Download as PDF, PPTX
Uploaded byBilinguistics
Evaluating Students From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Determining difference from disorder
This document provides information on assessing speech and language skills in culturally and linguistically diverse students. It discusses the importance of distinguishing typical differences related to second language acquisition from actual disorders. The document includes examples of standardized testing results for Spanish-English speaking students to demonstrate how to determine if low performance is due to second language influence or a true impairment. It also presents case studies on assessing students who speak Arabic with ADHD and a student from Britain with a hearing impairment. The case studies show how to use informal assessment and language samples to identify the source of communication issues and determine appropriate intervention goals.
More Related Content
Similar to Evaluating Students From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Determining difference from disorder
Evaluating Students From Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations: Determining difference from disorder
- 2. Demographic Example: TexasPublic School 48% 34% 14%4% 2009 Snapshot
- 3. How do wequalify and work with a bilingual population when: ▫ The tests we use are not normed on this population. ▫ My gut feeling doesn’t match the test results. ▫ I don’t know what goals are appropriate.
- 4. Learner Objectives • Participantswill list, identify, describe… ▫ Reasons for testing both languages ▫ Formal and informal measures for testing ELLs ▫ Use of tests when a student is not represented in the normative sample ▫ ASHA guidelines for assessment with bilingual students ▫ Red flags for speech and language impairment in bilingual children. ▫ Sounds on the Goldman-Fristoe that are subject to second language influence
- 5.
- 6.
- 7. + = Positivetransfer + = Negative transfer
- 8.
- 9. Exercise: The GoldmanFristoe Test of Articulation (GFTA) Using clinical judgment to analyze errors due to cross-linguistic influence
- 10.
- 11.
- 12. The Goldman Fristoe Testof Articulation (GFTA) Summary: So what do we know about assessing articulation?
- 13.
- 14. “Bilingualism is random chaosfor psychometrics” Figueroa, 1989
- 15. • We needa standardized score • However, the formal tests have not been normed on our populations • We rely on informal assessment • We use formal testing as a way to gather information
- 16. The Evolution ofLanguage Test Development • A look at: ▫ Language Assessment Tools PLS -4 CELF – 4 SLAP ▫ Vocabulary Assessment Tools ROWPVT EOWPVT CELF -4
- 17.
- 18.
- 19. • It’s alwayscritical to use information beyond the assessment tool to complete an assessment. • Let’s look now at some of the things that can help us differentiate bilinguals with typical development from those with delayed/disordered language skills.
- 20. Systematic Analysis ofLanguage Transcripts (SALT) Dynamic Assessment ( )
- 21. • Difficulty learningboth languages, even with adult assistance • Family history of language/learning disabilities • Slower development than siblings • Difficulty interacting with peers • Inappropriate pragmatic/social language skills (i.e., turn-taking, topic maintenance, considering listener needs, non-verbal communication) • Difficulty with language in many routines • Idiosyncratic error patterns • Language performance unlike others with similar cultural/linguistic experiences
- 22. A student froma second language home does not perform typically for her age on standardized and informal evaluations. Is this due to second language influence or is she truly impaired?
- 23. When do wetest in two languages? • Is the language survey valuable to us? • Are the results from language proficiency testing valuable to us (Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey)? Speech and Language Testing is Cumulative not Comparative
- 24. Cumulative not Comparative Language and Content of Intervention Select based on what is appropriate in each language and what is appropriate for child’s and family’s situation. For example: Spanish •Gender •Verbs •Article+nouns •Food •Clothing •Household items Both •People •Functions •Categorization •Part-Whole English •Pronouns •Prepositions •Nouns •Colors •Numbers •Shapes Peña & Kester, 2004
- 25. Assessment Summary • Sowhat do we know? ▫ Not all bilinguals are the same ▫ Children learning a second language may display behaviors common in monolinguals with language impairment ▫ Problems associated with all assessment tools ▫ We need to go beyond the tool in assessment ▫ Ongoing assessment across many daily routines is critical ▫ Exploring all languages is essential
- 26. What makes upa bilingual evaluation testing packet Referral Packet Vision and Hearing Parent Info Teacher Info Educational History English Testing Informal Speech Formal Speech Informal Language Formal Language
- 27. What makes upa bilingual evaluation testing packet Referral Packet Vision and Hearing Parent Info Teacher Info Educational History English Testing Informal Speech Formal Speech Informal Language Formal Language Second Language Testing Informal Speech Formal Speech Informal Language Formal Language
- 28. Language Outcomes • Qualifies•DNQ • DNQ• DNQ Errors are typical for age Errors are due to second language Errors are atypical for age and language No errors present
- 29. Speech Outcomes • Qualifies•DNQ • DNQ• DNQ Errors are typical for age Errors are due to second language Errors are atypical for age and language No errors present
- 30. A word onDNQs •DO NOT QUIT here! • You put 60 days of work into this student and know him better than anyone at this point • Share the data to explain how to support the student and make him successful in the classroom
- 31. Case Studies Dual languageeffects on the referral and assessment process
- 32. Case Study #1 SPANISH-ENGLISHSPEAKERS • STUDENT 1 – 1st Grade, English classroom ▫ Below grade level in Kindergarten ▫ Wears glasses ▫ Reading is below grade level ▫ Difficulty answering questions ▫ Easily distracted Spn Eng Composite Language Scores Stnd Score %ile Rank Stnd Score %ile Rank Core Language 86 18 78 7 Receptive Language 78 7 73 4 Expressive Language 85 16 69 2 Language Content 77 6 73 4 Language Structure 84 14 78 7
- 33. Case Study #1 SPANISH-ENGLISHSPEAKERS • STUDENT 1 – 1st Grade, English classroom ▫ Below grade level in Kindergarten ▫ Wears glasses ▫ Reading is below grade level ▫ Difficulty answering questions ▫ Easily distracted Spn Eng Composite Language Scores Stnd Score %ile Rank Stnd Score %ile Rank Core Language 86 18 78 7 Receptive Language 78 7 73 4 Expressive Language 85 16 69 2 Language Content 77 6 73 4 Language Structure 84 14 78 7
- 34. • STUDENT 2– 1st Grade, English classroom • Repeating 1st grade • Struggling academically (especially math and reading) • Does not talk often in class • Talks at recess • Bilingual home Spanish English Composite Language Scores Stnd Score Stnd Score Core Language 68 Core Language 90 Receptive Language 83 Listening Comprehension 96 Expressive Language 57 Oral Expression 87 Language Structure 57 Case Study #1 SPANISH-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
- 35. • STUDENT 2– 1st Grade, English classroom • Repeating 1st grade • Struggling academically (especially math and reading) • Does not talk often in class • Talks at recess • Bilingual home Spanish English Composite Language Scores Stnd Score Stnd Score Core Language 68 Core Language 90 Receptive Language 83 Listening Comprehension 96 Expressive Language 57 Oral Expression 87 Language Structure 57 Case Study #1 SPANISH-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
- 36. STUDENT 1 –1st Grade, English classroom • Outcome ▫ Student does not qualify for speech and language services ▫ Language development is within normal limits in Spanish ▫ Language development in English is typical for a second language learner ▫ Reading difficulties may be related to visual impairment Incidentally, LD testing results matched speech and language results after the student was tested in both languages. Case Study #1 SPANISH-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
- 37. STUDENT 2 –1st Grade, English classroom • Outcome – Student does not qualify for speech and language services – Language development is within normal limits in English – Language development in Spanish indicates low proficiency – Academic difficulties may be related to a learning disability LD testing recommended. Case Study #1 SPANISH-ENGLISH SPEAKERS
- 38. Case Study #2 ARABIC/ADHD •Receiving resource for Other Health Impairment • ADHD and is now on medication • Home Language Survey says Arabic/English • Did not qualify as LD • English Language Testing: ▫ CELF-4 Core Language = 77 Receptive Language = 76 Expressive Language = 78 Language Content = 78 Language Memory = 78
- 39. Questions: • Is itpossible that his language scores are "flat" due to being bilingual? • Should I have an Arabic assessment done? If so, how should I go about it? • Or since he isn't LEP, should we go ahead and qualify him as SI? Case Study #2 ARABIC/ADHD
- 40. • Results ▫ Assessmentcompleted with Arabic interpreter ▫ Language sample with much longer and more complex utterances than demonstrated in English ▫ Minimal vocabulary errors ▫ Minimal syntax errors ▫ Fully intelligible to interpreter Case Study #2 ARABIC/ADHD
- 41. Case Study #3 BRITISHENGLISH /HEARING IMPAIRMENT • Mild to moderate hearing impairment • 50% Intelligible • 1st Percentile with standardized speech testing • 69% intelligible during 100 word sample • Family from England and has been living in the United States for two years
- 42. Questions: • How dowe figure out what is causing the low intelligibility? Is it a true speech impairment, resulting from the hearing impairment, or influence from British English? • Can the norms from the standardized test be used because he speaks “English?” • If he qualifies, how do we determine appropriate goals? Case Study #3 BRITISH ENGLISH /HEARING IMPAIRMENT
- 43. • Outcome ▫ Parentsmore thoroughly interviewed. This was a dialectical difference in the area they came from ▫ SLP researched (“googled”) specific dialect to identify attributes ▫ Speech errors were put up against Typical errors with hearing impairment Age-appropriate errors in SA English Dialectal differences of “Brummie English” ▫ Results follow Case Study #3 BRITISH ENGLISH /HEARING IMPAIRMENT
- 44. Initial Medial FinalInitial Medial Final Initial Medial Final p t k omit l n omit b d g omit r w w omit m k t glottal stop s st n "ng" g omit z s omit f v w v t h De- aspirated De- aspirated De- aspirated dz j (y) n voiced "th" v Case Study #3 BRITISH ENGLISH /HEARING IMPAIRMENT
- 45. Case Study #3 BRITISHENGLISH /HEARING IMPAIRMENT Phonemes Phonological Processes Blend: Error: Blend: Error: Blend: Error: bl bj (y) gr gw sl s br b kl k sp dr g kr kw st fl f kw gw sw fr fw pl tr Process Example Final consonant deletion "ba" for "ball" Medial consonant deletion "waon" for "wagon" Fronting "take" for "cake" Backing "kelephone" for "telephone" Gliding "bawoons" for "balloons" and "wing" for "ring," "fwog" for "frog" Cluster reduction "lasses" for "glasses" Deaffrication "share" for "chair"
- 46. Outcome: • Qualifies forspeech services • Evaluation provided detailed information for which sounds to address • Goals are specific to non-dialectal sounds said in error Case Study #3 BRITISH ENGLISH /HEARING IMPAIRMENT
- 47. Take Away Points •Thorough language history is critical. • Thorough health (especially hearing) history is needed. • Testing in all languages is the only way to get a complete picture of a student’s abilities • Understanding the features of the non-English language as well as how those compare to English will help identify what errors may be due to cross-linguistic influence.
- 48.
- 49.