ACQ Vol 13 no 2 2011

the psychometric criteria in full. These areas of deficit were discussed in detail, which will assist clinicians in determining whether these assessment tools are suitable for use in their workplaces. The author then provided an insightful discussion with direct relevance and utility for clinical practice, namely that clinicians should carefully consider the identification accuracy and the properties of a test before selecting it for use. This was a comprehensive, clinically relevant paper highlighting the issues in the appropriate selection of standardised assessments. This article provides a “refresher” about the psychometric properties of tests that are critical to their validity and reliability. It also reminds us that as Australian clinicians we need more assessment tools that are specifically designed and standardised for our clinical populations. References Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N.A. (2004). Test of narrative language . Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. McCauley, R. J. & Swisher, L. (1984). Psychometric review of language and articulation tests for preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders , 49 , 34–42. Semel, E., Wiig, E.H., & Secord, W.A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation. Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E. (2004). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: Preschool (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (2002). Preschool Language Scale (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

Dynamic assessment of children with language impairment

Hasson, N., & Botting, N. (2010). Dynamic assessment of children with language impairments: A pilot study. Child Language Teaching & Therapy , 26 , 249–272. Chris Brebner and Marleen Westerveld This article was written by authors from City University in London. It is a clinically relevant, interesting, and easy-to- read article, outlining the application of dynamic assessment techniques for expressive grammar deficits in children diagnosed with specific language impairment (SLI). Dynamic assessment (as opposed to static assessment) in general aims to assess an individual’s ability to learn and is often used to differentiate between language difference and language impairment in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. This pilot study aimed to develop a replicable procedure for the use of dynamic assessment (DA) to appraise the expressive grammar skills of children with language impairment. The authors argued that results from DA would be helpful in deciding which children would benefit most from intervention. Utilising a multiple case study methodology, the article outlined three case studies. The participants were all boys who attended a language unit, were aged 11–12 years, and scored below 1.5SD on the Total Language Score of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (3rd ed.) (CELF-3; Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2000). This same test (CELF-3) was utilised to measure change in test scores after the DA procedure and to explore whether the DA method assisted in the identification of differential intervention strategies for the three children with SLI. The DA method utilised a test-train-retest design. As mentioned above, pre-and post-testing used subtests from the CELF-3. Training consisted of three (individually tailored) 40-minute sessions aimed at improving expressive grammar. Training materials included 48 items, using a format similar to that used in the CELF-3 test, with an increasing level of difficulty. Unfortunately, the results from this pilot study were found to be inconclusive. It was found that pre-test–post-test standardised testing lacked sensitivity in detecting change following training; change was only apparent if raw scores were used. However, the authors felt that the DA procedure allowed for a wealth of clinical information to be obtained, mainly based on behavioural observations of linguistic and metalinguistic knowledge of the children. Despite the mixed findings of this study, clinicians may be interested in the way in which these researchers tried to implement DA and in the detailed behavourial descriptions of the three clients with SLI. Reference Semel, E., Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. A. (2000). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (3rd ed.). London: Psychological Corporation.

100

ACQ Volume 13, Number 2 2011

ACQ uiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing