Tammie J Spaulding1. 1. University of Connecticut, Department of Communication Sciences, CT 06269, United States. tammie.spaulding@uconn.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the consistency in severity classifications for children with language impairment on tests of child language. METHODS: The TELD-3 and the UTLD-4 were administered to 16 preschool children with specific language impairment (SLI) and 16 typical controls. The boundaries described in the test manuals were used to assign language proficiency ratings to these children and to subsequently evaluate the consistency in these designations. RESULTS: Performance categories were more consistent for the typical children than for the children with SLI. When evaluating how children perform on the two tests, the severity category remained consistent for only 19% of the children with SLI when using the severity category boundaries recommended within the test manuals. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be cautious in assigning severity of impairment classifications to children with language impairment based, in part or in whole, on their performance on norm-referenced tests. LEARNING OUTCOMES: Readers will see the importance of relying on empirical evidence to support their clinical decisions, specifically in the area of severity of impairment determinations. Readers will learn of the lack of stability in severity of language impairment classifications for children with language impairment on tests of child language. Consequently, readers will learn to be cautious in the selection of norm-referenced tests of child language for the purposes of informing severity of impairment determinations.
PURPOSE: This study evaluated the consistency in severity classifications for children with language impairment on tests of child language. METHODS: The TELD-3 and the UTLD-4 were administered to 16 preschool children with specific language impairment (SLI) and 16 typical controls. The boundaries described in the test manuals were used to assign language proficiency ratings to these children and to subsequently evaluate the consistency in these designations. RESULTS: Performance categories were more consistent for the typical children than for the children with SLI. When evaluating how children perform on the two tests, the severity category remained consistent for only 19% of the children with SLI when using the severity category boundaries recommended within the test manuals. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be cautious in assigning severity of impairment classifications to children with language impairment based, in part or in whole, on their performance on norm-referenced tests. LEARNING OUTCOMES: Readers will see the importance of relying on empirical evidence to support their clinical decisions, specifically in the area of severity of impairment determinations. Readers will learn of the lack of stability in severity of language impairment classifications for children with language impairment on tests of child language. Consequently, readers will learn to be cautious in the selection of norm-referenced tests of child language for the purposes of informing severity of impairment determinations.