JCPSLP Vol 14 No 1 2012

29 / 60

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 1 2012 27
within one standard deviation of the section scores in the
Canadian study except for Section C: Behaviour Patterns
and Activity Preferences ( M = 0.67, SD = 0.20), which was
1.15 standard deviations below the Canadian mean of 0.82
(SD = 0.13).
interview was dependent on parent preference and
language abilities. The Child Language and Medical History
Questionnaire and the ALDeQ were administered during
this interview and responses were transcribed on-line.
Results
ALDeQ Total Scores were calculated following procedures
outlined by Paradis et al. (2010) and allowed for
comparisons with normative data. Results were compared
for those children whose parents expressed concern about
language with those of children for whom no concern was
expressed.
The mean total score for typically developing Australian
ELL (M = 0.81, SD = 0.11, 95% CI [0.75, 0.87]) was
consistent with Paradis et al.’s (2010) Canadian norming
population mean (total score (M = 0.81, SD = 0.12, 95%
CI [0.79, 0.83]). Confidence intervals for the norming
population were captured within the confidence intervals
for the Australian typically developing group. The average
ALDeQ total score of Australian ELL with language difficulty
(M = 0.45, SD = 0.24, 95% CI [0.19, 0.71]) was lower and
more variable than the Canadian language impaired group
(M = 0.50, SD = 0.17, 95% CI [0.44, 0.56]).
As predicted, ALDeQ Total Scores for the typically
developing group (M = 0.81, SD = 0.11, 95% CI [0.75,
0.87]) were higher than those of the language difficulty
group (M = 0.45, SD = 0.17, 95% CI [0.19, 0.71]). A Mann-
Whitney U test was conducted to evaluate the hypothesis
that typically developing ELL would score higher than ELL
with language difficulty on ALDeQ Total Scores. The results
of the test were in the expected direction and significant,
U = 1, z = –2.523, p < .05, r = .61. There was no overlap
in confidence intervals for the typically developing and
language difficulty groups; therefore, it may be inferred that
the ALDeQ Total Scores of the two groups were significantly
different; however, one ELL from each diagnostic group
achieved a score which placed him/her in the opposite
group classification.
The mean ALDeQ Total Scores of Vietnamese
participants (n = 12) was 0.81 (SD = 0.11) while that of the
Romanian and Macedonian participants (n = 5) was 0.83
(SD = 0.12). Similar means suggests that there may be no
difference between these cultural groups; however, unequal
sample sizes and violations of normality (i.e., the shape
distribution of scores was not the same for the two groups)
prevented further analyses using the non-parametric
Mann –Whitney U test.
Table 2 shows the mean section scores. Australian
participants obtained the lowest scores on Section C:
Behaviour Patterns and Activity Preferences (M = 0.67, SD
= 0.20) and the highest scores in Section B: Current L1
Abilities (M = 0.87, SD = 0.14). ALDeQ proportion section
scores of typically developing ELL from the current study
were compared with scores of typically developing ELL
from Paradis et al. (2010). All mean section scores were
Table 1. Demographic information
Ethnicity
n M age L1ª Vietnamese Macedonian Romanian
(Months) (%) n n n
Typically developing 14 80.43 46 10 3 1
Language difficulty 3 78.33 35 2 1b 0
Note. a Reported current percentage use of the L1 in the week. b Parent reported child spoke both Macedonian and English as L1 with moderate
English exposure from ages 0 to 2.
Table 2. Australian and Canadian data: Typically
developing ELL ALDeQ proportion section scores
Australian data Canadian data
M SD M SD
Section A .79 .25 .90 .19
Section B .87 .14 .69 .26
Section C .67 .20 .82 .13
Section D .83 .22 .83 .30
ALDeQ Total Score .81 .11 .81 .12
Note. Canadian data from Paradis et al. (2010).
Discussion
As predicted, typically developing Australian ELL ALDeQ
Total Scores fit within the norming sample range in Paradis
et al.’s (2010) study, suggesting the Canadian ALDeQ
norming population may be applicable to an Australian ELL
population. Australian typically developing proportion scores
were all within one standard deviation of the Canadian
typically developing scores, except for Section C: Behaviour
Patterns and Activity Preferences, which fell just below the
one standard deviation range. Global research of children’s
use of time suggests activity preferences depend on culture,
age, socioeconomic differences, and gender (Larson &
Verma, 1999), which may partly explain the variance in
Australian and Canadian scores for this subsection.
The study also investigated the ALDeQ’s ability to
discriminate between typically developing and language
difficulty groups; however, the sample size of the language
difficulty group was very small ( n = 3). Results revealed
that the typically developing group had significantly higher
scores with a large effect size, suggesting that the ALDeQ
has potential to differentiate between the two diagnostic
groups.
This is consistent with findings of the Canadian study
and expectations for the current study; however, there were
discrepancies in the differentiation of ELL whose scores
on the ALDeQ were close to the cut-off point (–1.25 SD ).
One ELL from each diagnostic group achieved a score
which placed him/her in the opposite group classification.
For example, one child from the ELL group whose parent
did not express concern about language development was
shown to have a language profile more consistent with
language impairment on the ALDeQ.
Implications
The results of the current study confirm Paradis et al.’s
(2010) assertion that the ALDeQ may have a role to play in