ACQ Vol 13 no 3 2011

assessment box. They can do this by recognising the shortcomings of standardised assessment and developing a framework for ensuring that cross-cultural assessments (i.e., when the examiner is from a different culture to the examinee) are valid and reliable. Furthermore, our profession should be encouraging policy-makers to consider the limitations of current assessment criteria required to qualify for funding and champion the benefits of conducting assessments in a child’s primary language when it is not the majority language. A range of variables needs to be considered when working with Indigenous Australian families. While each of these variables is highly relevant to the theory and practice that drive culturally safe assessment methodologies, there is not enough space in this forum to discuss such factors. Readers are alternatively referred to the 2007 Speech Pathology Australia resource: Working with Aboriginal people in rural and remote Northern Territory – A resource guide for speech pathologists (Speech Pathology Australia, 2007). This guide provides introductory information regarding the concept of “shame” 2 , importance of kinship systems, family, languages, and dialects of Aboriginal people as well as the prevalence of ear disease within Australian Indigenous paediatric populations. Some of the literature considered in this current report applies to CALD as opposed to CALD and Indigenous populations. While both populations require acknowledgement of the influences that bi- and multilingual language development have on a child’s emerging language skills, there are additional dimensions that differ. For example, for many Indigenous families, there are the added dimensions of potential generational social, economic, emotional, and health disadvantages (Zubrick et al., 2004). Such factors might affect the prevalence of disorders and influence the potential for making intervention gains. Positive differences must also be considered. For example, many Indigenous Australian clans live in close familial contact and promote a rich communicative environment for their young people (Lowell, Gurimangu, Nvomba, & Yingi, 1996). Assessment methods The methods of assessment considered in this report include caregiver report, language sample analysis, dynamic assessments, adaptation of standardised tests, and non-word repetition stimuli. Caregiver report Caregiver report has been identified as a valid and reliable identifier of linguistic development skills (e.g., vocabulary) for bilingual English-Spanish children (Marchman & Martinez-Sussmann, 2002; Thal, Jackson-Maldonado, & Acosta, 2000; Vagh, Pan, & Mancilla-Martinez, 2009). Unfortunately there is a scarcity of literature that considers the reliability and validity of caregiver report in Indigenous CALD populations. Although there is an Australian measure that includes primary caregiver report, it has not undergone a formal, statistical process of validation and reliability. Based on the Kimberley Early Language Scales (Bochenek, 1987), the Revised Kimberley Early Language Scales (R.K.E.L.S.; Philpott, 2003) has been developed for specific Indigenous populations (in the Kimberley, Western Australia, and Katherine, Northern Territory regions) by an experienced team of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal SPs, interpreters, linguists, and cultural advisors. The team

acknowledges the importance of caregiver report within its checklist which is divided into developmental skills. It is similar to language scales such as the Rossetti Infant- Toddler Language Scale (Rossetti, 2005) in that it has different options for “checking off” communication skills (i.e., reported by caregiver [R], observed [O], and elicited [E]). The R.K.E.L.S. can be administered by non-SP health professionals and it is recommended that an Aboriginal co-worker (e.g., interpreter or Aboriginal health officer) is present where possible. Philpott (2003) admitted that one limitation of the R.K.E.L.S. is its reliance on Western-style literacy and Philpott therefore suggested that future versions/adaptations could be presented orally or visually. Jones and Campbell Nangari (2008) also commented that written questionnaires that depend on parent report might not be reliable measures due to low parental literacy levels in the Indigenous language (Indigenous Australian languages have oral histories). The R.K.E.L.S. can potentially be used in a variety of settings and acknowledges that context of administration will most likely affect elicitations and observations of communication skills. In light of this, Philpott (2003) recommended that the optimum environment for testing is the home/camp setting. This introduces the running theme throughout this literature review: the importance of context and contextual knowledge when assessing communication development. Teacher report Similar to parent report, teacher report has also been found to be reliable in bilingual contexts (Guttiérrez-Clellen, Restrepo, & Simon-Cereijido, 2006). Gould (1999, cited in Gould, 2008b) however found that non-Aboriginal teacher report was not necessarily a reliable measure to accurately identify language impairment in a sample of Aboriginal English 3 -Standard Australian English (AE-SAE) bidialectal Aboriginal children in rural New South Wales. It was generally found that this was secondary to teacher unfamiliarity with AE and cultural differences regarding pragmatics and social communication. For example, Aboriginal children would face away from non-Aboriginal teachers. Teachers identified this as evidence of an attention or listening deficit whereas the SP researcher, who was experienced in AE communication styles, regarded it as pragmatic difference which should be viewed in the context of differing cross-cultural communication styles. Alarmingly, Gould (2008a) further discovered that at a school in rural Australia, non-Aboriginal educators were more likely to associate communication differences with unconfirmed medical diagnoses such as Foetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) than linguistic or cultural differences. In addition, teacher awareness of the prevalence of ear disease in Aboriginal populations, associated hearing loss and its impact on classroom interaction, and language and academic learning was low (Gould, 2008a). All of these factors contributed to the over- identification of communication disorders within the sample population. These findings highlight the need for school policies and their enforcers to provide non-Indigenous educators working in Indigenous communities with professional development regarding factors potentially contributing to communication behaviours (e.g., cross-cultural pragmatic differences) and limitations (e.g., chronic otitis media and associated hearing loss; Williams and Jacobs, 2009).

121

ACQ Volume 13, Number 3 2011

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au