ACQ Vol 13 no 3 2011

Contextualised language sample analysis The comprehensive assessment of any child’s communication skills should include the analysis of a spontaneous language sample. The sample provides the SP with baseline, pre-intervention data and evidence of discourse skills. A variety of methods are available to elicit connected speech samples including free-play, activity- based play, narratives, and conversation. In a culturally different environment, young children are potentially reticent to communicate naturally (Moses & Wigglesworth, 2008), thus affecting the validity of the obtained sample. Gould (2008b) showed that language sample analysis has the potential to be a valid, culturally appropriate method of assessment for AE-speaking children. In her longitudinal study Gould (2008b) identified methods of language sample elicitation that are more effective than others when assessing language development in an AE speech community in Queensland, Australia. The study considered a number of different methods: a) minimally structured storytelling (natural conversation and play); b) elicited story generation (first person narratives and conversations about local Aboriginal stories); c) story retelling (verbal narrative reconstruction of a Western story [picture book style] and an unfamiliar Aboriginal story [told on video by an Aboriginal man]). Gould found that situational, environmental, and linguistic contexts surrounding the language sample collection affected the suitability of the sampling technique (Gould, 2008b). The setting, topic, and interlocutors involved were identified as the main variables to influence the effectiveness of eliciting qualitatively valid and reliable data. The most effective language samples were elicited through conversations between the child and AE-speaking adults from the child’s community. Audio-visual recordings of free play (while speaking AE) were also regarded as effective. Gould (2008b) further found that the most difficult methods of elicitation for children aged 4–5 years included story retelling and first person narratives with visual picture cues. Finally, and most pertinently, general conversation with a non-Aboriginal adult was not generally regarded as a reliable method of eliciting valid spoken language samples. The less useful strategies resulted in increased amount of effort by the examiner to elicit spoken language and a reduction in sentence length and complexity of elicited utterances. Of particular note was the reduction of spontaneous communication by Aboriginal children when retelling western stories. More representative samples were elicited when children were exposed to an unfamiliar Aboriginal story. In addition to highlighting language production differences between elicitation contexts, these results remind us of the potential underlying cross-cultural variations that exist for discourse and narrative structures (see Kaplan, 1972, for an introduction) warning of the limitations of standardised tests using story retell. Gould (2008c) provides a number of considerations to maximise cultural appropriateness during assessment trials, including the benefit of becoming familiar with examinees prior to assessments; the use of culturally meaningful language during sessions; avoidance of the “pull-out” method where possible to limit feelings of “shame”; informal assessment to minimise potential power imbalances between SAE and AE speakers, and; the need to consult and collaborate with Indigenous people about appropriate cultural interactions and expectations. Two additional considerations have been identified by First Nations

community members in Canada: aim to involve primary caregivers in assessment sessions; and begin sessions with receptive language tasks (Ball & Bernhardt, 2008). Collectively, these are not difficult steps for practising clinicians to take. Time and efficiency are not valid reasons to ignore these strategies since rejecting such recommendations would potentially increase the likelihood of obtaining invalid assessment data, in turn adding to workloads unnecessarily. As a first step to culturally relevant criterion referenced norms for AE speakers, Gould (2008b) shows that there are effective, culturally relevant methods of language sampling that result in valid, representative discourse data. This non-standard approach to assessment can be used in preference to formal, standardised assessments which can culturally alienate and disempower the child (e.g., through feelings of “shame”) as soon as he/ she walks into the unfamiliar clinic environment. How then should valid language samples be analysed? Given the current absence of norms for AE and Indigenous Australian language speakers, language sample analyses are limited by the fact that criterion-based measures such as mean length of utterance (MLU) are based on Standard English as a first language. Two studies discuss the development of standard reference criteria for Indigenous First Nation and Indigenous South African language communities respectively (Ball & Bernhardt, 2008; Naudé, Louw, & Weideman, 2007). Naudé et al. (2007) recognised the demand for immediate, valid measures in multilingual, English-dominant societies and thus explored the utility of disregarding the advised method of testing development in both/all languages (Speech Pathology Australia, 2009). As an alternative, they observed typical development and analysed language samples of the bi-/multilingual child’s acquisition of English as an additional language. Criterion referenced measures including MLU and type-token ratio were used in analyses. This procedure acknowledged Nicoladis and Genesée’s (1997) assertion that a valid measure should come second to the establishment of typical development. Naudé et al. (2007) aimed to describe a typical English language profile for a selected group of urban multilingual South African preschoolers. After establishing the expected language patterns, clinicians were able to use this set of indicators as a checklist to determine deviations from expected performance. Interestingly, wide ranges of MLU were described within age-groups (potentially due to individual difference) and thus the authors suggested that alternative measures to help assess expressive language skill development should be investigated. The above findings indicate that there is potential for the development of Indigenous linguistic, and/or dialectal, developmental expectations and thus the establishment of reliable criterion referenced measures. However, the heterogeneity of Australia’s Indigenous population should always be considered. There is no guarantee that the validity of a particular method will not change between different communities. Dynamic assessment Over the past 15 years dynamic assessment, a mediated form of assessment, has received attention in the speech pathology discipline as a means of assessing and providing appropriate language intervention for CALD children (Carter et al., 2005). Based on methods in educational psychology (Ukrainetz, Harpell, Walsh, & Coyle, 2000), dynamic

122

ACQ Volume 13, Number 3 2011

ACQ uiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing