ACQ Vol 13 no 3 2011

19 / 60

ACQ Volume 13, Number 3 2011 121
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
English3-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).
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