JCPSLP Vol 14 No 1 2012

JCPSLP

Volume 14, Number 1 2012

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology

The current study provides early support for the use

of the ALDeQ within an Australian population. It must be

noted that the questionnaire was only used with ELL of

Vietnamese, Romanian, and Macedonian backgrounds;

therefore, findings may not be generalised to cultural

groups not included in the study. Although cultural

differences in ALDeQ scores were not investigated within

this study, it is encouraging that typically developing scores

for Australian and Canadian samples were consistent,

giving some support to the cross-cultural application of

the ALDeQ. Paradis and colleagues (2010) investigated

differences between cultural groups’ scores on the ALDeQ

and found a trend, but no significant differences. Further

research into the application of the questionnaire across

different cultures is warranted.

Conclusion

The current study reinforces some of the original findings of

Paradis and colleagues (2010) and provides preliminary

results suggesting that the ALDeQ’s Canadian norms may

be applicable to an Australian sample in order to

differentiate between ELL with language difficulty and

typically developing ELL. The ALDeQ is convenient and

simple to administer and may have scope to be used by a

variety of professionals. It may have potential for use within

an assessment protocol for preschool or school-aged ELL

when direct assessment of the L1 is not possible, or to add

information to direct assessment (Paradis et al., 2010). The

ALDeQ allows us to gain information from the parent who

indisputably knows their child best and provides a norm

referenced score, although further research with a larger

sample size in the Australian context is necessary to

confirm the results of the current study.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to Johanne Paradis, Kristyn Emmerzael,

and Tamara Sorenson Duncan who gave permission for use

of the ALDeQ in this study. Our appreciation extends to the

study participants, and the support of friends and family,

including Richard May, throughout this project. This

research was funded by a student research grant from

Speech Pathology Australia and ReCAP grant from the

School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin

University.

References

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA).

(1993).

Definitions of communication disorders and

variations

. doi:10.1044/policy.RP1993-00208

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

(ASHA). (2004, April 27).

Knowledge and skills needed

by speech-language pathologists and audiologists to

provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services

doi:10.1044/policy.KS2004-00215

Bashir, A. S., & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Children with

language disorders: Natural history and academic

success.

Journal of Learning Disabilities

(1) 53–65.

doi:10.1177/002221949202500109

Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of

bilingual children for identification of language impairment:

Current findings and implications for practice.

The

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

, 1–29. doi:10.2167/beb392.0

Caesar, L. G., & Kohler, P. D. (2007). The state of

school-based bilingual assessment: Actual practice versus

recommended guidelines.

Language, Speech and Hearing

identifying language difficulty in preschool and school-aged

ELL, particularly when direct L1 assessment is not feasible.

There are currently limited resources available to assist in

accurate referrals of ELL to speech pathology services. The

ALDeQ could begin to fill this gap, and has scope for

inclusion as part of an assessment battery for ELL identified

at risk of language difficulty. It is appropriate for use with

both preschool and school-aged ELL.

An interpreter may be required to administer the ALDeQ

although analysis of responses does not require knowledge

of the L1’s developmental norms. Unlike standardised

face-to-face testing, the questionnaire allows information

about communication in natural environments to be gained,

and is more time efficient than dynamic assessments. The

ALDeQ’s simple and efficient administration, together with

its parent-friendly language, indicate a potential capacity for

administration by a range of professionals, provided they

receive appropriate training and have awareness of cultural

sensitivity.

Strengths, limitations, and future

research

The current study was underpowered due to its small

sample size and use of non-parametric analysis; however,

the results provide preliminary support for use of the ALDeQ

to aid in discriminating between typically developing and

language difficulty groups. Replication of this study with a

large sample size is recommended. The current study used

parent report to classify children as having language

difficulty or typically developing language. Future studies

should place greater stringency on participant selection

criteria, including measures of non-verbal intelligence and

face-to-face assessment to minimise potential misdiagnosis

in initial participant group selection and improve external

validity. The current study used two different methods of

data collection which may have impacted results, and

future studies should systematically explore manipulation of

mode of administration of the ALDeQ (telephone versus

face-to-face interview).

Although a significant result was found between groups

in the ALDeQ Total Score, discrepancies in the ALDeQ’s

differentiation ability for ELL with marginal scores (scores

close to the cut off point) were evident. Paradis and

colleagues’ (2010) study found the ALDeQ to have good

specificity, with issues regarding sensitivity. The current

study did not determine sensitivity and specificity of the

ALDeQ; however, it found that one ELL in each diagnostic

group achieved a score which placed him/her in the

opposite category, although these two children’s scores

were close to the –1.25SD cut-off. Misclassifications of ELL

with marginal scores may be due to original group

misidentification, particularly as classification relied only on

parent report. Future research should continue to

investigate ALDeQ misidentification at the marginal level,

with scope to reconsider the ALDeQ cut-off as a range

rather than a specific value. Children who score within the

marginal range would be prioritised for further testing. The

current study included a possible language difficulty group

with children reported to have been clinically identified with

a language difficulty or who had a current referral to

language therapy, while the Paradis and colleagues (2010)

study used clinical diagnosis as their criteria for inclusion in

their language impaired group. Investigation of ALDeQ

score differences between children referred to speech

pathology services for language difficulty versus children

with diagnosed language difficulty should also be

addressed.