SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGISTS by: Autumn Griffin, M.A., CCC-SLP/L.
Shannon Wang, M.A., CCC-SLP Nancy Castilleja, M.A., CCC-SLP Marie Sepulveda, M.S., CCC-SLP
description
Transcript of Shannon Wang, M.A., CCC-SLP Nancy Castilleja, M.A., CCC-SLP Marie Sepulveda, M.S., CCC-SLP
Importance of Conceptual Scoring to Language Assessment in Bilingual
Children2011 ASHA Convention, San Diego, CA
November 19, 2011
Shannon Wang, M.A., CCC-SLP
Nancy Castilleja, M.A., CCC-SLP
Marie Sepulveda, M.S., CCC-SLP
Mark H. Daniel, Ph.D.
AgendaOverview: Assessing bilingual children
Conceptual score approach to language assessment
Data collection
Research results
Overview: Assessing Bilingual Children
IDEIA Statute: Reduce the inappropriate over-identification of children, especially minority and limited English-proficient children, as having a disability. Statute: Title 1.D.664.b.2.D.vii
Normal bilingual phenomena can look similar to a disorder to those unfamiliar with 2nd language acquisition
Some typical characteristics of bilingual speakers in the U.S.
• Arrest: The level of proficiency in the language does not change.• Attrition: Language loss and language forgetting• Avoidance: Specific element of a language is not used• Language non use (silent period): a language is not used for
communication purposes• Overgeneralization: a language rule is applied in an unrestricted fashion• Language transfer: phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and/or
pragmatic characteristic is used in another language• Fossilization: an inaccurate rule stabilizes to the point of continual usage(Region 4 Educational Service Center, 2005)
Result: Bilingual children often misdiagnosed• Low test scores in both Spanish and English
Assessing Bilingual Abilities
“The lower vocabulary of bilinguals at certain stages of development may have nothing to do with handicaps or dominance questions but probably more with a smaller variety of linguistic input in each language taken separately.” Hugo Baetens-Beardsmore, 1986
Assessing vocabulary in bilingual children: best practice is to test both languages H. Kayser, 1989; H. W. Langdon, 1989
Conceptual Scoring
“Conceptual scoring” is scoring the meaning of a response regardless of the language in which it is produced. B. Pearson, S. Fernandez, & D.K. Oller, 1993
Bilingual children benefit from conceptual scoring, especially when tested in Spanish L. Bedore, E. Peña, M. Garcia, & C. Cortez, 2005
Different ways of combining test scores across languages were tested—combining scores across two languages in a composite or selecting combinations of better task or language performance to use as a basis for decision-making…Classification can be more accurate when scores in both language are used systematically for decision-making.E. Peña and L. Bedore, 2011
Conceptual Scoring ---> Dual Language Score
“Conceptual scoring” is based on literature examining semantic language development (vocabulary and other semantic skills).
PLS-5 Spanish targets oral language (semantic and morphosyntactic skills) and early academic skills.
Does the dual language score approach provide a more valid representation of a bilingual child’s language skills?
Studies Examining a Dual Language Approach for PLS-5 Spanish
• PLS–4 Spanish bilingual pilot study
• PLS–5 Spanish • bilingual tryout study• bilingual standardization
study
Development of a dual-language scoring procedure• Bilingual expert panel
– Hortencia Kayser, Ph.D. – Henriette Langdon, Ph.D. – Elizabeth Peña, Ph.D.
• Developed PLS–4 Spanish English Record Form supplement
• Administered PLS–4 Spanish to participants
• After administration of the PLS-4 Spanish, items the child missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot StudyParticipants n=28
Ages 3:7-6:10
Countries of origin– Mexico– Caribbean– Central & South America
Caregiver education level– 11th grade or less 37%– High school graduate or GED 22%– 1–3 years of college or technical school 22%– 4 or more years of college 19%
Fluency in Spanish
Exposure to Spanish• Primary caregiver speaks Spanish to child• Child is Spanish-English bilingual• Child may be enrolled in bilingual classes
Language comprehension• Understands Spanish and a little English OR• Understands both Spanish and English OR• Understands some concepts only in Spanish and some
only in English
Language expression• Speaks Spanish, a little English OR• Speaks both Spanish and English
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
Results• 93% received additional points in AC
Score difference range: 0 to 6 points (mean = 2.9)
• 75% received additional points in ECScore difference range: 0 to 13 (mean = 3 points)
• 32% of sample earned scores that moved from language-disordered range of performance to typically developing range
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Participants n=200
Ages 2:0 through 7:11
Diagnosis TD: n = 166NonTD: n = 34
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Criteria for Language Disorder
Inclusionary Criteria• Diagnosed with a moderate to severe language disorder (< 77
on standardized test) in either receptive language, expressive language or both
OR• Diagnosis based on non-standardized tests results; plus
statement provided by clinician indicating a moderate to severe language disorder
• Must be enrolled in language therapy
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Criteria for Language Disorder (cont.)
Exclusionary Criteria• history of hearing impairment, middle ear infections/ otitis
media/PE tubes, or hearing aids• phonological disorder• verbal apraxia or dyspraxia, or exhibits deletions of final
sounds or syllables • Exceptions
– aspirated final /s/, common in a Puerto Rican dialect– Consistently substitutes final /s/ with another phoneme
PLS-5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study: Sample Demographics
TD Non-TD
N 166 34
Age: Mean 4:11 5:5 SD 1:7 1:5
NTD group: Expressive language 19% Receptive language 4% Both 77%
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Method• PLS-5 Spanish Tryout edition
• Items were administered in Spanish first• Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
• Items were scored based on:• Spanish performance• Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring)
• Data analysis compared Spanish-only scores and Spanish-English scores
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Findings
Gain from dual language scoring • Beneficial for children ages 4:0-7:11
• Strongly related to rated proficiency in English(Children with “little English” show little gain)
• No relationship to caregiver education level
• No relationship to whether or not the child is typically developing
• For children 2:0-3:11• Children still in the early language acquisition process • There was not the same pattern of gains with dual language
scoring as with older children
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Findings (continued)
• Children with typical language development showed equal gains in academic and non-academic language
• Children with a language disorder showed greater gains in non-academic language
PLS-5 Spanish Standardization:Dual Language Study
Bilingual Children’s Levels of Fluency in Spanish and English
• Primarily Spanish speaker with some English abilities
• Bilingual Spanish-English speaker
Language Comprehension in Spanish
1. Child understands Spanish, but no English [monolingual]
2. Child understands Spanish and a little English [bilingual]
3. Child understands both Spanish and English [bilingual]
4. Child understands some concepts in Spanish and some in English (e.g., home concepts in Spanish; school concepts in English) [bilingual]
5. Child understands English and some Spanish [not included in sample]
6. Child does not understand Spanish; only understands English [not included in sample]
Expressive Language in Spanish
1. Child converses in Spanish, speaks no English [monolingual]
2. Child converses fluently Spanish and speaks Spanish most of the time. He or she speaks a little English [bilingual]
3. Child converses fluently in both Spanish and English [bilingual]
4. Child converses fluently in English and speaks English most of the time. He or she speaks a little Spanish. [not included in sample]
5. Child converses fluently in English; speaks no Spanish [not included in sample]
Exposure to SpanishAlmost always: [monolingual] • Interacts in a Spanish speaking environment only• Leisure activities in Spanish• Speaks Spanish with family and friends
Often: [bilingual]• interacts in both Spanish and English environments • may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family OR• may switch languages without a preference for either
Occasionally: [bilingual]• Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only• Speaks Spanish but prefers English with family and friends
Seldom or Almost Never [not included in the study]• Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only, but do not live in
child’s home (seen infrequently)• Communicates a few messages in Spanish
Dual Language STDZ Study: Length of Time Residing in the U.S.
* 17% did not report length of time in the U.S.
• 0-11 Months• 1 Year• 2 Years• 3 Years• 4 Years• 5 or more Years• Born in the U.S.
83% of the children living in the U.S. wereborn in the U.S. or have lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language Standardization Study: Overview
Field Research• PLS-5 Spanish Standardization edition
– Items were administered in Spanish first– Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
Scoring• Items were scored based on:
– Spanish performance– Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring)
Data Analysis• Data analysis compared Spanish scores to Spanish-English
scores
Dual Language Record Form(Draft)
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Bilingual and Monolingual Samples
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:Age and Gender
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
N
Age: Mean SD
Gender: Female 44% 44% 46% 51% 46% 46% Male 56% 56% 54% 49% 54% 54%
4.80.8
76
7.00.6
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
81
1.50.8
151
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:Caregiver Education
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
Caregiver education:
< high school grad 22% 22% 30% 33% 26% 18%
high school grad 25% 26% 27% 31% 34% 34%
some college 24% 26% 21% 20% 17% 29%
college graduate 30% 26% 23% 17% 22% 18%
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:Region
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
Region:
Northeast 4% 3% 5% 0% 4% 0%
Midwest 0% 0% 6% 1% 3% 0%
South 51% 42% 69% 48% 66% 13%
West 44% 26% 17% 7% 22% 1%
Puerto Rico 1% 30% 3% 44% 5% 86%
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:Country of Origin
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
Country of origin:
Mexico 61% 53% 66% 41% 75% 15%
Puerto Rico 11% 31% 5% 43% 9% 85%
South America 16% 6% 17% 4% 8% 0%
Central America 10% 4% 10% 7% 4% 0%
Cuba 3% 5% 1% 4% 4% 0%
Dominican Rep. 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 0-2
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t pSpanish 102.0 15.7 102.5 12.3 0.5 0.20Dual-Language 102.0 15.7 103.6 12.2 1.6 0.73
Spanish 102.9 13.4 103.9 11.1 1.0 0.55Dual-Language 102.9 13.4 104.3 11.1 1.4 0.74
Spanish 102.7 14.3 103.5 11.0 0.8 0.38Dual-Language 102.7 14.3 104.4 11.0 1.7 0.80
Difference
80
81
80
Monolingual Bilingual
AuditoryComp
ExpComm
TotalLang
N per group
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 0-2
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 3-5
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t pSpanish 97.8 11.7 100.4 14.6 2.6 1.77Dual-Language 97.8 11.7 106.4 14.8 8.6 5.66 <.001
Spanish 99.9 11.8 100.5 16.3 0.6 0.37Dual-Language 99.9 11.8 104.3 16.3 4.4 2.60 .01
Spanish 98.8 11.6 100.6 16.0 1.8 1.03Dual-Language 98.8 11.6 105.9 16.1 7.1 4.14 <.001
145
144
Monolingual
AuditoryComp
ExpComm
TotalLang
BilingualN per group
150
Difference
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 3-5
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 6-7
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t pSpanish 98.6 11.1 97.7 16.9 -0.9 -0.49Dual-Language 98.6 11.1 106.6 13.4 8.0 4.73 <.001
Spanish 97.7 10.0 99.0 16.4 1.3 0.59Dual-Language 97.7 10.0 105.9 13.4 8.2 4.79 <.001
Spanish 98.0 10.6 98.3 17.3 0.3 0.13Dual-Language 98.0 10.6 106.9 13.7 8.9 5.25 <.001
75
75
74
DifferenceN per group
TotalLang
Monolingual Bilingual
AuditoryComp
ExpComm
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 6-7
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
MonolingualBilingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Norm Sample(includes a representative number of clinical cases)
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Methodand Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 0-2
Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SDSpanish 98.7 16.3 101.5 12.5 102.4 12.3Dual-Language 98.7 16.3 102.2 12.5 107.6 11.3
Difference 0.0 0.7 5.2
Spanish 100.9 15.2 103.4 10.9 102.7 8.7Dual-Language 100.9 15.2 103.8 11.0 104.1 8.7
Difference 0.0 0.4 1.4
Spanish 99.8 15.6 102.7 11.0 102.9 10.6Dual-Language 99.8 15.6 103.3 11.1 106.6 9.9
Difference 0.0 0.6 3.7
AuditoryComp
ExpComm
TotalLanguage
26
Bilingual
14
15
14
Primarily Spanish
26
26
Monolingual
286
286
286
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Methodand Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 0-2
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Methodand Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 3-5
Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SDSpanish 97.9 13.6 98.5 15.6 99.3 15.0Dual-Language 97.9 13.6 102.9 15.7 107.0 14.4
Difference 0.0 4.4 7.7
Spanish 98.6 14.8 99.8 16.8 96.4 17.2Dual-Language 98.6 14.8 102.8 16.9 101.9 17.1
Difference 0.0 3.0 5.5
Spanish 98.0 14.4 99.0 16.8 97.9 16.9Dual-Language 98.0 14.4 103.1 16.8 105.1 16.7
Difference 0.0 4.1 7.2
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
54
49
49
AuditoryComp
89
88
ExpComm
TotalLanguage
305
305
88305
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Methodand Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 3-5
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Methodand Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 6-7
Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SDSpanish 97.0 14.7 94.3 18.0 94.2 16.9Dual-Language 97.0 14.7 100.7 16.6 104.2 14.1
Difference 0.0 6.4 10.0
Spanish 96.5 13.1 94.8 16.5 94.2 17.1Dual-Language 96.5 13.1 99.5 15.7 103.0 14.7
Difference 0.0 4.7 8.8
Spanish 96.4 14.3 93.8 18.0 94.0 17.2Dual-Language 96.4 14.3 99.9 16.8 104.2 14.3
Difference 0.0 6.1 10.2
84
80
80
Bilingual
69 41
69 43
AuditoryComp
69 43
Primarily SpanishMonolingual
ExpComm
TotalLanguage
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Methodand Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 6-7
Auditory Comprehension
90
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
Expressive Communication
90
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
Total Language
90
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Clinical Samples
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:Age and Gender
Expressive Language Disorder
Receptive Language Disorder
Exp & Recept Language Disorder
N 69 53 48
Age: 1 3 3 32 11 11 113 12 6 64 14 10 85 11 10 86 10 8 77 8 5 5Mean: 4.7 4.6 4.5
Gender: Female 28% 23% 21%Male 72% 77% 79%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:Caregiver Education
Expressive Language Disorder
Receptive Language Disorder
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Caregiver education:
< high school grad 55% 64% 67%
high school grad 20% 25% 23%
some college 13% 2% 2%
college graduate 12% 9% 8%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:Region
Expressive Language Disorder
Receptive Language Disorder
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Region:
Northeast 17% 23% 23%
Midwest 0% 0% 0%
South 35% 34% 35%
West 30% 32% 31%
Puerto Rico 17% 11% 10%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:Country of Origin
Expressive Language Disorder
Receptive Language Disorder
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Country of origin:
Mexico 59% 62% 60%
Puerto Rico 20% 13% 13%
South America 4% 6% 6%
Central America 10% 13% 15%
Cuba 4% 4% 4%
Dominican Rep. 1% 2% 2%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive Language Disorder
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆Spanish 78.8 15.5 96.1 14.9 17.3Dual-Language 79.7 15.2 98.7 13.4 19.0
Spanish 76.5 12.1 97.8 14.2 21.3Dual-Language 77.1 12.0 99.0 14.4 21.9
Spanish 76.3 12.6 97.1 14.6 20.8Dual-Language 77.0 12.3 98.8 14.3 21.8
ExpComm
64
TotalLanguage
64
N per group
Clinical Nonclinical
AuditoryComp
69
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
Expressive Communication
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
Total Language
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Receptive Language Disorder
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆Spanish 74.3 13.7 94.2 13.4 19.9Dual-Language 74.9 13.5 97.5 12.3 22.6
Spanish 76.6 12.9 96.3 12.2 19.7Dual-Language 77.1 13.1 98.0 12.6 20.9
Spanish 74.2 12.4 95.3 12.3 21.1Dual-Language 74.7 12.3 97.6 12.3 22.9
Expressive Communic
49
TotalLanguage
49
N per group
Clinical Nonclinical
Auditory Comprehe
53
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Receptive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
Expressive Communication
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
Total Language
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆Spanish 73.7 13.9 94.2 13.9 20.5Dual-Language 74.3 13.7 97.0 12.5 22.7
Spanish 75.5 12.6 96.7 12.6 21.2Dual-Language 75.8 12.9 97.8 12.8 22.0
Spanish 73.3 12.3 95.5 12.7 22.2Dual-Language 73.7 12.2 97.2 12.7 23.5
Expressive Communic
45
TotalLanguage
45
N per group
Clinical Nonclinical
Auditory Comprehe
48
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
Expressive Communication
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
Total Language
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
NonclinicalClinical
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.2. Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly
raised the average standard scores of bilingual children. Children who primarily speak Spanish but know some English had a smaller increase than children who are more fully bilingual.
PLS–5 Spanish Standardization:Dual Language STDZ Study
1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.2. Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly raised the
average standard scores of bilingual children. Children who primarily speak Spanish but know some English had a smaller increase than children who are more fully bilingual.
3. Dual-language scoring did not affect the scores of children with language disorders.
Testing in Spanish and English: Dominance and Proficiency
“The concept of a ‘dominant’ language is losing favor as there is more evidence that proficiency in two languages occur on a continuum, with individuals being able to understand or express some concepts better in one language and others in another language.”(Peña, Bedore, & Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)
“…notions such as proficiency and dominance are moving targets altered with differences in tasks, topics, and demands”(Goldstein, 2004)
Testing in Spanish and English: Dominance and Proficiency
“Language proficiency measurement is not as concerned as to which language is stronger or dominant, but rather its goal is to provide a description of the language development of the child in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.(Kayser, 2001)
ReferencesBaetens-Beardsmore, H. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic Principles (2nd Ed.). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Bedore, L., Peña, E., Garcia, M., & Cortez, C. (2005). Conceptual vs. monolingual scoring: when does it make a difference?. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 188-200.
Kayser, H.R. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Spanish-English Speaking Children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 20 (3), 226-244.
Kayser, H. (2001) “Assessing Language Proficiency and LanguageDominance.” From the Hart. October 2001. Bilingual Therapies, Inc.http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/kayser-newsletter/2001/assessinglanguage-proficiency-and-language-dominance/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), Public Law 108-446 (2004.) 118 Stat. 2647 (2004)
References (continued)
Langdon, H.W. (1989). Language Disorder or Difference? Assessing the Language Skills of Hispanic Students. Exceptional Children, 56 (2).
Pearson, B., Fernandez, S. & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43 (1), 93-120.
Peña, E.D. & Bedore, L.M. (2011). “It takes two: improving assessment accuracy in bilingual children. ASHA Leader, 16 (13), 20-22.
Peña, E., Bedore, L., Zlatic-Giunta, R. (2002) Category-GenerationPerformance of Bilingual Children: The Influence of Condition Category andLanguage. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 45, 938-947.
Region 4 Educational Service Center (2005). Houston, TX (Author).
Contact Information
Shannon WangSenior Research [email protected]
Nancy CastillejaSenior Product [email protected]
Marie SepulvedaResearch [email protected]
Mark DanielSenior Scientist for Research [email protected]