Assessment of Bilingual Children for Identification of Language Impairment: Current Findings and Implications for Practice

Bedore, Lisa M.; Peña, Elizabeth D.

doi:10.2167/beb392.0

Cited by 386 publications

(301 citation statements)

References 141 publications

(134 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

268

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Assessment in bilingual children's first and second language is the preferred practice (Bedore & Peña, 2008;Gillam et al, 1999). Unfortunately, the usefulness of bilingual assessment is limited by the combination of numerous languages being spoken in school settings, few bilingual SLPs, lack of developmental data on many languages, few tests that are normed on bilinguals, and a lack of empirically derived cut scores for determining good versus poor performance in either L1 or L2.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This pattern of language development has led to over-identification of SLI in bilingual children and the provision of unnecessary services (Artiles & Bal, 2008). Unfortunately, in an attempt not to overidentify impairments in this situation, clinicians sometimes withhold or delay services when they are actually needed (Bedore & Peña, 2008;Broomfield & Dodd, 2004;Kritikos, 2003). There is a need for reliable methods to appropriately identify SLI in children who are in the process of learning English as a second language.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bilingual children with SLI often present difficulties in their first and second languages (L1 and L2, respectively; Peña, Iglesias, & Lidz, 2001;Restrepo & Kruth, 2000). Therefore, assessment in bilingual children's L1 and L2 is the preferred practice (Bedore & Peña, 2008;Gillam, Peña, and Miller, 1999). The general idea is that bilingual children should present poor performance on measures of L1 and L2.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

Gillam

Peña

Bedore

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This study was designed to derive cut scores for English testing for use in identifying specific language impairment (SLI) in bilingual children who were learning English as a second language.Method-In a 1-gate design, 167 children received comprehensive language assessments in English and Spanish during their first-grade year. The reference standard was identification by a team of expert bilingual speech-language pathologists. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses were used to identify the optimal prediction model for SLI. (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996) yielded a sensitivity of .95 and a specificity of .45 (LR+ = 1.73, LR− = 0.11, and AUC = .79) for our bilinguals. Revised cutoff scores yielded a sensitivity of .86 and a specificity of .68 (LR+ = 2.67, LR− = 0.21, and AUC = .77). An optimal prediction model yielded a sensitivity of .81 and a specificity of .81 (LR+ = 4.37, LR− = 0.23 and AUC = .85). Results-The original, English EpiSLI criteria Conclusion-The results of English testing could be used to make a reasonably accurate diagnostic decision for bilingual children who had attended public school for at least 1 year and were using English at least 30% of the time. Keywordsassessment; bilingualism; children; language disorders; specific language impairment; primary language impairments Diagnosing specific language impairment (SLI) in children is difficult under the best of circumstances. The most common practice is to base diagnostic decisions on low scores on standardized language measures. Unfortunately, publishers of standardized tests rarely provide empirically based cutoff scores that yield the highest levels of sensitivity (correct identification of children with SLI) and specificity (correct identification of typically developing children). In a review of 43 commercially available child language tests, Spaulding, Plante, and Farinella (2006) found that many publishers recommended arbitrary Correspondence to Ron Gillam: ron.gillam@usu.edu. Disclosure: Ronald B. Gillam has a financial interest in the Test of Narrative Language (Gillam & Pearson, 2004). HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript J Speech Lang Hear Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 April 16.Published in final edited form as: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 December ; 56(6): 1813-1823. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2013. Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript cutoff scores that were likely to identify typical children as impaired. Spaulding et al. (2006) concluded that there is a need for more research that derives empirically based cutoff scores for identifying SLI in specific populations of children.Perhaps the most influential study of the diagnosis of SLI was a large-scale epidemiological study by Tomblin, Records, and Zhang (1996). Their diagnostic criteria, known as the EpiSLI model, was based on an the analysis of five composite scores (expressive, receptive, vocabulary, grammar, and narration) that were derived from performance on the Test of Language Development-Primary (Newcomer & Ham...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

Gillam

Peña

Bedore

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kaksikielisten lasten tyypillisestä kielenkehityksestä saati sitten poikkeavan kielenkehityksen piirteistä on kirjallisuudessa saatavilla niukasti tietoa asiantuntijatyön tueksi (ks. Bedore & Peña, 2008;Kohnert, 2010). Tiedon puute johtaa toisinaan siihen, että kaksikielisillä lapsilla yli-tai alidiagnosoidaan kielellisiä häiriöitä, 1 Varhainen kaksikielisyys kattaa sekä samanaikaisen (simultaani) että peräkkäisen (suksessiivinen) kaksikielisyyden leikki-ikäisillä.…”

Section: Johdantounclassified

“…Arkkila, Smolander & Laasonen, 2013;Costa & Sebastián-Gallés, 2014;De Houwer, 2004). koska tyypillisen kehityksen piirteitä ei tunnisteta ja luotettavat testauskeinot puuttuvat (Smolander ym., 2016;Bedore & Peña, 2008;Kohnert, 2010).…”

Section: Johdantounclassified

Englannin kielen vaikutuksia kuusivuotiaiden suomea ja englantia omaksuvien lasten sammakkotarinoissa

Alantie

Korpijaakko‐Huuhka

Rantala

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tutkimuksessa tarkasteltiin 11:n varhaisesti kaksikielisen 6-vuotiaan lapsen kielenkäyttöä suomeksi tuotetussa kuvakirjakerronnassa. Kaikkien lasten kotikieli oli suomi, minkä lisäksi he olivat omaksuneet englantia 0-4 vuoden iästä lähtien. Kertomuksista poimittujen epätyypillisten ilmaisujen avulla selvitettiin, miten englannin kielen omaksuminen mahdollisesti heijastui lasten kielellisiin valintoihin ja millaisia lasten ilmaisut olivat verrattuina yksikielisten ikäverrokeiden (n = 10) ja vuotta nuorempien lasten (n = 12) ilmaisuihin. Lähes kaikki kaksikieliset lapset tuottivat jonkunlaisia epätyypillisiä ilmaisuja. Laatunsa perusteella ne pystyttiin jakamaan pääasiassa 1) englannin kielen vaikutuksesta johtuviin ja 2) suomen kielen omaksumiseen liittyviin. Kielten väliseen vaikutukseen liittyvien havaintojen perusteella kaksikieliset lapset tuottivat osittain hyvin erilaisia ilmaisuja kuin yksikieliset lapset, ja suomen kielen normista poikkeavia ilmaisuja esiintyi kaikkiaan hieman useammalla kaksikielisellä kuin yksikielisellä lapsella. Jotkin kaksikielisten lasten suomen kielen omaksumiseen liittyvät epätyypilliset ilmaisut sen sijaan muistuttivat heitä vuotta nuorempien verrokkilasten valintoja. Tulosten pohdinta nosti esille, että tutkimusympäristö ja tutkimuskäytänteet saattavat vaikuttaa kielen siirtymisherkkyyteen, mikä kannattaa ottaa kliinisessä työssä huomioon.Avainsanat: kaksikielinen lapsi, kertova kieli, kielellinen valinta, kieltenvälinen vaikutus, systeemis-funktionaalinen kieliteoria JOHDANTOLasten kaksikielisyys on maailmanlaajuisesti varsin yleistä (Kohnert, 2010), ja kaksikielisten lasten määrä tulee kasvamaan myös Suomessa entisestään nykyisen maailmantilanteen aiheuttaman maahanmuuton myö-tä. Kaksikieliseen kielen kehitykseen liittyy useita erityispiirteitä. Ensinnäkin verrattuna yksikieliseen ikätoveriinsa kahden kielen vaikutuspiirissä kehittyvä lapsi omaksuu kahden eri kielen fonologian, leksikon ja rakenteellisten piirteiden lisäksi sen, miten kieliä käy-tetään kulttuurisesti asianmukaisilla tavoilla (Genesee, Paradis & Crago, 2004, s. 27; Verhoeven, 2010, s. 436). Toiseksi kielten omaksumista määrittää myös se, että kaksikielinen lapsi saattaa altistua kullekin omaksumalleen

show abstract

Bilingual Assessment

Lakshmanan

2013

The Companion to Language Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter focuses on issues central to bilingual assessment. It sets the stage by highlighting the complexities involved in the definition and classification of bilingualism and the need for appropriate bilingual assessment practices in research, educational, and clinical settings. Next, the chapter analyzes the weaknesses of traditional approaches to bilingual assessment. Historically, the assessment of bilingual children and adults has tended to follow monolingual norms, which stems from a fractional view of the bilingual. The monolingual bias is still in evidence today, as bilinguals tend to be assessed only in one language (often the L2). Furthermore, standardized tests, which entail discrete item testing of single measures (e.g., vocabulary and grammar), rather than the use of language for authentic communication, have commonly been used in educational and clinical settings. A problem with standardized testing is that the norming is typically based upon a monolingual native speaker population. A challenge facing researchers, educationists, and clinicians when assessing bilinguals is how not to underestimate or overestimate the bilingual individual's linguistic abilities. Recent (and current) research on bilingual assessment, based upon a more holistic view of bilingualism, has paved the way for the development of nonbiased approaches to bilingual assessment. These recent developments emphasize assessing bilinguals in each of their two languages, adaptation (of standardized tests) to local norms (rather than literal translation), the use of less formal alternatives (e.g., dynamic assessment, language samples analysis), as well as the use of language general measures (e.g., processing capacity). The chapter examines the change in perspective underlying current conceptualizations of bilingual assessment, and presents highlights of current research in the field. The article concludes with a consideration of the challenges involved in the implementation of nonbiased and less formal alternatives to bilingual assessment and the future initiatives necessary to meet these challenges.

show abstract

Assessment of Bilingual Children for Identification of Language Impairment: Current Findings and Implications for Practice

Cited by 386 publications

References 141 publications

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

Englannin kielen vaikutuksia kuusivuotiaiden suomea ja englantia omaksuvien lasten sammakkotarinoissa

Bilingual Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About