View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Language Assessment of Latino English Learning Children: A Records Abstraction Study

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Language Assessment of Latino English Learning Children: A Records Abstraction Study
Language: English
Authors: Kraemer, Robert, Fabiano-Smith, Leah
Source: Journal of Latinos and Education. 2017 16(4):349-358.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 10
Publication Date: 2017
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Speech Language Pathology, Allied Health Personnel, Language Tests, Diagnostic Tests, Clinical Diagnosis, Spanish Speaking, English Language Learners, Hispanic American Students, Preschool Children, Elementary School Students, Language Impairments, Compliance (Legal), Reports, Best Practices, Error of Measurement, Student Placement, Limited English Speaking, Identification, School Districts, Hypothesis Testing, Standardized Tests, Cohort Analysis, Intelligence Tests, Verbal Ability, Vocabulary, Listening Comprehension Tests, Receptive Language
Geographic Terms: California
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test, Preschool Language Scale, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language, Test of Language Development
DOI: 10.1080/15348431.2016.1257429
ISSN: 1534-8431
Abstract: The researchers examined how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in a small northern California school district assessed Spanish speaking English learning (EL) Latino children suspected of language impairments. Specifically we sought to (1) determine whether SLPs adhered to federal, state, and professional guidelines during initial assessments and (2) identify tests and measures used by SLPs during language assessments. The researchers conducted a records abstraction review of 88 speech-language assessment reports of Spanish speaking EL Latino children. The reports were examined for parameters of best practice as outlined in recent studies. Results indicated that for each report the SLP responsible for assessing the child failed to consider at least one best practice parameter. Although impossible to determine at this stage, it is likely that many of these children were erroneously assessed and subsequently placed in speech-language programs. Findings support the notion that many EL Latino children continue to be inappropriately assessed for language impairments.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 46
Entry Date: 2017
Accession Number: EJ1157736
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGddXkBTXgYK6H2c9nw7Ky4AAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDAnC9CmpkjpEUlU_mgIBEICBm0qMVWE9QB3qiPHiW0XXHiRl5jgcpoiQD1cLuH50M9myth_tP-mPhSFK8sXlIjy8GQuzvsbLfKrqI0TJQMessuoXVkfiVDx5zO3N3fDiYmHSkUmvNxkkV9tpoU8JNn-tvbwUJF_ezdjzx7Lh-FMh2XpSFG5S19tnJ9NEh2qZyB5YTBTNZ4IGZmilL9YLUEHSEOn_rVvzSFFEMOsP
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0125746475;hd001oct.17;2019Feb27.13:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0125746475-1">Language Assessment of Latino English Learning Children: A Records Abstraction Study. </title> <p>The researchers examined how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in a small northern California school district assessed Spanish speaking English learning (EL) Latino children suspected of language impairments. Specifically we sought to (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref1">1</reflink>) determine whether SLPs adhered to federal, state, and professional guidelines during initial assessments and (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref2">2</reflink>) identify tests and measures used by SLPs during language assessments. The researchers conducted a records abstraction review of 88 speech-language assessment reports of Spanish speaking EL Latino children. The reports were examined for parameters of best practice as outlined in recent studies. Results indicated that for each report the SLP responsible for assessing the child failed to consider at least one best practice parameter. Although impossible to determine at this stage, it is likely that many of these children were erroneously assessed and subsequently placed in speech-language programs. Findings support the notion that many EL Latino children continue to be inappropriately assessed for language impairments.</p> <p>Keywords: English learner; language impairment; assessment</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-2">Introduction</hd> <p>English learning (EL) children, or children with Limited English Proficiency (LEP), are defined as children whose home language is not English, who may or may not use that home language the majority of the time, but who hear the home language the majority of the time outside of school (Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act—Part B, 2004). One specific EL group, Latinos, is growing across the country and make up the majority of school children in states such as Texas and California (U.S. Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref3">42</reflink>]). Seventy-four percent of Latinos speak Spanish exclusively or in addition to English (United States Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref4">42</reflink>]), with the vast majority of Latino children residing in home environments where Spanish is spoken. To address environmental and linguistic differences between Latino EL children and native English-speaking children, Latino EL children suspected of language impairments require being assessed in both Spanish and English (e.g., Kohnert, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref5">25</reflink>]; Lewis, Castilleja, Moore, & Rodriguez, [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref6">28</reflink>]; Goldstein & Yavaş, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref7">16</reflink>]). This practice is vital in ruling out low English language proficiency as a cause for speech-language program eligibility.</p> <p>American graduate programs in speech-language pathology are, by and large, focused on a monolingual model of English-only assessment (ASHA [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref8">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>]). In the absence of clinical training in bilingual assessment, it is common practice for SLPs to use standardized tests normed on native English-speaking children with EL children (Skahan, Watson, & Lof, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref10">39</reflink>]). Apart from the fact that bilingual and monolingual speakers develop language differently (e.g., Paradis & Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref11">34</reflink>]), failure to consider Spanish during cognitive testing can increase the misdiagnosis of learning disability to as high as 9% (Klingner & Artiles, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref12">23</reflink>], p. 67). Unfortunately, there are no data on the rate of misdiagnosis of speech-language impairments in Latino EL children. This is of great clinical concern because the misdiagnoses of speech-language impairments may lead to an unintended educational disparity between Latino EL and native English-speaking children. This disparity presents itself as follows: typically developing Latino EL children may be pulled out of their classrooms to receive unnecessary speech and language therapy (missing academic content), while their native English-speaking[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref13">1</reflink>] peers who have been appropriately assessed remain in the classroom with the opportunity to fully participate. Participation in the general education curriculum is the number-one predictor of post-school outcomes (Test et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref14">40</reflink>]). In addition to potential educational costs to Latino EL children, there are also financial costs to consider. The cost of speech-language services is driven by the number of children served rather than the cost of the service itself (Chaikind, Danielson, & Brauen, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>]). As such, costs to the public school system (taxpayers) for children incorrectly classified as disordered are approximately $10,000 per student per year (Center for Special Education Finance, [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref16">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-3">Study rationale</hd> <p>The rationale for this study is to shed light on systematic misdiagnosis of language disorders in Latino children. It is essential to document systematic discrimination within the field of school-based speech-language pathology, however unintentional, in order to reduce educational disparities in this population. This problem must be documented for us to begin to address its presence in the field of speech-language pathology and develop solutions to improve clinical methods of best practice.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-4">Prevalence of language impairment in Latino EL children</hd> <p>To date, there has been no epidemiological study that documents the misdiagnosis of language impairments in Latino EL children. In order to argue the case that misdiagnosis is occurring, a study establishing the prevalence of language impairments in White, native English-speaking children was examined. Tomblin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref17">41</reflink>]) examined approximately 7,000 native English-speaking children across the Midwest region of the United States. Kindergarten-aged children of various races and ethnicities were administered a language screener and subsequent language battery for those who failed the screener. Children were then administered the Test of Language Development-2: P (TOLD-2: P; Newcomer & Hammill, [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref18">32</reflink>]) and a narrative story task to assess both narrative comprehension and production (Culatta, Page, & Ellis, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref19">11</reflink>]). Results indicated that the prevalence of language impairments was highest in African American English-speaking children (11%), followed by Native American children (11.5%), Hispanic children (8%), and finally White children (7.4%) (p. 1256). Tomblin et al. ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref20">41</reflink>]) stated that discretion must be used when interpreting their findings due to the fact that "...the language measures employed were both linguistically and culturally biased" (p. 1255). They stated that both the testing situation and language battery employed were, in fact, appropriate for the native English speakers, but not so for other minority groups (including Latino children).</p> <p>In addition to Tomblin et al.'s ([<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref21">41</reflink>]) study, we can look at data from federal databases to extrapolate information on misdiagnosis of language impairments in the absence of epidemiological studies examining Latino children. According to the U.S. Department of Education ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref22">42</reflink>]), between 1998 and 2007, the number of children ages 6 to 21 years old who were served under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) increased for all racial and ethnic groups with the exception of Whites. Specifically, 9% of Latino children as compared to 8% of White children were enrolled in special services overall (National Center for Education Statistics, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref23">31</reflink>]). IDEIA separates disability into a variety of categories, one of which is speech and language impairment. Unfortunately, we cannot examine prevalence of language impairment independent from articulation/phonological impairments due to the lack of statistical information on kindergarteners only (for comparison with Tomblin et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref24">41</reflink>]); however, from the available federal databases, speech-language impairment occurs in about 2.8% of children ages 3 to 21 countrywide (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref25">31</reflink>]), with rate of diagnosis in Latinos appearing relatively equal to Whites. However, when areas of the country with high numbers of Latino children are examined (e.g., California), risks for misdiagnosis of language impairment have been found to be 40–50% more likely for Latino children (especially those with low proficiency in English) than for White children (Artiles, Rueda, Salazar, & Higareda, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref26">5</reflink>], p. 293). Importantly, only 1% of White children are reportedly limited in English proficiency as compared to 18% of Latino children ages 6–21 (NCES, [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref27">31</reflink>]). Although issues of underidentification also exist for Latino children, they are more difficult to quantify and are typically captured only via clinician report in survey studies (e.g., Kritikos, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref28">27</reflink>]; Skahan et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref29">39</reflink>]); however, Morgan et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref30">30</reflink>]) found that children under age five whose parents' language was not English were less likely to receive speech and language therapy services for language delay than their White, monolingual English-speaking peers. Although the problem of underidentification of impairment is an important topic, the scope of this article paper is limited to <emph>overidentification</emph> of language impairment in Latino children.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-5">Clinical challenges</hd> <p>In order to establish criteria for how Latino EL children with suspected speech-language impairment <emph>should</emph> be assessed, as compared to how they are <emph>currently</emph> being assessed, ASHA has put forth ethical guidelines for working with bilingual clients. Principle of Ethics 1, Rule E, "...While providing services to linguistically diverse individuals may require the assistance of trained interpreters or other bilingual professionals, it is the responsibility of the professional to understand the influence of issues related to cultural and linguistic diversity (e.g., bilingualism). Ultimately, the professional is responsible for the appropriate diagnosis and treatment of speech and language disorders" (ASHA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref31">1</reflink>]). ASHA boasts 161,163 members. Of those members, only 6,491 (4%) identify themselves as having bilingual skills (ASHA, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref32">1</reflink>]). The U.S. Census Bureau ([<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref33">43</reflink>]) predicts that, by 2030, nearly 40% of the school-age population will speak a language other than English in the home. Based on the aforementioned data, it is likely that the number of EL school-aged children speech-language pathologists (SLPs) assess will continue to increase. However, out of 247 accredited master's-level programs in speech-language pathology in the United States, only 21 report coursework and clinical training specific to practice with bilingual clients (ASHA, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref34">3</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref35">4</reflink>]). For SLPs who have not received formal training in bilingual assessment practices, navigating assessment approaches that do not provide explicit guidelines is difficult. Even for those SLPs who are aware of clinical best practices and working towards more ethical assessment of linguistically diverse children, the path is wrought with challenges related to a lack of clinical training, unavailable normative samples for diagnostic comparison, and the use of standardized tests to aid in diagnosis of disorder (Pearce & Williams, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref36">35</reflink>]; Bialystock, Craik, & Luk, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref37">8</reflink>]; Bedore & Peña, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref38">7</reflink>]; Westman, Korkman, Mickos, & Byring, [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref39">45</reflink>]; Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref40">36</reflink>]). Here, we will focus on the use of standardized test results in systematic misdiagnosis of disorder in bilingual children.</p> <p>Standardized assessment tools are routinely used as part of a language assessment battery for children suspected of presenting with an underlying language-learning disability (Haynes & Pindzola, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref41">19</reflink>]). The language of these tests is typically English or Spanish, and the norming samples are typically comprised of monolingual children. The structure of these tests is problematic for linguistically diverse children for a variety of reasons (Crutchley, Conti-Ramsden, & Botting, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref42">12</reflink>]). Firstly, including monolingual children in a norming sample designed for the diagnosis of language impairments in bilinguals, whether the language context is English or Spanish, is a direct pathway to misdiagnosis (Hosp & Rechley, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref43">20</reflink>]). For example, a commonly used test for Spanish language skills, the CELF Preschool-2 Spanish, states on its website, "Both monolingual and bilingual Spanish-speaking children were tested at sites throughout the United States and Puerto Rico" (<ulink href="http://www.pearsonclinical.com">www.pearsonclinical.com</ulink>). Previous studies have found that, when compared to their monolingual peers, preschool-aged bilingual Spanish-English-speaking children demonstrate a slower rate of acquisition on some linguistic structures (Fabiano-Smith & Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref44">13</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref45">14</reflink>]; Kohnert, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref46">24</reflink>]; Paradis & Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref47">34</reflink>]), but demonstrate commensurate accuracy on these structures by age 5 (Goldstein, Fabiano, & Washington, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref48">18</reflink>]). This comparison could lead to an SLP identifying language impairment when a child is, in fact, typically developing. Psychometric issues are not relegated to only the CELF-4 Spanish, but other standardized assessments as well. Another commonly used language test for Latino preschoolers, the Preschool Language Scale 5th Edition—Spanish (PLS-5 Spanish), also presents with psychometric problems related to their norming sample (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref49">46</reflink>]). The authors of this test report that the test's norming sample is composed of "1,150 monolingual and bilingual children Spanish-speaking children in the United States and Puerto Rico." The inclusion of the monolingual cohort in their normative sample can possible lead to overdiagnosis of disorder based on the comparison of children speaking two languages to a group of children who speak only one. Because knowledge is distributed unevenly across the two languages of bilingual children (Kohnert, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref50">25</reflink>]), the comparison being made is only <emph>a portion</emph> of the Latino EL child's language skills to <emph>all</emph> of the monolingual child's language skills. This comparison will, in effect, make bilingual children look as if they are performing at a lower level than their monolingual peers.</p> <p>To its credit, the PLS-5 reports the type of children included in the normative sample with sufficient detail so that the clinician knows when the norming sample matches the child being evaluated. For many Spanish versions of common tools, however, the characteristics of the norming sample are unclear. For example, the manual of the CELF-4 Spanish reports, "The norming sample includes 1,050 U.S. Spanish-speaking children from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries." It is unclear to the SLP if these children are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref51">1</reflink>) residing in the United States but are originally from other countries; (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref52">2</reflink>) live in a household where a dialect of Spanish is spoken that differs from the most commonly used dialect in the US, Mexican; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref53">3</reflink>) the children are monolingual Spanish speakers who speak a variety of Spanish dialects; or (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref54">4</reflink>) the children are bilingual Spanish-English-speaking children who speak a variety of Spanish dialects. The three most commonly spoken dialects of Spanish in the United States are (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref55">1</reflink>) Mexican, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>) Cuban, and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref57">3</reflink>) Puerto Rican (Goldstein, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref58">17</reflink>]); therefore, children included in the normative sample should reflect the most commonly spoken dialects in the United States, as a comparison to monolingual Spanish-speaking children from a variety of Spanish-speaking countries is not a valid comparison.</p> <p>Standardized testing is problematic on a number of levels for Latino children, for psychometric and for child-centered reasons. Linguistically diverse children often perform poorly on standardized tests for <emph>external</emph> reasons, such as less experience with each language, whereas children with impairments will perform poorly on standardized tests due to <emph>internal</emph> reasons, such as language learning ability (Kohnert, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref59">25</reflink>]). This fact, combined with weak assessment tools, will lead to inaccurate categorization of typical children and children with disorders. It is up to SLPs to sort out language difference from language disorder in order to arrive at an accurate diagnosis; however, using standardized tests that do not include the <emph>a priori</emph> psychometric characteristics to aid in that decision making makes an already challenging situation more challenging and open to error.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-6">Best practices for language assessment of Latino children</hd> <p>The standard of care for Latino children suspected of presenting with a language disorder should be defined to provide guidance for SLPs faced with these clinical challenges. A review of federal, state, and professional agency policies and regulations and information pertinent to the speech-language assessment requirements of EL children is discussed here. The following governing agencies were consulted: The California Department of Education (CDE), Individuals with Disabilities in Education Improvement Act (IDEIA), and Preferred Practices of ASHA. These resources uniformly recommend that educators and SLPs need to be sensitive to documenting and labeling EL children as language impaired and/or learning disabled. Although specific guidelines in terms of the types of assessment tools should be used, there is agreement that the person conducting the assessment consider the child's first language status. For example, CA Regs. 3023: Assessment states:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> In addition to provisions of Education Code Sections 56320, assessments shall be administered by qualified personnel who are competent in both the oral or sign language skills and written skills of the individual's primary language or mode of communication and have a knowledge and understanding of the cultural and ethnic background of the pupil. If it clearly is not feasible to do so, an interpreter must be used, and the assessment report shall document this condition and note that the validity of the assessment may have been affected. Further, IDEIA (34 CFR §300.304(c)) states: Testing and other evaluation materials must be: Selected and administered in a manner that is not racially or culturally discriminatory; provided and administered in the child's native language or other mode of communication, and in the form most likely to yield what the child knows and can do, unless clearly not feasible to do so; be used for purposes for which the assessments or measures are valid and reliable; administered by trained and knowledgeable personnel.</item> </ulist> <p>Finally, ASHA's <emph>Key Points on Bilingual Service Delivery</emph> indicate, "...use culturally and linguistically adapted test equivalents in both languages to compare potential deficits" (ASHA, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref60">2</reflink>]). Where these resources fail is that they are vague and leave too much to interpretation by SLPs, school district administrations, and insurance companies that fund these services. Rather than rely solely on standardized tests, SLPs should consider using a combination of standardized and non-standardized measures. Kraemer et al. ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref61">26</reflink>]) suggest the following practices that seek to minimize assessment bias in assessing EL children regardless of home language: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref62">1</reflink>) in-depth parent/caregiver interview (including information on language exposure and use); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref63">2</reflink>) dynamic language assessment (DA) in each language; (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref64">3</reflink>) information processing tasks (i.e., non-word repetition); (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref65">4</reflink>) narrative skill assessment in each language; (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref66">5</reflink>) review of student portfolio data; and (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref67">6</reflink>) the use of trained and skilled interpreters during the interview and assessment process for cases when SLPs are unfamiliar with a child's home language. By engaging in these approaches, SLPs may circumvent the problems inherent in formal assessment tests and base diagnosis on representative language abilities.</p> <p>Unfortunately, problems with bilingual service delivery continue to persist. The majority of bilingual SLPs live in a limited number of states, such as Texas, New York, California, and Florida; their representation is not widespread across the country as a whole. Secondly, as was previously mentioned, only 8.5% of masters-level programs in speech-language pathology have training available in bilingual assessment and intervention (ASHA, [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref68">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref69">4</reflink>]). Due to a lack of training, clinicians are avoiding the diagnosis of bilingual children with language impairment (i.e., Kritikos, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref70">27</reflink>]) or are misdiagnosing them due to issues with test psychometrics (i.e., Skahan et al., [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref71">39</reflink>]). Therefore, the problem of misdiagnosis needs to be documented and the methods leading to those misdiagnoses identified so that we can improve our clinical practice delivery and provide typically developing bilingual children full access to the general education curriculum.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-7">Purpose and specific aims</hd> <p>The purpose of this study was to document the overidentification of language disorders in Latino children. We sought to determine whether SLPs working in a California school district, which historically has served Latino EL children, adhered to the aforementioned best practices when assessing Latino EL children when diagnosing them with a language disorder. It is possible that failure to follow evidence-based approaches to identification of language disorders in Latino EL children is contributing to overrepresentation of Latino children receiving speech-language therapy services. The following specific aims of this study were:</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-8">Specific Aim 1:</hd> <p>To determine whether SLPs adhered to federal, state, and professional guidelines during initial assessments of Latino EL children. In order to systematically address this aim, the investigators will review speech-language assessment reports for evidence of (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref72">1</reflink>) standardized and non-standardized assessments, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref73">2</reflink>) language of assessment(s), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref74">3</reflink>) information of the child's language dominance and English proficiency, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref75">4</reflink>) discussion of exposure to English, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref76">5</reflink>) parental or caregiver primary language spoken at home, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref77">6</reflink>) use of an interpreter during the assessment process, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref78">7</reflink>) of analysis of the child's schoolwork.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-9">Hypothesis 1:</hd> <p>Based on the disproportionate number of Latino children, as reflected in federal databases, receiving speech and language services, we predicted that SLPs were not following best-practice guidelines in the assessment of bilingual Latino EL children.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-10">Specific Aim 2:</hd> <p>To document which standardized tests and non-standardized measures SLPs used to determine language impairments in Latino EL children.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-11">Hypothesis 2:</hd> <p>We predicted, due to the low number of graduate programs that instruct SLPs in evidence-based assessment practices with bilingual children, that SLPs were, by and large, testing Latino EL children only in English using standardized tests that include monolingual English speakers in their normative samples.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-12">Methods</hd> <p>This study was conducted in a northern California school district consisting of six preschools, six transitional kindergarten sites, 10 elementary schools (grades K-6), and one elementary charter school. At the time of the study the student population for grades PK-12 was approximately 10,000. In 2013, Latino children comprised 52% of the student population (Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref79">29</reflink>]).</p> <p>The record abstraction process used in this study followed methods used by Artiles, Trent, and Kuan ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref80">6</reflink>]) and Figueroa and Newsome ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref81">15</reflink>]) in their studies. The process consisted of conducting an in-depth review of all data (i.e., anecdotal, test scores, etc.) included in a child's speech-language assessment report. The review process consisted of obtaining a list of Latino children from the director of special education who: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref82">1</reflink>) were identified as a Latino EL per parent completion of the home language survey, which was completed upon enrollment at the school (not at the time of the assessment); (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref83">2</reflink>) participated in the district's English as a Second Language program; and (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref84">3</reflink>) had a current Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for speech-language services. The grade levels represented in the list consisted of: Pre-K (N = 28), Kindergarten (N = 25), first grade (N = 13), second grade (N = 6), third grade (N = 8), fourth grade (N = 5), and fifth grade (N = 3). The investigators were able to gain access to and review the reports in the district office. Although a total of 96 reports met initial requirements, only those documenting a language assessment (N = 88) during a three-year period (2010–2011, 2011–2012, and 2012–2013) were reviewed. Children assessed for speech sound disorder (SSD), fluency and/or voice impairments were not reviewed.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-13">Data analysis</hd> <p>To address Specific Aim 1, the investigators reviewed each speech-language assessment report for the following data: (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref85">1</reflink>) standardized and non-standardized assessments, (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref86">2</reflink>) language of assessment(s), (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref87">3</reflink>) information of child's language dominance and English proficiency, (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref88">4</reflink>) discussion of exposure to English, (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref89">5</reflink>) parental or caregiver primary language spoken at home, (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref90">6</reflink>) use of an interpreter during the assessment process, and (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref91">7</reflink>) of analysis of the child's schoolwork. To address Specific Aim 2, the investigators documented the type of standardized tests used during the assessment process (e.g., single word vocabulary, test battery) and the frequency with which they were used. In terms of the languages spoken by the district SLPs, 13 out of 14 spoke English only. According to the Special Education director, the lone Spanish-English bilingual SLP received her graduate training in a northern California university which, to this date, does not offer a bilingual certification option.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-14">Results</hd> <p>A thorough review of 88 speech-language assessment reports revealed that Latino EL children in this cohort were assessed solely by way of a standardized test. Table 1 presents frequency of language of assessment (Table 1). There was no mention of a child's language dominance, English proficiency, exposure to English, parental or caregiver primary language spoken at home, or analysis of a child's schoolwork in any of the reports. In terms of testing, the investigator determined that SLPs administered 18 different standardized assessment tests. Table 2 presents the frequency of test administration. In many cases, children were assessed in Spanish (N = 32) or English (N = 38) rather than both (N = 18) as suggested by IDEA, ASHA, and CDE. Non-standardized measures (e.g., dynamic assessment) were not included as part of the assessment protocol for any of the children. Four of the children qualified for speech-language services on the basis of the CELF-4 subtest Language Content standard score of 78 or lower, and four others had language goals based on articulation testing alone. Many were placed with no consideration to primary language status (N = 32), and the vast majority of the children were assessed without the support of an interpreter (N = 87). It is also important to note that only one SLP (who was monolingual English) included information addressing the child's Spanish proficiency, length of exposure to English, type of exposure to English, parents or caregiver information, review of student class work, and informal language sample data.</p> <p>Table 1. Frequency of Language Used for Assessment by Grade Level.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Grade Level</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre K</td><td>Kinder</td><td>1st grade</td><td>2nd grade</td><td>3rd grade</td><td>4th grade</td><td>5th grade</td></tr><tr><td /><td>N = 28</td><td>N = 25</td><td>N = 13</td><td>N = 6</td><td>N = 8</td><td>N = 5</td><td>N = 3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>English-only</td><td>7</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Spanish-only</td><td>19</td><td>8</td><td>5</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Both L1 and L2</td><td>2</td><td>6</td><td>3</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>1</td><td>1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Frequency of Administration of Language Assessment Tools.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>Grade Level</td></tr><tr><td /><td>Pre K</td><td>Kinder</td><td>1st grade</td><td>2nd grade</td><td>3rd grade</td><td>4th grade</td><td>5th grade</td></tr><tr><td>Test</td><td>N = 28</td><td>N = 25</td><td>N = 13</td><td>N = 6</td><td>N = 8</td><td>N = 5</td><td>N = 3</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>CASL</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>3</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CELF-P</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CELF-P (Spanish)</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CELF-4</td><td>0</td><td>7</td><td>5</td><td>3</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>CELF: S-4</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>6</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EOWPVT</td><td>0</td><td>5</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>EOWPVT: B</td><td>0</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>EVT</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>PLS-4</td><td>17</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>PLS-4 (Spanish)</td><td>6</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>PPVT</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>2</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>ROWPVT</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>ROWPVT: B</td><td>4</td><td>4</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>SPELT</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>TACL</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr><tr><td>TOLD</td><td>0</td><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0125746475-15">Discussion</hd> <p>The overidentification of Latino EL children in speech-language programs continues to be a major concern for many school district personnel and those working in speech-language pathology. Both of our hypotheses were confirmed. The major factor contributing to the disproportionality of Latino EL students receiving speech-language therapy is the continued reliance on standardized tests that are designed for and normed on monolingual English-speaking children. Although it was discovered that SLPs assessed all 88 Latino EL children using standardized tests and, in many cases, only assessed them in one language (Spanish or English), they also neglected to include non-standardized measures in their assessment battery. Non-standardized measures may require more time in implementing, but these measures may possess greater ecological validity (i.e., Kapantzolou, Restrepo, & Thompson, [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref92">22</reflink>]; Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref93">28</reflink>]). It was also discovered that the vast majority of speech-language assessment reports failed to contain Spanish proficiency information, language history information (as determined by parents or caregivers), evidence of reviewing student classwork, and informal language sample data. Latino EL children suspected of having a language impairment cannot be assessed using the same methods as native English-speaking children (Bedore & Peña, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref94">7</reflink>]); however, we found that SLPs routinely assess in this way. In an effort to move towards accurately assessing Latino EL children suspected of language impairments, SLPs (especially monolingual English-speaking SLPs) should incorporate non-standardized measures into their assessment practices.</p> <p>It is important to note that even though some children were administered Spanish versions of common language tests (e.g., CELF: S-4, EOWPVT: B, and ROWPVT: B), these have several psychometric issues. First, these tests included children with language impairments in their normative samples. These tests, then, may not accurately identify impairment when one truly exists (Peña, Spaulding, & Plante, [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref95">37</reflink>]). Secondly, tests such as the CELF-4 are not clear when reporting the normative samples of their Spanish speakers. It would be important to know whether the language(s) of children used in norming the test aligns with the children the SLP is assessing. These test developers failed to report whether the children included in the norming population were monolingual Spanish speakers, lived in the United States, Latin America, Mexico, Puerto Rico, Spain, etc., or were Spanish-English bilingual speakers with varying dialects of Spanish. In addition, it is important to consider that Latino EL children acquire English differently from native English-speaking children (Kohnert, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref96">25</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref97">24</reflink>]; Paradis & Genesee, [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref98">34</reflink>]). For example, in terms of vocabulary development, Latino EL children may use either Spanish or English to state a concept but can be penalized on standardized tests when they are unable to produce the word in the target language of the assessment.</p> <p>Although this preliminary study presents the assessment practices of SLPs working in one school district, it is possible these practices are being employed elsewhere in the United States. While California has long been home to Latinos, many states have experienced an influx of Latinos only within the past 20 years (U.S. Census Bureau, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref99">42</reflink>]). Therefore, if SLPs in California failed to adhere to federal, state, and ASHA guidelines in their assessment of Latino EL children, it is probable that SLPs working in other states are equally, or even more, engaged in methods that could potentially misdiagnose Latino EL students. This exploratory study needs to be replicated in other districts within and outside of California in order to better understand the depth of the issue and its cause.</p> <hd id="AN0125746475-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>SLPs must continue to strive for clinical practices that ensure that all EL children receive the educational experiences that support them to become contributing members to society. This can be best achieved by assuring that every typically developing child has access to the general education curriculum. As the number of school-aged Latino EL children continues to increase, so must the number of SLPs knowledgeable of how best to assess these children. Efforts in researching current assessment practices must coincide with the development and training of evidence-based assessment practices. SLPs desire to improve their assessment practices and, as such, the onus is on both researchers and district administrators to work together to provide training at both the district and university levels. Consistent communication among administrators, SLPs, and researchers is a vital element in assuring institutional change and improved practices. Future research efforts must address the establishment of generating evidence-based, non-biased, ecologically valid language assessment tools best suited for all EL children.</p> <ref id="AN0125746475-17"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref1" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association. (2013). Issues in ethics: Cultural and linguistic competence. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.asha.org/Practice/ethics/Cultural-and-Linguistic-Competence/">http://www.asha.org/Practice/ethics/Cultural-and-Linguistic-Competence/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref2" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association. (2015). Professional issues: Bilingual service delivery. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Professional-Issues/Bilingual-Service-Delivery/">http://www.asha.org/Practice-Portal/Professional-Issues/Bilingual-Service-Delivery/</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref8" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association. (2015a). Historically Black colleges and universities and multicultural/bilingual emphasis programs. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/opportunities/hbi/">http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/opportunities/hbi/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association. (2015b). CAA accredited and candidate programs. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.asha.org/Academic/accreditation/CAA-Accredited-Programs/">http://www.asha.org/Academic/accreditation/CAA-Accredited-Programs/</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref26" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J. J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English-language learner representation in special education in California urban school districts. In Racial Inequity in Special Education (pp. 117–136). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref67" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Artiles, A. J., Trent, S. C., & Kuan, L. (1997). Learning disabilities empirical research on ethnic minority students: An analysis of 22 years. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 12(2), 82–97.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref38" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bedore, L., & Peña, E. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 1–29.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref37" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bialystock, E., Craik, F. & Luk, G. (2008). Lexical access in bilinguals: Effects of vocabulary size and executive control. Journal of Neurolinguistics. 21 (6), 522–538.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref16" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Center for Special Education Finance. (2003). Financing (or the cost of) special education. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://csef.air.org/publications/related/edwriters.pdf">http://csef.air.org/publications/related/edwriters.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chaikind, S., Danielson, L. C., & Brauen, M. L. (1993). What do we know about the costs of special education? A selected review. The Journal of Special Education, 26(4), 344–370.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Culatta, B., Page, J., & Ellis, J. (1983). Story Retelling as a communicative performance screening tool. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 14, 66–74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crutchley, A., Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (1997). Bilingual children with specific language impairment and standardized assessments: Preliminary findings from a study of children in language units. International Journal of Bilingualism, 1(2), 117–134.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. A. (2010a). Early-, middle-, and late-developing sounds in monolingual and bilingual children: An exploratory investigation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(1), 66–77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fabiano-Smith, L., & Goldstein, B. A. (2010b). Phonological acquisition in bilingual Spanish English speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(1), 160–178.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: Is in nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(3), 206–214.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, B. & Yavas, M. (1998). Phonological assessment and treatment of bilingual speakers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 49–60.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, B. (2001). Transcription of Spanish and Spanish-influenced English. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 325–358.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goldstein, B., Fabiano, L., & Washington, P. (2005). Phonological skills in predominantly English-speaking, predominantly Spanish-speaking, and Spanish-English bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 201–218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Haynes, W. O., & Pindzola, R. H. (2011). Diagnosis and evaluation in speech pathology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Higher Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hosp, J. & Reschley, D. (2004). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education: Academic, demographic, and economic predictors. Exceptional Children, 10 (2), 185–199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act Amendments of 2004 (IDEIA). (2004). Public Law 108-446 108th Congress. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://idea.ed.gov/explore">http://idea.ed.gov/explore</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kapantzolou, M., Restrepo, M., & Thompson, M. (2012). Dynamic assessment of word learning skills: Identifying language impairment in bilingual children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 43, 81–96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klingner, J. K., & Artiles, A. J. (2003). When should bilingual students be in special education? Educational Leadership, 61(2), 66–71.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(6), 456–473.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kohnert, K. (2012). Processing skills in early sequential bilinguals. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language development and disorders (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kraemer, R., Coltisor, A., Kalra, M., Martinez, M., Savage, B., Summers, S., & Varadharajan, S. (2013). The Speech-Language Assessment of English Language Learning Students: A Non-Standardized Approach. American Speech, Language, and Hearing Association Special Interest Group 14 Issue of Perspectives.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kritikos, E. P. (2003). Speech-language pathologists' beliefs about language assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(1), 73–91.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, N., Castilleja, N., Moore, B. J., & Rodriguez, B. (2010). Assessment 360°: A panoramic framework for assessing English language learners. Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, 17(2), 37–56.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lucile Packard Foundation for Children's Health. (2015). Kidsdata.org. Retrieved from: <ulink href="http://www.kidsdata.org/?site=full">http://www.kidsdata.org/?site=full</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Morgan, P., Hammer, S., Farkas, G., Hillemeier, M., Maczuga, S., Cook, M., & Morano, S. (2015). Who receives speech/language therapy services by 5 years of age in the U.S.? American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25(2), 183–199.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Center for Education Statistics. (2010). Status and trends in education of racial and ethnic groups. Retrieved from: <ulink href="http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510909.pdf">http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED510909.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Newcomer, P. & Hammill, D. (1988) Test of oral language development: Primary. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, 1988</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oetting, J, & McDonald, J. (2001). Nonmainstream use and specific language impairment. Journal of speech, language, and Hearing Research, 44, 207–223.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paradis, J., & Genesee, F. (1996). Syntactic acquisition in bilingual children. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 18(01), 1–25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearce, W. M., & Williams, C. (2013). The cultural appropriateness and diagnostic usefulness of standardized language assessments for Indigenous Australian children. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(4), 429–440.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43(1), 93–120.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peña, E. D., Spaulding, T. J., & Plante, E. (2006). The composition of normative groups and diagnostic decision making: Shooting ourselves in the foot. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15(3), 247–254.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Seymour, H., Roeper, T., deVilliers, J, & deVilliers, P. 2004). Diagnostic Evaluation of language Variation. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skahan, S. M., Watson, M., & Lof, G. L. (2007). Speech-language pathologists' assessment practices for children with suspected speech sound disorders: Results of a national survey. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16(3), 246–259.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. (2009). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for children with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://cde.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/10/21/0885728809346960.full.pdf">http://cde.sagepub.com/content/early/2009/10/21/0885728809346960.full.pdf</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tomblin, J., Records, L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., & O'Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December, 40, 1245–1260.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Census Bureau. (2012). Hispanic Americans by the numbers. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hhmcensus1.html">http://www.infoplease.com/spot/hhmcensus1.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Census Bureau. (2013). America's foreign born: The last 50 years. The U.S. Census Bureau. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.census.gov/#">http://www.census.gov/#</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Office of Civil Rights. Retrieved from <ulink href="http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/index.html">http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/office/index.html</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Westman, M., Korkman, M., Mickos, A., & Byring, R. (2008). Language profiles of monolingual and bilingual Finnish preschool children at risk for language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 43(6), 699–711.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zimmerman, I., Steiner, V., & Pond, R. (2012). PLS-5: Preschool Language Scale Spanish Screening Test-5. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0125746475-18"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibtext> Anglo-American children are used as the main comparison group because children of racial minority backgrounds, such as African American children, are more likely than Anglo American children to be speakers of non-mainstream dialect varieties (e.g., Seymour, [38]). Children who are speakers of non-mainstream dialect varieties are also at high risk for misdiagnosis (e.g., Oetting & McDonald, [33]).</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Robert Kraemer and Leah Fabiano-Smith</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref58"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref61"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref95"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1157736
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Language Assessment of Latino English Learning Children: A Records Abstraction Study
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kraemer%2C+Robert%22">Kraemer, Robert</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Fabiano-Smith%2C+Leah%22">Fabiano-Smith, Leah</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Journal+of+Latinos+and+Education%22"><i>Journal of Latinos and Education</i></searchLink>. 2017 16(4):349-358.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 10
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Elementary+Education%22">Elementary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Speech+Language+Pathology%22">Speech Language Pathology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Allied+Health+Personnel%22">Allied Health Personnel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Tests%22">Language Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Diagnostic+Tests%22">Diagnostic Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Clinical+Diagnosis%22">Clinical Diagnosis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Spanish+Speaking%22">Spanish Speaking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22English+Language+Learners%22">English Language Learners</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hispanic+American+Students%22">Hispanic American Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Preschool+Children%22">Preschool Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Elementary+School+Students%22">Elementary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Language+Impairments%22">Language Impairments</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Compliance+%28Legal%29%22">Compliance (Legal)</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Reports%22">Reports</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Best+Practices%22">Best Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Error+of+Measurement%22">Error of Measurement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Placement%22">Student Placement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Limited+English+Speaking%22">Limited English Speaking</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Identification%22">Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22School+Districts%22">School Districts</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Hypothesis+Testing%22">Hypothesis Testing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Standardized+Tests%22">Standardized Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Cohort+Analysis%22">Cohort Analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Intelligence+Tests%22">Intelligence Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Verbal+Ability%22">Verbal Ability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Vocabulary%22">Vocabulary</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Listening+Comprehension+Tests%22">Listening Comprehension Tests</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Receptive+Language%22">Receptive Language</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22California%22">California</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Clinical+Evaluation+of+Language+Fundamentals%22">Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Expressive+One+Word+Picture+Vocabulary+Test%22">Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Preschool+Language+Scale%22">Preschool Language Scale</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Peabody+Picture+Vocabulary+Test%22">Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Test+for+Auditory+Comprehension+of+Language%22">Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Test+of+Language+Development%22">Test of Language Development</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/15348431.2016.1257429
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1534-8431
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The researchers examined how speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in a small northern California school district assessed Spanish speaking English learning (EL) Latino children suspected of language impairments. Specifically we sought to (1) determine whether SLPs adhered to federal, state, and professional guidelines during initial assessments and (2) identify tests and measures used by SLPs during language assessments. The researchers conducted a records abstraction review of 88 speech-language assessment reports of Spanish speaking EL Latino children. The reports were examined for parameters of best practice as outlined in recent studies. Results indicated that for each report the SLP responsible for assessing the child failed to consider at least one best practice parameter. Although impossible to determine at this stage, it is likely that many of these children were erroneously assessed and subsequently placed in speech-language programs. Findings support the notion that many EL Latino children continue to be inappropriately assessed for language impairments.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 46
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2017
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1157736
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1157736
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/15348431.2016.1257429
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 10
        StartPage: 349
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Speech Language Pathology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Allied Health Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Diagnostic Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical Diagnosis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Spanish Speaking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: English Language Learners
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hispanic American Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Language Impairments
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Compliance (Legal)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Reports
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Best Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Error of Measurement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Placement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Limited English Speaking
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: School Districts
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Hypothesis Testing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Standardized Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Cohort Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Verbal Ability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Vocabulary
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Listening Comprehension Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Receptive Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: California
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Preschool Language Scale
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test of Language Development
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Language Assessment of Latino English Learning Children: A Records Abstraction Study
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Kraemer, Robert
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Fabiano-Smith, Leah
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2017
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1534-8431
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 16
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Journal of Latinos and Education
              Type: main
ResultId 1