Teacher Report of Students' Dialect Use and Language Ability

Positive Predictive Values Associated With Adapting the Redmond Sentence Recall Measure Into a Kindergarten Screener for Developmental Language Disorder

PURPOSE

Researchers estimate the prevalence of developmental language disorder (DLD) in 5-year-olds to be between 7% and 12%. Current identification systems in public schools typically favor referral identification formats over targeted or universal screenings. Public schools face unique challenges when assessing the value of screening measures for DLD that include real-world considerations such as administration, time, and resource constraints. This study used the positive predictive value (PPV) of the Redmond Sentence Recall (RSR) to assess its fidelity when administered by special education paraprofessionals. Our obtained PPV was compared across three areas: (a) previous studies that have utilized the RSR, (b) rates extrapolated from the participating school district's preexisting referral system from a previous study, and (c) expectations based on DLD prevalence.

METHOD

Language screenings were conducted in two elementary schools using the RSR administered by school-based paraprofessionals trained on the screener protocol. One hundred sixty-four kindergarten students (age range: 5-6 years) were screened. Confirmatory testing was completed on all students who failed the screener.

RESULTS

Of the 164 students screened, 19 failed the RSR (11.5%), and 14 met criteria (8.5%) for DLD (PPV = .74). Our PPV was similar to previously published studies that utilized the RSR using research assistants and was higher than the PPV associated with teacher-based referrals from the participating school district.

CONCLUSION

The RSR represents a potentially useful screener for identifying children at risk for previously unidentified language disorders in public schools.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22044479.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test Risk Subtest to Two Other Screeners for Low-Income Prekindergartners Who Speak African American English and Live in the Urban South

Purpose We compared the Risk subtest of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test (DELV-Screening Test Risk) with two other screeners when administered to low-income prekindergartners (pre-K) who spoke African American English (AAE) in the urban South. Method Participants were 73 children (six with a communication disorder and 67 without) enrolled in Head Start or a publicly funded pre-K in an urban Southern city. All children completed the DELV-Screening Test Risk, the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition (FLUHARTY-2), and the Washington and Craig Language Screener (WCLS). Test order was counterbalanced across participants. Results DELV-Screening Test Risk error scores were higher than those reported for its standardization sample, and scores on the other screeners were lower than their respective standardization/testing samples. The 52% fail rate of the DELV-Screening Test Risk did not differ significantly from the 48% rate of the WCLS. Fail rates of the FLUHARTY-2 ranged from 34% to 75%, depending on the quotient considered and whether scoring was modified for dialect. Although items and subtests assumed to measure similar constructs were correlated to each other, the three screeners led to inconsistent pass/fail outcomes for 44% of the children. Conclusions Like other screeners, the DELV-Screening Test Risk subtest may lead to high fail rates for low-income pre-K children who speak AAE in the urban South. Inconsistent outcomes across screeners underscore the critical need for more study and development of screeners within the field.

Forum: Serving African American English Speakers in Schools Through Interprofessional Education & Practice

Purpose African American English (AAE) speakers often face mismatches between home language and school language, coupled with negative attitudes toward AAE in the classroom. This forum, Serving African American English Speakers in Schools Through Interprofessional Education & Practice, will help researchers, parents, and school-based practitioners communicate in ways that are synergistic, collaborative, and transparent to improve educational outcomes of AAE speakers. Method The forum includes a tutorial offering readers instructions on how to engage in community-based participatory research (Holt, 2021). Through two clinical focus articles, readers will recognize how AAE develops during the preschool years and is expressed across various linguistic contexts and elicitation tasks (Newkirk-Turner & Green, 2021) and identify markers of developmental language disorder within AAE from language samples analyzed in Computerized Language Analysis (Overton et al., 2021). Seven empirical articles employ such designs as quantitative (Byrd & Brown, 2021; Diehm & Hendricks, 2021; Hendricks & Jimenez, 2021; Maher et al., 2021; Mahurin-Smith et al., 2021), qualitative (Hamilton & DeThorne, 2021), and mixed methods (Mills et al., 2021). These articles will help readers identify ways in which AAE affects how teachers view its speakers' language skills and communicative practices and relates to its speakers' literacy outcomes. Conclusion The goal of the forum is to make a lasting contribution to the discipline with a concentrated focus on how to assess and address communicative variation in the U.S. classroom.

Teachers' Content Knowledge and Pedagogical Beliefs Regarding the Use of African American English

Purpose In order to provide appropriate and effective assessment and instructional activities, teachers are encouraged to develop their cultural competency. Although speech-language pathologists (SLPs) receive training on the linguistic features of nonmainstream dialects of English, such as African American English (AAE), less is known about teachers' training, beliefs, and pedagogical knowledge surrounding this topic. Method Using stratified random sampling by county population, we invited educators within selected Ohio school districts to complete an online survey (n = 17,548). The survey probed teachers' pre- and postservice training, beliefs, and knowledge of linguistic features and terminology relating to AAE. A total of 571 teachers completed at least 50% of the survey items (3.66% response rate). Results Few teachers report receiving training on AAE and demonstrated a limited grasp of linguistic terms commonly found in AAE literature; however, many teachers reported feeling confident in their abilities to identify features of AAE in written language tasks. In terms of school culture, teachers reported that they believed AAE to be more appropriate outside (rather than inside) the classroom, and only one third of teachers received resources to enhance their knowledge of the cultural and linguistic features of AAE. Conclusions Results suggest that teachers may benefit from increased access to training and materials to further develop their cultural competence. Given SLPs' familiarity with cultural and linguistic variability, SLPs may work to support teachers' cultural competence and encourage culturally appropriate assessment and intervention practices. Additional research is needed to determine how teachers' skills in these areas predict effectiveness/teaching ability and which factors are most important in the provision of culturally relevant instruction.