El SLP bilingĆ¼e
Here are more articles about formal Assessments!
Arias, G., & Friberg, J. (2017). Bilingual language assessment: Contemporary versus recommended practice in American schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 1-15. doi: 10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0090.
ā
In this article, Caesar and Kohler’s are gathering data using a survey to determine speech-language pathologists’ (SLPs) current practices with bilingual speech and language assessments. While knowing that best practices with bilingual children have been stated by best practice guidelines and federal regulations, clinicians continue to show reliability in standardized assessments to differentiate language differences from language impairments. In this study, appropriate bilingual assessment techniques were reported as happening more frequently in comparison to Caesar and Kohler’s (2007) study. However, the survey also demonstrated a continuous use of standardized assessments that lack diagnostic accuracy and validity for bilingual students. Clinicians continue to be strongly encouraged to evaluate their assessment measure’s reliability and validity and to include informal assessment measures when evaluating bilingual students.
Lazewnik, R., Creaghead, N., Smith, A., Prendeville, J., Raisor-Becker, L., & Silbert, N. (2019). Identifiers of language impairment for Spanish-English dual language learners. Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 50(1), 126-137.doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0046
ā
This article presents a study that was designed to determine if standard assessments developed for Spanish-English Bilinguals identified language impairments accurately and whether adding informal assessment measures to the standardized tests, would increase the diagnosis accuracy. During the study, standardized and informal language assessments were administered to 30 Mexican Americans (4-5 years old). This study showed that the Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment (BESA) resulted in a sensitivity of 93.3% and a specificity of 86.7%, but that adding the informal assessment of a language sample ) was most accurate in identifying LI and can be used with above 90% confidence.
