JCPSLP Vol 14 No 1 2012

Professional issues

Using parent report for assessment of the first language of English language learners Aria May and Cori Williams

Assessment of both languages is recommended when assessing English language learners (ELL) but may not always be practical. Use of a parent questionnaire, such as the Alberta Language and Development Questionnaire (ALDeQ), can assist in obtaining first language (L1) information. This study aimed to use the Canadian developed ALDeQ within an Australian population and determine whether ALDeQ scores would differentiate between ELL who were typically developing compared to ELL with language difficulty. A background questionnaire and the ALDeQ were administered to parents of 14 ELL that were typically developing and 3 ELL with apparent language difficulty aged between 5;3 and 8;7 years. ALDeQ Total Scores of typically developing Australian ELL were consistent with the Canadian norming population and significantly higher than the scores of the group with language difficulties. Although results are promising, further research is necessary to support use of the ALDeQ to investigate L1 abilities of ELL within an Australian population. C hildren with language difficulty may have difficulty with expressive and/or receptive language in terms of form, content, or function (American Speech- Language-Hearing Association [ASHA], 1993). Language difficulty may result in long-term academic (e.g., Bashir & Scavuzzo, 1992) and psychosocial difficulties (e.g., Snowling, Bishop, Stothard, Chipchase, & Kaplan, 2006). Early identification of language difficulties is therefore important but the lack of accurate and nonbiased assessment tools available and the changing nature of the language profiles mean that this is not a simple task within the English language learner (ELL) population. When assessing language abilities of ELL, there is a need to discriminate language differences (due to typical learning processes and cultural considerations) from language disorder (caused by an underlying language

learning problem regardless of language spoken). Language difficulty will not exist in one language only and assessment therefore should occur in both languages for an accurate diagnosis of language difficulty (ASHA, 2004). Assessment in English only is likely to underestimate the child’s language ability; however, it is not always feasible to provide assessment in the child’s first language (L1). Use of interpreters presents ethical issues regarding client privacy and cultural beliefs (ASHA, 2004). Administering standardised, norm referenced English language assessments is not appropriate for children with English as a second language (Caesar & Kohler, 2007; Saenz & Huer, 2003). Renorming, translating, and test modification have been suggested as possibilities; however, each has limitations (e.g., Kohnert, 2008; Laing & Kamhi, 2003; Saenz & Huer, 2003). Dynamic assessment has been suggested as a way to differentiate between cultural difference and language disorder and aims to address content bias through testing. It assesses learning potential through a test–teach–retest approach; however, this strategy is time-consuming, and learning experiences may vary depending on the clinician and contexts (Saenz & Huer, 2003). Due to the difficulties associated with linguistically based assessment, alternative processing tasks using working memory and executive function are also gaining prominence. Research has shown deficits in these areas for children with specific language impairment and it has been suggested that these types of non-linguistic cognitive tasks may have less cultural bias when compared to other language-based assessments (Graf-Estes, Evans, & Else-Quest, 2007). Alternative processing tasks may be a diagnostic indicator of language difficulty; however, further research is needed, and studies indicate that identification works best when paired with linguistic measures in both languages (Ellis Weismer et al., 2000). Another challenge for assessment of ELL is variability. Language acquisition rates depend on diverse factors including age, cognition, psychological factors, sociocultural influences, and environments (Bedore & Pena, 2008; Espinosa & López, 2007). Simultaneous ELL tend to develop both languages in a similar progression to monolingual language learners; however, sequential bilinguals’ language development is more sensitive to internal characteristics and language learning environments (Espinosa & López, 2007). A language imbalance may occur during emerging bilingualism resulting in characteristics in both L1 and second language (L2) being

Keywords ASSESSMENT BILINGUAL ENGLISH LANGUAGE LEARNER FIRST

This article has been peer- reviewed LANGUAGE LANGUAGE DIFFICULTY PARENT REPORT

Aria May (top) and Cori Williams

25

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 1 2012

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au