1989
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461.2004.381
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Adaptation of a Screening Test for Bilingual and Bidialectal Populations

Abstract: Screening for language problems in minority preschool children is not straight-forward because of these children's diverse cultural, economic, and linguistic backgrounds. Over 68% of the 540 preschool English-speaking children in the Fort Worth Head Start program obtained scores at least one standard deviation below the mean on the Hannah-Gardner Test of Verbal and Nonverbal Language Functioning. This high failure rate suggested that a local adaptation was needed for language screening. The procedures used to … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

1994
1994
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The items on the Expressive subtest were adapted to address the dialectal differences of speakers of African American and Hispanic English. Even with this adaptation, more than 68% of the children screened obtained scores at least 1 SD below the mean of the normative sample (Norris et al, 1989). The comparisons continued to reveal significant differences using different cutoff scores.…”
mentioning
confidence: 69%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The items on the Expressive subtest were adapted to address the dialectal differences of speakers of African American and Hispanic English. Even with this adaptation, more than 68% of the children screened obtained scores at least 1 SD below the mean of the normative sample (Norris et al, 1989). The comparisons continued to reveal significant differences using different cutoff scores.…”
mentioning
confidence: 69%
“…However, accurate identification of SLI in children from nonmainstream backgrounds may be difficult because these children may score lower than the norms on standardized language tests in spite of having typical language development (TLD; Norris, Juarez, & Perkins, 1989;Peña, Quinn, & Iglesias, 1992;Qi, 2005;Qi, Kaiser, Milan, Yzquierdo, & Hancock, 2003;Restrepo et al, 2006;Washington & Craig, 1992, 1999Wilcox & Aasby, 1988). The differential test performance of nonmainstream children cannot be attributed to differences in socioeconomic status (SES).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The complexity of a linguistic feature represented in a test -ranging from vocabulary to complex morphological structures -affects the extent to which adaptations are required: Vocabulary items are often easier to adapt than complex morphological, language-specific structures. Other issues that are relevant for the adaptation and later use of language tests relate to culture-determined experiences and the resulting behavior of children in testing situations: (1) for example, the use of computers for testing (Friend & Keplinger, 2008); (2) the culture-appropriate learned behavior of a child towards an adult in a testing situation (Pakendorf & Alant, 1997); (3) the use of a tester from the same cultural group as the children to be tested (e.g., Norris, Juárez, & Perkins, 1989;Pakendorf & Alant, 1997;Solarsh & Alant, 2006); and (4) the need to attend to non-mainstream variants or dialects of the target language (e.g., Alant & Beukes, 1986;Norris et al, 1989;Restrepo & Silverman, 2001).…”
Section: Adaptation Of Spoken Language Testsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There also has been considerable discussion related to the possible misinterpretation of test results for children with language disabilities (cf. Norris et al, 1989) and poor reading skills (Good & Salvia, 1988). Test-taking may be a particular problem for children with autism who exhibit deficits in social interactions and display disruptive behaviors, such as self-stimulation, task avoidance, and escape.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%