Graduation time is rapidly approaching and many graduate speech language pathology students are getting ready to begin their first days in the workforce. When it comes to juggling caseloads and managing schedules, time is money and efficiency is the key to success. Consequently, a few years ago I created SLP Efficiency Bundles™, which are materials highly useful for Graduate SLPs working with pediatric clients. These materials are organized by areas of focus for efficient and effective screening, assessment, and treatment of speech and language disorders. Continue reading SLP Efficiency Bundles™ for Graduating Speech Language Pathologists
Author: Tatyana Elleseff
#BHSM – School Based Innovation and RtI FREEBIE Blog Hop
To celebrate the 2015 ASHA Better Hearing and Speech Month in May, Speech Language Literacy Lab has organized an RtI Blog Hop. During the hop Smart Speech Therapy LLC along with 29 other professional bloggers from a variety of ancillary fields (e.g., OT, special education, etc.) will be sharing FREE materials and resources on the subject of School Based Innovation and RtI.
Each day, readers will have an access to a new blog post to have access to new freebies and resources. Our organizer Sl3l lab will also be linking these blog posts to their site daily.
Blog Posting Schedule:
5/1/2015 Kick Off to Better Hearing and Speech Month!
5/2/2015 RTI for the R sound! Badger State Speechy
5/3/2015 An effective RTI program Stephen Charlton Guest blogs on Speech Language Literacy Lab
5/4/2015 Technology and RTI Building Successful Lives Speech & Language
5/5/2015 Starfish Therapies
5/6/2015 Orton Gillingham Approach & RTI Orton Gillingham Online Academy
5/7/2015 Evidenced-based writing that works for RTI & SPED SQWrite
5/8/2015 RTI/MTSS/SBLT…OMG! Let’s Talk! with Whitneyslp
5/9/2015 RtI, but why? Attitudes are everything! Crazy Speech World
5/10/2015 Consonantly Speaking
5/11/2015 Universal benchmarking for language to guide the RTI process in Pre-K and Kindergarten Speech Language Literacy Lab
5/12/2015 Movement Breaks in the Classroom (Brain Breaks) Your Therapy Source
5/13/2015 How to Write a Social Story Blue Mango LLC
5/14/2015 Some Ideas on Objective Language Therapy Language Fix
5/15/2015 Assistive Technology in the Classroom OTMommy Needs Her Coffee
5/16/2015 Effective Tiered Early Literacy Instruction for Spanish-Speakers Bilingual Solutions Guest blog on Speech Language Literacy Lab
5/17/2015 Helping with Attention and Focus in the Classroom The Pocket OT
5/18/2015 Tips on Effective Vocabulary Instruction Smart Speech Therapy, LLC
5/19/2015 An SLP’s Role in RtI: My Story Communication Station: Speech Therapy, PLLC
5/20/2015 Incorporating Motor Skills into Literacy Centers MissJaimeOT
5/21/2015 The QUAD Profile: A Language Checklist The Speech Dudes
5/22/2015 Resources on Culturally Relevant Interventions Tier 1 Educational Coaching and Consulting
5/23/2015 Language Goals Galore: Converting Real Pictures to Coloring Pages Really Color guest blog on Speech Language Literacy Lab
5/24/2015 Lesson Pix: The Newest Must-Have Resource in your Tx Toolbox Speech Language Literacy Lab
5/25/2015 AAC & core vocabulary instruction Kidz Learn Language
5/26/2015 An RtI Alternative Old School Speech
5/27/2015 Intensive Service Delivery Model for Pre-Schoolers Speech Sprouts
5/28/2015 RTI Success with Spanish-speakers Speech is Beautiful
5/30/2015 The Importance of Social Language (pragmatic) Skills Linda Silver guest post on Speech Sprouts
5/31/2015 Sarah Warchol guest posts on Speech Language Literacy Lab
Hope to see you all hoping during #BHSM!
Thematic Language Intervention with Language Impaired Children Using Nonfiction Texts
In the past a number of my SLP colleague bloggers (Communication Station, Twin Sisters SLPs, Practical AAC, etc.) wrote posts regarding the use of thematic texts for language intervention purposes. They discussed implementation of fictional texts such as the use of children’s books and fairy tales to target linguistic goals such as vocabulary knowledge in use, sentence formulation, answering WH questions, as well as story recall and production.
Today I would like to supplement those posts with information regarding the implementation of intervention based on thematic nonfiction texts to further improve language abilities of children with language difficulties.
First, here’s why the use of nonfiction texts in language intervention is important. While narrative texts have high familiarity for children due to preexisting, background knowledge, familiar vocabulary, repetitive themes, etc. nonfiction texts are far more difficult to comprehend. It typically contains unknown concepts and vocabulary, which is then used in the text multiple times. Therefore lack of knowledge of these concepts and related vocabulary will result in lack of text comprehension. According to Duke (2013) half of all the primary read-alouds should be informational text. It will allow students to build up knowledge and the necessary academic vocabulary to effectively participate and partake from the curriculum.
So what type of nonfiction materials can be used for language intervention purposes. While there is a rich variety of sources available, I have had great success using Let’s Read and Find Out Stage 1 and 2 Science Series with clients with varying degrees of language impairment.
Here’s are just a few reasons why I like to use this series.
- They can be implemented by parents and professionals alike for different purposes with equal effectiveness.
- They can be implemented with children fairly early beginning with preschool on-wards
- The can be used with the following pediatric populations:
- Language Disordered Children
- Children with learning disabilities and low IQ
- Children with developmental disorders and genetic syndromes (Fragile X, Down Syndrome, Autism, etc.)
- Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
- Internationally adopted children with language impairment
- Bilingual children with language impairment
- Children with dyslexia and reading disabilities
- Children with psychiatric Impairments
- The books are readily available online (Barnes & Noble, Amazon, etc.) and in stores.
- They are relatively inexpensive (individual books cost about $5-6).
- Parents or professionals who want to continuously use them seasonally can purchase them in bulk at a significantly cheaper price from select distributors (Source: rainbowresource.com)
- They are highly thematic, contain terrific visual support, and are surprisingly versatile, with information on topics ranging from animal habitats and life cycles to natural disasters and space.
- They contain subject-relevant vocabulary words that the students are likely to use in the future over and over again (Stahl & Fairbanks, 1986).
- The words are already pre-grouped in semantic clusters which create schemes (mental representations) for the students (Marzano & Marzano, 1988).
For example, the above books on weather and seasons contain information on:
1. Front Formations
2. Water Cycle
3. High & Low Pressure Systems
Let’s look at the vocabulary words from Flash, Crash, Rumble, and Roll (see detailed lesson plan HERE). (Source: ReadWorks):
Word: water vapor
Context: Steam from a hot soup is water vapor.
Word: expands
Context: The hot air expands and pops the balloon.
Word: atmosphere
Context: The atmosphere is the air that covers the Earth.
Word: forecast
Context: The forecast had a lot to tell us about the storm.
Word: condense
Context: steam in the air condenses to form water drops.
These books are not just great for increasing academic vocabulary knowledge and use. They are great for teaching sequencing skills (e.g., life cycles), critical thinking skills (e.g., What do animals need to do in the winter to survive?), compare and contrast skills (e.g., what is the difference between hatching and molting?) and much, much, more!
So why is use of nonfiction texts important for strengthening vocabulary knowledge and words in language impaired children?
As I noted in my previous post on effective vocabulary instruction (HERE): “teachers with many struggling children often significantly reduce the quality of their own vocabulary unconsciously to ensure understanding” (Excerpts from Anita Archer’s Interview with Advance for SLPs).
The same goes for SLPs and parents. Many of them are under misperception that if they teach complex subject-related words like “metamorphosis” or “vaporization” to children with significant language impairments or developmental disabilities that these students will not understand them and will not benefit from learning them.
However, that is not the case! These students will still significantly benefit from learning these words, it will simply take them longer periods of practice to retain them!
By simplifying our explanations, minimizing verbiage and emphasizing the visuals, the books can be successfully adapted for use with children with severe language impairments. I have had parents observe my intervention sessions using these books and then successfully use them in the home with their children by reviewing the information and reinforcing newly learned vocabulary knowledge.
Here are just a few examples of prompts I use in treatment with more severely affected language-impaired children:
- What do you see in this picture?
- This is a _____ Can you say _____
- What do you know about _____?
- What do you think is happening? Why?
- What do you think they are doing? Why?
- Let’s make up a sentence with __________ (this word)
- You can say ____ or you can say ______ (teaching synonyms)
- What would be the opposite of _______? (teaching antonyms)
- Do you know that _____(this word) has 2 meanings
- 1st meaning
- 2nd meaning
- How do ____ and _____ go together?
Here are the questions related to Sequencing of Processes (Life Cycle, Water Cycle, etc.)
- What happened first?
- What happened second?
- What happened next?
- What happened after that?
- What happened last?
As the child advances his/her skills I attempt to engage them in more complex book interactions
- Compare and contrast items
- (e.g. objects/people/animals)
- Make predictions and inferences about will happen next?
- Why is this book important?
“Picture walks” (flipping through the pages) of these books are also surprisingly effective for activation of the student’s background knowledge (what a student already knows about a subject). This is an important prerequisite skill needed for continued acquisition of new knowledge. It is important because “students who lack sufficient background knowledge or are unable to activate it may struggle to access, participate, and progress through the general curriculum” (Stangman, Hall & Meyer, 2004).
These book allow for :
1.Learning vocabulary words in context embedded texts with high interest visuals
2.Teaching specific content related vocabulary words directly to comprehend classroom-specific work
3.Providing multiple and repetitive exposures of vocabulary words in texts
4. Maximizing multisensory intervention when learning vocabulary to maximize gains (visual, auditory, tactile via related projects, etc.)
To summarize, children with significant language impairment often suffer from the Matthew Effect (“rich get richer, poor get poorer”), or interactions with the environment exaggerate individual differences over time
Children with good vocabulary knowledge learn more words and gain further knowledge by building of these words
Children with poor vocabulary knowledge learn less words and widen the gap between self and peers over time due to their inability to effectively meet the ever increasing academic effects of the classroom. The vocabulary problems of students who enter school with poorer limited vocabularies only worsen over time (White, Graves & Slater, 1990). We need to provide these children with all the feasible opportunities to narrow this gap and partake from the curriculum in a more similar fashion as typically developing peers.
Helpful Smart Speech Therapy Resources:
- Vocabulary Intervention: Working With Disadvantaged Populations
- Creating A Learning-Rich Environment for Language Delayed Preschoolers
- Strategies of Language Facilitation with Picture Books For Parents and Professionals
- The Checklists Bundle
- Narrative Assessment and Treatment Bundle
- Social Pragmatic Assessment and Treatment Bundle
- Assessment Checklist for Preschool Children
- Assessment Checklist for School Children
- Assessment Checklist for Adolescents
- Auditory Processing Deficits Checklist for School Aged Children
- Multicultural Assessment and Treatment Bundle
- Comprehensive Assessment of Monolingual and Bilingual Children with Down Syndrome
- Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders Bundle
References:
Duke, N. K. (2013). Starting out: Practices to Use in K-3. Educational Leadership, 71, 40-44.
Marzano, R. J., & Marzano, J. (1988). Toward a cognitive theory of commitment and its implications for therapy. Psychotherapy in Private Practice 6(4), 69–81.
Stahl, S. A. & Fairbanks, M. M. “The Effects of Vocabulary Instruction: A Model-based Metaanalysis.” Review of Educational Research 56 (1986): 72-110.
Strangman, N., Hall, T., & Meyer, A. (2004). Background knowledge with UDL. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum.
White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater W. H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 281–290.
Is it Language Disorder or Learning Disability? A Tutorial for Parents and Professionals
Recently I read a terrific article written in 2014 by Sun and Wallach entitled: “Language Disorders Are Learning Disabilities: Challenges on the Divergent and Diverse Paths to Language Learning Disability“. I found it to be so valuable that I wanted to summarize some of its key points to my readers because it bears tremendous impact on our understanding of what happens to children with language disorders when they reach school years.
The authors begin the article by introducing a scenario familiar to numerous SLPs. A young child is diagnosed with receptive, expressive and social pragmatic language deficits as a toddler (2.5 years of age) begins to receive speech language services, which continue through preschool and elementary school until 2nd grade. The child is receiving therapy under the diagnosis of specific language impairment (SLI), which is characterized by difficulties with acquiring language in the absence of any other known disorders. By 2nd grade the child has seemingly “caught up” in the areas of listening comprehension and complex sentence production but is now struggling academically in the areas of reading and writing. Now his teachers are concerned that he has a learning disability, and his bewildered parent asks “Is it true that my child now has another problem on top of his language problem?”
From that scenario the authors skillfully navigate the complex relationship between language disorders and school disability labels to explain that the child does NOT have a new disorder but rather continues to face new challenges presented by his old disorder due to which he is now struggling to meet the growing language demands of the academic curriculum.
Here’s the approximate hierarchy of language development in young children:
- Exploration of the environment
- Play
- Receptive Language
- Comprehension of words, phrases, sentences, stories
- Expressive Language
- Speaking single words, phrases, sentences, engaging in conversations, producing stories
- Reading
- Words, sentences, short stories, chapter books, etc.
- General topics
- Domain specific topics (science, social studies, etc)
- Spelling
- Writing
- Words, sentences, short stories, essays
The problem is that if the child experiences any deficits in the foundational language areas such as listening and speaking, he will most certainly experience difficulties in the more complex areas of language which is reading and writing.
The authors continue by explaining the complexity of various labels given to children with language and learning difficulties under the IDEA 2004, DSM-5, as well as “research literature and nonschool clinical settings”. They conclude that: “the use of different labels by different professionals in different contexts should not obscure the commonalities among children with language disorders, no matter what they are called”.
Then they go on to explain that longitudinal (over a period of time) research has revealed numerous difficulties experienced by children with “early language disorders” during school years and in adulthood “in all domains of academic achievement (spelling, reading comprehension, word identification, word attack, calculation)…”. They also point out that many of these children with language disorders were later classified with a learning disability because their “later learning difficulties [took on] the form of problems acquiring higher levels of spoken language comprehension and expression as well as reading and writing”.
The authors also explain the complex process of literacy acquisition as well as discuss the important concept of “illusory recovery“. They note that there may be “a time period when the students with early language disorders seem to catch up with their typically developing peers” by undergoing a “spurt” in language learning, which is followed by a “postspurt plateau” because due to their ongoing deficits and an increase in academic demands “many children with early language disorders fail to “outgrow” these difficulties or catch up with their typically developing peers”.
They pointed out that because many of these children “may not show academic or language-related learning difficulties until linguistic and cognitive demands of the task increase and exceed their limited abilities”, SLPs must consider the “underlying deficits that may be masked by early oral language development” and “evaluate a child’s language abilities in all modalities, including preliteracy, literacy, and metalinguistic skills”.
Finally, the authors reiterate that since language is embedded in all parts of the curriculum “intervention choices should be based on students’ ongoing language learning and literacy problems within curricular contexts, regardless of their diagnostic labels”. In other words, SLPs should actively use the students’ curriculum in the intervention process.
In their conclusion the authors summarize the key article points:
- The diagnostic labels may change but the students linguistic needs stay the same. Thus clinicians need to a) “identify existing language/literacy needs that may have been unidentified previously” and b) provide “relevant and functional interventions that are curriculum-based and literacy-focused”
- “Early language disorders are chronic and tend to follow children through time, manifesting themselves differently based upon an individual’s inherent abilities”. Thus SLPs need to be keenly aware regarding the nature and timing of “illusory recoveries” NOT to be fooled by them.
- “Definitions of literacy have broadened” so “intervention goals and targeted language learning strategies should change accordingly to guide effective and relevant intervention“
- “Majority of learning disabilities are language disorders that have changed over time”.
I hope that you’ve found this article helpful in furthering your understanding of these highly relevant yet often misunderstood labels and that this knowledge will assist you to make better decisions when serving the clients on your caseload.
References:
Helpful Smart Speech Therapy Resources:
- The Checklists Bundle
- General Assessment and Treatment Start Up Bundle
- Multicultural Assessment Bundle
- Narrative Assessment and Treatment Bundle
- Introduction to Prevalent Disorders Bundle
- Social Pragmatic Assessment and Treatment Bundle
- Assessment Checklist for Preschool Children
- Assessment Checklist for School Children
- Language Processing Deficits Checklist for School Aged Children
Effective Vocabulary Instruction: What SLPs Need to Know
Having a solid vocabulary knowledge is key to academic success. Vocabulary is the building block of language. It allows us to create complex sentences, tell elaborate stories as well as write great essays. Having limited vocabulary is primary indicator of language learning disability, which in turn blocks students from obtaining critical literacy skills necessary for reading, writing, and spelling. “Indeed, one of the , most enduring findings in reading research is the extent to which students’ vocabulary knowledge relates to their reading comprehension” (Osborn & Hiebert, 2004)
Teachers and SLPs frequently inquire regarding effective vocabulary instruction methods for children with learning disabilities. However, what some researchers have found when they set out to “examine how oral vocabulary instruction was enacted in kindergarten” was truly alarming.
In September 2014, Wright and Neuman, analyzed about 660 hours of observations over a course of 4 days (12 hours) in 55 classrooms in a range of socio-economic status schools.
They found that teachers explained word meanings during “teachable moments” in the context of other instruction.
They also found that teachers:
- Gave one-time, brief word explanations
- Engaged in unsystematic word selection
- And spent minimal time on vocabulary devoted to subject areas (e.g., science and social studies in which word explanations were most dense)
They also found an economic status discrepancy, namely:
Teachers serving in economically advantaged schools explained words more often and were more likely to address sophisticated words than teachers serving in economically disadvantaged schools.
They concluded that “these results suggest that the current state of instruction may be CONTRIBUTING to rather than ameliorating vocabulary gaps by socioeconomic status.”
Similar findings were reported by other scholars in the field who noted that “teachers with many struggling children often significantly reduce the quality of their own vocabulary unconsciously to ensure understanding.” So they “reduce the complexity of their vocabulary drastically.” “For many children the teacher is the highest vocabulary example in their life. It’s sort of like having a buffet table but removing everything except a bowl of peanuts-that’s all you get“. (Excerpts from Anita Archer’s Interview with Advance for SLPs)
It is important to note that vocabulary gains are affected by socioeconomic status as well as maternal education level. Thus, children whose family incomes are at or below the poverty level fare much more poorly in the area of vocabulary acquisition than middle class children. Furthermore, Becker (2011) found that children of higher educated parents can improve their vocabulary more strongly than children whose parents have a lower educational level.
Limitations of Poor Readers:
Poor readers often lack adequate vocabulary to get meaning from what they read. To them, reading is difficult and tedious, and they are unable (and often unwilling) to do the large amount of reading they must do if they are to encounter unknown words often enough to learn them.
Matthew Effect, “rich get richer, poor get poorer”, or interactions with the environment exaggerate individual differences over time. Good readers read more, become even better readers, and learn more words. Poor readers read less, become poorer readers, and learn fewer words. The vocabulary problems of students who enter school with poorer limited vocabularies only exacerbate over time.
However, even further exacerbating the issue is that students from low SES households have limited access to books. 61% of low-income families have NO BOOKS at all in their homes for their children (Reading Literacy in the United States: Findings from the IEA Reading Literacy Study, 1996.) In some under-resourced communities, there is ONLY 1 book for every 300 children. Neuman, S., & Dickinson, D. (Eds.). (2006) Handbook of Early Literacy Research (Vol. 2). In contrast, the average middle class child has 13+ books in the home.
The above discrepancy can be effectively addressed by holding book drives to raise books for under privileged students and their siblings. Instructions for successful book drives HERE.
So what are effective methods of vocabulary instruction for children with language impairments?
According to (NRP, 2000) a good way for students to learn vocabulary directly is to explicitly teach them individual words and word-learning strategies .
For children with low initial vocabularies, approaches that teach word meanings as part of a semantic field are found to be especially effective (Marmolejo, 1991).
Many vocabulary scholars (Archer, 2011; Biemiller, 2004; Gunning 2004, etc.) agree on a number of select instructional strategies which include:
- Rich experiences/high classroom language related to the student experience/interests
- Explicit vs. incidental instruction with frequent exposure to words
- Instructional routine for vocabulary
- Establishing word relationships
- Word-learning strategies to impart depth of meaning
- Morphological awareness instruction
Response to Intervention: Improving Vocabulary Outcomes
For students with low vocabularies, to attain the same level of academic achievement as their peers on academic coursework of language arts, reading, and written composition, targeted Tier II intervention may be needed.
Tier II words are those for which children have an understanding of the underlying concepts, are useful across a variety of settings and can be used instructionally in a variety of ways
According to Beck et al 2002, Tier II words should be the primary focus of vocabulary instruction, as they would make the most significant impact on a child’s spoken and written expressive capabilities.
Tier II vocabulary words
- High frequency words which occur across a variety of domains conversations, text, etc.
- Contain multiple meanings
- Descriptive in nature
- Most important words for direct instruction as they facilitate academic success
- Hostile, illegible, tolerate, immigrate, tremble, despicable, elapse, etc.
According to Judy Montgomery “You can never select the wrong words to teach.”
Vocabulary Selection Tips:
- Make it thematic
- Embed it in current events (e.g., holidays, elections, seasonal activities, etc)
- Classroom topic related (e.g., French Revolution, the Water Cycle, Penguin Survival in the Polar Regions, etc)
- Do not select more than 4-5 words to teach per unit to not overload the working memory (Robb, 2003)
- Select difficult/unknown words that are critical to the passage meaning, which the students are likely to use in the future (Archer, 2015)
- Select words used across many domains
Examples of Spring Related Vocabulary
Adjectives:
- Flourishing
- Lush
- Verdant
- Refreshing
Nouns:
- Allergies
- Regeneration
- Outdoors
- Seedling
- Sapling
Verbs
- Awaken
- Teem
- Romp
- Rejuvenate
Idiomatic Expressions:
- April Showers Bring May Flowers
- Green Thumb
- Spring Chicken
- Spring Into Action
Creating an Effective Vocabulary Intervention Packets and Materials
Sample Activity Suggestions:
- Text Page (story introducing the topic containing context embedded words)
- Vocabulary Page (list of story embedded words their definitions, and what parts of speech the words are)
- Multiple Choice Questions or Open Ended Questions Page
- Crossword Puzzle Page
- Fill in the Blank Page
- True (one word meaning) Synonym/Antonym Matching Page
- Explain the Multiple Meaning of Words Page
- Create Complex Sentences Using Story Vocabulary Page
Intervention Technique Suggestions:
1.Read vocabulary words in context embedded in relevant short texts
2.Teach individual vocabulary words directly to comprehend classroom-specific texts (definitions)
3.Provide multiple exposures of vocabulary words in multiple contexts, (synonyms, antonyms, multiple meaning words, etc.)
4.Maximize multisensory intervention when learning vocabulary to maximize gains (visual, auditory, tactile, etc.)
5.Use multiple instructional methods for a range of vocabulary learning tasks and outcomes (read it, spell it, write it in a sentence, practice with a friend, etc.)
6.Use morphological awareness instruction (post to follow)
- An ability to recognize, understand, and use word parts (prefixes, suffixes that “carry significance” when speaking and in reading tasks
Conclusion:
Having the right tools for the job is just a small first step in the right direction of creating a vocabulary-rich environment even for the most disadvantaged learners. So Happy Speeching!
Helpful Smart Speech Resources:
- Creating A Learning Rich Environment for Language Delayed Preschoolers
- Vocabulary Intervention: Working With Disadvantaged Populations
- The Water Cycle: A thematic language activity packet for older students
- The Checklists Bundle
- Narrative Assessment and Treatment Bundle
- Social Pragmatic Assessment and Treatment Bundle
- Assessment Checklist for Preschool Children
- Assessment Checklist for School Children
- Auditory Processing Deficits Checklist for School Aged Children
Recommendations for Assessing Language Abilities of Verbal Children with Down Syndrome (DS)
Assessment of children with DS syndrome is often complicated due to the wide spectrum of presenting deficits (e.g., significant health issues in conjunction with communication impairment, lack of expressive language, etc) making accurate assessment of their communication a difficult task. In order to provide these children with appropriate therapy services via the design of targeted goals and objectives, we need to create comprehensive assessment procedures that focus on highlighting their communicative strengths and not just their deficits.
Today I’d like to discuss assessment procedures for verbal monolingual and bilingual children with DS 4-9 years of age, since testing instruments as well as assessment procedures for younger as well as older verbal and nonverbal children with DS do differ.
When it comes to dual language use and genetic disorders and developmental disabilities many educational and health care professionals are still under the erroneous assumption that it is better to use one language (English) to communicate with these children at home and at school. However, studies have shown that not only can children with DS become functionally bilingual they can even become functionally trilingual (Vallar & Papagno, 1993; Woll & Grove, 1996). It is important to understand that “bilingualism does not change the general profile of language strengths and weaknesses characteristic of DS—most children with DS will have receptive vocabulary strengths and expressive language weaknesses, regardless of whether they are monolingual or bilingual.” (Kay-Raining Bird, 2009, p. 194)
Furthermore, advising a bilingual family to only speak English with a child will cause a number of negative linguistic and psychosocial implications, such as create social isolation from family members who may not speak English well as well as adversely affect parent-child relationships (Portes & Hao, 1998).
Consequently, when preparing to assess linguistic abilities of children with DS we need to first determine whether these children have single or dual language exposure and design assessment procedures accordingly.
Pre-assessment Considerations
It is very important to conduct a parental interview no matter the setting you are performing the assessment in. One of your goals during the interview will be to establish the functional goals the parents’ desire for the child which may not always coincide with the academic expectations of the program in question.
Begin with a detailed case history and review of current records and obtain information about the child’s prenatal, perinatal and postnatal development, medical history as well as the nature of previous assessments and provided related services. Next, obtain a detailed history of the child’s language use by inquiring what languages are spoken by household members and how much time do these people spend with the child?
Choosing Testing Instruments
A balanced assessment will include a variety of methods, including observations of the child as well as direct interactions in the form of standardized, informal and dynamic assessments. If you will be using standardized assessments (e.g., ROWPVT-4) YOU MUST use descriptive measures vs. standardized scores to describe the child’s functioning. The latter is especially applicable to bilingual children with DS. Consider using the following disclaimer: “The following test/s __________were normed on typically developing English speaking children. Testing materials are not available in standardized form for child’s unique developmental and bilingual/bicultural backgrounds. In accordance with IDEA 2004 (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) [20 U.S.C.¤1414(3)],official use of standard scores for this child would be inaccurate and misleading so the results reported are presented in descriptive form. Raw scores are provided here only for comparison with future performance.”
Selecting Standardized Assessments
Depending on the child’s age and level of abilities a variety of assessment measures may be applicable to test the child in the areas of Content (vocabulary), Form (grammar/syntax), and Use(pragmatic language).
For children over 3 years of age whose linguistic abilities are just emerging you may wish to use a vocabulary inventory such as the MacArthur-Bates (also available in other languages) as well as provide parents with the Developmental Scale for Children with Down Syndrome to fill out. This will allow you to compare where child with DS features in their development as compared to typically developing peers. For older, more verbal children who are using words, phrases, and/or sentences to express themselves, you may want to use or adapt (see above) one of the following standardized language tests:
- Preschool Language Assessment Instrument-2 (PLAI-2)
- Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool 2 (CELF-P2)
- Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (ROWPVT)
- Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (EOWPVT)
- Test of Auditory Processing Skills-3 (TAPS-3)
- Narrative Assessment Protocol (NAP)
Informal Assessment Procedures
Depending on your setting (hospital vs. school), you may not perform a detailed assessment of the child’s feeding and swallowing skills. However, it is still important to understand that due to low muscle tone, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal disorders and cardiac issues, children with DSoften present with feeding dysfunction which is further exacerbated by concomitant issues such as obesity, GERD, constipation, malnutrition (restricted food group intake lacking in vitamins and minerals), and fatigue. With respect to swallowing, they may experience abnormalities in both the oral and pharyngeal phases of swallow, as well as present with silent aspiration, due to which instrumental assessment (MBS) may be necessary (Frazer & Friedman, 2006).
In contrast to feeding and swallowing the oral-peripheral assessment can be performed in all settings. When performing oral-peripheral exam, you need to carefully describe all structural (anatomical) and functional (physiological) abnormalities (e.g., macroglossia, micrognathia, prognathism, etc). Note any issues with:
- Dentition (e.g., dental overcrowding, occlusion, etc)
- Tongue/jaw disassociation (ability to separate tongue from jaw when speaking)
- Mouth Posture (open/closed) and tongue positioning at rest (protruding/retracted)
- Control of oral secretions
- Lingual and buccal strength, movement (e.g., lingual protrusion, elevation, lateralization, and depression for volitional tasks) and control
- Mandibular (jaw) strength, stability and grading
Take a careful look at the child’s speech. Perform dual speech sampling (if applicable) by considering the child’s phonetic inventory, syllable lengths and shapes as well as articulatory/phonological error patterns. Make sure to factor in the combined effect of the child’s craniofacial anomalies as well as system wide impairment (disturbances in respiration, voice, articulation, resonance, fluency, and prosody) on conversational intelligibility. Impaired intelligibility is a serious concern for individuals with DS, as it tends to persist throughout life for many of them and significantly interferes with social and vocational pursuits (Kent & Vorperian, 2013)
Don’t forget to assess the child’s voice, fluency, prosody, and resonance. Children with DS may have difficulty maintaining constant airstream for vocal production due to which they may occasionally speak with low vocal volume and breathiness (caused by air loss due to vocal fold hypotonicity). This may be directly targeted in treatment sessions and taught how to compensate for. When assessing resonance make sure to screen the child for hypernasality which may be due to velopharyngeal insufficiency secondary to hypotonicity as well as rule out hyponasality which may be due to enlarged adenoids (Kent & Vorperian, 2013). Furthermore, since stuttering and cluttering occur in children with DS at rates of 10 to 45%, compared to about 1% in the general population, a detailed analysis of disfluencies may be necessary(Kent & Vorperian, 2013). Finally, due to limitations with perception, imitation, and spontaneous production of prosodic features secondary to motor difficulties, motor coordination issues, and segmental errors that impede effective speech production across multisyllabic sequences, the prosody of individuals with DS will be impaired and might require a separate intervention. (Kent & Vorperian, 2013)
When it comes to auditory function, formal hearing testing and retesting is mandatory due to the fact that many children with DS have high prevalence of conductive and sensorineural hearing loss (Park et al, 2012). So if the child in question is not receiving regular follow-ups from the audiologist, it is very important to make the appropriate referral. Similarly, it is also very important that the child’s visual perception is assessed as well since children with DS frequently experience difficulties with vision acuity as well as visual processing, consequentially a consultation with developmental optometrist may be recommended/needed.
Describe in detail the child’s adaptive behavior and learning style, including their social strengths and weaknesses. Observe the child’s eye contact, affect, attention to task, level of distractibility, and socialization patterns. Document the number of redirections and negotiations the child needed to participate as well as types and level of reinforcement used during testing.
Perform dual language sampling and look at functional vocabulary knowledge and use, grammar measures, sentence length, as well as the child’s pragmatic functions (what is the child using his/her language for: request, reject, comment, etc.) Perform a dynamic assessment to determine the child’s learnability (e.g., how quickly does the child learns and adapts to being taught new concepts?) since “even a minimal mediation in the form of ‘focusing’ improves the receptive language performance of children with DS” (Alony & Kozulin, 2007, p 323)
After all the above sections are completed, it is time to move on to the impressions section of the report. While it is important to document the weaknesses exposed by the assessment, it is even more important to document the child’s strengths or all the things the child did well, since this will help you to determine the starting treatment point and allow you to formulate relevant treatment goals.
When making recommendations for treatment, especially for bilingual children with DS, make sure to provide a strong rationale for the provision of services in both languages (if applicable) as well as specify the importance of continued support of the first language in the home.
Finally, make sure to provide targeted and measurable [suggested] treatment goals by breaking the targets into measurable parts:
Given ___time period (1 year, 1 progress reporting period, etc), the student will be able to (insert specific goal) with ___accuracy/trials, given ___ level of, given _____type of prompts.
Assessing communication abilities of children with developmental disabilities may not be easy; however, having the appropriate preparation and training will ensure that you will be well prepared to do the job right! Use multiple tasks and activities to create a balanced assessment, use descriptive measures instead of standard scores to report findings, and most importantly make your assessment functional by making sure that your testing yields relevant diagnostic information which could then be effectively used to provide effective quality treatments for clients with DS!
For comprehensive information on “Comprehensive Assessment of Monolingual and Bilingual Children with Down Syndrome” which discusses how to assess young (birth-early elementary age) verbal and nonverbal monolingual and bilingual children with Down Syndrome (DS) and offers comprehensive examples of write-ups based on real-life clients click HERE.
Other Helpful Resources
Part IV: Components of Comprehensive Dyslexia Testing – Writing and Spelling
Recently I began writing a series of posts on the topic of comprehensive assessment of dyslexia.
In part I of my post (HERE), I discussed common dyslexia myths as well as general language testing as a starting point in the dyslexia testing battery.
In part II (HERE) I detailed the next two steps in dyslexia assessment: phonological awareness and word fluency testing.
In part III (HERE) I discussed reading fluency and reading comprehension testing.
Today I would like to discuss part IV of comprehensive dyslexia assessment, which involves spelling and writing testing.
Spelling errors can tell us a lot about the child’s difficulties, which is why they are an integral component of dyslexia assessment battery. There is a significant number of linguistic skills involved in spelling. Good spellers have well-developed abilities in the following areas (Apel 2006, Masterson 2014, Wasowicz, 2015):
- Phonological Awareness – segmenting, sequencing, identifying and discriminating sounds in words.
- Orthographic Knowledge – knowledge of alphabetic principle, sound-letter relationships; letter patterns and conventional spelling rules
- Vocabulary Knowledge -knowledge of word meanings and how they can affect spelling
- Morphological Knowledge- knowledge of “word parts”: suffixes, prefixes, base words, word roots, etc.; understanding the semantic relationships between base word and related words; knowing how to make appropriate modifications when adding prefixes and suffixes
- Mental Orthographic Images of Words- clear and complete mental representations of words or word parts
By administering and analyzing spelling test results or spelling samples and quizzes, we can determine where students’ deficits lie, and design appropriate interventions to improve knowledge and skills in the affected areas.
While there are a number of spelling assessments currently available on the market I personally prefer that the Test of Written Spelling – 5 (TWS-5) (Larsen, Hammill & Moats, 2013). The TWS-5 can be administered to students 6-18 years of age in about 20 minutes in either individual or group settings. It has two forms, each containing 50 spelling words drawn from eight basal spelling series and graded word lists. You can use the results in several ways: to identify students with significant spelling deficits or to determine progress in spelling as a result of RTI interventions.
Now, lets move on to assessments of writing. Here, we’re looking to assess a number of abilities, which include:
- Mechanics – is there appropriate use of punctuation, capitalization, abbreviations, etc.?
- Grammatical and syntactic complexity – are there word/sentence level errors/omissions? How is the student’s sentence structure?
- Semantic sophistication-use of appropriate vs. immature vocabulary
- Productivity – can the student generate enough paragraphs, sentences, etc. or?
- Cohesion and coherence- Is the writing sample organized? Does it flow smoothly? Does it make sense? Are the topic shifts marked by appropriate transitional words?
- Analysis – can the student edit and revise his writing appropriately?
Again it’s important to note that much like the assessments of reading comprehension there are no specific tests which can assess this area adequately and comprehensively. Here, a combination of standardized tests, informal assessment tasks as well as analysis of the students’ written classroom output is recommended.
For standardized assessment purposes clinicians can select Test of Early Written Language–Third Edition (TEWL–3) or Test of Written Language — Fourth Edition (TOWL-4).
The TEWL-3 for children 4-12 years of age, takes on average 40 minutes to administer (between 30-50 mins.) and examines the following skill areas:
Basic Writing. This subtest consists of 70 items ordered by difficulty, which are scored as 0, 1, or 2. It measures a child’s understanding of language including their metalinguistic knowledge, directionality, organizational structure, awareness of letter features, spelling, capitalization, punctuation, proofing, sentence combining, and logical sentences. It can be administered independently or in conjunction with the Contextual Writing subtest.
Contextual Writing. This subtest consists of 20 items that are scored 0 to 3. Two sets of pictures are provided, one for younger children (ages 5-0 through 6-11) and one for older children (ages 7-0 through 11-11). This subtest measures a child’s ability to construct a story given a picture prompt. It measures story format, cohesion, thematic maturity, ideation, and story structure. It can be administered independently or in conjunction with the Basic Writing subtest.
Overall Writing. This index combines the scores from the Basic Writing and Contextual Writing subtests. It is a measure of the child’s overall writing ability; students who score high on this quotient demonstrate strengths in composition, syntax, mechanics, fluency, cohesion, and the text structure of written language. This score can only be computed if the child completes both subtests and is at least 5 years of age.
The TOWL-4 for students 9-18 years of age, takes between 60-90 minutes to administer (often longer) and examines the following skill areas:
- Vocabulary – The student writes a sentence that incorporates a stimulus word. E.g.: For ran, a student writes, “I ran up the hill.”
- Spelling – The student writes sentences from dictation, making proper use of spelling rules.
- Punctuation – The student writes sentences from dictation, making proper use of punctuation and capitalization rules.
- Logical Sentences – The student edits an illogical sentence so that it makes better sense. E.g.: “John blinked his nose” is changed to “John blinked his eye.”
- Sentence Combining – The student integrates the meaning of several short sentences into one grammatically correct written sentence. E.g.: “John drives fast” is combined with “John has a red car,” making “John drives his red car fast.”
- Contextual Conventions – The student writes a story in response to a stimulus picture. Points are earned for satisfying specific arbitrary requirements relative to orthographic (E.g.: punctuation, spelling) and grammatic conventions (E.g.: sentence construction, noun-verb agreement).
- Story Composition – The student’s story is evaluated relative to the quality of its composition (E.g.: vocabulary, plot, prose, development of characters, and interest to the reader).
It has 3 composites:
- Overall Writing- results of all seven subtests
- Contrived Writing- results of 5 contrived subtests
- Spontaneous Writing-results of 2 spontaneous writing subtests
However, for the purposes of the comprehensive assessment only select portions of the above tests may need be administered since other overlapping areas (e.g., spelling, punctuation, etc.) may have already been assessed by other tests, a analyzed via the review of student’s written classroom assignments or were encompassed by educational testing.
Assessing and Treating Bilinguals Who Stutter: Facts for Bilingual and Monolingual SLPs
Introduction: When it comes to bilingual children who stutter there is still considerable amount of misinformation regarding the best recommendations on assessment and treatment. The aim of this article is to review best practices in assessment and treatment of bilingual children who stutter, to shed some light on this important yet highly misunderstood area in speech-language pathology.
Types of Bilingualism: Young bilingual children can be broadly divided into two categories: those who are learning several languages simultaneously from birth (simultaneous bilingual), and those who begin to learn a second language after two years of age (sequential bilingual) (De Houwer, 2009b). The language milestones for simultaneous bilinguals may be somewhat uneven but they are not that much different from those of monolingual children (De Houwer, 2009a). Namely, first words emerge between 8 and 15 months and early phrase production occurs around +/-20 months of age, with sentence production following thereafter (De Houwer, 2009b). In contrast, sequential bilinguals undergo a number of stages during which they acquire abilities in the second language, which include preproduction, early production, as well as intermediate and advanced proficiency in the second language.
Stuttering and Monolingual Children: With respect to stuttering in the monolingual children we know that there are certain risk factors associated with stuttering. These include family history (family members who stutter), age of onset (children who begin stuttering before the age of three have a greater likelihood of outgrowing stuttering), time since onset (depending on how long the child have been stuttering certain children may outgrow it), gender (research has shown that girls are more likely to outgrow stuttering than boys), presence of other speech/language factors (poor speech intelligibility, advance language skills etc.) (Stuttering Foundation: Risk Factors). We also know that the symptoms of stuttering manifest via sound, syllable and word repetitions, sound prolongations as well as sound and word blocks. In addition to overt stuttering characteristics there could also be secondary characteristics including gaze avoidance, word substitutions, anxiety about speaking, muscle tension in the face, jaw and neck, as well as fist clenching, just to name a few.
Stuttering and Bilingual Children: So what do we currently know regarding the manifestations of stuttering in bilingual children? Here is some information based on existing research. While some researchers believe that stuttering is more common in bilingual versus monolingual individuals, currently there is no data which supports such a hypothesis. The distribution and severity of stuttering tend to differ from language to language and one language is typically affected more than the other (Van Borsel, Maes & Foulon, 2001). Lim and colleagues (2008) found that language dominance influences the severity but not the types of stuttering behaviors. They also found that bilingual stutterers exhibit different stuttering characteristics in both languages such as displaying stuttering on content words in L1 and function words in L2 (less-developed language system). According to Watson & Kayser (1994) key features of ‘true’ stuttering include the presence of stuttering in both languages with accompanying self-awareness as well as secondary behaviors. This is important to understand giving the fact that bilingual children in the process of learning another language may present with pseudo-stuttering characteristics related to word retrieval rather than true stuttering.
Assessment of Bilingual Stutterers: Now let’s talk about aspects of the assessment. Typically assessment should begin with the taking of detailed background history regarding stuttering risk factors, the extent of the child’s exposure and proficiency in each language, age of stuttering onset, the extent of stuttering in each language, as well as presence of any other concomitant concerns regarding the child’s speech and language (e.g., suspicion of language/articulation deficits etc.) Shenker (2013) also recommends the parental use of perceptual rating scales to assess child’s proficiency in each language.
Assessment procedures, especially those for newly referred children (vs. children whose speech and language abilities were previously assessed), should include comprehensive assessments of speech and language in addition to assessment of stuttering in order to rule out any hidden concomitant deficits. It is also important to obtain conversational and narrative samples in each language as well as reading samples when applicable. When analyzing the samples it is very important to understand and make allowance for typical disfluencies (especially when it comes to preschool children) as well as understand the difference between true stuttering and word retrieval deficits (which pertain to linguistic difficulties), which can manifest as fillers, word phrase repetitions, as well as conversational pauses (German, 2005).
When analyzing the child’s conversational speech for dysfluencies it may be helpful to gradually increase linguistic complexity in order to determine at which level (e.g., word, phrase, etc.) dysfluencies take place (Schenker, 2013). To calculate frequency and duration of disfluencies, word-based (vs. syllable-based) counts of stuttering frequency will be more accurate across languages (Bernstein Ratner, 2004).
Finally during the assessment it is also very important to determine the family’s cultural beliefs toward stuttering since stuttering perceptions vary greatly amongst different cultures (Tellis & Tellis, 2003) and may not always be positive. For example, Waheed-Kahn (1998) found that Middle Eastern parents attempted to deal with their children’s stuttering in the following ways: prayed for change, asked them to “speak properly”, completed their sentences, changed their setting by sending them to live with a relative as well as asked them not to talk in public. Gauging familial beliefs toward stuttering will allow clinicians to: understand parental involvement and acceptance of therapy services, select best treatment models for particular clients as well as gain knowledge of how cultural attitudes may impact treatment outcomes (Schenker, 2013).
Image courtesy of mnsu.edu
Treatment of Bilingual Stutterers: With respect to stuttering treatment delivery for bilingual children, research has found that treatment in one language results in spontaneous improvement in fluency in the untreated language (Rousseau, Packman, & Onslow, 2005). This is helpful for monolingual SLPs who often do not have the option of treating clients in their birth language.
For young preschool children both direct and indirect therapy approaches may be utilized.
For example, the Palin (PCI) approach for children 2-7 years of age uses play-based sessions, video feedback, and facilitated discussions to help parents support and increase their child’s fluency. Its primary focus is to modify parent–child interactions via a facilitative rather than an instructive approach by developing and reinforcing parents’ expertise via use of video feedback to set own targets and reinforce progress. In contrast, the Lidcombe Program for children 2-7 years of age is a behavioral treatment with a focus on stuttering elimination. It is administered by the parents under the supervision of an SLP, who teaches the parents how to control the child’s stuttering with verbal response contingent stimulation (Onslow & Millard, 2012). While the Palin PCI approach still requires further research to determine its use with bilingual children, the Lidcombe Program has been trialed in a number of studies with bilingual children and was found to be effective in both languages (Schenker, 2013).
For bilingual school-age children with persistent stuttering, it is important to focus on stuttering management vs. stuttering elimination (Reardon-Reeves & Yaruss, 2013). Here we are looking to reduce frequency and severity of disfluencies, teach the children to successfully manage stuttering moments, as well as work on the student’s emotional attitude toward stuttering. Use of support groups for children who stutter (e.g., “FRIENDS”: http://www.friendswhostutter.org/), may also be recommended.
Depending on the student’s preferences, desires, and needs, the approaches may involve a combination of fluency shaping and stuttering modification techniques. Fluency shaping intervention focuses on increasing fluent speech through teaching methods that reduce speaking rate such as easy onsets, loose contacts, changing breathing, prolonging sounds or words, pausing, etc. The goal of fluency shaping is to “encourage spontaneous fluency where possible and controlled fluency when it is not” (Ramig & Dodge, 2004). In contrast stuttering modification therapy focuses on modifying the severity of stuttering moments as well as on reduction of fear, anxiety and avoidance behaviors associated with stuttering. Stuttering modification techniques are aimed at assisting the client “to confront the stuttering moment through implementation of pre-block, in-block, and/or post-block corrections, as well as through a change in how they perceive the stuttering experience” (Ramig & Dodge, 2004). While studies on these treatment methods are still very limited it is important to note that each technique as well as a combination of both techniques have been trialed and found successful with bilingual and even trilingual speakers (Conture & Curlee, 2007; Howell & Van Borsel, 2011).
Finally, it is very important for clinicians to account for cultural differences during treatment. This can be accomplished by carefully selecting culturally appropriate stimuli, preparing instructions which account for the parents’ language and culture, attempting to provide audio/video examples in the child’s birth language, as well as finding/creating opportunities for practicing fluency in culturally-relevant contexts and activities (Schenker, 2013).
Conclusion: Presently, no evidence has been found that bilingualism causes stuttering. Furthermore, treatment outcomes for bilingual children appear to be comparable to those of monolingual children. Bilingual SLPs encountering bilingual children who stutter are encouraged to provide stuttering treatment in the language the child is most proficient in. Monolingual SLPs encountering bilingual children are encouraged to provide stuttering treatment in English with the expectation that the treatment will carry over into the child’s birth language. All clinicians are encouraged to involve the children’s families in the stuttering treatment as well as utilize methods and interventions that are in agreement with the family’s cultural beliefs and values, in order to create optimum treatment outcomes for bilingual children who stutter.
References:
- Bernstein Ratner, N. (2004). Fluency and stuttering in bilingual children. In B. Goldstein (ed.). Language Development: a focus on the Spanish-English speaker. Baltimore, MD: Brookes. (287-310).
- Conture, E. G., & Curlee, R. F. (2007). Stuttering and related disorders of fl uency. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publishers.
- De Houwer, A. (2009a). Bilingual first language acquisition. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
- De Houwer, A. (2009b). Assessing lexical development in bilingual first language acquisition: What can we learn from monolingual norms? In M. Cruz-Ferreira (Ed.), Multilingual norms (pp. 279-322). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
- German, D.J. (2005) Word-Finding Intervention Program, Second Edition (WFIP-2)Austin Texas: Pro.Ed
- Howell, P & Van Borsel, , (2011). Multicultural Aspects of Fluency Disorders, Multilingual Matters, Bristol, UK.
- Lim, V. P. C., Rickard Liow, S. J., Lincoln, M., Chan, Y. H., & Onslow, M. (2008). Determining language dominance in English–Mandarin bilinguals: Development of a selfreport classification tool for clinical use. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29, 389–412.
- Onslow M, Millard S. (2012). Palin Parent Child Interaction and the Lidcombe Program: Clarifying some issues. Journal of Fluency Disorders37(1 ):1-8.
- Tellis, G. & Tellis, C. (2003). Multicultural issues in school settings. Seminars in Speech and Language, 24, 21-26.
- Ramig, P. R., & Dodge, D. (2004, September 08). Fluency shaping intervention: Helpful, but why it is important to know more. Retrieved from http://www.mnsu.edu/comdis/isad7/papers/ramig7.html
- Reardon-Reeves, N., & Yaruss, J.S. (2013). School-age Stuttering Therapy: A Practical Guide. McKinney, TX: Stuttering Therapy Resources, Inc.
- Rousseau, I., Packman, A., & Onslow, M. (2005, June). A trial of the Lidcombe Program with school age stuttering children. Paper presented at the Speech Pathology National Conference, Canberra, Australia.
- Shenker, R. C. (2013). Bilingual myth-busters series. When young children who stutter are also bilingual: Some thoughts about assessment and treatment. Perspectives on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD) Populations, 20(1), 15-23.
- Stuttering Foundation website: Stuttering Risk Factors http://www.stutteringhelp.org/risk-factors
- Van Borsel, J. Maes, E., & Foulon, S. (2001). Stuttering and bilingualism: A review. Journal of Fluency Disorders, 26, 179-205.
- Waheed-Kahn, N. (1998). Fluency therapy with multilingual clients. In Healey, E. C. & Peters, H. F. M. (Eds.),Proceedings of the Second World Congress on Fluency Disorders, San Francisco, August 18. 22(pp. 195–199). Nijmegen, The Netherlands: Nijmegen University Press.
- Watson, J., & Kayser, H. (1994). Assessment of bilingual/bicultural adults who stutter. Seminars in Speech and Language, 15, 149-163.
Part III: Components of Comprehensive Dyslexia Testing – Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension
Recently I began writing a series of posts on the topic of comprehensive assessment of dyslexia.
In part I of my post (HERE), I discussed common dyslexia myths as well as general language testing as a starting point in the dyslexia testing battery.
In part II I detailed the next two steps in dyslexia assessment: phonological awareness and word fluency testing (HERE).
Today I would like to discuss part III of comprehensive dyslexia assessment, which discusses reading fluency and reading comprehension testing.
Let’s begin with reading fluency testing, which assesses the students’ ability to read word lists or short paragraphs with appropriate speed and accuracy. Here we are looking for how many words the student can accurately read per minute orally and/or silently (see several examples of fluency rates below).
Research indicates that oral reading fluency (ORF) on passages is more strongly related to reading comprehension than ORF on word lists. This is an important factor which needs to be considered when it comes to oral fluency test selection.
Oral reading fluency tests are significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, they allow us to identify students with impaired reading accuracy. Secondly, they allow us to identify students who can decode words with relative accuracy but who cannot comprehend what they read due to significantly decreased reading speed. When you ask such children: “What did you read about?” They will frequently respond: “I don’t remember because I was so focused on reading the words correctly.”
One example of a popular oral reading fluency test (employing reading passages) is the Gray Oral Reading Tests-5 (GORT-5). It yields the scores on the student’s:
- Rate
- Accuracy
- Fluency
- Comprehension
- Oral Reading Index (a composite score based on Fluency and Comprehension scaled scores)
Another types of reading fluency tests are tests of silent reading fluency. Assessments of silent reading fluency can at selectively useful for identifying older students with reading difficulties and monitoring their progress. One obvious advantage to silent reading tests is that they can be administered in group setting to multiple students at once and generally takes just few minutes to administer, which is significantly less then oral reading measures take to be administered to individual students.
Below are a several examples of silent reading tests/subtests.
The Test of Silent Word Reading Fluency (TOSWRF-2) presents students with rows of words, ordered by reading difficulty without spaces (e.g., dimhowfigblue). Students are given 3 minutes to draw a line between the boundaries of as many words as possible (e.g., dim/how/fig/blue).
The Test of Silent Contextual Reading Fluency (TOSCRF-2) presents students with text passages with all words printed in uppercase letters with no separations between words and no punctuation or spaces between sentences and asks them to use dashes to separate words in a 3 minute period.
Similar to the TOSCRF-2, the Contextual Fluency subtest of the Test of Reading Comprehension – Fourth Edition (TORC-4) measures the student’s ability to recognize individual words in a series of passages (taken from the TORC-4′s Text Comprehension subtest) in a period of 3 minutes. Each passage, printed in uppercase letters without punctuation or spaces between words, becomes progressively more difficult in content, vocabulary, and grammar. As students read the segments, they draw a line between as many words as they can in the time allotted. (E.g., THE|LITTLE|DOG|JUMPED|HIGH)
However, it is important to note oral reading fluency is a better predictor of reading comprehension than is silent reading fluency for younger students (early elementary age). In contrast, silent reading measures are more strongly related to reading comprehension in middle school (e.g., grades 6-8) but only for skilled vs. average readers, which is why oral reading fluency measures are probably much better predictors of deficits in this area in children with suspected reading disabilities.
Now let’s move on to the reading comprehension testing, which is an integral component for any dyslexia testing battery. Unfortunately, it is also the most trickiest. Here’s why.
Many children with reading difficulties will be able to read and comprehend short paragraphs containing factual information of decreased complexity. However, this will change dramatically when it comes to the comprehension of longer, more complex, and increasingly abstract age-level text. While a number of tests do assess reading comprehension, none of them truly adequately assess the students ability to comprehend abstract information.
For example, on the Reading Comprehension subtest of the CELF-5, students are allowed to keep the text and refer to it when answering questions. Such option will inflate the students scores and not provide an accurate idea of their comprehension abilities.
To continue, the GORT-5 contains reading comprehension passages, which the students need to answer after the stimuli booklet has been removed from them. However, the passages are far more simplistic then the academic texts the students need to comprehend on daily basis, so the students may do well on this test yet still continue to present with significant comprehension deficits.
Similar could be said for the text comprehension components of major educational testing batteries such as the Woodcock Johnson IV: Passage Comprehension subtest, which gives the student sentences with a missing word, and the student is asked to orally provide the word. However, filling-in a missing word does not text comprehension make.
Likewise, the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test®-Fourth Edition (WIAT-IV), Reading Comprehension subtest is very similar to the CELF-5. Student is asked to read a passage and answer questions by referring back to the text. However, just because a student can look up the answers in text does not mean that they actually understand the text.
So what could be done to accurately assess the student’s ability to comprehend abstract grade level text? My recommendation is to go informal. Select grade-level passages from the student’s curriculum pertaining to science, social studies, geography, etc. vs. language arts (which tends to be more simplistic) and ask the student to read them and answer factual questions regarding supporting details as well as non factual questions relevant to main ideas and implied messages.
That’s it for today’s post! Click (HERE) for part IV of this series which will discuss components of Writing and Spelling testing.
Part II: Components of Comprehensive Dyslexia Testing – Phonological Awareness and Word Fluency Assessment
A few days ago I posted my first installment in the comprehensive assessment of dyslexia series, discussing common dyslexia myths as well as general language testing as a starting point in the dyslexia testing battery. (You can find this post HERE).
Today I would like to discuss the next two steps in dyslexia assessment, which are phonological awareness and word fluency testing.
Let’s begin with phonological awareness (PA). Phonological awareness is a precursor to emergent reading. It allows children to understand and manipulate sounds in order to form or breakdown words. It’s one of those interesting types of knowledge, which is a prerequisite to everything and is definitive of nothing. I like to compare it to taking a statistics course in college. You need it as a prerequisite to entering a graduate speech pathology program but just because you successfully complete it does not mean that you will graduate the program. Similarly, the children need to have phonological awareness mastery in order to move on and build upon existing skills to become emergent readers, however, simply having this mastery does not a good reader make (hence this is only one of the tests in dyslexia battery).
When a child has poor phonological awareness for his/her age it is a red flag for reading disabilities. Thus it is very important to assess the child’s ability to successfully manipulate sounds (e.g., by isolating, segmenting, blending, etc.,) in order to produce real or nonsense words.
Why are nonsense words important?
According to Shaywitz (2003), “The ability to read nonsense words is the best measure of phonological decoding skill in children.” (p. 133-134) Being able to decode and manipulate (blend, segment, etc.) nonsense words is a good indication that the child is acquiring comprehension of the alphabetic principle (understands sound letter correspondence or what common sounds are made by specific letters). It is a very important part of a dyslexia battery since nonsense words cannot be memorized or guessed but need to be “truly decoded.”
While a number of standardized tests assess phonological awareness skills, my personal preference is the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing-2 (CTOPP-2), which assesses the following areas:
- Phonological Segmentation
- Blending Words
- Sound Matching
- Initial, Medial and Final Phoneme Isolation
- Blending Nonwords
- Segmenting Nonwords
- Memory for Digits
- Nonword Repetition
- Rapid Digit Naming
- Rapid Letter Naming
- Rapid Color Naming
- Rapid Object Naming
As you can see from above description, it not only assesses the children’s ability to manipulate real words but also their ability to manipulate nonsense words. It also assesses word fluency skills via a host of rapid naming tasks, so it’s a very convenient tool to have as part of your dyslexia testing battery.
This brings us to another integral part of the dyslexia testing battery which is word fluency testing (WF). During word fluency tasks a child is asked to rapidly generate words on a particular topic given timed constraints (e.g., name as many animals as you can in 1 minute, etc.). We test this rapid naming ability because we want to see how quickly and accurately the child can process information. This ability is very much needed to become a fluent reader.
Poor readers can name a number of items but they may not be able to efficiently categorize these words. Furthermore, they will produce the items with a significantly decreased processing speed as compared to good readers. Decreased word fluency is a significant indicator of reading deficits. It is frequently observable in children with reading disabilities when they encounter a text with which they lack familiarity. That is why this ability is very important to test.
Several tests can be used for this purpose including CTOPP-2 and Rapid Automatized Naming and Rapid Alternating Stimulus Test (RAN/RAS) just to name a few. However, since CTOPP-2 already has a number of subtests which deal with testing this skill, I prefer to use it to test both phonological awareness and word fluency.
Read part III of this series which discusses components of Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension testing HERE.