Language Identification Screening Test for Kindergarten

Illerbrun, David; Haines, Leonard P.; Greenough, Pauline

doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1604.280

Cited by 15 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The best time for optimal dividends in language remediation is between 4 and 8 years of age and the earlier the period the better (p. 65). Illerbrun, Haines, and Greenough (1985) noted that the prirnary purpose of identifying young children who exhibit language difficulties is to instigate treatment aimed at preventing frustration and possible academic failure in later grades.…”

Section: Correlation Of Preschoolers' Performance On Threementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They contended that the value in screening is that it can differentiate children in a "problem-no-problem" dichotomy, thus preventing unnecessary in-depth testing of "normal" children. Illerbrun, Haines, and Greenough (1985) stated that the main purpose of early childhood language screening programs is to identify early those children who would benefit from language intervention. They and others have done considerable research supporting the view that language difficulties can lead to frustration and academic failure, as well as vocational and social problems later in life.…”

Section: Correlation Of Preschoolers' Performance On Threementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Correlation of preschoolers' performance on three language comprehension tests

Nordlund¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language Comprehension Tests. APPROVED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE THESIS COMMITTEE:( ~ The purpose of this study was to determine the relationship between the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, (PPVT-R) and receptive subtest of the Preschool Language Scale (PLS), and between the PPVT-R and the Test of Auditory Comprehension of Language-Revised (TACL-R), as well as determine how the tests compare in identifying children in need of further evaluation in the area of receptive language.The reasoning behind the goal of this study was to determine that if the three tests showed a strong, positive correlation and identified the same children as needing further assessment, then perhaps the test which was easier and shorter to administer (the PPVT-R) could be used with more confidence 2 as a quick, reliable screening tool of overall receptive language ability.In other words, if a child does poorly on the PPVT-R, one could assume that the child would most likely score below average on the other two tests also. Based on the results of this study, one cannot make this assumption.The subjects in this study included 10 males and 15females. All were preschool students, ranging in age from 4-1 to 4-11 with a mean age of 4-6 years. The subjects weregiven three tests in counterbalanced order. The mean age equivalents and standard scores were determined for all three tests and percentiles were determined for the PPVT-R and TACL-R.The Pearson product moment correlation coefficient (Pearson£) was used to determine the degree of relatedness among the tests. A moderate positive correlation of .41 was found between the PPVT-R and PLS, and a low positive correlation of .27 was found between the PPVT-R and TACL-R. Shared variance (£ 2 ) was 17% between the PPVT-R and PLSand 7% between the PPVT-R and the TACL-R.In determining how the tests identify children needing further evaluation of receptive language skills, cut-off criteria of total age equivalent 2 years and 1 year below chronological age, as well as percentile scores below the 20th and 10th percentile (for the PPVT-R and TACL-R) were 3 used. The results indicated that only 2 of the 25 children in this study showed need for further evaluation. These were identified by the TACL-R, but not by the PPVT-R or PLS.These results seem to indicate that, based on these study results alone, one cannot use the results of any one of the tests administered as a predictor of another. However, these results may have been affected by the sample used for this study.Higher correlations and identification of more children needing further evaluation could result from use of a different, larger sample due to a greater chance that a "true" mean performance would occur given a larger, more diverse sample population.

show abstract

Section: Correlation Of Preschoolers' Performance On Threementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Correlation Of Preschoolers' Performance On Threementioning

confidence: 99%

Correlation of preschoolers' performance on three language comprehension tests

Nordlund¹

2000

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an earlier study by Illerbrun et al (1985), teaching professionals administered the 17-item checklist of the Language Identification Screening Test for Kindergarten (LIST-K) (Illerbrun, McLeod, Greenough, & Haines, 1984) to 136 kindergarten students enrolled in seven kindergarten classes in the Saskatchewan Department of Education, Canada. The teacher screening checklist, which examined both receptive and expressive language skills, and behaviour, was found to identify a total of 22 students with language problems.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Teacher identification of speech and language impairment in kindergarten students using the Kindergarten Development Check

Jessup

Ward

Cahill

et al. 2008

International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this paper was to profile the extent and accuracy of teacher identification of speech and language impairment within a kindergarten student population in Tasmania, Australia, using the Kindergarten Development Check (KDC). A total of 286 kindergarten students (aged 4-5 years and in their first year of formal schooling) were screened by teachers with the KDC on two separate occasions over their kindergarten year. In the following academic year, each of the same 286 students were assessed by a speech-language pathologist, and diagnosed with either typically developing or impaired speech and/or language skills. Review of KDC data determined the number of students identified by teachers with speech and language impairment at each occasion during their kindergarten year. Comparison of data from the later KDC administration and speech-language pathology assessment then determined the correspondence between identification of speech and language impairment by teachers and speech-language pathologists. Upon initial administration of the KDC, 51 (17.8%) students were identified by teachers with language impairment and 47 (16.4%) students with speech impairment. Following the second administration of the KDC 3 months later, 20 (7.0%) students continued to be identified with language impairment, and 39 (13.6%) with speech impairment. Comparison of speech-language pathology testing results and KDC data from the second administration found the overall validity of teacher identification was 86.4% and 71% for speech and language impairment respectively. Specificity rates were high, with 93% and 97% of students with typically developing speech and language skills respectively, correctly classified on the KDC. However, the sensitivity was only 50% for speech impairment and 15% for language impairment, indicating that 50% of students presenting with speech impairment and 85% of students with language impairment in their subsequent academic year were not recorded by teachers as having such a difficulty on the later KDC administration during their kindergarten year. The KDC appears to be ineffective in supporting kindergarten teachers to identify students with ongoing speech and to a greater extent, language impairment. Measures to improve the sensitivity of the KDC in particular need to be considered by speech-language pathologists and educational professionals in Tasmania.

show abstract

The feasibility of universal screening for primary speech and language delay: findings from a systematic review of the literature

Law

Boyle

Harris

et al. 2000

Dev Med Child Neurol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper reports on a systematic review of the literature commissioned to examine the feasibility of universal screening for speech and language delay. The results, based on an examination of productivity figures, including positive predictive ability and likelihood ratio, indicate that a number of screening tests are adequate. Sensitivity was generally lower than specificity, and study quality was inversely related to both sensitivity and likelihood ratio, suggesting that it is easier to identify accurately children who do not have language and speech problems than those who do. The review concluded that there is insufficient evidence to warrant the introduction of universal screening at this stage. This paper discusses the type of data that would be needed to address this issue further and recommendations are made for alternative approaches to early identification.

show abstract

Language Identification Screening Test for Kindergarten

Cited by 15 publications

References 0 publications

Correlation of preschoolers' performance on three language comprehension tests

Correlation of preschoolers' performance on three language comprehension tests

Teacher identification of speech and language impairment in kindergarten students using the Kindergarten Development Check

The feasibility of universal screening for primary speech and language delay: findings from a systematic review of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About