An Analysis of the Test of Language Development—Primary for Item Bias

Hammer, Carol Scheffner; Pennock-Román, María; Rzasa, Sarah E.; Tomblin, J. Bruce

doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2002/032)

Cited by 22 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Available language tests may penalize nonmainstream English dialect use, and as a result, they may underestimate the language skills of children with TLD. For example, African American children received significantly lower scores than their White peers on the Test of Language Development-Primary (TOLD-P; Hammer, Pennock-Roman, Rzasa, & Tomblin, 2002;Newcomer & Hammill, 1991). The items that differentiated the two TLD groups involved not only vocabulary but also grammatical targets (i.e., items included in Grammatic Understanding, Sentence Imitation, and Grammatic Completion subtests).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Discriminant Accuracy of a Grammatical Measure With Latino English-Speaking Children

Gutiérrez–Clellen

Simón-Cereijido

2007

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-To evaluate the discriminant accuracy of a grammatical measure for the identification of language impairment (LI) in Latino English-speaking children. Specifically, the study examined the diagnostic accuracy of the Test of English Morphosyntax (E-MST; Peña, Gutiérrez-Clellen, Iglesias, Goldstein, & Bedore (n.d.) to determine (a) whether use and exposure to Spanish had an effect on the performance of bilingual children compared with monolingual Latino children and (b) whether dialectal differences within Latino English speakers might result in performance differences and a greater incidence of misclassifications for children from Caribbean English backgrounds.Method-One hundred and eleven children (i.e., 59 children with typical language development and 52 children with LI) were sampled from the Southwest and Northeast regions of the U.S. Southwestern children were of Mexican origin. Children from the Northeast were from Puerto Rican or Dominican backgrounds. Linear discriminant analyses evaluating group classifications on the basis of the E-MST were performed on exploratory and confirmatory data sets across 3 groups: Southwestern English-only proficient (SW EP) children, Southwestern English-dominant bilingual (SW EDB) children, and Northeastern (NE) children.Results-Results of the exploratory discriminant analyses indicated good sensitivity for the SW EP children. The discriminant functions derived from the exploratory analysis were able to predict group membership in confirmatory discriminant analyses with fair sensitivity and good specificity for the SW EDB children and with fair sensitivity but poor specificity for the NE children. Children who were English-dominant bilingual were not more likely to be misclassified compared with their English-only proficient peers. However, nonmainstream English dialect differences appeared to affect classification accuracy and resulted in a greater number of misclassifications for the NE children with typical language development. Conclusion-The measure seems to be suitable for identifying LI in SW children who are exposed to Spanish and/or who are English-dominant bilingual. Additional assessment tools will be needed to rule out the disorder in children who are exposed to African American or Caribbean English dialects. NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptResearch with mainstream English-speaking children has helped advance our understanding of the grammatical characteristics of specific language impairment (SLI) and the potential predictive value of grammatical measures in clinical assessments (for a detailed review, see Leonard, 1998). 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;Washingto...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Discriminant Accuracy of a Grammatical Measure With Latino English-Speaking Children

Gutiérrez–Clellen

Simón-Cereijido

2007

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This rate is higher than 16%, which is what one would expect based on a normal curve. High fail rates are not inconsistent with previous descriptions of these tools as potentially biased against children from culturally/linguistically diverse backgrounds (for PPVT-R, see Washington & Craig, 1992; for TOLD-P:2, see Hammer, Pennock-Roman, Rzasa, & Tomblin, 2002;Tomblin et al, 1997, but also Smith, Myers-Jennings, & Coleman, 2000. Participant profiles are provided in Table 2.…”

Section: Methods Participantsmentioning

confidence: 55%

Empirically Derived Combinations of Tools and Clinical Cutoffs: An Illustrative Case With a Sample of Culturally/Linguistically Diverse Children

Oetting

Cleveland

Cope

2008

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-Using a sample of culturally/linguistically diverse children, we present data to illustrate the value of empirically derived combinations of tools and cutoffs for determining eligibility in child language impairment.Method-Data were from 95 4-and 6-year-olds (40 African American, 55 White; 18 with language impairment, 77 without) who lived in the rural South; they involved primarily scores from the Comprehension subtest of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (CSSB; R. Thorndike, E. Hagen, & J. Sattler, 1986), but scores from an experimental nonword repetition task (NRT; C. Dollaghan & T. Campbell, 1998) were also included as supplements to these scores.Results-Although the CSSB led to low fail rates in children without impairment and a statistically reliable group difference as a function of the children's clinical status but not their race, only 56% of children with impairment were accurately classified when −1 SD was employed as the cutoff. Diagnostic accuracy improved to 81% when an empirically derived cutoff of −.5 SD was used. When scores from the NRT were added to those from the CSSB, diagnostic accuracy increased to 90%.Implications-This illustrative case adds to the growing number of studies that call for empirically derived combinations of tools and cutoffs as one option within an evidence-based practice framework. Keywords assessment; child language disorders; cultural/linguistic diversity Norm-referenced tests, although not the only tools used within assessment, play an important role in determining who is eligible for clinical services in the field of speechlanguage pathology. This is especially true in public school settings where established eligibility guidelines in the form of −1 SD, −1.5 SD, or −2 SD are set at the district, parish, or state level. In a recent article, however, Spaulding, Plante, and Farinella (2006) examined the diagnostic accuracy rates of 43 assessment tools, and from their review argued against "wholesale" use of a single low cut-off score to determine eligibility. In this article, we © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Contact author: Janna B. Oetting, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, 64 Hatcher Hall, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA 70803. cdjanna@lsu.edu. NIH Public Access Author ManuscriptLang Speech Hear Serv Sch. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 July 05. Our illustrative case focuses primarily on scores from the Comprehension subtest of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition (CSSB; Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986), although scores from an experimental nonword repetition task (NRT; Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998) are also included as supplements to these scores. Our data for both of these tools were collected in the late 1990s because research from other labs supported their use for children from culturally/linguistically diverse backgrounds. Unfortunately, our initial evaluation of these tools using some very basic methods led to mixed findings that were difficult to reconcile...

show abstract

“…At the time of Washington’s review, few non-biased tools existed and attempts to renorm or adjust existing tools were deemed inadequate for nonmainstream English-speaking children. Unfortunately, although many assessment tools within the field have been revised or recently developed to better address the needs of nonmainstream English-speaking children, test biases continue to be identified (e.g., Gutierrez-Clellen & Simon-Cerijido, 2007; Hammer, Pennock-Roman, Rzasa, & Tomblin, 2002; Qi, Kaiser, Milan, & Hancock, 2006; Restrepo et al, 2006; Thomas-Tate, Washington, & Edwards, 2004; Woods, Pena, & Martin, 2004; Wyatt, 2012). …”

Section: Test Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This well-known language test is designed to assess, among other skills, children’s grammar abilities. In an early study, Hammer et al (2002) examined the TOLD-P: 2 for possible biases related to a child’s race. Their data came from 245 African American and 1,481 White kindergarteners.…”

Section: Test Biasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating the Grammars of Children Who Speak Nonmainstream Dialects of English

Oetting

Lee

Porter

2013

Topics in Language Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we review three responses to the study and evaluation of grammar in children who speak nonmainstream dialects of English. Then we introduce a fourth, system-based response that views nonmainstream dialects of English, such as African American English (AAE) and Southern White English (SWE) as made up of dialect-specific and dialect-universal features. To illustrate the usefulness of a system-based approach and to distinguish our two terms from others in the dialect literature, we present AAE and SWE relative clause data from two previously published studies. Following this, we present new findings from AAE- and SWE-speaking children’s use of past tense and past participles to further demonstrate the value of examining larger units (i.e., systems) of a grammar to identify a child’s language strengths and weaknesses. We conclude by arguing that a system-based approach moves clinicians, educators, and researchers beyond a preoccupation with the nonmainstream aspects of children’s dialects while also moving us beyond Brown’s 14 morphemes. Although the focus of the article is on assessment, the content is relevant to the treatment of grammar because effective promotion of any child’s grammar (including the grammars of those who speak nonmainstream dialects of English) will occur only when clinicians, educators, and researchers begin to view the child’s grammar as a system rather than as a sum of its parts.

show abstract

An Analysis of the Test of Language Development—Primary for Item Bias

Cited by 22 publications

References 16 publications

The Discriminant Accuracy of a Grammatical Measure With Latino English-Speaking Children

The Discriminant Accuracy of a Grammatical Measure With Latino English-Speaking Children

Empirically Derived Combinations of Tools and Clinical Cutoffs: An Illustrative Case With a Sample of Culturally/Linguistically Diverse Children

Evaluating the Grammars of Children Who Speak Nonmainstream Dialects of English

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About