Book Quiz - A & E

According to Barragan et al, what is considered the “gold standard” for evaluating productive language use and identifying LI in children who speak one or more languages?

spontaneous Language sample analyses

What is the impact of the Barragan et al finding that 53% of the children in this study (Spanish-English bilingual students who do not have a language disorder and who are from lower socio-economic backgrounds in all-English classrooms) scored below 85 on the CELF-4S core language score? 

The impact is that more than half of these students could be over-identified as presenting with a language impairment (LI) because the CLEF-4S cut-off score is 1 SD below the mean (-1.0 SD).

Even though it has a strong sensitivity of 93%, there is an acceptable specificity of 65%, leading to the over identification.

What about when Barragan et al used  −1.5 SD below the mean where 33% of the children scored as if they had a language disorder?

Using the cut-off score of 1.5 SD below the mean (-1.5 SD) lead to a more accurate identification of language impairments (LI) in Spanish-English bilingual students. With a better balance between the sensitivity and specificity.

And the specificity increased to 80%

After the Barragan et al article came out clinicians should know that the CELF4-Spanish should not be used to identify a language disorder for Spanish-English bilingual students from lower socio-economic backgrounds in all-English classrooms. Why?

The CELF-4S should not be used to identify a language disorder for these students because its a not an accurate representation for this particular population (the norm of the assessment followed children with higher exposure to Spanish than typical English-Spanish bilinguals) leading to misidentification of language disorders in about half of the children in the study.

Considering the Nair article, why would a school district like the NYC DOE continue to use the CELF-4Spanish to identify a language disorder in their speech-language evaluations when the vast majority of their Spanish-English bilingual students are in all-English classrooms and are from lower socio-economic backgrounds? 

According to the Nair Article, the NYC DOE continues to use CELF-4Spanish to identify a language disorder because it can efficiently separate students into “deficit” and “typical” with measurable data.

Name several ways Health discusses in which the Trackton and Roadville children were exposed to bookreading and/or storytelling which were different from those from Maintown back.

Maintown

1. made a pro-literate environment from a young age (bookcases and decorated rooms with book characters)

2. adults encourage exploration and asking questions throughout storytelling and outside of it (dialogue storytelling)

3. adults expand child’s questions and correct through nonverbal responses and vocalizations to grammatical sentences

4. children are able to relate events or objects from real-life to books (and vice-versa)

5. children are motivated to use their imaginations

6. children view books and book-related activities as entertainment

7. adults use other objects, similar to books, asking questions and label them

8. put no restrictions on books only emphasized taking good care of books

9. adults are pro-books, use them for later academic success and independent entertainment for their children

Roadville

1. made a pro-literate and colorful environment (focus on nursery rhymes and biblical stories)

2. reading and reading-related activities were encouraged

3. children were discouraged from asking questions, view them as interruptions

4. parents only ask questions to test their knowledge on books

5. parents struggle to explain advanced concepts to children and children tend to not ask for clarification

6. focus on labeling decontextualized objects (but not labeling their features)

7. books and book-related activities as instructional

8. adults prefer reality over fiction, viewing fiction stories like lies if they dont come from book retellings

Trackton

1. Little emphasis on book reading with young children and they aren’t used for language learning

1. Very “human” environment, always surrounded by parents and other people

2. They are always surrounded by verbal and nonverbal communication (quick to tell shifts in emotions)

3. adults view cooing or babbling as “just noise” and don’t try and interpret babies attempts at communication

4. babies tend to play with safe household items

5. as they get older, only request electronic toys from TV but not manipulative toys (puzzles, blocks) or literacy-based toys (books)

6. there is no reading materials made especially for children and adults don’t read to children either

7. children learn to speak by imitating the adults around them and later participating in social interactions

8. children are not asked “what-explanations” but instead asked analogical questions about different things

9. storytelling is typically oral, performative, and emotionally-driven with emphasis on sound effects. They are usually co-constructed and focused on social engagement rather linear plot structure.

10. adults do not simplify their language or point de-contextlized objects in their environment

How might the differences in exposure to bookreading and/or storytelling have on school performance for children from Trackton, Roadville, or Maintown? 

Differences in book reading/storytelling will lead to better school performance for children from Maintown compared to Trackton and Roadville.

Maintown

Maintown children are exposed to books at a young age which prepares them for literacy skills necessary at school

• ex: asking questions, summarizing the plot/characters of books

They are encouraged to ask questions and relate books to real life which lead to later reading comprehension and independent thinking skills

Roadville

Children tend to do well in early education as they are able to label object correctly and explain the plot of a story or identify certain words/items in a story

However they struggle with advanced or independent thinking (including emotional or personal comments of real events or books) and constantly ask the teacher for help

As they are used to decontextualized objects, the struggle to relate one context and shift it to another. Or point out similarities and differences in items or events

Overall, they are good at following orders and adhering to social norms that make them a good student until they reach the 4th grade. Afterwards, the frequency of questions and reading habits decreases overtime.

Trackton

Children already struggled because they are unfamiliar with “what-explanations” and struggle to label features of an object. They do worse in reading tests

They struggle to follow social norms at school and only imitate sound effects when teachers read to them

Overtime, only a few will adapt to the things they learn in school and the majority will struggle to understand the contents of their lessons and social rules at school.

• poor writing and comprehension skills

• typically have poor/failing grades and lose focus on school

Many SLPs look for story grammar narratives from students to identify a language disorder. Based on the Heath chapter, give three reasons why this might be misguided and discriminatory.

1. Cultural/societal context matter and alter how children view storytelling so story grammar is not universal

2. Story grammar narratives typically correlate with academic expectations rather than language competence so students who aren’t taught book-based storytelling end up falling behind and being misdiagnosed with language disorder

3. In all the communities shown in the Heath chapter, children show equal interest in storytelling which show typical language and communication development. Even though, the Trackton and Roadville children performed poorly in school they still had language skills.

In Spaulding, Plante and Farinella (2006), What do they mean by arbitrary cut off points in state regulations? 

These cut-off points are used to determine if a child has a language impairment and qualifies for services based on the results of standardized testing. They are arbitrary because they vary based on the state from -1.5 to -2.

Why is this a problem? 

This is an issue because not all children with language impairments score above these cut-off points which leads to under-diagnosis and not receiving the proper services

AND some typically developed children will score below this cut-off point lead to over-diagnosis and receiving services they dont need

What do Hendricks and Adlof mean by “the CELF4 scoring modifications?

They are modifications created to ensure that scoring does not penalize a child for grammatical responses in their dialect.

They are made to limit biases and reduce the misdiagnosis in children from nonmainstream dialect (NMAE) communities, like African American English (AAE).

What happens to the sensitivity of the CELF4 when scoring modifications are used for students who are speakers of African American English (AAE)?

The sensitivity reduced to 64% when scoring modifications were used in the CELF4 vs the 88% in the unmodified version.

This means that the modifications had a higher false negative rate

What happens to the specificity of the CEFL4 when scoring modifications are not used in calculating the scores for students who are speakers of AAE?

The specificity is 48% with the unmodified version, leading to a high false positive rate.

What is Nair et al’s point of view about why SLPs use standardized tests to identify language disorders? 

Nair et al’s point of view is that SLPs use standardized tests to “uphold standard language ideologies” which promotes the economic growth of the testing and industry while stigmatizing marginalized communities.

Do you agree with their point of view on why SLPs use standardized tests to identify language disorders? Why or why not? 

I do agree with Nair’s point that standardized test are used by industries to gain mass profit at the expense of misdiagnosing children from minority groups. I also agree that the general SLP community has also assisted in promoting this ideology. However, I don’t think the individual SLP has this idea in their heads explicitly. Like other implicit biases, we decide to contain to use standardized tests because its “easier” or “faster” to assess children and because we don’t know anything else that is different. As we moved up the educational system, we grew up taking these tests as well so they have become so normalized that it’s difficult to think of anything different.

What does Nair et al mean by “standardized testing upholds standard language ideologies”? How does this relate to the Hendricks and Adlof findings? 

Nair et al. means that standardized testing are used to bolster mainstream westernized languages, like mainstream English in the United States, while oppressing dialects from marginalized communities.

This relates to Hendricks and Adlof’s findings because they discovered that cut-off scores in the CELF exam lead to misdiagnosis in AAE speakers because it was created to penalize their dialectal grammatical style.

Why do you think many SLPs and SLP masters and undergrad program promote the use of standardized language tests based on a national norm given, as Nair et al state, it is a “racist practice that deliberately oppresses minoritized communities for economic profit”?

Do you agree with their point of view? Why or why not?