Teacher Educational Decision Making for Children With Specific Language Impairment

Abilities and Disabilities Among Children With Developmental Language Disorder

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to situate developmental language disorder (DLD) within the impairment and disability framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF); describe the functional strengths and weaknesses of a cohort of first-grade children with DLD and their peers; and explore the ways that language-related disabilities relate to language impairment, developmental risk, and receipt of language services.

METHOD

We queried the caregivers of 35 children with DLD and 44 peers with typical language development about their children's language-related functions, developmental risks, and language services using mixed quantitative and qualitative methods.

RESULTS

The children with DLD presented with weaknesses in domains that are highly dependent upon language skill, including communication, community function, interpersonal relationships, and academics. They presented with strengths in domestic and personal aspects of daily living, play and coping aspects of socialization, and gross motor function. Caregivers of children with DLD expressed pride in their children's agentive and prosocial qualities. Consistent with the ICF, what distinguished children with DLD who had functional weaknesses and disabilities from those who had healthy function was not the severity of language impairment as measured by decontextualized tests of language skill, but the presence of cumulative developmental risks. Compared to those with healthy function, a larger portion of children with weaknesses and disabilities were receiving language services; however, two girls who had disabilities despite mild levels of impairment were without services.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with DLD present with predictable strengths and weaknesses in everyday language-related functioning. For some children, the weaknesses are mild, but for others, they limit function to a greater extent and should be considered disabilities. The severity of language impairment is not a strong indicator of language-related function and, therefore, is not a good metric for determining service qualification.

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.

Speech/Language Impairment or Specific Learning Disability? Examining the Usage of Educational Categories

PURPOSE

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a lifelong condition that when impacting educational performance is identified and serviced through U.S. schools as outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. A few examples of educational categories that refer to DLD are (a) speech or language impairment (S/LI) and (b) specific learning disability (SLD). In this research note, we aim to examine trends in how these categories are assigned.

METHOD

We analyzed publicly available data released by the U.S. Department of Education from six school years between 2010 and 2020. We examined the use of S/LI and SLD categories across students of different ages at the U.S. national and state levels.

RESULTS

We present a trend in which younger students tend to be identified with the S/LI category, whereas older students tend to be identified with the SLD category. This trend is evident in all 6 years of data analyzed at the national level, and in 49 of 50 states.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss these findings in the context of research on language disorders to explain this trend. We highlight the potential damaging effects of using inconsistent terminology, including affecting the services for which students with DLD qualify and causing confusion for their parents and educators.

Interpretation and Use of Standardized Language Assessments for Diverse School-Age Individuals

Purpose

The ultimate aim of an assessment is to help examiners make valid conclusions about an individual's skill given their performance on a particular measure. Yet, assessing the language abilities of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals requires researchers and practitioners to carefully consider the appropriateness of traditional parameters of test psychometrics (e.g., reliability, or consistency of assessments as measurement) plus the intersectional identities that inform the generalizability of these parameters. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to provide clinicians and researchers with resources to interpret and use common standardized language assessments in English for culturally and linguistically diverse school-age youth. We present theories from psychometrics, legal studies, and education relevant to language assessment of diverse individuals, review standardized language assessments in English, and provide theory-to-practice applications of language assessment scenarios.

Conclusions

Implementing intersectional approaches in working with diverse children and using assessment scores as just one piece of evidence amid a broader evidence base will contribute to a more accurate evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse children's language abilities. A comprehensive approach involving multiple stakeholders across the field of communication sciences and disorders may support achieving such implementation.