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 BodyBilingual Speech-Language AssessmentLynnette Padilla, MA, CCC-SLPEric Schliemann, MA, CF-SLP
3 OBJECTIVES Present current trends in bilingual assessment Address language disorder vs. language differencePresent methods for establishing language dominanceDiscuss assessment with interpreters/ELL teachers
4 MONOLINGUAL SLPsMore 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 SLPsShare your own resources and proceduresLearn more about other approaches
6 BASIC OUTLINEPresent two recent articles published in the area of bilingual assessmentGo over basic components of bilingual assessment processPresent case study #1Present case study #2 (if time permits)Share bilingual resourcesQuestion and answer time with panel of bilingual SLPs
7 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) 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
8 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Historical approach to bilingual assessment wasa) Test the student in his/her dominant languageb) Monolingual SLP tests in English, bilingual SLP tests in Spanish
9 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Limitations to historical approachSome but not all vocabulary overlaps across languagesEven typically developing bilinguals may present as delayed in both languages in earlier stages(under age 5)
10 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Limitations to historical approachTotal knowledge of bilinguals in a single language is not comparable to monolingualsCode switching is used to add knowledgeVocabulary is influenced by frequency of exposure to specific words and context
12 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Two studies on the semantic skills of typically developing (TD) bilingual childrenSTUDY 1- To what extent do bilingual children produce overlapping responses?STUDY 2- Does conceptual scoring yield more valid results?
13 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) STUDY 1-55 TD bilingual children (4;0-7;11)11 primarily English (PE)- 80% or more7 bilingual English (BE)13 bilingual Spanish (BS) %24 primarily Spanish (PS)
14 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Naming characteristic properties of familiar items (different items in S + E), expressive and receptiveSame concepts were targeted (object shapes, colors, sizes, functions) but with different questionsex: describe a school bus/dime como es un camion/troca
15 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Item content taken from concepts familiar to preschool children as indicated by teacher-child interaction data collected in bilingual preschoolLiterature review on language development and cultural relevance in each language
16 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Three sets of scores generatedMonolingual Score: English question + Correct English response= 1 pointTotal Response Score: English question + correct English response + correct Spanish response= 2 pointsConceptual Score: English question + correct Spanish or English response= 1 point
17 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Study 1 ResultsOnly significant differences between total and conceptual scores for the BE children on Spanish subtestLower variability in conceptual score than total scorePS, BS, BE groups: Monolingual scores moderately lower than total/conceptual scores-total/conceptual scores were not significantly different than monolingual scores
18 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Study 1 ResultsChildren produce more vocabulary in dominant languageEven PE and PS students knew vocabulary in non- dominant languageTD children from bilingual backgrounds likely to produce unique vocabulary (based on environmental demands in each language)
19 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) STUDY 2Does 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
20 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Expressive items from semantic subtest-characteristic properties, functions, analogies, linguistic concepts, similarities and differences, comprehension of passagesExample: Functions-What do you do with scissors?-Spanish (What do you do with a bat?)
21 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Study 2For Spanish-speaking bilinguals, conceptual score more likely to be in average range than monolingualFor testing in English, monolingual and conceptual scores were similarBS and BE group provided more responses in English during Spanish subtest than Spanish items during English subtest
22 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) 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 ScoreSpanish monolingual scoreEnglish conceptual scoreEnglish monolingual scoreBS807090BE50100
23 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Bilinguals will benefit from conceptual scoringResults 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
24 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) 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 bilingualTo 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
25 CONCEPTUAL vs MONOLINGUAL SCORING (Bedore, et al 2005) Limitations to StudyRelatively small sample sizeOnly assessed vocabulary developmentRestricted to typically developing childrenPresents 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 phonologyThe test norms were derived using data from over 600 bilingual children living in the US including 16 dialectsNormed 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 INFORMATIONLexical Diversity and Omission Errors as Predictors of Language Ability in the Narratives of Sequential Spanish–English Bilinguals: A Cross-Language ComparisonPeggy F. Jacobsona and Patrick R. WaldenaAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 22 • 554–565 • August 2013
28 LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY AND ABILITY (Jacobsona and Waldena 2013) INTRODUCTION/PURPOSE OF STUDYThis 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 errorsFirst 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. PROFICIENCYAbility 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 IMPAIRMENTConsistent 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 DEVELOPMENTGenerally, 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 STUDY48 children, 26 Typically Developing (TD) and 22 with BLIThe 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 COLLECTEDLanguage samples were collected in Spanish and EnglishLexical diversity was calculated two ways: NDW (Number of Different Words) and the use of the D statisticGrammatical 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) RESULTSThe 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 STUDYDo 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 IMPLICATIONSLanguage Sample Analysis is a valuable tool in bilingual assessment.Measures for this study can be readily applied to other languages.
38 ASSESSMENT PROCESS Pre-screen -Comment/concern from school provider/ administrator-Comment/concern from parent-Classroom observation-Other??
39 ASSESSMENT PROCESS I. Classroom observation B) ScreeningI. Classroom observationII. Screening tool- formal or informalIII. Language sampleIV. Informal conversation with teacher
40 ASSESSMENT PROCESS I. Demographic Info II. Parent Interview C) ReferralI. Demographic InfoII. Parent Interview-languages at home, literacy level of parents, home activities, developmental history, health informationIII. 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 supportsV. Educational team members-names, titles, and contact info
42 C) ReferralAdams 12 Referral FormAurora 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 samplesentence length, grammar skills, vocabulary, amount and type of code-switching, length of sample, organization, overall level of comfortIII. Classroom observation
46 ASSESSMENT PROCESS D) Evaluation 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 measureLimitations 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 invalidFormal 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 reportedAll scores should be interpreted with cautionExample statements
50 ASSESSMENT PROCESS Colorado Severity Rating Scales Appendix discusses use with CLD studentsCan be used as additional data point in body of evidence-should not be overemphasized or used aloneMust 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 #2XXX'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 PROCESSE) Determination of Eligibility
54 ASSESSMENT PROCESS F) IEP MEETING I. Previewing information with the interpreterII. Confirm that observations of language dominance/overall performance is consistent with what is happening at home
55 ASSESSMENT PROCESSG) Guidelines for working with an interpreter when assessing a student in another language: slideshow presentation from Teresa Gillespie at DPS (teresa-gillespie.wikispaces.dpsk12.orgI. Meeting before the assessment (briefing)II. During the assessmentIII. After the assessment (debriefing)IV. Report of evaluation results with the use of an interpreterV. Helpful suggestionsVI. Resources
56 ASSESSMENT PROCESS Speech Assessment Phonemes develop similarly in each languageVarying phonotactics create most speech difficultiesGenerally speaking, speech sound production impairments/delays will be present in both languagesObservation and language sample are effective for evaluating intelligibility
57 ASSESSMENT PROCESS WHEN IN DOUBT, ASSESS!! Speech Assessment Contextual Probes of Articulation Competence-Spanish Edition (CPAC-S)-Norm-referenced 3:0-8:11WHEN 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 #2SLP #1,You can contact Eric Schliemann, our bilingual SLP, to receive consultation and potential testing in Spanish for this student! Sounds complex!Lead SLP#3Eric,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 #4Hi 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#5Hey 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 PROFICIENCY07-08108-09209-1010-11311-12
69 II. Referral Form/ Information C. ACCESS/ CELA Scores ACCESS SCORESListening2.9Speaking6.0Oral Language4.4Overall Language
70 III. Evaluation Results Receptive Language- 77 Expressive Language- 85 A. CELF 4 Spanish EditionResultsReceptive Language- 77Expressive Language- 85
71 III. EvaluationB. Language SampleIn 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 ReportTeacher #1Joe 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 #2No 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 studentNot particularly outgoingEnglish language skills appear slightly low though within functional limits
77 IV. Additional Evaluation Information D. Bilingual Psych ReportReport 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 ObservationUsed social language to interact with peersLimited participation in classroom discussionResponded to one teacher question with a complete sentence
79 V. Additional “Standardized” Testing ResultsExpressive 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 evaluationLived and went to school in Mexico in kindergarten and first grade, has been in APS since second gradeParents sent him to US to live with his grandmaBehavior issues due to separation from his parentsReceived interventions through RTI for reading and behavior since third grade, math since fourth grade
81 Language Proficiency: CASE STUDY #2Language Proficiency:Spanish is primary language spoken at home, but has an uncle and cousins that speak some English to himStudent has been exposed to English for only 2.5 yearsHis grandma reported that he uses more Spanish at home; student reported that he felt he was stronger in English2nd grade CELA: Speaking-EI, Listening-B3rd 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 #2Evaluation resultsTested in English by school SLP, tested in Spanish by district bilingual SLPCELF-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 questionsArticulation: substituted j/rr, but completely intelligible in spontaneous speech
85 CASE STUDY #2 Analysis and Conclusions Spanish dominant Demonstrated basic, foundational language skills in SpanishWeaknesses 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 & AShare bilingual resourcesQuestion and Answer
87 RESOURCESBilingual SLP Providers Group: (http://groups.google.com/group/co-bilingual-slp- providers)Colorín Colorado (www.colorincolorado.org)2 Languages 2 Worlds (2languages2worlds.wordpress.com)ASHA position (www.asha.org/practice/multicultual/issues/pp.htm)Bilingual Therapies (www.bilingualtherapies.com)
88 RESOURCES Bilinguistics (www.bilinguistics.com) The Speech Stop (www.thespeechstop.com)Omniglot (online encyclopedia of writing systems and languages:Phonetic inventories (www.asha.org/about/leadership- projects/multicultural/Phono.html)
89 RESOURCESCulturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Consortium (contact Julie Ignacz atColorado Bilingual Mental Health Network- contact Cameran:- website: co-bilingual-school-psychologists/homeSpeak Colors Spanish Language app for iPads
90 RESOURCESTeresa Gillespie from Denver Public Schools (teresa- gillespie.wikispaces.dpsk12.org)Adams 12 Bilingual Consultation Team (https://sites.google.com/a/adams12.org/bct-2/)Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Toolkit provided through CDE (http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/cld)Colorado Severity Rating Scale (http://www.cde.state.co.us/sites/default/files/sli_guideli nes_0.pdf)