SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 69
Baixar para ler offline
Importance of Conceptual Scoring to
Language Assessment in Bilingual Children
2011 ASHA Convention, San Diego, CA
November 19, 2011
Shannon Wang, M.A., CCC-SLP
Nancy Castilleja, M.A., CCC-SLP
Marie Sepulveda, M.S., CCC-SLP
Mark H. Daniel, Ph.D.
Agenda
Overview: Assessing
bilingual children
Conceptual score approach
to language assessment
Data collection
Research results
Overview:
Assessing Bilingual Children
IDEIA Statute:
Reduce the inappropriate over-identification of children,
especially minority and limited English-proficient children, as
having a disability.
Statute: Title 1.D.664.b.2.D.vii
Normal bilingual phenomena can look similar to a disorder
to those unfamiliar with 2nd
language acquisition
Some typical characteristics of bilingual speakers in the
U.S.
• Arrest: The level of proficiency in the language does not change.
• Attrition: Language loss and language forgetting
• Avoidance: Specific element of a language is not used
• Language non use (silent period): a language is not used for
communication purposes
• Overgeneralization: a language rule is applied in an unrestricted fashion
• Language transfer: phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and/or
pragmatic characteristic is used in another language
• Fossilization: an inaccurate rule stabilizes to the point of continual usage
(Region 4 Educational Service Center, 2005)
Result: Bilingual children often misdiagnosed
• Low test scores in both Spanish and English
Assessing Bilingual Abilities
“The lower vocabulary of bilinguals at certain stages of development
may have nothing to do with handicaps or dominance questions but
probably more with a smaller variety of linguistic input in each language
taken separately.”
Hugo Baetens-Beardsmore, 1986
Assessing vocabulary in bilingual children: best practice is to test both
languages
H. Kayser, 1989; H. W. Langdon, 1989
Conceptual Scoring
“Conceptual scoring” is scoring the meaning of a response regardless of
the language in which it is produced.
B. Pearson, S. Fernandez, & D.K. Oller, 1993
Bilingual children benefit from conceptual scoring, especially when
tested in Spanish
L. Bedore, E. Peña, M. Garcia, & C. Cortez, 2005
Different ways of combining test scores across languages were tested—
combining scores across two languages in a composite or selecting
combinations of better task or language performance to use as a basis
for decision-making…Classification can be more accurate when scores in
both language are used systematically for decision-making.
E. Peña and L. Bedore, 2011
Conceptual Scoring ---> Dual Language Score
“Conceptual scoring” is based on literature examining semantic
language development (vocabulary and other semantic skills).
PLS-5 Spanish targets oral language (semantic and
morphosyntactic skills) and early academic skills.
Does the dual language score approach provide
a more valid representation of a bilingual
child’s language skills?
Studies Examining a Dual
Language Approach for
PLS-5 Spanish
• PLS–4 Spanish bilingual pilot
study
• PLS–5 Spanish
• bilingual tryout study
• bilingual standardization
study
Development of a dual-language scoring procedure
• Bilingual expert panel
– Hortencia Kayser, Ph.D.
– Henriette Langdon, Ph.D.
– Elizabeth Peña, Ph.D.
• Developed PLS–4 Spanish English Record Form
supplement
• Administered PLS–4 Spanish to participants
• After administration of the PLS-4 Spanish, items the
child missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
Participants n=28
Ages 3:7-6:10
Countries of origin
– Mexico
– Caribbean
– Central & South America
Caregiver education level
– 11th
grade or less 37%
– High school graduate or GED 22%
– 1–3 years of college or technical school 22%
– 4 or more years of college 19%
Fluency in Spanish
Exposure to Spanish
• Primary caregiver speaks Spanish to child
• Child is Spanish-English bilingual
• Child may be enrolled in bilingual classes
Language comprehension
• Understands Spanish and a little English OR
• Understands both Spanish and English OR
• Understands some concepts only in Spanish and some
only in English
Language expression
• Speaks Spanish, a little English OR
• Speaks both Spanish and English
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
Results
• 93% received additional points in AC
Score difference range: 0 to 6 points (mean = 2.9)
• 75% received additional points in EC
Score difference range: 0 to 13 (mean = 3 points)
• 32% of sample earned scores that moved from
language-disordered range of performance to
typically developing range
PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Participants n=200
Ages 2:0 through 7:11
Diagnosis TD: n = 166
NonTD: n = 34
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Criteria for Language Disorder
Inclusionary Criteria
• Diagnosed with a moderate to severe language disorder (< 77
on standardized test) in either receptive language, expressive
language or both
OR
• Diagnosis based on non-standardized tests results; plus
statement provided by clinician indicating a moderate to severe
language disorder
• Must be enrolled in language therapy
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Criteria for Language Disorder (cont.)
Exclusionary Criteria
• history of hearing impairment, middle ear infections/ otitis
media/PE tubes, or hearing aids
• phonological disorder
• verbal apraxia or dyspraxia, or exhibits deletions of final
sounds or syllables
• Exceptions
– aspirated final /s/, common in a Puerto Rican dialect
– Consistently substitutes final /s/ with another phoneme
PLS-5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study:
Sample Demographics
TD Non-TD
N 166 34
Age:
Mean 4:11 5:5
SD 1:7 1:5
NTD group:
Expressive language 19%
Receptive language 4%
Both 77%
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Method
• PLS-5 Spanish Tryout edition
• Items were administered in Spanish first
• Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
• Items were scored based on:
• Spanish performance
• Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring)
• Data analysis compared Spanish-only scores and Spanish-
English scores
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Findings
Gain from dual language scoring
• Beneficial for children ages 4:0-7:11
• Strongly related to rated proficiency in English
(Children with “little English” show little gain)
• No relationship to caregiver education level
• No relationship to whether or not the child is typically
developing
• For children 2:0-3:11
• Children still in the early language acquisition process
• There was not the same pattern of gains with dual language
scoring as with older children
PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study
Findings (continued)
• Children with typical language development showed equal
gains in academic and non-academic language
• Children with a language disorder showed greater gains in
non-academic language
PLS-5 Spanish Standardization:
Dual Language Study
Bilingual Children’s Levels of Fluency in
Spanish and English
• Primarily Spanish speaker with some English abilities
• Bilingual Spanish-English speaker
Language Comprehension in Spanish
1. Child understands Spanish, but no English [monolingual]
2. Child understands Spanish and a little English [bilingual]
3. Child understands both Spanish and English [bilingual]
4. Child understands some concepts in Spanish and some in
English (e.g., home concepts in Spanish; school concepts in English) [bilingual]
5. Child understands English and some Spanish
[not included in sample]
6. Child does not understand Spanish; only understands English
[not included in sample]
Expressive Language in Spanish
1. Child converses in Spanish, speaks no English [monolingual]
2. Child converses fluently Spanish and speaks Spanish most of
the time. He or she speaks a little English [bilingual]
3. Child converses fluently in both Spanish and English [bilingual]
4. Child converses fluently in English and speaks English most of
the time. He or she speaks a little Spanish. [not included in sample]
5. Child converses fluently in English; speaks no Spanish
[not included in sample]
Exposure to Spanish
Almost always: [monolingual]
• Interacts in a Spanish speaking environment only
• Leisure activities in Spanish
• Speaks Spanish with family and friends
Often: [bilingual]
• interacts in both Spanish and English environments
• may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family OR
• may switch languages without a preference for either
Occasionally: [bilingual]
• Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only
• Speaks Spanish but prefers English with family and friends
Seldom or Almost Never [not included in the study]
• Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only, but do not live in
child’s home (seen infrequently)
• Communicates a few messages in Spanish
Dual Language STDZ Study: Length of Time
Residing in the U.S.
* 17% did not report length of time in the U.S.
• 0-11 Months
• 1 Year
• 2 Years
• 3 Years
• 4 Years
• 5 or more Years
• Born in the U.S.
83% of the children living in the U.S. were
born in the U.S. or have lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language
Standardization Study: Overview
Field Research
• PLS-5 Spanish Standardization edition
– Items were administered in Spanish first
– Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
Scoring
• Items were scored based on:
– Spanish performance
– Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring)
Data Analysis
• Data analysis compared Spanish scores to Spanish-English
scores
Dual Language Record Form
(Draft)
Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2
Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2
Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2
Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2
Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2
Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Bilingual and
Monolingual Samples
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Age and Gender
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
N
Age:
Mean
SD
Gender:
Female 44% 44% 46% 51% 46% 46%
Male 56% 56% 54% 49% 54% 54%
4.8
0.8
76
7.0
0.6
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
81
1.5
0.8
151
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Caregiver Education
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
Caregiver education:
< high school grad 22% 22% 30% 33% 26% 18%
high school grad 25% 26% 27% 31% 34% 34%
some college 24% 26% 21% 20% 17% 29%
college graduate 30% 26% 23% 17% 22% 18%
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Region
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
Region:
Northeast 4% 3% 5% 0% 4% 0%
Midwest 0% 0% 6% 1% 3% 0%
South 51% 42% 69% 48% 66% 13%
West 44% 26% 17% 7% 22% 1%
Puerto Rico 1% 30% 3% 44% 5% 86%
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Country of Origin
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
Country of origin:
Mexico 61% 53% 66% 41% 75% 15%
Puerto Rico 11% 31% 5% 43% 9% 85%
South America 16% 6% 17% 4% 8% 0%
Central America 10% 4% 10% 7% 4% 0%
Cuba 3% 5% 1% 4% 4% 0%
Dominican Rep. 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0%
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 0-2
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t p
Spanish 102.0 15.7 102.5 12.3 0.5 0.20
Dual-Language 102.0 15.7 103.6 12.2 1.6 0.73
Spanish 102.9 13.4 103.9 11.1 1.0 0.55
Dual-Language 102.9 13.4 104.3 11.1 1.4 0.74
Spanish 102.7 14.3 103.5 11.0 0.8 0.38
Dual-Language 102.7 14.3 104.4 11.0 1.7 0.80
Difference
80
81
80
Monolingual Bilingual
Auditory
Comp
Exp
Comm
Total
Lang
N per
group
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 0-2
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 3-5
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t p
Spanish 97.8 11.7 100.4 14.6 2.6 1.77
Dual-Language 97.8 11.7 106.4 14.8 8.6 5.66 <.001
Spanish 99.9 11.8 100.5 16.3 0.6 0.37
Dual-Language 99.9 11.8 104.3 16.3 4.4 2.60 .01
Spanish 98.8 11.6 100.6 16.0 1.8 1.03
Dual-Language 98.8 11.6 105.9 16.1 7.1 4.14 <.001
145
144
Monolingual
Auditory
Comp
Exp
Comm
Total
Lang
BilingualN per
group
150
Difference
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 3-5
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 6-7
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t p
Spanish 98.6 11.1 97.7 16.9 -0.9 -0.49
Dual-Language 98.6 11.1 106.6 13.4 8.0 4.73 <.001
Spanish 97.7 10.0 99.0 16.4 1.3 0.59
Dual-Language 97.7 10.0 105.9 13.4 8.2 4.79 <.001
Spanish 98.0 10.6 98.3 17.3 0.3 0.13
Dual-Language 98.0 10.6 106.9 13.7 8.9 5.25 <.001
75
75
74
DifferenceN per
group
Total
Lang
Monolingual Bilingual
Auditory
Comp
Exp
Comm
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 6-7
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Norm Sample
(includes a representative number of clinical cases)
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method
and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 0-2
Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SD
Spanish 98.7 16.3 101.5 12.5 102.4 12.3
Dual-Language 98.7 16.3 102.2 12.5 107.6 11.3
Difference 0.0 0.7 5.2
Spanish 100.9 15.2 103.4 10.9 102.7 8.7
Dual-Language 100.9 15.2 103.8 11.0 104.1 8.7
Difference 0.0 0.4 1.4
Spanish 99.8 15.6 102.7 11.0 102.9 10.6
Dual-Language 99.8 15.6 103.3 11.1 106.6 9.9
Difference 0.0 0.6 3.7
Auditory
Comp
Exp
Comm
Total
Language
26
Bilingual
14
15
14
Primarily Spanish
26
26
Monolingual
286
286
286
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method
and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 0-2
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method
and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 3-5
Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SD
Spanish 97.9 13.6 98.5 15.6 99.3 15.0
Dual-Language 97.9 13.6 102.9 15.7 107.0 14.4
Difference 0.0 4.4 7.7
Spanish 98.6 14.8 99.8 16.8 96.4 17.2
Dual-Language 98.6 14.8 102.8 16.9 101.9 17.1
Difference 0.0 3.0 5.5
Spanish 98.0 14.4 99.0 16.8 97.9 16.9
Dual-Language 98.0 14.4 103.1 16.8 105.1 16.7
Difference 0.0 4.1 7.2
BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual
54
49
49
Auditory
Comp
89
88
Exp
Comm
Total
Language
305
305
88305
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method
and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 3-5
Auditory Comprehension
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Expressive Communication
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Total Language
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method
and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 6-7
Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SD
Spanish 97.0 14.7 94.3 18.0 94.2 16.9
Dual-Language 97.0 14.7 100.7 16.6 104.2 14.1
Difference 0.0 6.4 10.0
Spanish 96.5 13.1 94.8 16.5 94.2 17.1
Dual-Language 96.5 13.1 99.5 15.7 103.0 14.7
Difference 0.0 4.7 8.8
Spanish 96.4 14.3 93.8 18.0 94.0 17.2
Dual-Language 96.4 14.3 99.9 16.8 104.2 14.3
Difference 0.0 6.1 10.2
84
80
80
Bilingual
69 41
69 43
Auditory
Comp
69 43
Primarily SpanishMonolingual
Exp
Comm
Total
Language
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method
and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 6-7
Auditory Comprehension
90
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Expressive Communication
90
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Total Language
90
95
100
105
110
Spanish Dual-Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Clinical Samples
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Age and Gender
Expressive Language
Disorder
Receptive Language
Disorder
Exp & Recept
Language Disorder
N 69 53 48
Age: 1 3 3 3
2 11 11 11
3 12 6 6
4 14 10 8
5 11 10 8
6 10 8 7
7 8 5 5
Mean: 4.7 4.6 4.5
Gender: Female 28% 23% 21%
Male 72% 77% 79%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Caregiver Education
Expressive
Language
Disorder
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Expressive &
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Caregiver education:
< high school grad 55% 64% 67%
high school grad 20% 25% 23%
some college 13% 2% 2%
college graduate 12% 9% 8%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Region
Expressive
Language
Disorder
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Expressive &
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Region:
Northeast 17% 23% 23%
Midwest 0% 0% 0%
South 35% 34% 35%
West 30% 32% 31%
Puerto Rico 17% 11% 10%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Country of Origin
Expressive
Language
Disorder
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Expressive &
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Country of origin:
Mexico 59% 62% 60%
Puerto Rico 20% 13% 13%
South America 4% 6% 6%
Central America 10% 13% 15%
Cuba 4% 4% 4%
Dominican Rep. 1% 2% 2%
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive Language Disorder
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆
Spanish 78.8 15.5 96.1 14.9 17.3
Dual-Language 79.7 15.2 98.7 13.4 19.0
Spanish 76.5 12.1 97.8 14.2 21.3
Dual-Language 77.1 12.0 99.0 14.4 21.9
Spanish 76.3 12.6 97.1 14.6 20.8
Dual-Language 77.0 12.3 98.8 14.3 21.8
Exp
Comm
64
Total
Language
64
N per
group
Clinical Nonclinical
Auditory
Comp
69
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
Expressive Communication
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
Total Language
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Receptive Language Disorder
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆
Spanish 74.3 13.7 94.2 13.4 19.9
Dual-Language 74.9 13.5 97.5 12.3 22.6
Spanish 76.6 12.9 96.3 12.2 19.7
Dual-Language 77.1 13.1 98.0 12.6 20.9
Spanish 74.2 12.4 95.3 12.3 21.1
Dual-Language 74.7 12.3 97.6 12.3 22.9
Expressive
Communic
49
Total
Language
49
N per
group
Clinical Nonclinical
Auditory
Comprehe
53
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Receptive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
Expressive Communication
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
Total Language
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).
Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆
Spanish 73.7 13.9 94.2 13.9 20.5
Dual-Language 74.3 13.7 97.0 12.5 22.7
Spanish 75.5 12.6 96.7 12.6 21.2
Dual-Language 75.8 12.9 97.8 12.8 22.0
Spanish 73.3 12.3 95.5 12.7 22.2
Dual-Language 73.7 12.2 97.2 12.7 23.5
Expressive
Communic
45
Total
Language
45
N per
group
Clinical Nonclinical
Auditory
Comprehe
48
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
Expressive Communication
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
Total Language
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
105
Spanish Dual-Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.
2. Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly
raised the average standard scores of bilingual
children. Children who primarily speak Spanish but
know some English had a smaller increase than
children who are more fully bilingual.
PLS–5 Spanish Standardization:
Dual Language STDZ Study
1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.
2. Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly raised the
average standard scores of bilingual children. Children who
primarily speak Spanish but know some English had a smaller
increase than children who are more fully bilingual.
3. Dual-language scoring did not affect the scores of
children with language disorders.
Testing in Spanish and English:
Dominance and Proficiency
“The concept of a ‘dominant’ language is losing favor as there is
more evidence that proficiency in two languages occur on a
continuum, with individuals being able to understand or express
some concepts better in one language and others in another
language.”
(Peña, Bedore, & Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)
“…notions such as proficiency and dominance are moving targets
altered with differences in tasks, topics, and demands”
(Goldstein, 2004)
Testing in Spanish and English:
Dominance and Proficiency
“Language proficiency measurement is not as concerned as to
which language is stronger or dominant, but rather its goal is to
provide a description of the language development of the child in
listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
(Kayser, 2001)
References
Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic Principles (2nd
Ed.). San
Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Bedore, L., Peña, E., Garcia, M., & Cortez, C. (2005). Conceptual vs. monolingual
scoring: when does it make a difference?. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 36, 188-200.
Kayser, H.R. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Spanish-English
Speaking Children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 20
(3), 226-244.
Kayser, H. (2001) “Assessing Language Proficiency and Language
Dominance.” From the Hart. October 2001. Bilingual Therapies, Inc.
http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/kayser-newsletter/2001/assessinglanguage-
proficiency-and-language-dominance/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), Public
Law 108-446 (2004.) 118 Stat. 2647 (2004)
References (continued)
Langdon, H.W. (1989). Language Disorder or Difference? Assessing the Language
Skills of Hispanic Students. Exceptional Children, 56 (2).
Pearson, B., Fernandez, S. & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual
infants and toddlers: comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43
(1), 93-120.
Peña, E.D. & Bedore, L.M. (2011). “It takes two: improving assessment accuracy
in bilingual children. ASHA Leader, 16 (13), 20-22.
Peña, E., Bedore, L., Zlatic-Giunta, R. (2002) Category-Generation
Performance of Bilingual Children: The Influence of Condition Category and
Language. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 45, 938-
947.
Region 4 Educational Service Center (2005). Houston, TX (Author).
Contact Information
Shannon Wang
Senior Research Director
shannon.wang@pearson.com
Nancy Castilleja
Senior Product Manager
nancy.castilleja@pearson.com
Marie Sepulveda
Research Director
marie.sepulveda@pearson.com
Mark Daniel
Senior Scientist for Research Innovation
mark.daniel@pearson.com

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Bilingual Evaluations: Writing the FIE report for Bilingual Students
Bilingual Evaluations:  Writing the FIE report for Bilingual StudentsBilingual Evaluations:  Writing the FIE report for Bilingual Students
Bilingual Evaluations: Writing the FIE report for Bilingual StudentsBilinguistics
 
Language Intervention for School-age Children with Down Syndrome
Language Intervention for School-age Children with Down SyndromeLanguage Intervention for School-age Children with Down Syndrome
Language Intervention for School-age Children with Down SyndromeBilinguistics
 
Assessment: The Shared Data Experience
Assessment: The Shared Data ExperienceAssessment: The Shared Data Experience
Assessment: The Shared Data ExperienceAkron Ready Steps
 
635 Curricular investigation #2
635 Curricular investigation #2635 Curricular investigation #2
635 Curricular investigation #2Nina Gilkes
 
6 individual learner differences in sla reseach
6 individual learner differences in sla reseach6 individual learner differences in sla reseach
6 individual learner differences in sla reseachSilvia Nanda Putri Erito
 
The analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfil
The analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfilThe analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfil
The analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfilFerhat K.
 
Reading is Thinking
Reading is ThinkingReading is Thinking
Reading is Thinkingawest
 
May 12 2016 Reading League presentation
May 12 2016 Reading League presentationMay 12 2016 Reading League presentation
May 12 2016 Reading League presentationTheReadingLeague
 
Winke, gass, and syderenko presentation
Winke, gass, and syderenko presentationWinke, gass, and syderenko presentation
Winke, gass, and syderenko presentationJohn Whalen
 
NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1
NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1
NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1Susan Black-Norton
 
LiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINAL
LiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINALLiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINAL
LiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINALSamantha Kienemund
 
PODCASTING; READING 5
PODCASTING; READING 5PODCASTING; READING 5
PODCASTING; READING 5cirauqui
 
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?Dorothy Bishop
 
Qualitative and Descriptive Research analysis
Qualitative and Descriptive Research analysisQualitative and Descriptive Research analysis
Qualitative and Descriptive Research analysisHania Zacarias
 
Case history student x
Case history student xCase history student x
Case history student xkhadijahtgo
 
Sssr 2011 abstract
Sssr 2011 abstractSssr 2011 abstract
Sssr 2011 abstractdschoepski
 

Mais procurados (20)

Peabody Picture Vocabulary, Third Edition
Peabody Picture Vocabulary, Third EditionPeabody Picture Vocabulary, Third Edition
Peabody Picture Vocabulary, Third Edition
 
Bilingual Evaluations: Writing the FIE report for Bilingual Students
Bilingual Evaluations:  Writing the FIE report for Bilingual StudentsBilingual Evaluations:  Writing the FIE report for Bilingual Students
Bilingual Evaluations: Writing the FIE report for Bilingual Students
 
Language Intervention for School-age Children with Down Syndrome
Language Intervention for School-age Children with Down SyndromeLanguage Intervention for School-age Children with Down Syndrome
Language Intervention for School-age Children with Down Syndrome
 
Assessment: The Shared Data Experience
Assessment: The Shared Data ExperienceAssessment: The Shared Data Experience
Assessment: The Shared Data Experience
 
635 Curricular investigation #2
635 Curricular investigation #2635 Curricular investigation #2
635 Curricular investigation #2
 
6 individual learner differences in sla reseach
6 individual learner differences in sla reseach6 individual learner differences in sla reseach
6 individual learner differences in sla reseach
 
The analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfil
The analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfilThe analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfil
The analysis of an ma thesis by ferhat karanfil
 
Reading is Thinking
Reading is ThinkingReading is Thinking
Reading is Thinking
 
May 12 2016 Reading League presentation
May 12 2016 Reading League presentationMay 12 2016 Reading League presentation
May 12 2016 Reading League presentation
 
Winke, gass, and syderenko presentation
Winke, gass, and syderenko presentationWinke, gass, and syderenko presentation
Winke, gass, and syderenko presentation
 
NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1
NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1
NOV ppp_Research_PSF_with_RTI-1
 
LiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINAL
LiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINALLiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINAL
LiteracyOutcomesLADT_Poster_FINAL
 
PODCASTING; READING 5
PODCASTING; READING 5PODCASTING; READING 5
PODCASTING; READING 5
 
A5 Criteria and Practices of College-level Chinese Placement - Hua Zhang
A5 Criteria and Practices of College-level Chinese Placement - Hua ZhangA5 Criteria and Practices of College-level Chinese Placement - Hua Zhang
A5 Criteria and Practices of College-level Chinese Placement - Hua Zhang
 
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?
 
Qualitative and Descriptive Research analysis
Qualitative and Descriptive Research analysisQualitative and Descriptive Research analysis
Qualitative and Descriptive Research analysis
 
Unit 1
Unit 1Unit 1
Unit 1
 
Case history student x
Case history student xCase history student x
Case history student x
 
Sssr 2011 abstract
Sssr 2011 abstractSssr 2011 abstract
Sssr 2011 abstract
 
Specific learning disorders
Specific learning disorders Specific learning disorders
Specific learning disorders
 

Semelhante a Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2

Bilingual Assessment Discussion.pptx
Bilingual Assessment Discussion.pptxBilingual Assessment Discussion.pptx
Bilingual Assessment Discussion.pptxmooneybc07
 
Language and Emergent Literacy
Language and Emergent LiteracyLanguage and Emergent Literacy
Language and Emergent LiteracyMarkeisha Grant
 
Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...
Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...
Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...Bilinguistics
 
English Learners (ELs) in School
English Learners (ELs)  in SchoolEnglish Learners (ELs)  in School
English Learners (ELs) in SchoolMegan Berger
 
English Language Learners in School Module 4 Presentation
English Language Learners in School Module 4 PresentationEnglish Language Learners in School Module 4 Presentation
English Language Learners in School Module 4 PresentationMegan Berger
 
Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...
Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...
Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...Bilinguistics
 
English language learners in school
English language learners in schoolEnglish language learners in school
English language learners in schoolHDMcWhorter
 
English language learners in school
English language learners in schoolEnglish language learners in school
English language learners in schoolHDMcWhorter
 
Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...
Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...
Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...Bilinguistics
 
Connections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic Achievement
Connections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic AchievementConnections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic Achievement
Connections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic AchievementBilinguistics
 
Ch 4 literacy original
Ch 4 literacy originalCh 4 literacy original
Ch 4 literacy originalEllie Gordy
 
2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroom
2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroom2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroom
2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroomIsabelle Jones
 
Language Comparison Poster
Language Comparison PosterLanguage Comparison Poster
Language Comparison Posterpaulbradigan
 
Teaching english learners best practices
Teaching english learners   best practicesTeaching english learners   best practices
Teaching english learners best practicesDũng nguyễn Tiến
 
Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...
Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...
Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...Bilinguistics
 
Stages of language proficiency
Stages of language proficiencyStages of language proficiency
Stages of language proficiencyedna salomon
 

Semelhante a Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2 (20)

Bilingual Assessment Discussion.pptx
Bilingual Assessment Discussion.pptxBilingual Assessment Discussion.pptx
Bilingual Assessment Discussion.pptx
 
Language and Emergent Literacy
Language and Emergent LiteracyLanguage and Emergent Literacy
Language and Emergent Literacy
 
Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...
Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...
Ethical Considerations for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations ...
 
English Learners (ELs) in School
English Learners (ELs)  in SchoolEnglish Learners (ELs)  in School
English Learners (ELs) in School
 
English Language Learners in School Module 4 Presentation
English Language Learners in School Module 4 PresentationEnglish Language Learners in School Module 4 Presentation
English Language Learners in School Module 4 Presentation
 
Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...
Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...
Difference vs. Disorder: Language Development in Culturally and Linguisticall...
 
English language learners in school
English language learners in schoolEnglish language learners in school
English language learners in school
 
English language learners in school
English language learners in schoolEnglish language learners in school
English language learners in school
 
How common is SLI?
How common is SLI?How common is SLI?
How common is SLI?
 
Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...
Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...
Assessment and eligibility when working with bilingual children for slide sha...
 
Hlal4 ch3 summary
Hlal4 ch3 summaryHlal4 ch3 summary
Hlal4 ch3 summary
 
Connections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic Achievement
Connections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic AchievementConnections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic Achievement
Connections Between Bilingualism, Cognition, and Academic Achievement
 
English teaching strategies
English teaching strategiesEnglish teaching strategies
English teaching strategies
 
Eex 502 Presentatin All
Eex 502 Presentatin AllEex 502 Presentatin All
Eex 502 Presentatin All
 
Ch 4 literacy original
Ch 4 literacy originalCh 4 literacy original
Ch 4 literacy original
 
2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroom
2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroom2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroom
2013 supporting the eal students in the mfl classroom
 
Language Comparison Poster
Language Comparison PosterLanguage Comparison Poster
Language Comparison Poster
 
Teaching english learners best practices
Teaching english learners   best practicesTeaching english learners   best practices
Teaching english learners best practices
 
Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...
Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...
Using the Spanish Battelle Developmental Inventory-2: A case for clinical jud...
 
Stages of language proficiency
Stages of language proficiencyStages of language proficiency
Stages of language proficiency
 

Último

CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapitolTechU
 
General views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and stepGeneral views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and stepobaje godwin sunday
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxAditiChauhan701637
 
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming ClassesHuman-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming ClassesMohammad Hassany
 
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education  and Educational PhilosophyPhilosophy of Education  and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education and Educational PhilosophyShuvankar Madhu
 
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?TechSoup
 
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxPatterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxMYDA ANGELICA SUAN
 
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...raviapr7
 
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxClinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxraviapr7
 
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17Celine George
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...CaraSkikne1
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxheathfieldcps1
 
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxiammrhaywood
 
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive EducationBenefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive EducationMJDuyan
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptxSandy Millin
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRATanmoy Mishra
 
Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.
Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.
Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.EnglishCEIPdeSigeiro
 
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17Celine George
 

Último (20)

CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
 
General views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and stepGeneral views of Histopathology and step
General views of Histopathology and step
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
 
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming ClassesHuman-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
Human-AI Co-Creation of Worked Examples for Programming Classes
 
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education  and Educational PhilosophyPhilosophy of Education  and Educational Philosophy
Philosophy of Education and Educational Philosophy
 
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
What is the Future of QuickBooks DeskTop?
 
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
How to Add Existing Field in One2Many Tree View in Odoo 17
 
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptxPatterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
Patterns of Written Texts Across Disciplines.pptx
 
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
 
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptxClinical Pharmacy  Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
Clinical Pharmacy Introduction to Clinical Pharmacy, Concept of clinical pptx
 
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
How to Make a Field read-only in Odoo 17
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
 
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptxAUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
AUDIENCE THEORY -- FANDOM -- JENKINS.pptx
 
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive EducationBenefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
Benefits & Challenges of Inclusive Education
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
 
Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.
Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.
Easter in the USA presentation by Chloe.
 
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
How to Add a New Field in Existing Kanban View in Odoo 17
 
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quizPrelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
 

Asha conceptual scoring presentation 2011 final 2

  • 1. Importance of Conceptual Scoring to Language Assessment in Bilingual Children 2011 ASHA Convention, San Diego, CA November 19, 2011 Shannon Wang, M.A., CCC-SLP Nancy Castilleja, M.A., CCC-SLP Marie Sepulveda, M.S., CCC-SLP Mark H. Daniel, Ph.D.
  • 2. Agenda Overview: Assessing bilingual children Conceptual score approach to language assessment Data collection Research results
  • 3. Overview: Assessing Bilingual Children IDEIA Statute: Reduce the inappropriate over-identification of children, especially minority and limited English-proficient children, as having a disability. Statute: Title 1.D.664.b.2.D.vii
  • 4. Normal bilingual phenomena can look similar to a disorder to those unfamiliar with 2nd language acquisition Some typical characteristics of bilingual speakers in the U.S. • Arrest: The level of proficiency in the language does not change. • Attrition: Language loss and language forgetting • Avoidance: Specific element of a language is not used • Language non use (silent period): a language is not used for communication purposes • Overgeneralization: a language rule is applied in an unrestricted fashion • Language transfer: phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and/or pragmatic characteristic is used in another language • Fossilization: an inaccurate rule stabilizes to the point of continual usage (Region 4 Educational Service Center, 2005) Result: Bilingual children often misdiagnosed • Low test scores in both Spanish and English
  • 5. Assessing Bilingual Abilities “The lower vocabulary of bilinguals at certain stages of development may have nothing to do with handicaps or dominance questions but probably more with a smaller variety of linguistic input in each language taken separately.” Hugo Baetens-Beardsmore, 1986 Assessing vocabulary in bilingual children: best practice is to test both languages H. Kayser, 1989; H. W. Langdon, 1989
  • 6. Conceptual Scoring “Conceptual scoring” is scoring the meaning of a response regardless of the language in which it is produced. B. Pearson, S. Fernandez, & D.K. Oller, 1993 Bilingual children benefit from conceptual scoring, especially when tested in Spanish L. Bedore, E. Peña, M. Garcia, & C. Cortez, 2005 Different ways of combining test scores across languages were tested— combining scores across two languages in a composite or selecting combinations of better task or language performance to use as a basis for decision-making…Classification can be more accurate when scores in both language are used systematically for decision-making. E. Peña and L. Bedore, 2011
  • 7. Conceptual Scoring ---> Dual Language Score “Conceptual scoring” is based on literature examining semantic language development (vocabulary and other semantic skills). PLS-5 Spanish targets oral language (semantic and morphosyntactic skills) and early academic skills.
  • 8. Does the dual language score approach provide a more valid representation of a bilingual child’s language skills? Studies Examining a Dual Language Approach for PLS-5 Spanish • PLS–4 Spanish bilingual pilot study • PLS–5 Spanish • bilingual tryout study • bilingual standardization study
  • 9. Development of a dual-language scoring procedure • Bilingual expert panel – Hortencia Kayser, Ph.D. – Henriette Langdon, Ph.D. – Elizabeth Peña, Ph.D. • Developed PLS–4 Spanish English Record Form supplement • Administered PLS–4 Spanish to participants • After administration of the PLS-4 Spanish, items the child missed in Spanish were re-administered in English PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
  • 10. PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study Participants n=28 Ages 3:7-6:10 Countries of origin – Mexico – Caribbean – Central & South America Caregiver education level – 11th grade or less 37% – High school graduate or GED 22% – 1–3 years of college or technical school 22% – 4 or more years of college 19%
  • 11. Fluency in Spanish Exposure to Spanish • Primary caregiver speaks Spanish to child • Child is Spanish-English bilingual • Child may be enrolled in bilingual classes Language comprehension • Understands Spanish and a little English OR • Understands both Spanish and English OR • Understands some concepts only in Spanish and some only in English Language expression • Speaks Spanish, a little English OR • Speaks both Spanish and English PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
  • 12. Results • 93% received additional points in AC Score difference range: 0 to 6 points (mean = 2.9) • 75% received additional points in EC Score difference range: 0 to 13 (mean = 3 points) • 32% of sample earned scores that moved from language-disordered range of performance to typically developing range PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
  • 13. PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Participants n=200 Ages 2:0 through 7:11 Diagnosis TD: n = 166 NonTD: n = 34
  • 14. PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Criteria for Language Disorder Inclusionary Criteria • Diagnosed with a moderate to severe language disorder (< 77 on standardized test) in either receptive language, expressive language or both OR • Diagnosis based on non-standardized tests results; plus statement provided by clinician indicating a moderate to severe language disorder • Must be enrolled in language therapy
  • 15. PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Criteria for Language Disorder (cont.) Exclusionary Criteria • history of hearing impairment, middle ear infections/ otitis media/PE tubes, or hearing aids • phonological disorder • verbal apraxia or dyspraxia, or exhibits deletions of final sounds or syllables • Exceptions – aspirated final /s/, common in a Puerto Rican dialect – Consistently substitutes final /s/ with another phoneme
  • 16. PLS-5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study: Sample Demographics TD Non-TD N 166 34 Age: Mean 4:11 5:5 SD 1:7 1:5 NTD group: Expressive language 19% Receptive language 4% Both 77%
  • 17. PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Method • PLS-5 Spanish Tryout edition • Items were administered in Spanish first • Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English • Items were scored based on: • Spanish performance • Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring) • Data analysis compared Spanish-only scores and Spanish- English scores
  • 18. PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Findings Gain from dual language scoring • Beneficial for children ages 4:0-7:11 • Strongly related to rated proficiency in English (Children with “little English” show little gain) • No relationship to caregiver education level • No relationship to whether or not the child is typically developing • For children 2:0-3:11 • Children still in the early language acquisition process • There was not the same pattern of gains with dual language scoring as with older children
  • 19. PLS–5 Spanish Bilingual Tryout Study Findings (continued) • Children with typical language development showed equal gains in academic and non-academic language • Children with a language disorder showed greater gains in non-academic language
  • 20. PLS-5 Spanish Standardization: Dual Language Study Bilingual Children’s Levels of Fluency in Spanish and English • Primarily Spanish speaker with some English abilities • Bilingual Spanish-English speaker
  • 21. Language Comprehension in Spanish 1. Child understands Spanish, but no English [monolingual] 2. Child understands Spanish and a little English [bilingual] 3. Child understands both Spanish and English [bilingual] 4. Child understands some concepts in Spanish and some in English (e.g., home concepts in Spanish; school concepts in English) [bilingual] 5. Child understands English and some Spanish [not included in sample] 6. Child does not understand Spanish; only understands English [not included in sample]
  • 22. Expressive Language in Spanish 1. Child converses in Spanish, speaks no English [monolingual] 2. Child converses fluently Spanish and speaks Spanish most of the time. He or she speaks a little English [bilingual] 3. Child converses fluently in both Spanish and English [bilingual] 4. Child converses fluently in English and speaks English most of the time. He or she speaks a little Spanish. [not included in sample] 5. Child converses fluently in English; speaks no Spanish [not included in sample]
  • 23. Exposure to Spanish Almost always: [monolingual] • Interacts in a Spanish speaking environment only • Leisure activities in Spanish • Speaks Spanish with family and friends Often: [bilingual] • interacts in both Spanish and English environments • may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family OR • may switch languages without a preference for either Occasionally: [bilingual] • Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only • Speaks Spanish but prefers English with family and friends Seldom or Almost Never [not included in the study] • Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only, but do not live in child’s home (seen infrequently) • Communicates a few messages in Spanish
  • 24. Dual Language STDZ Study: Length of Time Residing in the U.S. * 17% did not report length of time in the U.S. • 0-11 Months • 1 Year • 2 Years • 3 Years • 4 Years • 5 or more Years • Born in the U.S. 83% of the children living in the U.S. were born in the U.S. or have lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years
  • 25. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language Standardization Study: Overview Field Research • PLS-5 Spanish Standardization edition – Items were administered in Spanish first – Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English Scoring • Items were scored based on: – Spanish performance – Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring) Data Analysis • Data analysis compared Spanish scores to Spanish-English scores
  • 26. Dual Language Record Form (Draft)
  • 33. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Bilingual and Monolingual Samples
  • 34. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples: Age and Gender Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual N Age: Mean SD Gender: Female 44% 44% 46% 51% 46% 46% Male 56% 56% 54% 49% 54% 54% 4.8 0.8 76 7.0 0.6 Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7 81 1.5 0.8 151
  • 35. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples: Caregiver Education Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Caregiver education: < high school grad 22% 22% 30% 33% 26% 18% high school grad 25% 26% 27% 31% 34% 34% some college 24% 26% 21% 20% 17% 29% college graduate 30% 26% 23% 17% 22% 18% Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
  • 36. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples: Region Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Region: Northeast 4% 3% 5% 0% 4% 0% Midwest 0% 0% 6% 1% 3% 0% South 51% 42% 69% 48% 66% 13% West 44% 26% 17% 7% 22% 1% Puerto Rico 1% 30% 3% 44% 5% 86% Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
  • 37. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples: Country of Origin Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Country of origin: Mexico 61% 53% 66% 41% 75% 15% Puerto Rico 11% 31% 5% 43% 9% 85% South America 16% 6% 17% 4% 8% 0% Central America 10% 4% 10% 7% 4% 0% Cuba 3% 5% 1% 4% 4% 0% Dominican Rep. 0% 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
  • 38. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples Ages 0-2 Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t p Spanish 102.0 15.7 102.5 12.3 0.5 0.20 Dual-Language 102.0 15.7 103.6 12.2 1.6 0.73 Spanish 102.9 13.4 103.9 11.1 1.0 0.55 Dual-Language 102.9 13.4 104.3 11.1 1.4 0.74 Spanish 102.7 14.3 103.5 11.0 0.8 0.38 Dual-Language 102.7 14.3 104.4 11.0 1.7 0.80 Difference 80 81 80 Monolingual Bilingual Auditory Comp Exp Comm Total Lang N per group
  • 39. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples Ages 0-2 Auditory Comprehension 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual Expressive Communication 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual Total Language 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual
  • 40. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples Ages 3-5 Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t p Spanish 97.8 11.7 100.4 14.6 2.6 1.77 Dual-Language 97.8 11.7 106.4 14.8 8.6 5.66 <.001 Spanish 99.9 11.8 100.5 16.3 0.6 0.37 Dual-Language 99.9 11.8 104.3 16.3 4.4 2.60 .01 Spanish 98.8 11.6 100.6 16.0 1.8 1.03 Dual-Language 98.8 11.6 105.9 16.1 7.1 4.14 <.001 145 144 Monolingual Auditory Comp Exp Comm Total Lang BilingualN per group 150 Difference
  • 41. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples Ages 3-5 Auditory Comprehension 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual Expressive Communication 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual Total Language 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual
  • 42. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples Ages 6-7 Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ t p Spanish 98.6 11.1 97.7 16.9 -0.9 -0.49 Dual-Language 98.6 11.1 106.6 13.4 8.0 4.73 <.001 Spanish 97.7 10.0 99.0 16.4 1.3 0.59 Dual-Language 97.7 10.0 105.9 13.4 8.2 4.79 <.001 Spanish 98.0 10.6 98.3 17.3 0.3 0.13 Dual-Language 98.0 10.6 106.9 13.7 8.9 5.25 <.001 75 75 74 DifferenceN per group Total Lang Monolingual Bilingual Auditory Comp Exp Comm
  • 43. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples Ages 6-7 Auditory Comprehension 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual Expressive Communication 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual Total Language 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Monolingual Bilingual
  • 44. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Norm Sample (includes a representative number of clinical cases)
  • 45. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample) Ages 0-2 Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SD Spanish 98.7 16.3 101.5 12.5 102.4 12.3 Dual-Language 98.7 16.3 102.2 12.5 107.6 11.3 Difference 0.0 0.7 5.2 Spanish 100.9 15.2 103.4 10.9 102.7 8.7 Dual-Language 100.9 15.2 103.8 11.0 104.1 8.7 Difference 0.0 0.4 1.4 Spanish 99.8 15.6 102.7 11.0 102.9 10.6 Dual-Language 99.8 15.6 103.3 11.1 106.6 9.9 Difference 0.0 0.6 3.7 Auditory Comp Exp Comm Total Language 26 Bilingual 14 15 14 Primarily Spanish 26 26 Monolingual 286 286 286
  • 46. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample) Ages 0-2 Auditory Comprehension 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual Expressive Communication 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual Total Language 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual
  • 47. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample) Ages 3-5 Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SD Spanish 97.9 13.6 98.5 15.6 99.3 15.0 Dual-Language 97.9 13.6 102.9 15.7 107.0 14.4 Difference 0.0 4.4 7.7 Spanish 98.6 14.8 99.8 16.8 96.4 17.2 Dual-Language 98.6 14.8 102.8 16.9 101.9 17.1 Difference 0.0 3.0 5.5 Spanish 98.0 14.4 99.0 16.8 97.9 16.9 Dual-Language 98.0 14.4 103.1 16.8 105.1 16.7 Difference 0.0 4.1 7.2 BilingualPrimarily SpanishMonolingual 54 49 49 Auditory Comp 89 88 Exp Comm Total Language 305 305 88305
  • 48. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample) Ages 3-5 Auditory Comprehension 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual Expressive Communication 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual Total Language 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual
  • 49. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample) Ages 6-7 Scale Score Type N M SD N M SD N M SD Spanish 97.0 14.7 94.3 18.0 94.2 16.9 Dual-Language 97.0 14.7 100.7 16.6 104.2 14.1 Difference 0.0 6.4 10.0 Spanish 96.5 13.1 94.8 16.5 94.2 17.1 Dual-Language 96.5 13.1 99.5 15.7 103.0 14.7 Difference 0.0 4.7 8.8 Spanish 96.4 14.3 93.8 18.0 94.0 17.2 Dual-Language 96.4 14.3 99.9 16.8 104.2 14.3 Difference 0.0 6.1 10.2 84 80 80 Bilingual 69 41 69 43 Auditory Comp 69 43 Primarily SpanishMonolingual Exp Comm Total Language
  • 50. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample) Ages 6-7 Auditory Comprehension 90 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual Expressive Communication 90 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual Total Language 90 95 100 105 110 Spanish Dual-Language Bilingual Primarily Spanish Monolingual
  • 51. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Clinical Samples
  • 52. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples: Age and Gender Expressive Language Disorder Receptive Language Disorder Exp & Recept Language Disorder N 69 53 48 Age: 1 3 3 3 2 11 11 11 3 12 6 6 4 14 10 8 5 11 10 8 6 10 8 7 7 8 5 5 Mean: 4.7 4.6 4.5 Gender: Female 28% 23% 21% Male 72% 77% 79%
  • 53. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples: Caregiver Education Expressive Language Disorder Receptive Language Disorder Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder Caregiver education: < high school grad 55% 64% 67% high school grad 20% 25% 23% some college 13% 2% 2% college graduate 12% 9% 8%
  • 54. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples: Region Expressive Language Disorder Receptive Language Disorder Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder Region: Northeast 17% 23% 23% Midwest 0% 0% 0% South 35% 34% 35% West 30% 32% 31% Puerto Rico 17% 11% 10%
  • 55. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples: Country of Origin Expressive Language Disorder Receptive Language Disorder Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder Country of origin: Mexico 59% 62% 60% Puerto Rico 20% 13% 13% South America 4% 6% 6% Central America 10% 13% 15% Cuba 4% 4% 4% Dominican Rep. 1% 2% 2%
  • 56. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples Expressive Language Disorder Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001). Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ Spanish 78.8 15.5 96.1 14.9 17.3 Dual-Language 79.7 15.2 98.7 13.4 19.0 Spanish 76.5 12.1 97.8 14.2 21.3 Dual-Language 77.1 12.0 99.0 14.4 21.9 Spanish 76.3 12.6 97.1 14.6 20.8 Dual-Language 77.0 12.3 98.8 14.3 21.8 Exp Comm 64 Total Language 64 N per group Clinical Nonclinical Auditory Comp 69
  • 57. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples Expressive Language Disorder Auditory Comprehension 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical Expressive Communication 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical Total Language 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical
  • 58. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples Receptive Language Disorder Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001). Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ Spanish 74.3 13.7 94.2 13.4 19.9 Dual-Language 74.9 13.5 97.5 12.3 22.6 Spanish 76.6 12.9 96.3 12.2 19.7 Dual-Language 77.1 13.1 98.0 12.6 20.9 Spanish 74.2 12.4 95.3 12.3 21.1 Dual-Language 74.7 12.3 97.6 12.3 22.9 Expressive Communic 49 Total Language 49 N per group Clinical Nonclinical Auditory Comprehe 53
  • 59. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples Receptive Language Disorder Auditory Comprehension 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical Expressive Communication 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical Total Language 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical
  • 60. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001). Scale Score Type M SD M SD ∆ Spanish 73.7 13.9 94.2 13.9 20.5 Dual-Language 74.3 13.7 97.0 12.5 22.7 Spanish 75.5 12.6 96.7 12.6 21.2 Dual-Language 75.8 12.9 97.8 12.8 22.0 Spanish 73.3 12.3 95.5 12.7 22.2 Dual-Language 73.7 12.2 97.2 12.7 23.5 Expressive Communic 45 Total Language 45 N per group Clinical Nonclinical Auditory Comprehe 48
  • 61. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study Standard Score by Administration Method: Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder Auditory Comprehension 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical Expressive Communication 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical Total Language 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 Spanish Dual-Language Nonclinical Clinical
  • 62. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study 1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.
  • 63. PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study 1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3. 2. Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly raised the average standard scores of bilingual children. Children who primarily speak Spanish but know some English had a smaller increase than children who are more fully bilingual.
  • 64. PLS–5 Spanish Standardization: Dual Language STDZ Study 1. Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3. 2. Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly raised the average standard scores of bilingual children. Children who primarily speak Spanish but know some English had a smaller increase than children who are more fully bilingual. 3. Dual-language scoring did not affect the scores of children with language disorders.
  • 65. Testing in Spanish and English: Dominance and Proficiency “The concept of a ‘dominant’ language is losing favor as there is more evidence that proficiency in two languages occur on a continuum, with individuals being able to understand or express some concepts better in one language and others in another language.” (Peña, Bedore, & Zlatic-Giunta, 2002) “…notions such as proficiency and dominance are moving targets altered with differences in tasks, topics, and demands” (Goldstein, 2004)
  • 66. Testing in Spanish and English: Dominance and Proficiency “Language proficiency measurement is not as concerned as to which language is stronger or dominant, but rather its goal is to provide a description of the language development of the child in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. (Kayser, 2001)
  • 67. References Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic Principles (2nd Ed.). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press. Bedore, L., Peña, E., Garcia, M., & Cortez, C. (2005). Conceptual vs. monolingual scoring: when does it make a difference?. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 188-200. Kayser, H.R. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Spanish-English Speaking Children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 20 (3), 226-244. Kayser, H. (2001) “Assessing Language Proficiency and Language Dominance.” From the Hart. October 2001. Bilingual Therapies, Inc. http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/kayser-newsletter/2001/assessinglanguage- proficiency-and-language-dominance/ Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), Public Law 108-446 (2004.) 118 Stat. 2647 (2004)
  • 68. References (continued) Langdon, H.W. (1989). Language Disorder or Difference? Assessing the Language Skills of Hispanic Students. Exceptional Children, 56 (2). Pearson, B., Fernandez, S. & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43 (1), 93-120. Peña, E.D. & Bedore, L.M. (2011). “It takes two: improving assessment accuracy in bilingual children. ASHA Leader, 16 (13), 20-22. Peña, E., Bedore, L., Zlatic-Giunta, R. (2002) Category-Generation Performance of Bilingual Children: The Influence of Condition Category and Language. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 45, 938- 947. Region 4 Educational Service Center (2005). Houston, TX (Author).
  • 69. Contact Information Shannon Wang Senior Research Director shannon.wang@pearson.com Nancy Castilleja Senior Product Manager nancy.castilleja@pearson.com Marie Sepulveda Research Director marie.sepulveda@pearson.com Mark Daniel Senior Scientist for Research Innovation mark.daniel@pearson.com

Notas do Editor

  1. Approximately 50% each; n = 300
  2. Almost always: The child interacts in a Spanish speaking environment only in which everyone speaks Spanish and the family prefers TV programs, radio stations, and movies in Spanish. The child prefers to speak Spanish with friends and family. Often: The child interacts in both Spanish and English environments on a daily basis, for example, conversing in Spanish in the home but in English at school. The child may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family or may go back and forth between the two languages without an apparent preference for either
  3. Almost always: The child interacts in a Spanish speaking environment only in which everyone speaks Spanish and the family prefers TV programs, radio stations, and movies in Spanish. The child prefers to speak Spanish with friends and family. Often: The child interacts in both Spanish and English environments on a daily basis, for example, conversing in Spanish in the home but in English at school. The child may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family or may go back and forth between the two languages without an apparent preference for either
  4. Almost always: The child interacts in a Spanish speaking environment only in which everyone speaks Spanish and the family prefers TV programs, radio stations, and movies in Spanish. The child prefers to speak Spanish with friends and family. Often: The child interacts in both Spanish and English environments on a daily basis, for example, conversing in Spanish in the home but in English at school. The child may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family or may go back and forth between the two languages without an apparent preference for either
  5. 85% were born in the US or in the US 5 or more years