Ask The Expert
What CELF®-4 Subtests Were Deleted from CELF®-5?
Market research conducted with customers showed strong interest in having more information about pragmatic language skills and written language. While certain CELF-4 subtests provided valuable information to answer questions about specific students, there were several tests used less frequently than the core subtests.
So that the CELF-5 battery would not consist of 23 subtests, the following subtests were deleted from CELF-5: Working Memory tests: Number Repetition and Familiar Sequences. It is recommended that you work closely with a psychologist, who can work with you to thoroughly evaluate the effects of attention, working memory, and behavior on language processing.
Language Memory tests are still included in the CELF-5 battery so that you can examine the effect of memory on language skills.
- Word Definitions
- Rapid Automatic Naming
- Phonological Awareness
I see the new CELF®-5 is coming out. Are CELF®-4 scores still valid?
According to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing, published by the American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education, a test should be revised “when new research data, significant changes in the domain represented, or newly recommended conditions of the test may lower the validity of test score interpretations.” The CELF-5 was updated based on the USA’s changing demographic landscape and innovations in educational and clinical practices. Some educational programs require that a new edition of a test be adopted within 1–2 years; others do not have these requirements. The CELF®-4 does not automatically become “invalid” when the new test is released; however as time passes, the normative information collected in 2002 becomes less and less representative of the current population, therefore less appropriate for use as a measure for comparing students to same-age peers.
CELF®–5 Metalinguistics (Wiig & Secord, in development) is a revision and update of the Test of Language Competence—Expanded Edition (TLC–E) (Wiig & Secord, 1989). CELF–5 Metalinguistics is designed to evaluate delays in the emergence of metalinguistic awareness and knowledge in late-elementary, secondary, and college-level students ages 9–21 years old. The test will cover metalinguistic skills such as the ability to make and understand inferences; using and understanding multiple meanings words, figurative language; and using conscious processes in formulating spoken or written sentences to meet cultural expectations for conveying messages or expressing emotions or opinions. A standardization version of the CELF–5 Metalinguistics test will be field tested beginning in May. If you are interested in participating in the field test, complete an application. If you have any additional questions about the standardization, please contact email@example.com.
More information on CELF-5 Metalinguistics be will posted to our CELF-5 website soon. Please bookmark the site and return for more information.
- Identify children with a pragmatic language impairment by comparing performance in different language domains (e.g., pragmatics vs. syntax and morphology).
- Identify children who may have a speech and language impairment, and whose receptive and expressive language skills should be further evaluated with a comprehensive speech and language assessment. In other words, CCC-2 may be used to screen children who are suspected of having a speech and language impairment.
- Assist in identifying children who may require further assessment for an autistic spectrum disorder. That is, CCC-2 may be included as one measure in an assessment battery to diagnose children suspected of having autistic spectrum disorder.
To answer your questions:
- Consistency Check number. There are many numbers to input when completing the scoring worksheet and deriving scaled scores. The consistency check number (e.g., 1) enables you to verify that the values derived for Subtotal Raw Scores A and B are within the possible range. If Subtotal Raw Score B is less than or equal to 30, then the consistency check is passed. In your case, your consistency check number of 1 suggests that values you input for the different scales (i.e., speech, syntax, semantics, coherence, initiation, scripted language, context, nonverbal communication, social relations, interests) are accurate.
It also suggests that the caregiver who provided the ratings was consistent and did not contradict himself/herself when rating items in section 1 (items 1–50) and section 2 (items 51–70). That is, the items in section 1 are statements that refer to the difficulties that have an effect on a child’s ability to communicate. In contrast, the items in section 2 are statement that refer to the communication strengths a child may demonstrate. If the caregiver were inconsistent in his or her ratings (e.g., rated “talks repetitively about things that no one is interested in” as always (3), and rated “talks to others about their interests, rather than his/her own” as always (3)), the inconsistency check number most likely would be above 30, signaling a misstep in either the rating or the scoring process.
- General Communication Composite score (GCC). The GCC is calculated by summing the scaled scores of 10 scales (i.e., speech, syntax, semantics, coherence, initiation, scripted language, context, nonverbal communication, social relations, and interests). In general, the GCC may be used to identify children likely to have significant communication problems. That is, a low GCC would indicate that the child’s skills were rated poorly in most of the 10 scales. If the child’s skills were scattered with some areas of strength (e.g., morphology and syntax) and some areas of weakness (e.g., coherence, scripted language, social relations), the scaled scores may “average out.” In your case, a standard score 71 would suggest that the child demonstrated some areas of strength and some areas of weakness. To check if this is the case, review your Scoring Worksheet, Scaled Scores section to see if there is a pattern of strengths and weaknesses. It is likely that since your child’s CELF-4 language scores are in the normal range, the CCC scales for syntax, semantics, coherence should be areas of relative strength and score in the normal range. The child’s scores in the pragmatic areas (e.g., initiation, nonverbal communication, social relations, interests) are likely to be low, suggesting they are areas of weakness.
- Social Interaction Difference Index (SIDI). The SIDI is a special index derived by subtracting the sum of scaled scores for the language areas (Speech, Syntax, Semantics, Coherence) from the sum of the scaled scores for pragmatic areas (Initiation, Nonverbal Communication, Social Relations, Interests). Children with pragmatic difficulties often show areas of relative strength in the language areas and areas of relative weakness in the pragmatic areas. CCC-2 research support the profile of children with pragmatic difficulties demonstrate relative strengths in language areas and relative weaknesses in pragmatic areas. (Refer to CCC-2 Manual, page 18, Table 3.1).
In your case, the child’s SIDI score is 8. If you refer to Table 3.1, 80.43 percent of the CCC-2 sample of children diagnosed with pragmatic disorder received a SIDI score between -10 to 10. So, a score of 8 is one indication that the child you tested may have a pragmatic impairment. For further validation, you can refer back to the Scoring Worksheet and review each of the 10 communication scales. Review the pragmatic scales and see if the scaled scores for each of those scales is indeed low.
In summary, GCC score of 71 suggests that the child has a language impairment. However, it does not necessarily indicate the child has a language impairment in the areas of syntax, morphology, and/or semantics. The low score may be the result of low scaled scores in the areas of pragmatics. You need to examine the 10 scales and look for patterns of strengths and weaknesses to determine which language areas the child is having difficulty (e.g., linguistic areas and/or pragmatic areas).
The use of many of these words was not directly taught at that time. So, for many children there was a hidden curriculum that was needed for success in school. The development of children’s understanding of what I refer to as “basic concepts” became the basis of my doctoral dissertation, the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts, and continues to be an area of importance in my life’s work.
The current version, the Boehm Test of Basic Concepts-3 (BTBC-3), continues to be a planning and problem-solving tool for teachers, speech-language pathologists, and other professionals. It samples a student’s understanding of a large number of essential basic relational concepts—such as before and after—that are important to reading, mathematics and science, following directions, solving problems, and taking other tests. The goal of the BTBC-3 is to identify basic concepts of space, quantity and time that children are familiar with or may be emerging in order to guide instruction at school and at home.
I will be presenting two upcoming webinars that focus on basic concepts and hope that you will attend:
April 2, 2013: Basic Concept Assessment/Intervention: Building Blocks to School Success
Explores basic concept assessment-intervention planning using a multiple-step model. Presents evidence based intervention concerns along with checklists to monitor students’ use of concepts across different contexts and as tools of thinking.
April 23, 2013: The Critical Role of Following Directions in the Classroom and at Home
Explores the role of basic concepts in directions that children hear at home and at school along with strategies to improve children’s ability to follow different kinds of directions
On Symbol Trails, the examinee did Trials 1 & 2 correctly, but did not follow the instructions on the actual scored task. The examinee kept repeating “circle to triangle,” but she drew the lines in a scattered fashion, not paying attention to connecting circles to triangles or connecting objects of increasing size. According to the scoring criteria, the examinee completed 7 lines correct. Is the score actually 7? Should she consider the subtest to be spoiled?
If the examiner follows the guidelines for instructions to the examinee, credit should be given for the lines connected correctly. The score is indeed a 7 and scoring procedures should be followed and reported. At the same time, the clinician needs to make a judgment whether or not that score appears to be reflective of intentional performance or not and qualify those concerns in the report. Certainly, the verbal repetition “circle to triangle” could be an indicator of lack of attention and “random drawing” (which ended up being rather accurate in this case), or it could simply be verbal rehearsal and a perseverating self-monitoring strategy during the task. Only the clinician giving the test can make the best judgment about that. The scoring, however, is based on actual performance given correct administration procedures.