Psychometric Procedures vs Descriptive Assessment for Preschool and School-Age Children with Language Disorders

by Katie Engle

Psychometric procedures are used to assess language abilities. A psychometric measurement differs from a descriptive measurement in that it depends on standardized testing and statistical data (Denman et al., 2017). These assessments provide valuable information regarding the current level of language ability of a child and data that will be collected through assessment will be shared with the guardians of the child. This reality alone supports the idea that well-grounded psychometric properties are vital for standardized assessment (Denman et al., 2017).

Psychometric procedures, or normalist assessments, are often normed, meaning that average or typical scores are presented. It is important to note that most often, children with language disorders fall below the norming group of these tests. The statistical characteristics supported in psychometric procedures include specificity/sensitivity, reliability, and validity (Owens, 2024).

In this approach, the SLP’s role is to understand the measurements tested and administer the assessment accurately. Psychometric data allows for objectivity regarding skill level. In regards to numbers, information can be viewed as reliable and valid. However, these measurements contain limitations in that they cannot capture the complexity of language ability, and the unique qualities presented in each child being tested.

This is where the descriptive assessment approach comes into play. A descriptive approach is built on observation, spontaneous conversation sampling, and dynamic assessment (Owens, 2024). In this approach, the SLP can be clinician-directed, basing and adjusting the assessment based on the unique qualities of the child. The focus is to assess behavioral components of language in a naturalistic environment to gain an understanding of how the environment inhibits or encourages language (Descriptive Assessments - Screening and Assessment, n.d.). The limitations of this approach are that validity and reliability are dependent on the clinician having a high level of language expertise (Owens, 2024).

So, which do we choose as SLPs? It is recommended that the Integrated Functional Assessment strategy is utilized, as it is a combined assessment approach providing well-rounded information regarding the child’s language abilities.

References

Denman, D., Speyer, R., Munro, N., Pearce, W. M., Chen, Y.-W., & Cordier, R. (2017). Psychometric properties of language assessments for children aged 4–12 Years: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology.

Descriptive Assessments - Screening and Assessment. (n.d.). Docs.autismspeaks.org.https://docs.autismspeaks.org/screening-and-assessment/descriptive-assessments

Owens, R. E. (2024). Language disorders : a functional approach to assessment and intervention in children. Plural Publishing, Inc.

Cultural Considerations and Issues in Assessment

Hannah Kemp

Carter, J. A., Lees, J. A., Murira, G. M., Gona, J., Neville, B. G. R., & Newton, C. R. J. C. (2005). Issues in the development of cross-cultural assessments of speech and language for children. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 40(4), 385–401.

Enriquez, J., Arechiga, N., Atherkode, S., Otero, M., Andrews, A., & Mason, L. (2023). Culturally responsive language assessment through a verbal operant experimental analysis. Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice, 23(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/bar0000269

Shiller, J. T., & DeShields, I. (2022). Meet Students in the Middle: A Culturally Responsive, Near-Peer Literacy Program. Phi Delta Kappan, 104(2), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221130627

Solomon-Rice, P. L., Robinson, N. B., Soto, G., & Arana, R. (2024). Project Building Bridges: A Framework for Preparing Highly Qualified Speech-Language Pathologists to Serve Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students With Augmentative and Alternative Communication Needs. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 33(3), 1142–1156. https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00257

Truong, D. M., Barth, A. M., Mire, S. S., Ayala, M. L., Ramclam, A. N., Tan, S. X. L., & McKee, S. L. (2022). Cultural considerations for conducting autism assessment with Asian American and Pacific Islander students. Psychology in the Schools, 59(7), 1430–1444. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22671

Washington, K. N., Wright Karem, R., Kokotek, L. E., & León, M. (2023). Supporting Culturally Responsive Assessment Practices With Preschoolers: Guidance From Methods in the Jamaican Context. Journal of Speech, Language & Hearing Research, 66(12), 4716–4738. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_JSLHR-23-00106

Formal Language Testing

By Karley Clinton

Formal language testing plays a crucial role in assessing various aspects of a child's language development, though it presents several challenges. Transitioning to formal testing can be facilitated through nonthreatening receptive tasks to ease the child into assessment. A comprehensive evaluation is necessary, as vocabulary tests alone are insufficient for diagnosing language disorders, and traditional omnibus language tests may not fully capture pragmatic difficulties. Pragmatics, which involve social language use, are particularly difficult to assess using standardized tests, often requiring supplemental input from parents or caregivers (Paul & Norbury, 2012). Similarly, assessing semantic knowledge is complex, as standardized tests rarely provide insight into the depth of a child's word knowledge or concept understanding. Methods such as the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV) and nonword repetition tasks can help examine word learning abilities. However, standardized tests for word categories, figurative language, and multiple meanings may not effectively distinguish children with and without language disorders. Word-finding difficulties, common among children with learning disabilities (LD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI), can be formally and informally assessed, though naming tests seldom clarify the nature of the deficit (Leonard, 2014).

Assessing syntax and morphology is complicated due to the variability in testing methods, syntactic structures, and task formats. Effective syntax evaluation should examine both comprehension and production through structured elicitation, sentence imitation, word-ordering, and correction judging tasks (Owens, 2020). Morphological assessments typically focus on bound inflectional morphemes, often overlooking derivational suffixes. While standardized narrative language tests exist, narrative skills can also be assessed through sampling. Additionally, test modifications are sometimes necessary, particularly for children with motor impairments or TBI, who may require extended response time. Given that most language assessments are designed for children with typically developing language (TDL), it is crucial to test beyond base and ceiling levels to identify specific areas of learning. Because norms evolve over time, clinicians must continuously update their testing approaches to ensure accurate assessment and diagnosis (Paul & Norbury, 2012).

References

Leonard, L. B. (2014). Children with specific language impairment. MIT Press.

Owens, R. E. (2020). Language development: An introduction (10th ed.). Pearson.

Paul, R., & Norbury, C. (2012). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Listening, speaking, reading, writing, and communicating (4th ed.). Mosby.

The Importance of Teachers and Referrals

Chloe Lyman

For school practicing speech language pathologists, teachers play an essential role in identifying children with possible language deficits. With teachers balancing so many differing needs with each student, a basic knowledge of language disorders is crucial to ensuring children are receiving the specific help they need. "In order to support the transition to literacy... it is vital that early-years teachers are skilled at identifying children who may be at risk" (Antoniazi et al., 2010). In a study of 15 teachers, each was asked to complete the Children's Communication Checklist, 2nd edition and the scores were then compared with results of the Clinical Examination of Language Fundamentals Screening Test, 4th edition (CELF-4) screening. From the comparison of the two scores, "teacher ratings showed poor sensitivity and specificity in identifying children" (Antoniazi et al., 2010).

In order to bridge this gap, school-based speech language pathologists need to ensure teachers are well equipped to identify any possible language deficits in their classroom. Providing common signs that may indicate language disorders allows teachers to refresh their memory and have a reliable list to look over if they suspect any deficits. This list can also provide clarification of what language disorders are not. "Students with limited English proficiency, for example, may present some of the symptoms above as they are learning the English language" (Gordon, 2020). English Language Learners may present with language barriers while learning a second language, but they do not have language disorders. Providing teachers a list of signs will give them the confidence to distinguish between the two.

Above all, it is improtant to remind these teachers that we want to help! If they have questions or are on the fence, encourage them to ask. By being proactive and involved in the referral process, teachers and SLP's can better identify and diagnose any possible language disorders and provide the specified aid catered to each individual student.

References:

Antoniazzi, D., Snow, P., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2010). Teacher identification of children at risk for language impairment in the first year of school. International journal of speech-language pathology, 12(3), 244–252. https://doi.org/10.3109/17549500903104447

Gordon, W. P. (2020, August 18). What teachers should know about language disorders. Graduate Programs for Educators. https://www.graduateprogram.org/blog/what-teachers-should-know about-language-disorders/

🧠Assessing Cognitive Skills in Children with Language Disorders

By: Aislinn Moore

Assessing Cognitive Skills in Children with Language Disorders

Children with language disorders often face challenges processing verbal information, which can stem from underlying cognitive weaknesses. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) play a vital role in evaluating these cognitive factors, including working memory, attention, processing speed, and executive functioning. Understanding these areas helps SLPs create targeted interventions (Chiat & Roy, 2007; Hoffman & Gillam, 2004; Laws & Bishop, 2003)

For example:

Working memory
Attention
Problem solving
Executive functioning

Key areas for assessment:

Verbal working memory: Tasks like non word and sentence repetition.
Processing speed: Processing the rate of speech can clarify whether speed contribute to difficulties.
Attention: Evaluate sustained and divided attention helps with the breakdowns between cognitive or linguistic issues.
Executive functioning: Story retell tasks and problem-solving tasks.

Assessment approaches

Dynamic assessment:

Focuses on the learning process, allowing SLP's to measure emerging skills. A test- teach- retest form of dynamic testing is helpful for assessing cognitive functioning. The retest phase is focused on the kinds of change that have occurred in response to the teaching.
SLPs have to consider the child's ability to attend, perceive, recall information; understand explanations; relate past information to new; infer and generalize.

VWM Assessment:

An SLP can perform careful analysis of children's performance on standardized language test to hypothesis on the effects of VWM abilities on poor language performance. For example, narrative retelling can be inferred based on the child's performance on various probing questions. Other informal techniques may be varying their speaking rate as well as volume and complexity while presenting language information.

How SLPs can help with cognitive factors (.i.e executive functions) in therapy:

Improving task initiation: It is important to understand how the child feels about the task and if they can initiate the task effectively.
Controlling impulses: When it comes to staying on task and implementing certain strategies, positive reinforcement will help control their impulses overtime.
Sustained Attention: Help improve sustained attention by identifying how long a child can focus. Start by implementing breaks if needed to help increase their focus on the task at hand. Visual models also would help the child as well.
Enhancing Working memory: Visualization such as making a mental picture in your mind.

By integrating cognitive assessments with language evaluations, SLPs can better understand the child's needs.

Speech Therapy Talk. (n.d.). Working memory. https://speechtherapytalk.com/receptive-language-activities/working-memory/

Owens, R. E., Jr. (2020). Language disorders: A functional approach to assessment and intervention in children (7th ed., Chapter 5). Pearson.

Pragmatic Assessments ASD

Frances Jue

Assessing pragmatic language use is important in any language evaluation – after all, that’s the entire point of language – to know others and be known by them through the modality of the spoken or written word. This is especially significant when assessing children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), who demonstrate particular difficulty with the social use of language. Pragmatic deficits, like ASD itself, exists on a continuum, ranging from mild communication differences on the one end, to entirely non-verbal on the other, and a wide range in between. Early identification of pragmatic deficits is crucial to providing effective intervention (Owens, 2024), but how do clinicians go about selecting a language assessment that will give a reliable and valid picture of the language skills of a child with ASD?

While a plethora of assessments exist for articulation and phonological awareness, few of them provide a way to analyze pragmatic application of language. The CELF-5, CASL-2, and DELV all provide sections on pragmatics, but with differing strengths and weaknesses. As the editorial team for Neuro Launch observed, even these tools are not necessarily sensitive to autism-specific language patterns, such as turn taking, adjusting communication style to suit the audience, and comprehension of non-literal language (2024). Other considerations for evaluating appropriate social language use would include elements such as tone, pitch, volume and eye contact, which are crucial for effective communication but not factored in standardized assessments. A study in 2008 examined several formal pragmatic assessments and concluded that while they were effective in documenting certain pragmatic deficits in children with ASD, they also reiterated that “Individuals with higher functioning ASD often fail to qualify for speech–language services because they present strong verbal skills and large vocabularies and score well on formal language assessments.” (Reichow et al., 2008). For this reason, children with a diagnosis of ASD should be carefully evaluated with respect to pragmatics, so that communication deficits do not go unnoticed and the opportunity to help children improve overall communication is not missed.

For clinicians, combining elements of language samples, dynamic assessments, and standardized evaluations is currently the most effective way to get a good idea of a child’s pragmatic language (Owens, 2024). Clinicians can facilitate turn-taking conversations, story-retelling and descriptive narratives to assist data collection.

References

Neuro Launch Editorial TEAM. (August 11, 2024) Language assessment tools for autism: top options for accurate assessment. https://neurolaunch.com/best-language-assessment-for-autism/

Owens, R. (2024). Language disorders: A functional approach to assessment and intervention in children. 7th Edition. Plural Publishing Inc.

Reichow, B., Salamack, S., Paul, R., Volkmar, F. R., & Klin, A. (2008). Pragmatic Assessment in Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Comparison of a Standard Measure With Parent Report. Communication disorders quarterly, 29(3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525740108318697

Referrals, Screenings, Questionnaires, and Interviews

Ellie Hooper

There is an important process that happens before a language sample is taken. After the initial referral, several components are completed to fully understand environmental and personal circumstances of a child that a speech-language pathologist (SLP) may not be able to encompass from speaking with the child. The initial referral may suggest areas of difficulty or variables in addition to language. From there, screenings, questionnaires, and interviews can fill in the gaps to ensure the SLP has proper education on the child’s background before gathering a language sample.

Teachers, parents, and medical professionals are prime examples of effective referral sources in sighting severe language disorders (Owens, 2024). When considering mild impairments, clues may not be as apparent.

Screening may also identify children with language impairments. Most school districts have a regulated system to screen children annually. Preschool, kindergarten, first, and second graders are often included in the screened age groups. However, the current screening measures do not meet psychometric standards for the identification of language disorders Owens, (2024). Additionally, differences in pragmatic abilities may not be well identified.

Interviews and questionnaires are valuable sources to gather information about numerous factors in a child’s life. Some of these factors may include background, language status and dialect, presence of hearing impairment, and socioeconomic background status. Depending on the age of the child, other school related factors may surface. These could potentially include problematic areas during homework, teacher comments to the caregiver, and areas of frustration for the child. During an interview, it is important to encourage the caregiver to ask questions. In return, it is important to ask questions that seek information rather than agreement. Face-to-face interviews are best driven by straightforward questions without hesitation. Comfortability levels of the parents or caregivers is an important piece for them and the SLP to share a collaborative space.

Each component leading up to a formal assessment plays a role in providing the best assessment and accommodations for the child. Through the beginning stages of a formal language assessment, the child and caregiver may have reservations that are important to address. Through the process, it is important to discuss each area thoroughly and with intentionality.

Conversational Sample

By: Grace Bowen

Conversational speech samples are a valid source for evaluating a client's speech, language, and prosody to identify if there is a language impairment present (Morrison & Shriberg, 1992). The words produced during a conversational sample are analyzed. However, this does not include nonverbal communication like gestures. Utterances are another important aspect of a conversational sample that are analyzed by a clinician to identify if a client has a language impairment. Utterances can be identified as several different things. For example, the time period of silence for turn taking in a conversation is identified as an utterance. Also, utterances can be a single word response. This can look like yes or no questions. Self- repair is another part of a conversational sample. For self-repair, it is analyzed as a client correcting themselves or rephrasing something that they have already said. There are other repairs to take into consideration during a conversational sample. This can include a clinician asking for clarification on something the client said in order to try to gain a better understanding. Cues and models are another important aspect to a conversational sample. Cues and models can help the client identify the target utterance the clinician wants to be produced in the conversational sample (Boles & Bombard, 1998).

Conversational Sample Tips:

These tips on collecting a conversational sample is from my experience on collecting one from a 5 year old child this past week. This child does not present with any type of diagnosis.

It is important to pick an appropriate time that would best engage the client. For example, collecting a speech sample right after school is not the best idea. The child who participated in the conversational sample was tired from school and was not as engaged in conversation as he is when I see him.
It is important to pick a room with a few hand selected toys to use during the conversational sample. This will help manipulate the selected toys in the best way to get a conversational sample without distractions from other toys or objects.
Using positive reinforcement will help engage the client in better conversations.
Illustrate to the client what is expected from them before collecting the conversational sample.
If the client is only giving one word responses, ask an open ended question after their respond that allows them to explain. For example, I asked the child who participated with me what he did at school and he gave a one word response sayng, "play." In that instant, I then asked what did he play. This allowed him to answer a question that would be difficult to give a one word response for.

Boles, L., & Bombard, T. (1998). Conversational discourse analysis: Appropriate and useful sample sizes. Aphasiology,

12(7-8), 547-560. https://doi.org/10.1080/02687039808249557

Morrison, J. A., & Shriberg, L. D. (1992). Articulation Testing Versus Conversational Speech Sample. Journal of Speech,

Language, and Hearing Research, 35(2), 259-273. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3502.259

Using the CCC-2 to Evaluate Pragmatic Language in Children with ASD

Shelby Alexander

The Children’s Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) by Pearson is a caregiver or teacher questionnaire designed as rating scale to observe the severity of behavior from 0 (never or less than once a week) to 3 (more than twice a day or always), and it is a language screening tool designed for children ages 4-16 who speak in sentences and helps identify deficits in pragmatic language (Nowell et al, 2021). Many formal assessments that identify structural language deficits fail to identify pragmatic difficulties (Nowell et al, 2021; Owens, 2024). Also, if a standard assessment does have a way to measure pragmatic language, the behavior has to occur during the structured time limit of the assessment or it is not scored (Volden & Phillips, 2010). Many children with ASD may not have structural language impairments, or they may be nonverbal, but most will have weaknesses in pragmatic language as “pragmatics is consistently agreed to be the communicative domain that is universally impaired in ASD” (Volden & Phillips, 2010, p. 1).

The CCC-2 has 70 questions that can be divided into 10 different subscales: speech, syntax, semantics, coherence, initiation, scripted language, context, nonverbal communication, social relations, and interests. A General Communication Composite (GCC) can be calculated from the sums of the first eight subscales. This norm-referenced standard score measures overall communication abilities (Nowell et. al, 2021). Nowell et al. (2021) reported that the CCC-2 tested for validity and reliability within a certain population. In their study, teachers completed the CCC-2 for 299 students from the ages of 5-13 diagnosed with autism. Although there were some limitations and potential biases reported, the researchers identified a useful three-factor model when interpreting results that consists of: Structural Language (syntax, semantics, speech, coherence, and comprehension); Pragmatic Communication (sharing one-sided interests, lack of awareness in social conversations); and Pragmatic Social (nonverbal communication such as eye contact, facial expression) (Nowell et al., 2021).

Volden & Phillips (2010) compared the CCC-2 to the TOPL to see which one could more accurately identify pragmatic language deficits in children with ASD. In this study, the children with ASD were high functioning and also tested WNL in structural language abilities (Volden & Phillips, 2010). The sixteen children with ASD in the study were matched in age to neurotypical children who also performed the same in structural language tasks and shared similar nonverbal IQ. After SLPs administered the TOPL to both groups of children, and the caregivers completed the CCC-2, researchers found that the CCC-2 outperformed the TOPL in identifying pragmatic language deficits that would otherwise not be measured on a standard assessment (Volden & Phillips, 2010).

SLPs should keep in mind some advantages to the caregiver questionnaire CCC-2 for pragmatic language assessment. Some of these are that the questionnaire is not time-consuming and is relatively short (10-15 minutes), children can be observed in an authentic setting such as in the home, caregivers are with the child on a continuous basis and are most likely more familiar with their overall development, and the CCC-2 can assess more qualities that don’t occur in typically developing children (Volden & Phillips, 2010).

Nowell, S. W., Tomaszewski, B., Steinbrenner, J. R., Sam, A. M., & Odom, S. L. (2022). Use of the Children’s Communication Checklist-2 in School-Aged Students with Autism: A Psychometri Analysis. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 52(9), 4089-4099.

Owens, R. E. (2024). Language disorders: a functional approach to assessment and intervention in children. Plural Publishing, Inc.

Pearson Assessments. (n.d.) CCC-2. https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Profes sional-Assessments/Speech-%26-Language/Children%27s-Communication- Checklist-2-%7C-U-S-Edition/p/100000193.html

Volden, J., & Phillips, L. (2010). Measuring pragmatic language in speakers with autism spectrum disorders: Comparing the Children’s Communication Checklist—2 and the Test of Pragmatic Language.

How to Inform Parents and Caregivers About Formal Assessment Results

Written by: Hannah Thornton

When it comes to formal assessments communicating the results to parents can be difficult. They deserve the right to all the information and findings to make an informed decision, but the terminology can be difficult to understand at times. Therefore, it is necessary to be prepared with resources and verbiage to make the assessment review process clearly understandable. There are a few different components to consider when completing your evaluation report including, norm group, raw score, percentile rank, and the various language areas that are assessed.

Let’s begin with norm group, this term may not always make it into an evaluation report, but may be apart of conversation when explaining why you, as the clinician, chose the assessment that you did. Additionally, this is what most assessments use to create their scoring system, so it is helpful to define this term, so parents know who their children are being compared to. Most often we will be describing the “national norm” which can be explained to parents as a group of students or children from across the country that reflects the census results at the time the assessment was designed. The developers of the assessment tried to create something that represented the country’s schools at that time. These scores then help the SLP know whether your child’s language skills are at an appropriate age level

That brings us to raw scores and percentile ranks. A raw score can simply be explained as the number of correct or incorrect responses the child produced during the assessment. This score is then used to identify the percentile rank, which shows where the child falls in comparison to others in his age group. The score itself reflects how many children have the same score or lower score than your child. A lower score can indicate a need for speech therapy as well as the degree to which the child struggles with language.

Finally, as you explain your findings you will want to break it down by subtest or areas of language to express the child’s strengths and weaknesses. The terms to be defined depend on the assessment but it is a good idea to have a description of each area of language handy. When discussing the child’s weaknesses with the parents or caregivers it is helpful to phrase them as questions to see if the parents notice the same things at home. Additionally, phrasing it in question form helps parents not feel as though they have caused their child’s language difficulties. Clearly communicating evaluation results is the first step to including the parents in the therapy process, their participation is key therefore we must value it and honor them from the very beginning.

References:

CTP Score Report Help | ERBlearn.org. (2021, November 30). Educational Records Bureau. https://www.erblearn.org/ctpscorereporthelp/

Suggs, K. (2018, December 12). Tips for Talking to Parents About Speech and Language Concerns. Leader Live. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/tips-for-talking-to-parents-about-speech-language-concerns-katie-suggs/full

How Environmental Factors Contribute to Language Skills

Ashley McBride

Language skills are acquired throughout the experiences a child encounters. Although there are many different environments that take part in language development, the home environment is the most crucial. As this is the first environment a child is exposed to, which begins the construction of language skills. For instance, having daily conversations with your child will expand the vocabulary and the understanding of the vocabulary tremendously. Participating with your child and incorporating things they are interested begin this journey.

Activities like reading together and participating in play activities provide the opportunity to build foundations for things like communication and even literacy skills. All environments a child is in provides increased opportunities for them to expand their language skills. By providing interaction opportunites to a child, opportunities for them to expand vocabulary and make internal relationships between things flourishes. Which will in return increase participation in effective communicative interactions.

It is important as the parent to ensure these environments are positive, supportive, and effective. Positive environments build the foundation for early language skills. When situations have expectations that put an increased amount of pressure on the child, it can increase the stress the child carries which will reduce their confidence which will minimize the number of times they contribute to conversations.

When a child is not provided with adequate support from caregivers they do not receive the feedback needed to improve language skills, instead they are left with the fear of making mistakes. To avoid this, it is important to celebrate successes that are small, provide the child with a collaborative learning environment, and use all opportunities to teach and be interactive with them to make learning language enjoyable.

The early stages of language development are crucial in building the foundation for later language skills to be developed. Meaningful interactions stimulate language growth through all environements, whether it be at home based, school based, or social based. Providing interactions in all environments influences and yields rewarding outcomes.

References

How environemt shapes language development. Kutest Kids. (n.d.).https://www.kutestkids.com/blog/environmental-factors-that-influence-language-development#:~:text=High%2Dquality%20language%20interactions%20encourage,overall%20development%2C%20including%20language%20skills

Owens, R.E. (2024). Language Disorders: A Functional Approach to Assessment and Intervention in Children, (7th edition). San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing.

Observation

Erika Hembree

Whether in the classroom or a private practice session with a parent and child, it is important to observe the child’s language abilities to help understand and collect data on the child’s skills during a natural interaction. Although this is not the most preferred place of observation, a SLP can observe the child in the classroom participating in various activities. An observation in a clinic setting can be made to be structured or nonstructured with the ability to see the child and caregivers' conversation and interactions. Observations that are more direct and unstructured will allow the clinician to collect language samples that involve more naturalistic communication skills (Leong et al., 2024). Having a more naturalistic communication environment will allow the clinician to understand when the child communicates the best. The clinician will gather information about the child’s language abilities through an interview with the caregiver. Observation of both the child and caregivers' interactions will allow the clinician to answer many of the following questions. The clinician must note when the child requests most frequently and how the child requests the caregiver to do something. For conversational skills, it is important to understand when the child communicates best. For example, in what environment and with whom does this child communicate most effectively? Using active listening with the child will allow for more information on the child’s nonverbal gestures and body language (Riley, 2002). During an observation, another question is how does the child use language? For example, does the child use language through gestures, sounds, or their environmental surroundings to ask for what they want and/or answer questions from the caregiver? Although these are only a few key points that need to be answered during observation. There are many more questions relating to the child’s language use, form, content, and conversational skills.

References:

Owens, R. E. (2024). Language Disorders. A Functional Approach to Assessment and Intervention in Children. (7th ed.). Plural Publishing Inc.

Leong, H., Smidt, A., Arthur-Kelly, M., & Campbell, L. (2024). Structured observation and informant report assessments in intellectual disability: Reflections of qualified and student speech-language pathologists. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2023.2297651

Riley, J. (2002). Counseling: An Approach for Speech-Language Pathologists. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders. https://pubs.asha.org/doi/10.1044/cicsd_29_S_6

Navigating Parental Involvement in Assessment

Rebecca Cottrell

When facing the process of having your child tested and possibly diagnosed with a language disorder, many parents are extremely helpful and on-board to get their child what they need. Some parents understandably struggle with the process of assessment because they have mixed feelings about putting their child in therapy. They might not fully understand the benefit that assessing and diagnosing could have. Having parent/caregiver support is I would say vital for a child's success especially when that child has a delay of any kind. It is important to refrain from being too invasive on the parent's decisions however, because the parent does have say-so in the end, and you want what is best for the child. Speech Perfect, a free online therapy tool/blog shared 5 reasons that parent involvement is important.

Consistency and Reinforcement: Speech therapy is most effective when it is consistent and reinforces what your child is learning in therapy sessions. Parents who are actively involved in their child’s therapy can provide consistency in practicing communication skills at home, reinforcing what the child has learned in therapy sessions.
Early Intervention: Early intervention is key to addressing communication challenges in children. Parents who are involved in their child’s speech therapy can help identify communication difficulties early on, ensuring that their child receives early intervention services that can help prevent more severe language disorders.
Treatment Plan Modification: Parents who are involved in their child’s speech therapy can provide valuable feedback to the speech therapist about their child’s progress at home. This feedback can help the therapist modify the treatment plan as needed to ensure that the child is making progress.
Breaking the Stigma: Some children may feel self-conscious or embarrassed about their communication challenges. When parents are involved in their child’s speech therapy, they can help break down the stigma around speech and language disorders and make their child feel more comfortable and supported.
Technology Integration: Technology can be a valuable tool in speech therapy. Parents who are involved in their child’s speech therapy can help integrate technology into the child’s treatment plan by using apps, games, and other tools that can help reinforce communication skills at home.

Speech.perfect1, (2023).

While most parents are supportive and trusting of anyone invested in their child's success, you can count on those few that McEwan describes as "less trusting of our educational platitudes and quick to point out what they perceive to be stupidity, inconsistency, stonewalling, or incompetence in administrators," (2005, p 3). This is where parent education plays a vital role! There is a method to our madness! It is important to explain and educate parents on treatment so that they can reciprocate that treatment at home!

Sources:

McEwan, E. K. (2005). How to Deal with Parents Who Are Angry, Troubled, Afraid, or Just Plain Crazy Second Edition. Corwin Press.

Speech.perfect1, (2023). How important is Parental Involvement in Speech Therapy for Children? Speech Perfect Creativity in Speech. https://speechperfect.blog/the-importance-of-parental-involvement-in-speech-therapy-for-children/

The Power of Language Sampling: A Real-World Approach to Speech

by: Hailegh Wingo

Assessment

Imagine trying to judge a person's singing ability just by reading their answers on a music test. They might understand notes and rhythm, but that wouldn’t tell you how they actually sound in real life. The same idea applies to understanding a child’s language skills. Standardized tests measure vocabulary and grammar, but they don’t always show how well a child communicates in everyday life. That’s why language sampling is such a needed tool in speech and language assessment.

What is Language Sampling?

Language sampling is a natural, conversational method of evaluating a child’s speech and communication abilities. Instead of depending only on structured tests, speech-language pathologists collect real-world speech samples from storytelling, casual conversation, or create a play scenario to analyze grammar, vocabulary, sentence structure, and social interaction skills.

Unlike formal tests, which often require one-word answers, language sampling captures how a child truly speaks. This is especially important for assessing pragmatic language skills, such as knowing when to take turns in a conversation or staying on the correct topic.

Why Standardized Tests Aren’t Enough

Standardized tests have their uses, but they don’t capture every thing going on with a child's language ability. A child might score well on a vocabulary test but struggle to form complete sentences when speaking to their friends. Another child might understand grammar rules but have difficulty using them in spontaneous speech.

Consider Sheldon Cooper, a bright physicist who excels academically but struggles with social communication. He prefers talking to other academics only, doesn’t pick up on jokes or figurative language, and often talks non stop about his favorite topics like trains without realizing his audience isn’t listening or have become annoyed. A standardized test might not catch these challenges, but a language sample would.

By analyzing a child’s spontaneous speech, SLPs assess pragmatics, sentence structure, vocabulary use, and narrative skills, all of which contribute to effective communication.

How SLPs Use Language Sampling

SLPs collect language samples in multiple ways. One way is conversational speech, where the SLP encourages the child to join in open discussions. Another is story retelling, which helps assess sentence structure and organization. She is describing picture tasks that can also be used to evaluate vocabulary and sentence complexity.

Once all data is collected, the sample is analyzed to identify these different strengths and areas for weaknesses. This way is especially useful for children with autism spectrum disorder, developmental language disorder, or other communication challenges, as it shows real life struggles that structured tests often don’t show.

Citations

Owens, R. E. (2024). Language development: An introduction (10th ed.). Pearson.

Prath, S. (2018, June 20). The how and why of collecting a language sample. The ASHA Leader. https://leader.pubs.asha.org/do/10.1044/the-how-and-why-of-collecting-a-language-sample/full/

Dynamic Assessment

By Laura Leddy

ASHA defines Dynamic Assessment (DA) as “Dynamic assessment is an evaluation method used to identify an individual’s skills as well as their learning potential (ASHA, n.d.) During a webinar by Elizabeth Peña, she demonstrates the strengths of a DA; she discusses how the emphasis is on the learning process opposed to how they perform on a standardized test or a probe. It is highly interactive, you make decisions in the moment that might help the child learn, and as a result it is process oriented (Peña, 2023).

Owens (2024) contrasts standardized assessment stating that the primary objective is to see what the participant has learned, and DA focuses on the learning process. The DA is administered by picking the targeted language skill, then it involves a test-teach-retest format, and the effectiveness and reliability of this method of assessment (Hasson and Joffe, 2007).

The benefit of the DA would be that it allows the SLP to assess the skills as it is developing, meaning that it “involves comparing a child’s independent performance with their supported performance” (Owens, 2024). Another benefit is that the traditional standardized is static, and it fails to tell us how the child plans a task, and the difficulties they face. DA can help engage those hard to test children, where be bilingual, culturally diverse, emotional or behaviors disturbances or hearing needs, the standardized tests, do not always meet their diverse needs (Hasson and Joffe, 2007).

One of the strongest cases for DA discusses the roles of the ST and the participant. Hasson and Joffee imply that during interventions the speech therapist is central to the interactions with the client, yet during a standardized assessment the ST make every effort to be behind the scenes to not interfere with the validity. The DA allows for the relationship between therapist and child to increase “the performance of the child in both assessment and therapy, creating a feeling of greater competence and motivation in the learner. The benefits of this child-centered approach, however, would need to be balanced against the need to obtain reliable and replicable test results.” (2007).

For additional resources check out ASHA’s Modules on Dynamic Assessment:

References:

ASHA (n.d). Module 1:What is Dynamic Assessment? Retrieved on February 17, 2025 from https://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/dynamic-assessment/module-1/

Hasson, N., & Joffe, V. (2007). The case for dynamic assessment in speech and language therapy. Child Language Teaching and Therapy.

Owen, R. (2024). Language Disorders A functional Approach to Assessment and Intervention in Children. Plural Publishing, Inc.

Peña, E. (2023). What is Dynamic Assessment? [Webinar] American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saHMtIz7IgA

Page updated

Report abuse