Comparison of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation–Screening Test Risk Subtest to Two Other Screeners for Low-Income Prekindergartners Who Speak African American English and Live in the Urban South

Abstract

Purpose We compared the Risk subtest of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation–Screening Test (DELV–Screening Test Risk) with two other screeners when administered to low-income prekindergartners (pre-K) who spoke African American English (AAE) in the urban South. Method Participants were 73 children (six with a communication disorder and 67 without) enrolled in Head Start or a publicly funded pre-K in an urban Southern city. All children completed the DELV–Screening Test Risk, the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test–Second Edition (FLUHARTY-2), and the Washington and Craig Language Screener (WCLS). Test order was counterbalanced across participants. Results DELV–Screening Test Risk error scores were higher than those reported for its standardization sample, and scores on the other screeners were lower than their respective standardization/testing samples. The 52% fail rate of the DELV–Screening Test Risk did not differ significantly from the 48% rate of the WCLS. Fail rates of the FLUHARTY-2 ranged from 34% to 75%, depending on the quotient considered and whether scoring was modified for dialect. Although items and subtests assumed to measure similar constructs were correlated to each other, the three screeners led to inconsistent pass/fail outcomes for 44% of the children. Conclusions Like other screeners, the DELV–Screening Test Risk subtest may lead to high fail rates for low-income pre-K children who speak AAE in the urban South. Inconsistent outcomes across screeners underscore the critical need for more study and development of screeners within the field.

Understanding African American vernacular English and reading achievement: Implications for the science of reading.

“…Both participants produced results on the language variation section of the DELV screening test indicating a strong difference from ME within their dialect use. Moland and Oetting (2021) examined the difference of results between three language screeners given to low-income African American children: DELV-ST; Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test (Fluharty 2); and the Washington-Craig Language Screener. Each of the three screeners includes African American children in their standardization samples and involve grammar, phonology, and vocabulary comprehension.…”

Speech-Language Pathologists and Culturally Competent Intervention

“…This is an increasingly important concept as the population of culturally diverse individuals continuously increases. While culturally responsive assessment practices are steadily being adapted (e.g., Gatlin-Nash et al, 2021; Moland & Oetting, 2021), there is a lack of research demonstrating how SLPs are choosing therapy materials to target intervention goals with CLD individuals. To develop culturally responsive materials, SLPs must engage in many thoughtful activities, such as paying attention to the races of the people in the picture, paying attention to pronoun use, and making sure multiple identities of differing cultural backgrounds are represented.…”

A Critical Review of IELTS Speaking Test

“…According to Li (2019), diagnostic tests are significant since they primarily identify the learning that still has to occur. Additionally, Moland, C. W., & Oetting, (2021) stated that effective diagnostic tests are crucial for self-education. Diagnostic testing may reveal gaps in language proficiency, but creating a diagnostic exam requires a lot of effort and the desire of test developers, as Shums'kyi, (2020) noted.…”