28 / 60
26
JCPSLP
Volume 14, Number 1 2012
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
for each section and for 15 out of 18 ALDeQ questions.
The questionnaire had good specificity (96%) in the
classification of ELL with typical language, but lower
sensitivity (66%) in the classification of ELL clinically
identified as language impaired. The ALDeQ was found to
be a useful tool to obtain L1 information, particularly when
direct L1 examination was not possible.
The aim of the current study was to investigate use of the
ALDeQ within an Australian ELL population.
The hypotheses were:
Hypothesis 1.
ALDeQ scores for typically developing
Australian ELL would be similar to the Canadian norming
sample.
Hypothesis 2.
ALDeQ Total Scores would differentiate
between typically developing ELL and ELL with language
difficulty, with lower scores for the language difficulty group.
Method
Participants
Five Perth metropolitan primary schools thought to have a
high ELL population were approached for involvement in
the study and two schools expressed interest in the
research. High ELL populations were identified through the
Schools Online website, and indicated by high percentages
of ELL enrolments, and ELL specialist programs at the
school (Department of Education, 2010). All 36 pre primary
and year 1 ELL students were sent consent forms and
those who met the selection criteria and agreed to
participate in the study were selected (N = 17).
Children with primary speech difficulties in the absence of
language difficulties were excluded from the study. Children
with pre-existing cognitive, neurological, psychological, or
sensory impairment, as identified through parent report,
were excluded from the study.
Participants were 17 parents or caregivers of ELL
recruited from these two schools.
The Child Language and Medical Questionnaire
(see Appendix B) was completed by children’s parents
to collect background information. Parents of three
children expressed concern about their child’s language
development. Two children were reported to have been
clinically identified with a language difficulty and one child
was reported to have a current referral to language therapy
within this group. The remaining 14 parents expressed
no concerns about their child’s language development
(question 12). Parent report allowed children to be placed in
two groups – possible language difficulty (those who were
reported to have been clinically identified with a language
difficulty or had a current referral to language therapy),
and those for whom no concerns regarding language
development were reported. Children were aged between
5 years, 3 months and 8 years, 7 months (M = 79.38
months). Parent report revealed that the majority of children
(n = 16) were sequential ELL and spoke Vietnamese,
Romanian, or Macedonian as a L1, while one child was a
simultaneous ELL. Prior to preschool or daycare entry at
age 2 to 3, children’s English language exposure ranged
from none to moderate. See Table 1 for a summary.
Procedure
Data were collected by the primary researcher (speech
pathologist) and one Vietnamese interpreter using parent
and caregiver report (parents
n
= 16, caregiver
n
= 1).
Parents will be used to refer to all interviewees. Interviews
took place at the family home (
n
= 9) or by telephone (
n
=
8), according to parent preference. The language of the
misinterpreted (Guiberson, Barrett, Jancosek, & Yoshinga
Itano, 2006). These varying proficiency levels highlight the
need for the speech pathologist to consider both languages
of the ELL.
One possible solution to the assessment in both L1 and
L2 is use of non-standardised assessment of L1 language
ability, which includes parent report. Research has shown
parent report of a child’s current communicative behaviours
to be valid and to decrease context sensitivity by gaining
information on the child over longer time periods, within a
range of communicative contexts (Marchman & Martinez-
Sussmann, 2002; Ring & Fenson, 2000). Furthermore,
parent report is less time-consuming and cheaper than
extensive behavioural assessments (Marchmann &
Martinez-Sussmann, 2002). Research using assessments
such as the MacArthur Communicative Development
Inventory (CDI; Fenson et al., 1994) and the Language
Development Survey (LDS; Rescorla, 1989) has provided
reliable and valid parent reports of children’s early language
skills.
Research on retrospective parent report is limited,
but there is some evidence that it is useful in identifying
conditions such as autism spectrum disorder (ASD).
Goldberg, Thorsen, Osann, and Spence (2008) found
substantial concordance between videotape observation
and parent report of expressive language onset and loss
with typically developing children and children with ASD.
Sivberg (2003) used retrospective parent report to describe
early symptoms of ASD and atypical development for
children. The results showed consistency between similar
research reports of early ASD symptoms using direct
observation and parent report. These two studies suggest
retrospective parent report may be a valid and reliable
means of assessment, and may be applicable for language
assessment.
The ALDeQ (Alberta Language Development
Questionnaire) is a norm referenced questionnaire that
uses retrospective parent report to obtain information on
the L1 of ELL (Paradis, Emmerzael, & Duncan, 2010). The
ALDeQ aims to reduce difficulties in the assessment of L1
through use of non-culture specific information obtained
from parents. It comprises 18 questions organised in four
subsections: A) Early Milestones, B) Current L1 Abilities,
C) Behaviour Patterns and Activity Preferences, and D)
Family History (see Appendix A for example questions).
Questions are given a numerical score using rating scales
and added to form a subsection score total. Numerator
and denominator scores are added from each section to
obtain a proportion (0–1) which forms the ALDeQ Total
Score (Paradis et al., 2010). The ALDeQ Total Score
is compared to norming sample characteristics where
scores of –1.25 standard deviations or lower indicate a
language profile more consistent with that of a child with
language impairment than typical development. Paradis
and colleagues’ (2010) preliminary Canadian study used
the ALDeQ with 129 typically developing ELL and 29 ELL
with language impairment aged 5 to 7 years. Children
were identified as language impaired through face-to-face
assessment and had a range of language backgrounds:
Chinese, South Asian, Arabic, and European-Romance.
There were no significant ALDeQ Total Score differences
between cultural groups (Paradis et al., 2010). Findings
revealed the ALDeQ to be a significant discriminator
between the typically developing and language impaired
groups. There were significant between-group differences