6 / 60
108
ACQ
Volume 13, Number 3 2011
ACQ
uiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing
Information from parents has also been shown to have
value in identifying language disorder in bilingual children.
Paradis, Emmerzael, and Duncan (2010) developed a
non-culture specific questionnaire, the Alberta Language
Development Questionnaire (ALDeQ) to tap into parent
perception of children’s language development, and
evaluated how well this differentiated language-impaired
English language learners from typically developing English
language learners. They found statistically significant
differences between the two groups for total and section
scores on the questionnaire, with large effect sizes.
Specificity (96%) was better than sensitivity (66%). Similar
results were found in a study which used the ALDeQ with
English language learners in Perth, WA (see May & Williams,
2011).
The current evidence on assessment of language in
bilingual children indicates that it is a far from simple
matter which will require consideration of information from
multiple sources (Isaac, 2002; Langdon & Wiig, 2009).
Lewis, Castilleja, Moore, and Rodriguez (2010) presented
a framework for organising multiple sources of assessment
information for school-aged bilingual children. This has
been modified by the current author to include scope to
record information which will allow it to be used with both
preschool-aged and school-aged children (see Appendix).
Judgements as to whether the evidence supports an
interpretation of typical language learning processes,
speech/language disability, or learning disability are
recorded in the framework, and an overall judgement may
be made on the basis of the weight of evidence.
There are early indications in the literature that the future
of assessment in this population may involve non-linguistic
tasks. Kohnert, Windsor, and Ebert (2009) present evidence
from a study which compared the performance of three
groups of children (typically developing bilingual; typically
developing monolingual English speakers; monolingual
English speakers with primary language impairment [PLI])
on three types of task (perceptual-motor demands; non-
linguistic demands; linguistic demands). All tasks were
administered in English. The research aimed to identify
points of similarity and difference, particularly in the
performance of PLI and bilingual children. Their findings
indicated that language-based tasks (such as non-word
repetition) disadvantaged bilingual children compared
to monolingual children. The non-linguistic tasks (visual
detection, auditory pattern matching, mental rotation
and visual form completion) were most successful in
differentiating bilingual children from the typically developing
monolingual children. Kohnert et al. (2009) concluded “it
may be that performance on some set of non-linguistic
processing tasks can be used to help identify children
with PLI in a linguistically diverse population” (p. 109). If
further research confirms these findings, it may be that our
approach to assessment of bilingual children will be very
different in the future.
Intervention
The literature regarding speech and language intervention
for bilingual children is less extensive than that addressing
assessment, and high level evidence is scarce (Elin
Thordardottir, 2010). The key issues are the advice that
should be given to parents as to which language (or
languages) to speak in the home, and the language (or
languages) to be used in intervention.
Parents may ask which language they should use at
home, or may report that they have been advised not to
that the signs of language learning disorder are not missed.
The crucial question is whether the child shows evidence of
language difference or language disorder. Language
impairment affects language learning capacity generally, not
a specific language, so “a child with language impairment
should demonstrate limited performance in both languages,
not only in English” (Gutierrez-Clellan & Simon-Cerejeido,
2009, p. 239). The implication is clear: assessment of both
languages is needed. This may not be possible, however.
Standardised tests in the home language may not be
available, and if they are available, will be difficult for the
monolingual speech pathologist to administer. Variability in
language experience means that standardised tests in
English cannot be used with any degree of confidence, and
it is likely that bilingual children will not score well on these
measures (Fagundes, Haynes, Haak, & Moran, 1998). The
literature provides a number of different approaches to
assessment.
Kohnert (2010) discusses assessment approaches
for bilingual children under three headings – monolingual
comparisons, bilingual comparisons, and within child
comparisons. Assessment of either the first or second
language against a normative group constitutes
monolingual comparison. Kohnert also includes non-word
repetition (NWR) tasks under this heading. Some research
(Oetting & Cleveland, 2006; Rodekohr & Haynes, 2001)
suggested NWR as a potentially non-biased method of
assessment of language learning capacity in bilingual
children. This suggestion was based on the premise that
NWR is a processing-based, rather than a language-
based task. However, research conducted by Kohnert and
colleagues (for example Kohnert, Windsor, & Yim, 2006;
Windsor, Kohnert, Lobitz, & Pham, 2010) has led to the
suggestion that the use of NWR tasks in only one language
may not be a clinical marker of language impairment in the
case of bilingual children (Windsor et al., 2010). Language-
based processing measures such as NWR are seen to
reduce, but not eliminate bias when used monolingually.
Bilingual comparisons look at the language performance
of bilingual children with language impairment and that
of other bilingual children. These comparisons have
consistently shown that the children with language
impairment differ from their bilingual peers. Comparing
bilingual children is important for diagnosis, but Kohnert
(2010) points out that there are still challenges inherent in
the paucity of normed tests for many languages and the
limited number of bilingual speech pathologists.
Within child comparisons consider the child’s ability to
learn language. Two main types (limited training [or fast
mapping] tasks and dynamic assessment) are found in
the literature. Dynamic assessment has most often been
reported, and is used in domains other than speech and
language. The approach is based on the work of Vygotsky,
who suggested that learning takes place in interaction
with more skilled others. A test- teach- retest paradigm is
adopted, and a measure of modifiability is completed by the
clinician (see, for example, Gutierrez-Clellan & Peña, 2001;
Peña, 2000). Evidence suggests that children with language
impairment, or those with weaker language, will be rated
more poorly on their learning ability (modifiability) than those
with typical, or stronger language (Peña et al., 2006; Peña,
Iglesias, & Lidz, 2001; Ukrainetz, Harpel, Walsh, & Coyle,
2000). The clinician’s rating of modifiability has been shown
to be a strong and accurate predictor of language ability
(Peña et al., 2006).