Increased attention is being given to strategies for the least biased language assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children for whom English is a second language. One main reason is the concern that the administration of language tests in English using current norms is inappropriate for students whose dominant language is other than English. This article discusses a variety of alternative assessment approaches, including renorming a test for the specific population being tested, using dynamic assessment techniques to assess a child's modifiability, using other nonstandardized measures, and modifying standardized tests. Each of these alternatives has advantages and disadvantages. In addition, results from a preliminary investigation using modifications of four subtests of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Third Edition (CELF-3) are presented to further the dialogue about language assessment issues. Twenty-eight bilingual Latino children, ages 8 and 9 years, were administered the CELF-3 and the modified version of the test in counterbalanced order. Clinical implications for creating least biased language assessment strategies are included as the authors provide a tutorial on the broad topic of language assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse children for whom English is a second language.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, R. (1996). Assessing the grammar of Spanish-speaking children: A comparison of two procedures. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 333—344.
2.
Artiles, A., Aguirre-Muñoz, Z., & Abedi, J. (1998). Predicting placement in learning disabilities programs: Do predictors vary by ethnic group?Exceptional Children, 64, 543—559.
3.
Bain, B., & Olswang, L. (1995). Examining readiness for learning two-word utterances by children with specific expressive language impairment: Dynamic assessment validation. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 4, 81—91.
4.
Baker, S., Plascencia-Peinado, J., & Lezcano-Lytle, V. (1998). The use of curriculum-based measurement with language-minority students. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based assessment (pp. 174—213). New York: Guilford Press.
5.
Brice, A. (1992). The Adolescent Pragmatics Screening Scale: Rationale and development. The Howard Journal of Communications, 3, 177—193.
6.
Brice, A. (2002) The Hispanic child: Speech, language, culture, and education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
7.
Brice, A., & Montgomery, J. (1996). Adolescent pragmatic skills: A comparison of Latino students in ESL and speech and language programs. Language , Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 68—81.
8.
California Department of Education. (1989). Program guidelines for language, speech, and hearing specialists providing designated instruction and services. Sacramento: Author.
9.
Cheng, L.-R.L. (1991). Assessing Asian language performance: Guidelines for evaluating Limited-English-Proficient students (2nd ed.). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.
10.
Cummins, J. (1984). Bilingualism and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
11.
Dalton, H., & Tighe, P. (1991). Idea proficiency test I—Oral English. Brea, CA: Ballard and Tighe.
12.
Damico, J., Oller, J., & Storey, M. (1983). The diagnosis of language disorders in bilingual children: Surface-oriented and pragmatic criteria. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 48, 385—394.
13.
Erickson, J., & Iglesias, A. (1986). Assessment of communication disorders in non-English proficient children. In O. Taylor (Ed.), Nature of communication disorders in culturally and linguistically diverse populations (pp. 181—217). San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
14.
Fazio, R., Naremore, R., & Connell, P. (1996). Tracking children from poverty at risk for specific language impairment: A 3-year longitudinal study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 611—624.
15.
Fujiura, G. (2000). Trends in demography of childhood poverty and disability. Exceptional Children, 66, 187—199.
Genesee, F., & Upshur, J. (1996). Classroom-based evaluation in second language education. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Goldstein, B. (2000). Cultural and linguistic diversity resource guide for speech-language pathologists. San Diego, CA: Singular.
20.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. (1998). Syntactic skills of Spanish-speaking children with low school achievement. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 29, 207—215.
21.
Hamayan, E., & Damico, J. (1991). Limiting bias in the assessment of bilingual students . Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
22.
Hieronymous, A., & Hoover, H. (1986). Iowa test of basic skills. Chicago: Riverside.
23.
Jacobs, E. (2001). The effects of adding dynamic assessment components to a computerized preschool language screening test. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 22, 217—226.
24.
Kayser, H. (1995). Assessment of speech and language impairments in bilingual children. In H. Kayser (Ed.), Bilingual speech-language pathology: An Hispanic focus (pp. 243—264). San Diego, CA: Singular.
25.
Kayser, H. (1998). Assessment and intervention resource for Hispanic children. San Diego, CA: Singular .
26.
Langdon, H., with Cheng, L.-R.L. (1992). Hispanic children and adults with communication disorders: Assessment and intervention. Gaithersburg, MD : Aspen.
27.
Langdon, H., & Saenz, T. (1996). Speech-language assessment of bilingualbicultural students. In H. Langdon & T. Saenz (Eds.), Language assessment and intervention with multicultural students: A guide for speech-language-hearing professionals (pp. 3—30). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.
28.
Lidz, C., & Peña, L. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model, its relevance as a nonbiased approach, and its application to Latino American preschool children . Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 367—372.
29.
Linder, T. (1993). Transdisciplinary play-based assessment: A functional approach to working with young children (Rev. ed.). Baltimore : Brookes.
30.
Mattes, L., & Omark, D. (1991). Speech and language assessment for the bilingual handicapped (2nd ed.). Oceanside , CA: Academic Communication Associates.
31.
Peña, E. (1996). Dynamic assessment: The model and its language applications. In K. Cole, P. Dale, & D. Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language (pp. 281—207). Baltimore: Brookes.
32.
Peña, E., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children's word learning ability. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 138—154.
33.
Peña, E., & Quinn, R. (1997). Task familiarity: Effects on the test performance of Puerto Rican and African American children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 323—332.
34.
Peña, E., Quinn, R., & Iglesias, A. (1992). The application of dynamic methods to language assessment: A nonbiased procedure. The Journal of Special Education, 26, 269—280.
35.
Restrepo, M. (1998). Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1398—1411.
36.
Rhyner, P., Kelly, D., Brantley, A., & Krueger, D. (1999). Screening low-income African American children using the BLT-2S and the SPELT-P. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 8, 44—52.
37.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). Multicultural students with special language needs: Practical strategies for assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication Associates.
38.
School Research and Service Corporation. (1989). Individual test of basic academic skills. Mission Viejo, CA: Author.
39.
Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. (1995). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
40.
Shinn, M., Collins, V., & Gallagher, S. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model with students from minority backgrounds. In M. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 143—197). New York : Guilford Press.
41.
SPSS, Inc. (1999). SPSS for Windows (Release 10.0). Chicago: Author.
42.
Thorndike, R., Hagen, E., & Sattler, J. (1986). Stanford-Binet intelligence scale (4th ed.). Chicago: Riverside.
43.
Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
44.
Ukrainetz, T., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000). A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native American kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 31, 142—154.
45.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Age, sex, household relationship, race, and Hispanic origin-poverty status of people and families by selected characteristics in 2001. Retrieved December 4, 2002, from http://ferret.bis.census.gove/macro/032002/pov/new01_003.htm
46.
Westby, C., Burda, A., & Mehta, Z. (2003, April 29). Asking the right questions in the right ways: Strategies for ethnographic interviewing. Asha, 8, 4—5, 16—17.
