JCPSLP Vol 15 No 2 2013_lores

39 / 60

JCPSLP Volume 15, Number 2 2013 89
that weaker English skills are indicative of a true language
impairment.
Collecting and analysing non-
English samples
There are many situations where the SLP may be able to
obtain a language sample in a language other than English.
The examiner may speak the client’s language or the family
may elicit the sample under the SLP’s guidance. A final
option is to work with a well-trained interpreter, who may
also be able to assist with elicitation and transcription of the
sample. Heilmann, Miller, Iglesias, Fabiano-Smith, Nockerts,
and Andriacchi (2008) showed that by using standardised
transcription and coding procedures, separate transcribers
who were fluent in the child’s language could achieve
strong inter-rater agreement values across two languages
(i.e., English and Spanish). The literature should first be
reviewed to identify if there is a precedent for transcription
rules for that language and if norms exist (e.g., Ooi & Wong,
2012). If there is no guide for the child’s other language in
the literature, the general transcription rules can be
followed, such as segmentation of utterances and coding
of mazes. When limited norms are available, a detailed
interpretation of language performance would be
inappropriate. Rather, the SLP can refer to the major
language milestones in English and look for any substantial
deviations from age-level expectations. For example, the
SLP could formulate a general interpretation of the child’s
mean length of utterance (MLU), which is a key measure
that has been found to provide developmental information
across multiple languages, including French (Thordardottir
in the comprehensive assessment and as a baseline for
dynamic assessment. After collecting the language sample,
the recording of the sample will have to be transcribed and
coded with the appropriate conventions. Transcription of
language samples has been written about extensively (see
Miller, Andriacchi, Nockerts, Westerveld & Gillon, 2012 for a
review) and tutorials are publically available (e.g., www.
). Transcripts are typically coded for the
presence of inflectional morphemes, which are sensitive to
development in Standard English (Brown, 1973). Clinicians
can also document lexical and grammatical errors, which
are prevalent in children with weak language skills
(Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010). In addition to
microlinguistic features, SLPs are often interested in
discourse-level features, such as reduplications and
reformulations (i.e., mazes; Miller, Andriacchi et al., 2012),
conversational discourse analysis (Damico, 1985), and
narrative organisation skills (Westerveld & Gillon, 2010). See
Miller, Andriacchi et al. (2012) for a full summary of
language sample measures.
When reporting English results for a CALD child, the SLP
must use caution and explain the results with significant
caveats. If the child’s English skills are reported as being
considerably weaker than L1, the SLP should not interpret
low English measures as being indicative of a language
impairment; the low performance on the English sample
could simply be a result of limited English proficiency. In this
case, the SLP would want to acquire more data from LI and
use the English data as baseline in a dynamic assessment.
If, however, the child is judged to have English skills that are
comparable to L1, the SLP can have greater confidence
Box 1. A multi-step process for assessing bilingual children’s expressive language skills
Component of Activity Application to language sample Additional considerations
comprehensive analysis (LSA)
assessment
Identify concerns of family and Determine if language sampling will Use interpreters and cultural
teachers; gather information not assist with documenting areas of informants to assist with collecting
available due to biases in concern data
traditional testing
Determine child’s dominant Predict child’s ability to complete Look to the literature for validated
language (if there is one) language sampling tasks in L1 and L2 parent questionnaires
Use information to assist with diagnostic Interview
decisions
Identify child’s familiarity with Determine which language sampling Consider developmental/
language testing procedures contexts are most familiar to the child environmental appropriateness of
sampling procedures
Collect and analyse data in Elicit sample in child’s dominant Use caution in interpreting data if
dominant language (L1) language no norms are available in L1
Collect sample from peer who speaks Have team members familiar with
the same language for comparison the language judge the quality of
the sample
Collect and analyse data in Elicit sample in child’s nondominant If child has low scores in L2,
nondominant language (L2) language compare performance to L1 to
ensure deficits aren’t simply due
to limited English proficiency
Document child’s ability to learn Collect baseline data in English using LSA Identify a language sampling
language skills, which is a more Implement intensive intervention focusing context that is meaningful to both
accurate reflection of language on relative weaknesses within the the child and his or her functioning
ability when compared to static language sample in the environment (e.g., related
assessment Determine if child showed significant to the curriculum)
response to intervention (impairment less
likely) or if the child continued to
struggle (impairment more likely)
Interviews with parents,
teachers, cultural
informants, and other
stakeholders
Analysis of descriptive
and criterion-referenced
language data
Dynamic assessment