abilities in Spanish at home.

83 CELF-4 Spanish results:
CASE STUDY #2 Evaluation results Tested in English by school SLP, tested in Spanish by district bilingual SLP CELF-4 Spanish results: - Core language score 83 (interpret with caution) - Strengths: repeating sentences, word classes, formulating sentences - Weaknesses: concepts and following directions, expressive vocabulary, and understanding paragraphs (did better with this in English

84 CASE STUDY #2 Evaluation results, ct’d. Language sample:
- simple, complete sentences with correct grammar - able to explain how to do something in sequence - used past tense to tell a story about pictures - needed prompting to give more details and information - able to answer inference questions Articulation: substituted j/rr, but completely intelligible in spontaneous speech

85 CASE STUDY #2 Analysis and Conclusions Spanish dominant
Demonstrated basic, foundational language skills in Spanish Weaknesses in expressive vocabulary and following directions with concepts – due to underlying language disorder, or lack of exposure to these words/concepts? Decision at IEP meeting: did not qualify for SLI at this time; language skills should be re-evaluated again in 1-2 years.

86 BILINGUAL SLP Q & A Share bilingual resources Question and Answer

87 RESOURCES Bilingual SLP Providers Group: ( providers) Colorín Colorado ( 2 Languages 2 Worlds ( ASHA position ( Bilingual Therapies (

88 RESOURCES Bilinguistics (
The Speech Stop ( Omniglot (online encyclopedia of writing systems and languages: Phonetic inventories ( projects/multicultural/Phono.html)

89 RESOURCES Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Consortium (contact Julie Ignacz at Colorado Bilingual Mental Health Network - contact Cameran: - website: co-bilingual-school-psychologists/home Speak Colors Spanish Language app for iPads

90 RESOURCES Teresa Gillespie from Denver Public Schools (teresa- Adams 12 Bilingual Consultation Team ( Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Toolkit provided through CDE ( Colorado Severity Rating Scale ( nes_0.pdf)

91 QUESTIONS? US! Lynette- Eric-

Download ppt "Bilingual Speech- Language Assessment"

Similar presentations

Ads by Google