Identifiers of Language Impairment for Spanish–English Dual Language Learners

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this study was to determine if a standardized assessment developed for Spanish–English dual language learners (SEDLLs) differentiates SEDLLs with language impairment (LI) from children with typical language better than the translated/adapted Spanish and/or English version of a standardized assessment and to determine if adding informal measure/s to the standardized assessment increases the classification accuracy. Method Standardized and informal language assessment measures were administered to 30 Mexican American 4- to 5-year-old SEDLLs to determine the predictive value of each measure and the group of measures that best identified children with LI and typical language. Discriminant analyses were performed on the data set. Results The Morphosyntax and Semantics subtests of the Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment ( Peña, Gutierrez-Clellen, Iglesias, Golstein, & Bedore, 2014 ) resulted in the largest effect size of the individual assessments with a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 86.7%. Combining these subtests with mean length of utterance in words from the child's better language sample (English or Spanish) was most accurate in identifying LI and can be used with above 90% confidence. Conclusion The Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment Morphosyntax and Semantics subtests were shown to comprise an effective measure for identifying LI; however, including a language sample is suggested to identify LI with greater accuracy.

Oral Language and Reading Among Bilingual Students Preprint

“…In contrast, measures that tap knowledge of grammatical domains such as syntax and morphology may be more indicative of children's underlying ability to acquire language. Evidence indicates that measures of morphosyntactic knowledge effectively discriminate between bilingual children with and without language disorders (e.g., Lazewnik et al, 2019;Paradis et al, 2013), suggesting these tools are reflective of language learning ability.…”

Augmentative and Alternative Communication and Remote Learning

“…Language disabilities may be a child's only disability or may occur alongside another disability, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Redmond, 2016), autism (American Psychiatric Association, 2013), a motor skills delay (DiDonato Brumbach & Goffman, 2014), or an intellectual disability (Marrus & Hall, 2017). It is important to note that being a non-native English speaker does not qualify a child as having a language disability and children must be assessed for a disability in their native language with a culturally appropriate assessment (Lazewnik et al, 2019).…”

Utilizing Comprehensive Preassessment Procedures for Differentiating Language Difference From Language Impairment in English Learners

“…One consequence of ELs’ academic underperformance is their overidentification for special education, including speech-language services; this continues to be a pressing problem in American public schools (Arias & Friberg, 2017; Lazewnik et al, 2019; Moore & Montgomery, 2018; Roseberry-McKibbin, 2018). When EL students struggle in the classroom, teachers often refer them to speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and other special education personnel for assessment for suspected language impairment (LI) and other special education diagnoses (e.g., autism spectrum disorder, reading disability).…”

“…Numerous sources have documented the fact that assessment of the language skills of EL children is often biased, and that the typical procedures described above are not ideal (Barragan et al, 2018; Benavides et al, 2018; Lazewnik et al, 2019; Moore & Montgomery, 2018; Roseberry-McKibbin et al, 2019). To accurately differentiate a language difference from an LI in an EL student, SLPs must use legally sound, nonbiased assessment methods that represent principles of evidence-based practice.…”

“… Source. de Jong and Fletcher (2014); Ebert and Pham (2017); Guiberson and Rodriguez (2013); Karanth et al (2017); Kapantzoglou et al (2015); Krok and Leonard (2015); Lazewnik et al (2019); Mancilla-Martinez et al (2016); Mancilla-Martinez et al (2016); Marinis and Armon-Lotem (2015); Mendez and Simon-Cereijido (2019); Moore and Montgomery (2018); Owens (2020); Paradis et al (2010); Paradis et al (2013); Paradis (2016); Paul et al (2018); Rezzonico et al (2016); Roseberry-McKibbin et al (2019); Pieretti & Roseberry-McKibbin (2016); Spoelman and Bol (2012); Sheng et al (2012); Thordardottir and Brandeker (2013); Wood et al (2018). …”