Our Blogs

On October 20, 2011, Lance M. Gentile, PhD presented: Language, Literacy and Learning Behavior: A Design for Change

Dr. Lance M. Gentile, author of the newly-released OLAI-2, has taught for over 45 years. The numbers of children who have not acquired the foundations of language for learning in school have multiplied. The author will discuss the role of parents and professionals in teaching children the language, literacy, and learning behavior skills needed to be successful in school.

You may watch the recording here.

**please note that CEUs were only offered for attending the live webinar. We are unable to provide CEUs for watching the recording.**

On October 12, 2011, Jill de Villers PhD, Peter de Villiers PhD, and Tom Roeper PhD presented: DELV: Who is the Test for and How is it Useful? While DELV addresses dialect issues in language testing, it is appropriate for mainstream English speakers as well. Subtests unique to DELV (e.g., wh-question asking, fast mapping, narrative, quantifiers) complement other assessments and are important indicators for SLPs designing interventions.

You may watch the recording here.

Question:

I am a speech pathologist currently working in a preschool/kindergarten building. I often use the CELF-Preschool 2 or the CELF-4 to evaluate their communication skills. I would like this question directed to the authors of these assessment tools. Since both of these tests cover the 5-6 year age range, which test would they recommend we use at the kindergarten level?

Answer:

In general, the CELF Preschool-2 is your best option for children in Kindergarten–the formats in the test are more supportive and child-friendly for young children. This is especially the case if a child is a young five year old (e.g., 5:0 through 5:5) and has had little preschool experience, and limited verbal ability. There is more in-depth content coverage for younger children in CELF Preschool-2 than you will find on CELF-4, which covers content for mostly older children (ages 5-8).

Keep in mind that if the children you are testing in Kindergarten are five years old, have enough preschool experience that they are comfortable and familiar with school types of tasks, and express themselves well in social situations, you will be able to obtain accurate test results using the CELF-4. Your choice of assessment really depends on the maturity of the child, previous preschool experiences, social verbal ability, and his or her experiences with standardized assessment tools.

Question:

I have an 8 year 3 month old 2nd grade boy whose overall profile falls between 5 and 6 standard scores with Formulated Sentences at 8 and Expressive Vocabulary at 7 [On the CELF-4]. Working Memory subtests standard scores as follows: Number Rep Fwd 6, Number Rep Backward 5, Familiar Sequences 10. This is huge discrepancy. No inattentive behaviors noted. Any help?

-Beth M.

Dr. Elisabeth Wiig’s Answer:
To begin, take a look at page 121 of the Examiner’s Manual. As you will see, both the Number Repetition subtests and the Familiar Sequences subtests place a heavy demand on attention, concentration, and auditory or verbal working memory. If you examine the content in the test items on the Record Form , you will see that the first 7 items in the Familiar Sequences subtest are relatively easy in comparison to items 8-12—the context includes “familiar sequences” such as the letters of the alphabet and the days of the week, not the long random sequences of numbers in the Number Repetition task. There is a great deal of automaticity in producing those sequences (and they are a closed set!) compared to the Number Repetition subtest. The score discrepancy this student exhibited is a red flag that there may be some working memory issues operating with this child and that further assessment is warranted. Consult with your school psychologist who can conduct a more thorough assessment of the student’s skills memory and attention skills.

You might want to administer the CELF-4 Rapid Automatic Naming subtest. It probes attention, visual working memory and set shifting. If the boy uses significantly longer time to name the color-form combinations, this can serve as validation since color-form naming requires adequate bilateral temporal-parietal, subcortical and hippocampal functioning. In other words,significantly impaired performance on that subtest can point to an underlying neuropsychological/neurological deficit involving the attention-working memory and cognitive

On April 12, 2011, researcher and Pearson author Elisabeth Wiig, Ph.D, answered your questions about CELF-4 interpretation. The recording and a PDF of the slides are available below.

You can download a PDF of the slides here: Answering Tough Questions About CELF-4 Interpretation.

***Please note: we are unable to provide CEUs for watching the recording of this webinar. CEUs were only offered for attending the live event.

You can watch the recording of “Preschool Language Scales-5: Assessing Language From 0-7″ below.

You can download the slides here.

**please note that CEUs were only offered for attending the live webinar. We are unable to provide CEUs for watching the recording.**

We recently received the following question about the CASL test:

When the Norms Book lists a standard score (SS) associated with a raw score of 0, but the manual guides interpretation differently, which reporting/interpretation strategy do you use?

Although a normative score equivalent is reported in norms tables for scores of 0, best practice would be to follow the recommendations in the manual. Page 73 of the CASL manual, for example, states the following: “If the examinee responds incorrectly to Items 1, 2 and 3, do not administer the test. No normative information can be derived. However, the examiner may wish to describe qualitatively in a report the examinee’s difficulty with the task.”

In addition, page 88 in the CASL manual deals with extreme raw scores. Essentially, raw scores that are 0 or “nearly perfect” should be interpreted with great caution.

From a psychometric perspective alone, it’s important to know that an associated SS is possible for raw scores of zero. In the CASL norms tables, zeros complete the range of possible raw scores. However, from an interpretive perspective, even though an associated score is mathematically and statistically possible, the examiner must consider the usefulness or meaningfulness of a score of zero. Caution is always recommended when attempting to interpret a score of zero on any assessment.

School districts may want to see a score, but if that score is meaningless, the examiner must consider the implication for the examinee of a misinterpretation or misuse of that score.

In short, we recommend that you follow the manual’s directive regarding raw scores of zero, and do not report the SS for a raw score of 0.

Comments? Add them below!

Six SLPs who work for Pearson Assessment travelled to the 2010 Annual American Speech-Language Hearsing Association‘s (ASHA’s) Annual Convention in Philadelphia, PA: (L-R, above) Patricia Zureich, Marie Sepulveda, Shannon Wang, Nancy Castilleja (writing this post!), Lois Gregory, and (not pictured) Tina Eichstadt.

Lois is technically the newest member of the team—her “first day” with the Pearson’s speech and language crew was November 22^nd. Lois was not exactly brand new to Pearson—she had previously worked with us for 16 years before working for a company specializing in educational research. We’re glad to have her back!

Marie Sepulveda, a bilingual speech-language pathologist, was also new to the team—she began working for Pearson in August. Marie’s clinical experience in Florida and Texas make her a great asset to the team!

Shannon, Pat, Tina, and I have worked for Pearson for many years. We were excited to meet with potential new authors and talk with SLPs from around the country (and around the world) at the Pearson exhibit.

I was a co-presenter at two ASHA sessions this year focusing on working with student from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds:

Session  1566

Assessment 360˚: Taking a Panoramic Approach with English Language Learners.

Presenters: Nancy Lewis, Barbara Rodriguez, Nancy Castilleja, Barbara Moore

This session provided a case study to demonstrate an assessment process to evaluate ELLs, using a test battery tailored to the child’s needs.

Session 1728

Keys to Successful Early Intervention: A Multi-Pronged Approach

Presenters: April Smith, Nancy Castilleja

This session described an intervention approach that combined direct speech-language training, in-classroom language facilitation training, literacy mentors, and a home program. Pre- and post-testing with PLS-4 showed significant gains in preschoolers language-literacy skills.

If you’d like to see the handouts for these sessions, they’re available on ASHA’s website. You can search by presenter name and/or session number.

Question:

I have a student who received the following index scores

There is a 31 point difference between Language Content and Working Memory. I used Tables 3.5 and 3.6 to get the Critical Value, and Prevalence. However, I am not sure I understand well enough to explain this to someone else. Could [you] describe this in a way that will help me better understand the importance of the 31 point difference?

Dr. Wiig’s Answer:

My first question would be, “How old is the student?”  Working memory deficits are reflected more and more as the student moves into adolescence. In the case you describe, the intra-personal weakness in working memory (Index score 94) as compared to the level of language content may not assume significance if the semantic aspects of language and communication are strong or exceptional, as in this case. The acquisition of vocabulary, word meanings and concepts is not as dependent on working memory as other aspects of language and communication such as creating meaningful communication when several aspects need to be integrated.

A perspective from author Kathy Swiney, MA, CCC/SLP, BRS-FD, ASHA Fluency Specialist

Having a special interest in stuttering, I see a number of children and young adults who stutter (CWS). Clinical observations indicate, not unexpectedly, that these young speakers often have situational speaking fears associated with their fluency disorder. What was not expected, however, is the frequency that these same speakers exhibit pragmatic weakness as well. A simple but functional definition of pragmatic skills is knowing “when to speak, … what to talk about with whom, where, and in what manner” (Hymes, 1971, p. 277). The challenge is how to differentiate these intertwined conditions. Unfortunately, there isn’t a wealth of information available to assist the clinician with this task. Weiss (2004) is particularly helpful on this topic and every clinician working with children and young adults who stutter is encouraged to read this work.

It is not surprising that CWS often exhibit pragmatic language disorders (PLD) that either influence or complicate their speaking fears. Reports by Blood and Seider (1981) indicate that 68% of CWS have at least one concomitant disorder. Therefore, it is highly probable most clinicians have or will have at least one CWS with a concomitant pragmatic language disorder. The demands and capacities model, as explained by Starkweather (1987), indicates that a decrease in fluency can occur when speech demands exceed a child’s motor, linguistic and/or emotional capacities. Under this model, it is easy to understand how the linguistic and cognitive demands of dealing with the spontaneity of pragmatics, the most complex of language tasks, can increase disfluency in CWS.

Weiss (2004) suggests that the first step in defining the role pragmatics training should play in stuttering therapy is to establish the client’s current level of language competence. The author (Swiney, 2006) examined seven case studies to determine how PLD might be distinguished from speaking fears. Two tools were used in addition to a standard stuttering assessment. As measure of language competency, the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999) was administered to each subject. The CASL battery provides a great deal of detail on lexical/semantic, syntactic, and supralinguistic skills, along with data from a standardized test of pragmatic language skills (Pragmatic Judgment). Checklists from Chmela, Reardon, and Scott (2005) were used as informal measures of speaking fears.

Data gathered from these three sources was extremely helpful in determining what part pragmatic skills played in these clients’ fluency and in setting remediation targets. Interestingly, in the seven case studies (Swiney, 2006), the CWS with the most severe stuttering as measured by the Stuttering Severity Instrument for Children and Adults – 3rd Edition (Riley, 1994), were not always the children with the most significant speaking fears or pragmatic weaknesses. Clinicians are encouraged to include some measure of pragmatic competency in their fluency assessments and provide specific training in these skills as part of their therapy plan. Weiss (2004) reports that increasing a client’s pragmatic skills also improves narratives and expository discourse and points out that all fluency therapy eventually covers these types of conversational interactions.

Article reprinted with author approval.

References:

Blood, G. & Seider, R. (1981). The concomitant problems of young stutterers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 46, 31-33.

Chmela, K.A., Reardon, N. & Scott, L. (Eds.) (2005). The school-age child who stutters: Working effectively with attitudes and emotions…a workbook. Memphis, TN: Stuttering Foundation of America.

Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999) Comprehensive assessment of spoken language. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Hymes, D. (1972). On communicative competence. In J. Pride & J. Holmes (Eds.) Sociolinguistics (pp.269-293). Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.

Riley, G. D. (1994). Stuttering severity instrument for children and adults (3rd ed.) Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

Swiney, K. A. (2006). Differentiating speaking anxiety from pragmatic language disorder in children who stutter. A paper presented to the annual convention of the Texas Speech-Language-Hearing Association (Grapevine, TX).

Weiss, A. L. (2004). Why we should consider pragmatics when planning treatment for children who stutter. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 35, 34 – 45.