1. Language Assessment of Bilingual Children

2. Information about bilinguals in U.S. Bilinguals not “two monolinguals in one” (Grosjean, 1989) Bilinguals use amalgamated system Forward & back transfer of strategies (Hernandez, Bates & Avila, 1994) Bilingualism changes over lifespan (Kohnert, Bates, & Hernandez, 1999)

3. Primary Language Impairment Primary language impairment (PLI) is a language disorder that delays the mastery of language skills in children who have no hearing loss or other developmental delays.

4. Bilingual Language Impairment Primary language impairment (PLI) is a language disorder that delays the mastery of language skills in children who have no hearing loss or other developmental delays Not an effect of second language acquisition Affects BOTH languages

5. Challenges in Assessment True Language Impairment vs. Outcomes of Divided Input

6. Challenges in Assessment Second language learning looks like PLI First language loss looks like PLI Language Dominance Age of first English exposure Percent of current exposure Test domain (by language experience)

7. Bilingualism HIGHLY VARIABLE at individual level

8. Translation Linguistic Equivalence Functional Equivalence Cultural Equivalence Psychometric Equivalence From: Peña, 2007

9. Linguistic Equivalence Translation focusing on using the same words in similar ways Ensures similarity in task presentation Problem Same words ≠ same FUNCTION & MEANING

10. What’s the goal of: Where’s the ______. Show me the ______. Will translation meet the goal?

11. Functional Equivalence “Where’s the” 6.97 times/million “En donde esta” 1 time/million “Show” 609 times/million (“show me” 8.02) “Enseña” 1 time/million “Mira” 439 times/million “Busca” 45 times/million

12. Functional Equivalence Goal is to be able to test same concept or behavior Need to be able to elicit target

13. Meaning Cultural meaning Words are not culture/experience neutral

14. Bread

15. Pan

16. Meaning Goal is to elicit behavior that means the same culturally Example: Temperament questionnaire

17. Practical Considerations Language of home Language of school Demands across contexts

18. Psychometric Equivalence Item difficulty Based on number of participants who got item correct Item discrimination Difference in correct performance between clinical and non-clinical group Goal  equivalent tests

19. Development of a Bilingual Test Four Domains: Semantics Morphosyntax Pragmatics Phonology

20. Development of a Bilingual Test Test blueprint Focus on markers Iterative approach Large item set Smaller item set Final

21. Semantics Children with PLI: Weak semantic representations & semantic depth (McGregor et al., 2002; Sheng, Peña, Bedore, & Fiestas, 2012) Require more exposures to learn new word (Gray, 2003, 2005) BUT Vocabulary knowledge often WNL (low normal)

22. Semantics

23. Morphosyntax Spanish Direct object clitics Articles Subjunctive (Bedore & Leonard, 2002; Gutiérrez- Clellen, Restrepo, & Simon-Cereijido, 2006; Jacobson & Schwartz, 2005) English Tense marking (-ing, -ed) Passives Plurals (Conti-Ramsden, 2003; Dale & Cole, 1991; Leonard, 1998; Rice, 1996) Difficulty with inflectional morphology (Leonard, 2000) Difficulties differ depending on the language

24. Morphosyntax

25. What language should be tested? L1 L2 Both How should the two languages be combined?

26. Language Performance Associated with age of first L2 exposure current input/output (Bedore, et al., 2012)

27. Language Dominance

28. Patterns Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA) Best (higher) in each language for: morphosyntax + semantics Morpho EngXX Morpho SpnXX Sem EngXX Sem SpnXX

29. Procedure Children tested in Spanish, English or both Ability testing: language samples, parent/teacher questionnaire, clinical concern Bilingual input-output based on parent/teacher questionnaire Bilingual English Spanish Assessment– BESA Semantics

30. Discriminant Analysis Determined cuts via FME and FMS Applied same cut-scores to BSE group Single language Both languages

31. AgeSensitivity (LI as LI) Specificity (TD as TD) + likelihood ratio - likelihood ratio 481.0%73.1%3.010.26 590.0%63.3%2.450.16 652.6%85.7%4.090.48 470.0%83.3%4.190.36 593.8%77.8%4.250.08 687.5%86.8%6.630.14

33. AgeSensitivity (LI as LI) Specificity (TD as TD) + likelihood ratio - likelihood ratio 481.0%73.1%3.010.26 590.0%63.3%2.450.16 652.6%85.7%4.090.48 470.0%83.3%4.190.36 593.8%77.8%4.250.08 687.5%86.8%6.630.14 485.7%100.0%infinite0.12 590.9%84.0%5.680.11 691.7%85.7%6.410.10

34. Discrimination Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA) SensitivitySpecificity Best language morphosyntax + Best language semantics 90.5%87.5%

35. Discussion For ID of PLI in bilinguals consider: Structure of language Markers of PLI particular to language Level of exposure– L1 vs. L2 Performance by language and domain Performance in best language

36. Practical Considerations Language of home Language of school Demands across contexts