1. SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT TOOLS FOR ELLS Caitlin Panke, M.S., CCC-SLP

2.  Speech Language Pathologists are often tasked with the job of determining whether a student who speaks a language other than or in addition to English is meeting typical speech and language developmental milestones.  Often, a SLP will have to make this determination even if the child speaks a language that they do not. Defining the Task

3.  Converging evidence is a powerful tool when determining whether a student needs a speech and language evaluation.  Converging evidence refers to overlapping observations and opinions regarding a student’s speech or language abilities across their home and school environments.  For a school-age student, this typically refers to the opinion of the parent, teacher and speech language pathologist. The make-up of this team ensures a decision that combines the knowledge of the parent regarding the strengths and weaknesses of their child, the knowledge of the teacher regarding academic and social expectations and the knowledge of the SLP regarding developmental speech and language expectations. If the student is an English Language Learner, English as a Second Language staff members who work with the student may be useful team members to add to the discussion. Making referral decision using Converging Evidence

4.  If all team members express concerns about a student’s speech and/or language, an evaluation is warranted.  If the teacher expresses concerns that are not echoed by the parent or Speech Language Pathologist a conversation over how to help the student improve their communication in the classroom is a good first step. Agree on a way to monitor the student’s progress and return to the question of referral at a later time if necessary.  If the teacher and Speech Language Pathologist express concerns but the parent is not concerned, a conversation may educate both sides on issues that might be impacting the student’s communication at school and the appropriate next step to help the student find success at school.. Making referral decision using Converging Evidence

5.  Questions for Parents  Is your child more difficult to understand than their siblings (cousins, etc.) were at the same age?  Is your child able to tell about their experiences using appropriate vocabulary/word order/grammar?  Is your child able to follow directions at home? If the parent reports that this is an area of difficulty, ask questions about why they think this may be occurring. Does their child appear to have difficulty understanding the language used to give the direction? Can their child only remember one part of a multi-step direction? Does this seem to be related to attention or memory?  If the parent expresses concerns about their child’s speech and/or language:  Has your child demonstrated these difficulties in all of their languages?  Ask the family if they have any questions or concerns and be clear about the next steps in the process. Factors impacting communication skills of English Language Learners

6.  Questions for Teachers  What language(s) does the student use at school?  What language does the student speak with their teacher?  What language does the student speak with their peers?  Is the student able to communicate effectively in the language used most often at school?  If the student is not able to communicate all the time in the majority language of their school, how do they facilitate their communication? Do they switch back to their dominant language? Do they stop trying to communicate their message?  How well does the student follow directions in the classroom?  Does the student need visual cues or repetition? What type of cues work best? How many times do you need to repeat the direction?  Does the student participate verbally in class at the same level as their peers (the best comparison would be with an English language learner with similar exposure to English)? If not, does this seem to be due to a lack of communication skills or a personality characteristic?  How is the student able to pay attention to classroom activities? Factors impacting communication skills of English Language Learners

7.  Language Understanding and Use for Parents Form (Handout)  Language Understanding and Use for Teachers Form  Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment (E. D. Peña, V. F. Gutiérrez, A. Iglesias, B. A. Goldstein, L. M. Bedore, 2014)  Published by AR-Clinical Publications  Instrument to Assess Language Knowledge (ITALK)  Questionnaire format to identify specific concerns regarding speech and language, parent and teacher forms.  Bilingual Input-Output Survey (BIOS)  Time grid and survey to determine percent input and output in both Spanish and English at home and at school. Language History Form Resources

8.  Once a decision to evaluate has been made, the SLP may run into further difficulties due to the lack of standardized assessments in the child’s dominant or second language.  Speech and language assessments developed and normed for monolingual speakers of English are not reliable or valid measures to assess the speech and language skills of bilingual speakers even if one of their languages is English. Evaluation Procedures

9. Defining Bilingual  A time grid can be used to determine percentages of input and output for each language.  Useful Terminology  Bilingual-Spanish Dominant: Input/Output: 80-100% Spanish, 0-20% English  Bilingual Spanish-English: Input/Output: 40-70% in either language  Bilingual-English Dominant: Input/Output: 80-100% English, 0-20% Spanish Evaluation Procedures

10.  If a child uses a language 30% of the time or more, in other words if at least 30% of a child’s output is in their second language, both languages should be tested.¹  If a child’s language input is greater than 70% in one language, speech and language can be assessed in that language only.For example, if a student receives 75% of their language input in Spanish throughout their home and school environments, the student may be tested in Spanish only.² ¹ ² Recommendations for bilingual versus monolingual testing based on percentage input/output are based on the Bilingual Input-Output Survey which is part of the Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment developed by E. D. Peña, PhD, CCC-SLP; V. F. Gutierrez-Clellen, PhD, CCC-SLP; A. Iglesias, PhD, CCC- SLP; B. A. Goldstein, PhD, CCC-SLP; L. M. Bedore, PhD, CCC-SLP Evaluation Procedures

11. Articulation & Phonology Spanish Formal test of articulation/phonology Contextual Probes of Articulation Competence-Spanish Published by Super Duper Publications Language Sample to assess overall speech intelligibility If you are using Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) software, be aware that not all retell stories are available for comparison with the bilingual database. Stories that are available include: Frog Where Are You (5; 0 -9: 9), Frog Goes to Dinner (5; 5 -8; 11) and Frog On His Own(5; 0-9; 7) Parent Interview Classroom Observation Articulation & Phonology English Formal test of articulation/phonology Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation 2 (GFTA-2), Hodson Assessment of Phonological Processes (HAPP) GFTA2- Published by Pearson Clinical, HAPP-Published by ProEd, Super Duper Publications & Linguisystems Language Sample to assess overall speech intelligibility This sample also needs to be compared to students from the bilingual database in SALT which restricts the retell options to 3 stories, Frog Where Are You (5; 0 -9: 9), Frog Goes to Dinner (5; 5 -8; 11) and Frog On His Own(5; 0-9; 7). Parent Interview Classroom Observation Evaluation Procedures

12. Formal Language Assessment Preschool Language Scale 5 Bilingual Edition Published by Pearson Clinical Students ages Birth-7; 11 This assessment utilizes composite or conceptual scoring which allows for each item to be administered first in the child’s dominant language and then again in the child’s second language if their first answer is incorrect. The item is scored as correct if the child provides the correct response in either language. Due to the dual language administration and composite scoring components of this test, separate administration of the Preschool Language Scale 5 English is NOT necessary. Formal Language Assessment Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 Spanish Published by Pearson Clinical Students ages 5-21 This assessment provides index scores describing the student’s receptive and expressive language skills in Spanish ONLY. A formal assessment of language in English should also be used to assess students whose language output is 30% or greater in English. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 5 English can be used as the CELF 4 Spanish is an adapted version of the CELF 4 English and not a direct translation Evaluation Procedures

13. Formal Language Assessment Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment Published by AR-Clinical Publications Ages 4; 0 to 6; 11 Assesses phonology, semantics, morphosyntax and pragmatics. Flexible dual-language administration Assessment can be administered in Spanish-only for bilingual Spanish dominant speakers (70% or greater language input in Spanish) or in English-only for bilingual English dominant speakers (70% or greater language input in English) Assessment can be administered in both languages for students who have 40-70% input and output in both of their languages. The child’s best score in each area (Phonology, Semantics, Morphosyntax) in either language is then used to calculate an overall Language Index composite score. Language Sample Analysis Language samples for bilingual speakers should be compared to other bilingual speakers Language sample analysis can serve as a formal analysis, if done with a language transcript analysis program such as Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts software (SALT). It will serve as an informal analysis if you do not have access to a comparison database in order to compare language samples to language samples of the child’s peers. Evaluation Procedures

14. Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) If you are using Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT )software, be aware that not all retell stories are available for comparison with the bilingual database. Bilingual retells include: Frog Where Are You (5; 0 -9: 9), Frog Goes to Dinner (5; 5 -8; 11) and Frog On His Own(5; 0-9; 7) Transcription of Spanish language samples should be completed by a proficient speaker of Spanish who is trained in the various codes and segmenting techniques required to analyze a language sample for comparison with bilingual peers. Transcription of English language samples from bilingual students should also be completed by a bilingual speaker with an understanding of common errors for English language learners. Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Measures of Importance for Spanish story retells Mlu(w): mean length of utterance in words demonstrates the speaker’s average sentence length (measurement in morphemes is not appropriate for Spanish) TTR: type token ratio provides an overall measure of vocabulary use by comparing the number of different words with the number of total words Speech Intelligibility Number of omitted words Number of omitted bound morphemes Number of omitted bound clitics Number of error words Number of error utterances Mazing Measures: number of filled pauses, repetitions and revisions. High numbers of these measures may indicate formulation or word retrieval difficulties Evaluation Procedures

15. Vocabulary Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish Bilingual Edition (ROWPVT) Published by Academic Therapy Publications & Super Duper Publications Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test Spanish Bilingual Edition (EOWPVT) Published by Academic Therapy Publications & Super Duper Publications Language Sample Analysis using Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Type Token Ratio (TTR) measures vocabulary by dividing the number of total words by the number of different words used in a story retell. Notes on Reliable and Valid Vocabulary Assessment Do NOT administer single-language vocabulary measures to bilingual speakers Single-language vocabulary tests tend to underestimate the vocabulary knowledge and use of bilingual speakers Bilingual speakers often demonstrate content or domain specific vocabulary knowledge in each of their languages. This trend is also referred to as distributed vocabulary knowledge It is unlikely that bilingual speakers will demonstrate knowledge or use of vocabulary words in both of their languages since they were learned in a specific setting in only one of their languages. Bilingual vocabulary tests such as the ROWPVT and EOWPVT utilize conceptual scoring ensuring the student can demonstrate their vocabulary knowledge in any of their languages. Evaluation Procedures

16.  For some languages formal, standardized measures are not available for use with a student in need of a speech and language evaluation. Informal measures will need to be used instead.  Considerations when using Informal Measures  Do your research. Find all the information you can regarding the language and culture of the student. Important areas of inquiry include: phonetic structure, grammatical rules, syntax, narrative styles, interaction styles and other rules governing social communication. Best practice language evaluations for bilingual speakers of other languages

17.  Speech and Language Resources for Languages other than English  Phonemic Inventories of Other Languages  http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/Phono/ http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/Phono/  http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/otherlang/ http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/otherlang/  Cultural and Linguistic Diversity Resource Guide for Speech- Language Pathologists, Brian Goldstein, Published by Singular Publishing Group. Best practice language evaluations for bilingual speakers of other languages

18. 2. Some studies have found that single-language receptive vocabulary tests such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test can be adapted to allow for conceptual scoring and may present valid measures of receptive vocabulary skills.  The test would first be given in English and then after the student had reached a ceiling, any item they answered incorrectly would be administered again in their other language.¹ The overall conceptual score would then be compared with the scores of the monolingual norming sample.  This method has NOT been found to reduce the bias of single- language expressive vocabulary tests.²  This technique should not be used to determine standard scores when determining qualification for a speech and language disability. Information from this type of assessment may be used to plan therapy goals. ¹ ² Gross, M., Buac, M., & Kaushanskaya, M. (2014). Conceptual Scoring of Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary Measures in Simultaneous and Sequential Bilingual Children. American Journal of Speech- Language Pathology, 1-13, 10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0026. Best practice language evaluations for bilingual speakers of other languages

19.  Recent research has found that dynamic assessment in English may provide valid information regarding the language learning skills of English language learners. This information may have diagnostic value. Best practice language evaluations for bilingual speakers of other languages

20.  Dynamic Assessment of Narrative Ability in English accurately Identifies Language Impairment in English Language Learners, Elizabeth D. Peña, Ronald B. Gillam & Lisa M. Bedore. (2014). Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 1-41, 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0151.  Participants, 18 Spanish-English speakers with language impairment (LI), 18 typically developing Spanish-English speakers matched with the LI group for age, sex, IQ and language experience and 18 additional typically developing Spanish-English speakers that were matched for age and language experience with the first comparison group.  This study used the Dynamic Assessment of Narratives Intervention Protocol  Published by Pro-Ed  Participants told a pre-test story in English and were assessed based on story components, story ideas and language and episode structure.  Children then participated in two Mediated Learning Experiences which intended to increase the length and complexity of the children’s narratives Evaluating bilingual speakers of other languages

21.  Dynamic Assessment of Narrative Ability in English accurately Identifies Language Impairment in English Language Learners, Elizabeth D. Peña, Ronald B. Gillam & Lisa M. Bedore.(2014). Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 1-41, 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0151.  Following the Mediated Learning Experience, the examiners rated each child’s responsivity to instruction.  Measures included rating a participant’s affect, arousal, elaboration and behavior  Higher ratings in any of these areas indicated a greater need for examiner support or redirection  The participants completed a post-test narrative in English which were assessed using the same criteria as the pre-test narrative. Evaluating bilingual speakers of other languages

22.  Dynamic Assessment of Narrative Ability in English accurately Identifies Language Impairment in English Language Learners, Elizabeth D. Peña, Ronald B. Gillam & Lisa M. Bedore.(2014). Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 1-41, 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0151.  Results  All groups received higher post-test total story scores.  The two groups with typical development received total story scores that were modestly higher than those of the group with language impairment.  Children with language impairment produced more ungrammatical utterances than those with typical language development.  Children with language impairments scored higher on responsivity ratings than children with typical language development, indicating more need for examiner support. Evaluating bilingual speakers of other languages

23.  Dynamic Assessment of Narrative Ability in English accurately Identifies Language Impairment in English Language Learners, Elizabeth D. Peña, Ronald B. Gillam & Lisa M. Bedore. (2014). Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 1-41, 10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0151.  7 factors (in combination) were found to have good diagnostic sensitivity and specificity to distinguish participants with language impairment from those with typical language development  Task Orientation  Metacognition  Compliance  Complexity of Vocabulary Posttest  Knowledge of Dialog  Setting  Ungrammaticality  None of these factors were able to prove high classification accuracy on their own  Note of caution: All clinicians in this study were bilingual and had experience with the language production of bilingual children with and without language impairment. It is possible that this increased the diagnostic accuracy of their clinical decision making.  The authors indicate that dual-language assessment for bilingual speakers is still best however studies such as this may offer other options if dual-language assessment is not feasible. Evaluating bilingual speakers of other languages

24. Caitlin Panke, CCC-SLP