A survey of bilingual children referred for investigation of communication disorders: a comparison with monolingual children referred in one area in England

Outcomes from a community speech and language therapy service treatment waiting list: The natural history of 525 children with identified speech and language needs

BACKGROUND

Understanding the natural history of developmental speech and language impairments can support the selection of children whose difficulties are persistent rather than transitory. It can also provide information against which the effectiveness of intervention can be evaluated. However, natural history data are difficult to collect ethically. Furthermore, as soon as an impairment is identified, the behaviour of those around changes, thus creating some level of intervention. Longitudinal cohort studies, where intervention is minimal, or the control arm of randomized trials have provided the best evidence. However, occasional opportunities arise where service waiting lists can provide data about the progress of children who have not received intervention. This natural history study arose within an ethnically diverse, community paediatric speech and language therapy service in the UK where levels of social disadvantage are high.

AIMS

To identify (1) the characteristics of the children who attended initial assessment and were selected for treatment; (2) the differences between children who did and did not attend reassessment; and (3) the factors associated with outcomes.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A cohort of 545 children were referred and assessed as in need of therapy. Due to resource constraints, intervention was not available for an average of 12 months. Children were invited to attend for a reassessment of need. Initial and follow-up assessments were conducted by experienced clinicians using service guidelines and the Therapy Outcomes Measures Impairment Scale (TOM-I). Descriptive and multivariate regression analyses examined child outcomes for changes in communication impairment, demographic factors and length of wait.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

At initial assessment, 55% of children presented with severe and profound communication impairments. Children offered appointments at clinics in areas of high social disadvantage were less likely to attend reassessment. By reassessment, 54% of children showed spontaneous improvement (mean TOM-I rating change = 0.58). However, 83% were still judged to require therapy. Approximately 20% of children changed their diagnostic category. Age and impairment severity at initial assessment were the best predictors of continuing requirement for input.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

Although children do make spontaneous progress post-assessment and without intervention, it is likely that the majority will continue to be assigned case status by a Speech and Language Therapist. However, when evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, clinicians need to factor in the progress that a proportion of the caseload will make spontaneously. Services should be mindful that a lengthy wait may disproportionately impact children who already face health and educational inequalities.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject Data from longitudinal cohorts (where intervention has been minimal) and the no treatment control arms of randomized controlled trials have provided the best evidence of the natural progression of speech and language impairments in children. These studies provide a varied rate of resolution and progress depending on the case definitions and measurements used. What this study adds to existing knowledge Uniquely, this study has evaluated the natural history of a large cohort of children who had been waiting for treatment for up to 18 months. Data showed that, over a period of waiting for intervention, the majority of those identified as a case by a Speech and Language Therapist remained a case. Using the TOM, on average children in the cohort made just over half a rating point progress during their waiting period. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The maintenance of treatment waiting lists is probably an unhelpful service strategy for two reasons: first, the case status of the majority of the children is unlikely to change whilst they await intervention and thus children and their families are subjected to further limbo waiting time; second, the dropout from the waiting list may disproportionately affect children who are offered appointments in clinics where there are higher levels of social disadvantage, thus exacerbating inequalities in the system. Currently, a suggested reasonable outcome of intervention is a 0.5 rating change in one domain of TOMs. Study findings suggest this is insufficiently stringent for a paediatric community clinic caseload. There is a need to evaluate spontaneous improvement which may occur in other TOM domains (i.e., Activity, Participation and Wellbeing) and to agree an appropriate change metric for a community paediatric caseload.

Metaphor production in the bilingual acquisition of English and Polish

Metaphor acquisition research has focused mostly on metaphor comprehension in monolingual children. Ours is the first study to examine metaphor production in young bilinguals. A quantitative method was employed whereby sixty-two children aged three to six, with English and Polish, were tested on their ability to produce primary (e.g., a long day) and perceptual resemblance metaphors (e.g., You're my sunshine) in response to elicitation tasks. A univariate ANOVA revealed that the main factors to affect the production of conventional metaphors in bilingual children are their chronological age and their verbal skills in both English and Polish. No significant effect was found for nonverbal IQ, metaphor type, or testing language. These results are discussed in the context of both Conceptual Metaphor Theory, which has been concerned with the study of primary (and other conceptual) metaphors, and Structure Mapping Theory, which has focused on the use of perceptual resemblance metaphors. Usage-Based Theory is brought in to explain lexical effects in metaphor production.

Multilingual Speech Acquisition by Vietnamese-English-Speaking Children and Adult Family Members

PURPOSE

This article presents a large-scale example of culturally responsive assessment and analysis of multilingual Vietnamese-English-speaking children and their family members using the VietSpeech Protocol involving (a) examining all spoken languages, (b) comparing ambient phonology produced by family members, (c) including dialectal variants in the definition of accuracy, and (d) clustering participants with similar language experience.

METHOD

The VietSpeech participants (N = 154) comprised 69 children (2;0-8;10 [years;months]) and 85 adult family members with Vietnamese heritage living in Australia. Speech was sampled using the Vietnamese Speech Assessment (Vietnamese) and the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (English).

RESULTS

Children's Vietnamese consonant accuracy was significantly higher when dialectal variants were accepted (percentage of consonants correct-dialect [PCC-D]: M = 87.76, SD = 8.18), compared to when only Standard Vietnamese was accepted as the correct production (percentage of consonants correct-standard [PCC-S]: M = 70.34, SD = 8.78), Cohen's d = 3.55 (large effect). Vietnamese voiced plosives, nasals, semivowels, vowels, and tones were more often correct than voiceless plosives and fricatives. Children's Standard Australian English consonant accuracy (PCC-S) was 82.51 (SD = 15.57). English plosives, nasals, glides, and vowels were more often correct than fricatives and affricates. Vietnamese word-initial consonants had lower accuracy than word-final consonants, whereas English consonant accuracy was rarely influenced by word position. Consonant accuracy and intelligibility were highest for children with high proficiency in both Vietnamese and English. Children's consonant productions were most similar to their mothers' than other adults or siblings' productions. Adults' Vietnamese consonants, vowels, and tones were more likely to match Vietnamese targets than their children's productions.

CONCLUSIONS

Children's speech acquisition was influenced by cross-linguistic, dialectal, maturational, language experience, and environmental (ambient phonology) factors. Adults' pronunciation was influenced by dialectal and cross-linguistic factors. This study highlights the importance of including all spoken languages, adult family members, dialectal variants, and language proficiency to inform differential diagnosis of speech sound disorders and identify clinical markers in multilingual populations.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.23290055.

Characterizing Communicative Participation in Multilingual Jamaican Preschoolers

PURPOSE

This study characterized communicative participation and related aspects of functional communication for Jamaican Creole (JC)-English-speaking preschoolers with and without functionally defined speech sound disorders (fSSDs). This study included parent reports and direct assessment measures from an existing corpus of baseline data collected prior to the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

The communicative participation of typically developing (TD; n = 226) bilingual JC-English-speaking preschoolers and those with fSSDs (n = 39) was documented using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS). Functional speech intelligibility was recorded using the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) in English and JC (ICS-JC). Objective measures of speech production were collected through direct child assessment in both languages and then transcribed and calculated for percent of consonants (PCC), vowels (PVC), and phonemes correct (PPC). Within-group relationships were explored using association testing, and differences between groups were explored through multivariate analyses.

RESULTS

FOCUS scores and ICS and ICS-JC scores were found to be minimally to moderately related for Jamaican preschoolers in the TD group (r = .28-.34, p < .002) and strongly related in the fSSD group (r = .56-.60, p < .002). No relations were observed between the FOCUS scores and PCC/PVC/PPC in either language. There was a statistically significant difference between all FOCUS scores for Jamaican preschoolers in the TD and fSSD groups (p ≤ .002).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings provide additional evidence for using the FOCUS beyond documenting change in communicative participation to support clinical decision-making in planning and developing speech-language interventions. This study also documents an important characterization of JC-English-speaking children with and without fSSDs, offering data on children's abilities that can be used in future comparisons of communicative participation and speech functioning observed during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.

Linguistically Informed Acoustic and Perceptual Analysis of Bilingual Children's Speech Productions: An Exploratory Study in the Jamaican Context

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to characterize speech acoustics in bilingual preschoolers who speak Jamaican Creole (JC) and English. We compared a standard approach with a culturally responsive approach for characterizing speech sound productions. Preschoolers' speech productions were compared to adult models from the same linguistic community as a means for providing confirmatory evidence of typical speech patterns specific to JC-English speakers.

METHOD

Two protocols were applied to the data collected using the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP) Articulation subtest: (a) the standardized DEAP protocol and (b) a culturally and linguistically adapted protocol reflective of the Jamaican post-Creole (English to Creole) continuum. The protocols were used to analyze responses from JC-English-speaking preschoolers (n = 119) and adults (n = 15). Responses were analyzed using acoustic (voice onset time, whole-word duration, and vowel duration) and perceptual (percentage of consonant correct-revised and response frequencies) measures.

RESULTS

The culturally responsive protocol captured variation in the frequency and acoustic differences produced in the post-Creole continuum, with higher amounts of "other" responses compared to "standard" target responses for both children and adults. Adults' whole-word durations were shorter and showed more consistent prevoicing during initial plosives compared to the children.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying culturally responsive methods, including knowledge of the variation produced in the post-Creole continuum and with adult models from the same linguistic community, improved the ecological validity of speech characterizations for JC-English preschoolers. Acoustic properties of speech should be investigated further as a means of describing bilingual development and distinguishing between difference and disorder.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.20249382.

Can Dynamic Assessment Identify Language Disorder in Multilingual Children? Clinical Applications From a Systematic Review

PURPOSE

Multilingual children are disproportionately represented on speech pathology caseloads, in part due to the limited ability of traditional language assessments to accurately capture multilingual children's language abilities. This systematic review evaluates the evidence for identification of language disorder in multilingual children using dynamic assessment and considers clinical applications of the evidence.

METHOD

A systematic search of the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Education Resources Information Centre, Education Source, Google Scholar, Linguistics, Medline, and PsycINFO databases produced 10 articles that met the inclusion criteria: between-groups comparison studies that used dynamic assessment to identify language disorder in children under 12 years old that spoke a different language at home to the majority society language. Articles were critically appraised using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) protocol.

RESULTS

Nine of the 10 studies reported that their dynamic assessment identified language disorder in multilingual children. However, small sample sizes, limited language pairs, variability in the reference standard, and design deficiencies resulted in poor ratings for all studies on QUADAS-2.

CONCLUSIONS

The studies in this review reflected an emergent area of research. Preliminary guidelines for clinical application indicate that dynamic assessment may be a suitable and time-efficient complementary method of diagnosis of language disorder in multilingual children. Further recommendations about age of use, language of instruction, and relevant scores are included.

The use of technology in the management of children with phonological delay and adults with acquired dysarthria: A UK survey of current speech-language pathology practice

PURPOSE

Technology is increasingly important for the speech-language pathology profession, but little is currently known about its use by clinicians. This study aimed to determine (i) the types of technology that speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the UK have access to and use in practice and (ii) the barriers they encounter when assessing and treating adults with acquired dysarthria and children with phonological delay.

METHOD

UK SLPs were invited to complete two online surveys covering device availability, the use of technology for the assessment and treatment of acquired dysarthria and phonological delay, and barriers to using technology. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULT

126 SLPs completed the surveys. Most respondents had a range of devices available in clinic, including computer and touchscreen devices. Technology was primarily used for treatment to engage clients, provide direct feedback in sessions and encourage home practice. Reported key barriers include lack of knowledge and training, and technical support issues.

CONCLUSION

The use of technology in UK clinical practice varies widely, and technology adoption is hampered by various barriers. Findings indicate a need for more collaborative work between SLPs, technologists and policy-makers to develop the evidence-base for technology use in the management of acquired dysarthria and phonological delay.

A Survey of Assessment and Additional Teaching Support in Irish Immersion Education

This study investigates the assessment methods used in Irish immersion schools to identify students for additional teaching support. An overview is provided of the percentage of students receiving additional teaching support in this context and whether there is a higher rate of students accessing additional teaching support in Irish immersion schools than English-medium schools. The challenges of assessment through Irish as a second language are evaluated. In addition, this study investigates the language used by educational professionals when assessing and/or providing interventions for these students. A quantitative research approach was adopted for this investigation, with a random stratified sample of 20% (N = 29) of Irish immersion schools in the Republic of Ireland completing an online questionnaire. SPSS was used to analyse the data. The findings of the present research contribute to the limited body of knowledge available on the types of assessment used in immersion education to identify students for additional teaching support. These findings are significant as there has been limited research undertaken on this aspect in immersion education and the findings of this study may have implications for immersion education contexts in other countries.

Current practices of New Zealand speech-language pathologists working with multilingual children

Purpose: This study aimed to identify the current practices of New Zealand speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with multilingual children, to compare these with best practice guidelines and make recommendations for training and service development.Method: An online survey was sent to SLPs working with children in New Zealand, asking questions about their training, languages spoken and management of multilingual children.Result: Responses from 146 SLPs were analysed. While 28% reported over 25% of children on their caseloads were multilingual, most SLPs felt under-trained to work with these clients. In accordance with best practice guidelines, SLPs supported retention of home languages for their multilingual children. Half of the children seen were assessed and treated in all languages, despite the majority of SLPs being monolingual English speakers. However contrary to best practice recommendations, parents were used as interpreters more frequently than professional interpreters. The SLPs reported a lack of resources for assessment and treatment of multilingual children. Informal assessments were frequently used, but dynamic assessment and peer-child comparisons were under-utilised.Conclusion: There were marked differences between SLPs' current practice with multilingual children and best practice guidelines. Increased training opportunities along with resource development in languages commonly spoken in New Zealand are required.

Children with language delay referred to Dutch speech and hearing centres: caseload characteristics

BACKGROUND

Early detection and remediation of language disorders are important in helping children to establish appropriate communicative and social behaviour and acquire additional information about the world through the use of language. In the Netherlands, children with (a suspicion of) language disorders are referred to speech and hearing centres for multidisciplinary assessment. Reliable data are needed on the nature of language disorders, as well as the age and source of referral, and the effects of cultural and socioeconomic profiles of the population served in order to plan speech and language therapy service provision.

AIMS

To provide a detailed description of caseload characteristics of children referred with a possible language disorder by generating more understanding of factors that might influence early identification.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A database of 11,450 children was analysed consisting of data on children, aged 2-7 years (70% boys, 30% girls), visiting Dutch speech and hearing centres. The factors analysed were age of referral, ratio of boys to girls, mono- and bilingualism, nature of the language delay, and language profile of the children.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Results revealed an age bias in the referral of children with language disorders. On average, boys were referred 5 months earlier than girls, and monolingual children were referred 3 months earlier than bilingual children. In addition, bilingual children seemed to have more complex problems at referral than monolingual children. They more often had both a disorder in both receptive and expressive language, and a language disorder with additional (developmental) problems.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

This study revealed a bias in age of referral of young children with language disorders. The results implicate the need for objective language screening instruments and the need to increase the awareness of staff in primary child healthcare of red flags in language development of girls and multilingual children aiming at earlier identification of language disorders in these children. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject Identifying language disorders before children enter school can foster the initiation of early interventions before these problems interfere with formal education and behavioural adjustment. Information on caseload characteristics is important to plan speech and language therapy service provision. There are only a few studies on the caseload characteristics of children at first referral for language assessment. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study provides a detailed description of the caseload characteristics of children referred to Dutch speech and hearing centres. The results reveal an age bias in referral: boys were referred earlier than girls, and monolingual children were revealed earlier than bilingual children. On top of that, bilingual children seemed to have more complex problems at referral. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study indicates that it is important to be aware of bias in the age of referral of subgroups of children with language disorders. Solutions might be to implement a language screening instrument designed for use by non-speech-language therapists, and training in early recognition of girls and multilingual children with (less complex) language disorders for health professionals in key positions in child healthcare. In addition, it might be worthwhile to assign speech and language therapists with diverse ethnic and language backgrounds and/or with experience with bilingual/cultural children in a regional mentoring function to support referral agents and parents.

Fostering human rights through TalkBank

In accord with articles 19 and 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, people with speech and language disorders have the right to receive maximal benefit from academic research on speech and language acquisition and disorders. To evaluate the diverse nature of speech and language disorders, this research must have access to large datasets, as well as to refined tools for the systematic analysis of these datasets. The TalkBank system addresses this need by providing researchers with thousands of hours of open-access database archives of digital audio, video and transcript files documenting typical and disordered language use in dozens of languages and cultures. In this paper, we review the TalkBank system, with an emphasis on the AphasiaBank, PhonBank and FluencyBank databases. We describe how specialised assessment tools can be used to study issues in speech and language acquisition and disorders recorded within these databases. We then provide illustrations of how assessments support the needs of researchers, clinicians, developers, and educators, whose combined work contributes solutions for people with speech, language and language learning disorders worldwide.

Speech sound disorders or differences: Insights from bilingual children speaking two Chinese languages

The study investigated how Putonghua-Cantonese bilingual children differ from monolinguals in their acquisition of speech sound and phonological patterns. Fifty-four typically developing Putonghua-Cantonese bilingual children aged 3;6-6;0 were recruited from nurseries in the North District of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Cantonese Articulation Test (Cheung et al., 2006) and a Putonghua picture-naming task (Zhu & Dodd, 2000) were used to elicit single-word samples of both languages. Acquisition of speech sound and phonological patterns exhibited by ≥20% of the children in an age group were compared to the normative data on children who were Cantonese native or Putonghua monolingual speakers. The bilingual children demonstrated smaller sound inventory in both languages and more delayed and atypical phonological processes. The atypical patterns could be explained by phonological interference between Putonghua and Cantonese. The findings serve as a preliminary reference for clinicians in differentiating language difference from true speech sound disorders in Putonghua-Cantonese bilingual children in Hong Kong.

Tutorial: Speech Assessment for Multilingual Children Who Do Not Speak the Same Language(s) as the Speech-Language Pathologist

PURPOSE

The aim of this tutorial is to support speech-language pathologists (SLPs) undertaking assessments of multilingual children with suspected speech sound disorders, particularly children who speak languages that are not shared with their SLP.

METHOD

The tutorial was written by the International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children's Speech, which comprises 46 researchers (SLPs, linguists, phoneticians, and speech scientists) who have worked in 43 countries and used 27 languages in professional practice. Seventeen panel members met for a 1-day workshop to identify key points for inclusion in the tutorial, 26 panel members contributed to writing this tutorial, and 34 members contributed to revising this tutorial online (some members contributed to more than 1 task).

RESULTS

This tutorial draws on international research evidence and professional expertise to provide a comprehensive overview of working with multilingual children with suspected speech sound disorders. This overview addresses referral, case history, assessment, analysis, diagnosis, and goal setting and the SLP's cultural competence and preparation for working with interpreters and multicultural support workers and dealing with organizational and government barriers to and facilitators of culturally competent practice.

CONCLUSION

The issues raised in this tutorial are applied in a hypothetical case study of an English-speaking SLP's assessment of a multilingual Cantonese- and English-speaking 4-year-old boy. Resources are listed throughout the tutorial.

Practitioner Review: Multilingualism and neurodevelopmental disorders - an overview of recent research and discussion of clinical implications

BACKGROUND

Language and communication skills are essential aspects of child development, which are often disrupted in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Cutting edge research in psycholinguistics suggests that multilingualism has potential to influence social, linguistic and cognitive development. Thus, multilingualism has implications for clinical assessment, diagnostic formulation, intervention and support offered to families. We present a systematic review and synthesis of the effects of multilingualism for children with neurodevelopmental disorders and discuss clinical implications.

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches for studies on multilingualism in neurodevelopmental disorders. Keywords for neurodevelopmental disorders were based on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition categories as follows; Intellectual Disabilities, Communication Disorders, Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, Specific Learning Disorder, Motor Disorders, Other Neurodevelopmental Disorders. We included only studies based on empirical research and published in peer-reviewed journals.

RESULTS

Fifty studies met inclusion criteria. Thirty-eight studies explored multilingualism in Communication Disorders, 10 in ASD and two in Intellectual Disability. No studies on multilingualism in Specific Learning Disorder or Motor Disorders were identified. Studies which found a disadvantage for multilingual children with neurodevelopmental disorders were rare, and there appears little reason to assume that multilingualism has negative effects on various aspects of functioning across a range of conditions. In fact, when considering only those studies which have compared a multilingual group with developmental disorders to a monolingual group with similar disorders, the findings consistently show no adverse effects on language development or other aspects of functioning. In the case of ASD, a positive effect on communication and social functioning has been observed.

CONCLUSIONS

There is little evidence to support the widely held view that multilingual exposure is detrimental to the linguistic or social development of individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders. However, we also note that the available pool of studies is small and the number of methodologically high quality studies is relatively low. We discuss implications of multilingualism for clinical management of neurodevelopmental disorders, and discuss possible directions for future research.

Parent-rated measures of bilingual children's speech accuracy: Implications for a universal speech screen

PURPOSE

This study investigated whether parents were reliable in judging their bilingual children's speech and whether parent-rated measure of children's speech could be used as a tool for a universal speech screen to identify children with speech sound disorder (SSD).

METHOD

Single word samples from 33 Korean-English bilingual (KEB) pre-school children were analysed for percentage of consonants correct (PCC). Their parents completed the Intelligibility in Context Scale and a similarly constructed scale devised by Stertzbach and Gildersleeve-Neumann. Spearman rank correlations were used to examine the association between the PCC scores and the parent-rated measures.

RESULT

A number of factors influenced parents' reliability in judging their bilingual children's speech, including language dominance and the nature of the questions that were asked. The perception of strangers on a child's speech problems, as judged by the parents, could be significant in identifying children with SSD. When the cut-off ICS mean score derived from a previous monolingual research was applied to KEB children, over 40% of the sample was identified as requiring a comprehensive clinical assessment.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of a universal speech screen utilising parent-rated measures of children's speech cannot be introduced without further research.

Child healthcare nurses believe that bilingual children show slower language development, simplify screening procedures and delay referrals

AIM

A significant number of children living in Sweden are bilingual, but how language screening is performed in this group is unknown. We investigated child healthcare nurses' perceptions of the language screening of bilingual children aged 30-36 months, together with their clinical practices.

METHODS

An online questionnaire was completed by 863 nurses who performed language screening of bilingual children in Sweden at least once a month, corresponding to 89% of the target population. Cox regression identified predictors of the nurses' tendency to simplify the screening of bilingual children.

RESULTS

The nurses reported a greater lack of confidence and more difficulties in interpreting screening outcomes for bilingual than monolingual children (p < 0.001). Half of the nurses simplified the screening processes for bilingual children and 74% postponed referrals to speech and language services, basing these adaptations on their perceptions of the children's Swedish language skills (p < 0.001). Most nurses (82%) believed that language development was slower in bilingual children, and this was the strongest predictor of simplified screening practices (RR=2.00, 95% CI 1.44-2.77).

CONCLUSION

Child healthcare nurses need easily accessible information and clear guidelines on the language development of bilingual children to ensure that bilingual and monolingual children receive equitable language screening services.

Reconceptualizing practice with multilingual children with speech sound disorders: people, practicalities and policy

BACKGROUND

The speech and language therapy profession is required to provide services to increasingly multilingual caseloads. Much international research has focused on the challenges of speech and language therapists' (SLTs) practice with multilingual children.

AIMS

To draw on the experience and knowledge of experts in the field to: (1) identify aspirations for practice, (2) propose recommendations for working effectively with multilingual children with speech sound disorders, and (3) reconceptualize understandings of and approaches to practice.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Fourteen members of the International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children's Speech met in Cork, Ireland, to discuss SLTs' practice with multilingual children with speech sound disorders. Panel members had worked in 18 countries and spoke nine languages. Transcripts of the 6-h discussion were analysed using Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) as a heuristic framework to make visible the reality and complexities of SLTs' practice with multilingual children.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

Aspirations and recommendations for reconceptualizing approaches to practice with multilingual children with speech sound disorders included: (1) increased training for working with multilingual children, their families, and interpreters, (2) increased training for transcribing speech in many languages, (3) increased time and resources for SLTs working with multilingual children and (4) use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF-CY).

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

The reality and complexities of practice identified in this paper highlight that it is not possible to formulate and implement one 'gold standard' method of assessment and intervention for all multilingual children with speech sound disorders. It is possible, however, to underpin practice with a framework that ensures comprehensive assessment, accurate diagnosis and effective intervention. This paper proposes that by working towards the aspirations of the Expert Panel, SLTs can be empowered to facilitate appropriate services for multilingual children regardless of the context in which they live and the languages they speak.

A review of 30 speech assessments in 19 languages other than English

PURPOSE

In this study, the authors aimed to evaluate instruments designed to assess children's speech production in languages other than English.

METHOD

Ninety-eight speech assessments in languages other than English were identified: 62 were commercially published, 17 published within journal articles, and 19 informal assessments. A review was undertaken of 30 commercially published assessments that could be obtained.

RESULTS

The 30 instruments assessed 19 languages: Cantonese, Danish, Finnish, German, Greek, Japanese, Korean, Maltese-English, Norwegian, Pakistani-heritage languages (Mirpuri, Punjabi, Urdu), Portuguese, Putonghua (Mandarin), Romanian, Slovenian, Spanish, Swedish, and Turkish. The majority (70.0%) assessed speech sound production in monolingual speakers, 20.0% assessed one language of bilingual speakers, and 10.0% assessed both languages of bilingual speakers. All used single-word picture elicitation. Approximately half (53.3%) were norm-referenced, and the number of children in the normative samples ranged between 145 and 2,568. The remaining assessments were criterion-referenced (50.0%) (one fitted both categories). The assessments with English manuals met many of the psychometric criteria for operationalization; however, only 2 provided sensitivity and specificity data.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the varying countries of origin, there were many similarities between speech assessments in languages other than English. Few were designed for use with multilingual children, so validation is required for use in English-speaking contexts.

Resourcing speech-language pathologists to work with multilingual children

Speech-language pathologists play important roles in supporting people to be competent communicators in the languages of their communities. However, with over 7000 languages spoken throughout the world and the majority of the global population being multilingual, there is often a mismatch between the languages spoken by children and families and their speech-language pathologists. This paper provides insights into service provision for multilingual children within an English-dominant country by viewing Australia's multilingual population as a microcosm of ethnolinguistic minorities. Recent population studies of Australian pre-school children show that their most common languages other than English are: Arabic, Cantonese, Vietnamese, Italian, Mandarin, Spanish, and Greek. Although 20.2% of services by Speech Pathology Australia members are offered in languages other than English, there is a mismatch between the language of the services and the languages of children within similar geographical communities. Australian speech-language pathologists typically use informal or English-based assessments and intervention tools with multilingual children. Thus, there is a need for accessible culturally and linguistically appropriate resources for working with multilingual children. Recent international collaborations have resulted in practical strategies to support speech-language pathologists during assessment, intervention, and collaboration with families, communities, and other professionals. The International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children's Speech was assembled to prepare a position paper to address issues faced by speech-language pathologists when working with multilingual populations. The Multilingual Children's Speech website ( http://www.csu.edu.au/research/multilingual-speech ) addresses one of the aims of the position paper by providing free resources and information for speech-language pathologists about more than 45 languages. These international collaborations have been framed around the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF-CY) and have been established with the goal of supporting multilingual children to participate in society.

A geographical analysis of speech-language pathology services to support multilingual children

The speech-language pathology workforce strives to provide equitable, quality services to multilingual people. However, the extent to which this is being achieved is unknown. Participants in this study were 2849 members of Speech Pathology Australia and 4386 children in the Birth cohort of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC). Statistical and geospatial analyses were undertaken to identify the linguistic diversity and geographical distribution of Australian speech-language pathology services and Australian children. One fifth of services offered by Speech Pathology Australia members (20.2%) were available in a language other than English. Services were most commonly offered in Australian Sign Language (Auslan) (4.3%), French (3.1%), Italian (2.2%), Greek (1.6%), and Cantonese (1.5%). Among 4-5-year-old children in the nationally representative LSAC, 15.3% regularly spoke and/or understood a language other than English. The most common languages spoken by the children were Arabic (1.5%), Italian (1.2%), Greek (0.9%), Spanish (0.9%), and Vietnamese (0.9%). There was a mismatch between the location of and languages in which multilingual services were offered, and the location of and languages spoken by children. These findings highlight the need for SLPs to be culturally competent in providing equitable services to all clients, regardless of the languages they speak.

International aspirations for speech-language pathologists' practice with multilingual children with speech sound disorders: development of a position paper

A major challenge for the speech-language pathology profession in many cultures is to address the mismatch between the "linguistic homogeneity of the speech-language pathology profession and the linguistic diversity of its clientele" (Caesar & Kohler, 2007, p. 198). This paper outlines the development of the Multilingual Children with Speech Sound Disorders: Position Paper created to guide speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') facilitation of multilingual children's speech. An international expert panel was assembled comprising 57 researchers (SLPs, linguists, phoneticians, and speech scientists) with knowledge about multilingual children's speech, or children with speech sound disorders. Combined, they had worked in 33 countries and used 26 languages in professional practice. Fourteen panel members met for a one-day workshop to identify key points for inclusion in the position paper. Subsequently, 42 additional panel members participated online to contribute to drafts of the position paper. A thematic analysis was undertaken of the major areas of discussion using two data sources: (a) face-to-face workshop transcript (133 pages) and (b) online discussion artifacts (104 pages). Finally, a moderator with international expertise in working with children with speech sound disorders facilitated the incorporation of the panel's recommendations. The following themes were identified: definitions, scope, framework, evidence, challenges, practices, and consideration of a multilingual audience. The resulting position paper contains guidelines for providing services to multilingual children with speech sound disorders (http://www.csu.edu.au/research/multilingual-speech/position-paper). The paper is structured using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health: Children and Youth Version (World Health Organization, 2007) and incorporates recommendations for (a) children and families, (b) SLPs' assessment and intervention, (c) SLPs' professional practice, and (d) SLPs' collaboration with other professionals.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Readers will 1. recognize that multilingual children with speech sound disorders have both similar and different needs to monolingual children when working with speech-language pathologists. 2. Describe the challenges for speech-language pathologists who work with multilingual children. 3. Recall the importance of cultural competence for speech-language pathologists. 4. Identify methods for international collaboration and consultation. 5. Recognize the importance of engaging with families and people within their local communities for supporting multilingual children in context.

The influence of bilingualism on speech production: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Children who are bilingual and have speech sound disorder are likely to be under-referred, possibly due to confusion about typical speech acquisition in bilingual children.

AIMS

To investigate what is known about the impact of bilingualism on children's acquisition of speech in English to facilitate the identification and treatment of bilingual children with speech sound disorder.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

A systematic review of studies from the last 50 years was conducted. Studies investigating speech acquisition in bilingual infants and children (where one language was English) were identified through searching seven electronic databases, bibliographies of relevant articles and e-mailing authors. Sixty-six studies investigating bilingual speech production met inclusion criteria, with 53 describing typically developing children and 13 describing children with speech sound disorder. The 66 studies were analysed thematically and summarized in terms of methods, key findings and underlying theories.

MAIN CONTRIBUTION

There was limited evidence to suggest that bilingual children develop speech at a slower rate than their monolingual peers; however, there was evidence for qualitative differences and increased variation in speech production. Nearly all studies provide evidence for transfer between the two phonological and language structures, although the amount of transfer varied between studies. There was evidence of positive and negative transfer of features from the dominant language (L1) to the second language (L2) as well as from L2 to L1. Positive transfer became more evident with increased age and length of exposure to a second language. More recently researchers have moved away from investigating whether there are one or two phonological systems and accept that there are two systems that interact. Interest has shifted to examining how phonological systems interact and to identifying factors that influence interactions. The review revealed a number of inconsistencies in the findings of studies due to differences in methodology, languages investigated and degree of language exposure. Overall, measurement issues were addressed well but most studies provided limited sample information about language experience, schooling and socio-economic status.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS

There are differences in speech sound acquisition between monolingual and bilingual children in terms of rate and patterns of error, with both positive and negative transfer occurring in bilingual children.

Speech-language pathologists' assessment and intervention practices with multilingual children

Within predominantly English-speaking countries such as the US, UK, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia, there are a significant number of people who speak languages other than English. This study aimed to examine Australian speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) perspectives and experiences of multilingualism, including their assessment and intervention practices, and service delivery methods when working with children who speak languages other than English. A questionnaire was completed by 128 SLPs who attended an SLP seminar about cultural and linguistic diversity. Approximately one half of the SLPs (48.4%) reported that they had at least minimal competence in a language(s) other than English; but only 12 (9.4%) reported that they were proficient in another language. The SLPs spoke a total of 28 languages other than English, the most common being French, Italian, German, Spanish, Mandarin, and Auslan (Australian sign language). Participants reported that they had, in the past 12 months, worked with a mean of 59.2 (range 1-100) children from multilingual backgrounds. These children were reported to speak between two and five languages each; the most common being: Vietnamese, Arabic, Cantonese, Mandarin, Australian Indigenous languages, Tagalog, Greek, and other Chinese languages. There was limited overlap between the languages spoken by the SLPs and the children on the SLPs' caseloads. Many of the SLPs assessed children's speech (50.5%) and/or language (34.2%) without assistance from others (including interpreters). English was the primary language used during assessments and intervention. The majority of SLPs always used informal speech (76.7%) and language (78.2%) assessments and, if standardized tests were used, typically they were in English. The SLPs sought additional information about the children's languages and cultural backgrounds, but indicated that they had limited resources to discriminate between speech and language difference vs disorder.

Speech and language therapy service delivery for bilingual children: A survey of three cities in Great Britain

BACKGROUND

Speech and language therapy (SLT) managers are expected to ensure that there are appropriate services available for bilingual and multilingual clients in order to ensure an equitable service to all clients. However, there is a paucity of data available to inform service planning.

AIMS

To identify the level to which SLT services in three UK cities meet the recommendations of The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists (RCSLT) Good Practice Guidelines. Socio-demographic information is provided about the number of children from ethnic minorities in the population and the proportion of (bilingual) children from ethnic minorities on the speech and language therapy caseload. Based on this information, it is estimated whether there is proportionate representation of bilingual children on SLT caseloads, and whether services are in place to meet the needs of those clients.

METHODS & PROCEDURES

Population statistics were gathered from Census data and data were gleaned from Local Education Authorities. The study used a combination of interview and postal questionnaires to SLTs, with particular emphasis on the issues that may affect service provision.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS

As in previous studies, it was difficult to find reliable data. However, two of the three cities studied appeared to be offering a proportionate service to both monolingual and bilingual children in terms of the relative numbers of children on caseloads. Only one city was confident that their SLT service was fully meeting the RCSLT Good Practice Guidelines on bilingualism, although all three cities were aware of them and appeared to be making an effort at varying levels to address the principles of those guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a need for a change in how data on linguistic diversity in society are collected and disseminated, both at a national level and within SLT services, so that informed decisions can influence the future of quality services to minority groups.