The Revision Decision: Is Change Always Good? A Comparison of CELF--R and CELF--3 Test Scores in Children With Language Impairment, Focal Brain Damage, and Typical Development.

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Title:	The Revision Decision: Is Change Always Good? A Comparison of CELF--R and CELF--3 Test Scores in Children With Language Impairment, Focal Brain Damage, and Typical Development.
Authors:	Ballantyne, Angela O.¹ aballant@crl.ucsd.edu, Spilkin, Amy M.¹, Trauner, Doris A.¹
Source:	Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools. Jul2007, Vol. 38 Issue 3, p182-189. 8p. 5 Charts.
Subject Terms:	Language testing of children, Education of brain-damaged children, Educational tests & measurements, Evaluation, Education of children with developmental disabilities, Language exams, Language disorders in children, Psychometrics
Abstract:	Purpose: The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) is a widely used, comprehensive test battery that assesses language in school-age children and adolescents. The CELF--R (E. Semel, E. H .Wiig, & W. Secord, 1987) was updated to the CELF--3 (E. Semel, E. H. Wiig, & W. A. Secord, 1995) in 1995. The goal of the present study was to compare scores and evaluate the diagnostic utility of the CELF--R and CELF--3 in 2 clinical populations and a typically developing control group. Method: The present study compared CELF--R and CELF--3 test scores of 107 children with language impairment (LI), 54 children with early focal brain damage (FL), and 90 controls. Results: All 3 groups demonstrated significantly better performance on the CELF--3 than on the CELF--R. LI children scored in the moderately-to-severely impaired range on the CELF--R, but in the mildly-to-moderately impaired range on the CELF--3. FL children went from being mildly-to-moderately impaired on the CELF--R to within normal limits on the CELF--3. Controls went from the average range on the CELF--R to the high average range on the CELF--3. Conclusion: This study is important for professionals who administer language tests and/or use language testing results to recommend appropriate school placements, additional services, and/or interventions. Although psychometric tests are frequently revised, it is not always the case that a revised version has improved diagnostic utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
	Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database:	Education Research Complete

Description
Abstract:	Purpose: The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) is a widely used, comprehensive test battery that assesses language in school-age children and adolescents. The CELF--R (E. Semel, E. H .Wiig, & W. Secord, 1987) was updated to the CELF--3 (E. Semel, E. H. Wiig, & W. A. Secord, 1995) in 1995. The goal of the present study was to compare scores and evaluate the diagnostic utility of the CELF--R and CELF--3 in 2 clinical populations and a typically developing control group. Method: The present study compared CELF--R and CELF--3 test scores of 107 children with language impairment (LI), 54 children with early focal brain damage (FL), and 90 controls. Results: All 3 groups demonstrated significantly better performance on the CELF--3 than on the CELF--R. LI children scored in the moderately-to-severely impaired range on the CELF--R, but in the mildly-to-moderately impaired range on the CELF--3. FL children went from being mildly-to-moderately impaired on the CELF--R to within normal limits on the CELF--3. Controls went from the average range on the CELF--R to the high average range on the CELF--3. Conclusion: This study is important for professionals who administer language tests and/or use language testing results to recommend appropriate school placements, additional services, and/or interventions. Although psychometric tests are frequently revised, it is not always the case that a revised version has improved diagnostic utility. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:	01611461
DOI:	10.1044/0161-1461(2007/019)