Introduction
Identification of language impairment in bilingual children requires two different assessment versions for each spoken language. The assessment process in bilingual children is complicated by the lack of available standardized tools which can provide reliable results (Bedore & Peña, 2008). Adaptation or translation of one test to another language was common in traditional practice. However, Pascoe and Norman suggested that developing new assessment methods is easier and more ethically correct than adapting existing assessments by addressing the differences in locations, languages, and cultures (as cited in McLead et al., 2017, p. 695). The increase in the population’s diversity emphasizes the difference between learning styles and values, signaling the need for more innovative assessment approaches and strategies to address cultural differences (Nellum Davis & Banks, 2012). Some newly developed tools feature different versions of tests and measures in two languages to provide more accurate results for assessing language impairment in bilingual children. This essay will compare and contrast the differences between different language versions of such tools using the example of a language sample analysis tool.
Discussion
Firstly, in order to ensure acquiring more useful information about the differences between different language versions of assessment tools, it is necessary to define the most suitable type of assessment tool for bilingual children. The language sampling analysis tool uses language sampling, which focuses on the collection and transcription of language, but provides more information about an individual’s language abilities. Language sampling is more flexible and informal than standardized testing, implying that the sampling results will be more reliable.
Next, in assessing language impairments in bilingual children, the language sampling analysis as a criterion-referenced measure is more ethically correct and flexible than standardized tests. Several measures in the language sampling assessment tool can signal language impairments in bilingual children and eliminate potential errors by comparing their skills across different languages (Ebert, 2020). Language sampling tool allows speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to use materials more familiar to culturally diverse children than standardized tests, eliminating cultural bias (Mercier, n.d.). In addition, bilingual children tend to code-switching, which occurs when a child switches to another language in the same sentence to use a specific word or phrase. Code-switching in standardized tests targeted at monolingual speakers could indicate language impairments, but language sample analysis does not consider code-switching as an error.
Implementation of a language sampling analysis tool requires a range of associated measures. Firstly, the administration requires parental consent for the assessment. In the Spanish version, the assessment requires confirmation of the child’s bilingual status through a report from parents and teachers. Next, in both versions of the tool, the analysis requires collecting samples from child’s storytelling or retelling and conversation with SLP. Depending on SLP’s background, the Spanish version of the assessment can include help from interpreters of native speakers trained to administer the assessment. The use of stimuli is encouraged in the conversation part in both versions of the assessment tool. The stimuli can include prompts or questions to lead the conversation and increase the chances of observing a child’s use of more complex language for explanations or storytelling.
After the collection of the samples is complete, the SLP transcribes the samples. The results of the transcribed samples include such items as the total number of utterances, mean length of utterance, number of morphemes, words, and questions, and percentage data of grammatically correct and incorrect utterances. The English version of the assessment can include additional items that identify the presence of key structures, such as pronouns, verbs, and plurals, and estimated vocabulary size.
Thus, comparing the items used in different language versions of the assessment determined that there are slightly more administrative complications added to the Spanish version. Furthermore, depending on SLP’s language knowledge background, the assessment of the Spanish version can involve additional assistance from native speakers. In the case where assessment requires additional help in interpretation, the transcription process will depend on the SLP’s knowledge of phonology. In order to ease the transcription process in such cases, the experts suggest using additional help in the form of audio and video recordings of the assessment (McLeod et al., 2017). The comparison identified that language sampling analysis could be more informative in the English version as it utilizes more items connected with the use of syntax and semantics. Perhaps, the integration of more items from the Spanish language can equalize the informativeness of the two versions of the assessment tool.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper explored the complexities of identifying language impairments in bilingual children. The paper determined that despite the rising diversity of the population, there is a lack of a standardized assessment of bilingual children. The language sampling analysis tool is more applicable for use in diverse populations because it allows SLPs to address cultural differences and eliminate biases in the assessment. However, the different language versions of the same tool use different analysis items, which can negatively influence the results. Furthermore, the assessment can be limited by SLP’s language proficiency or interpreters’ availability. Thus, while there is progress from the use of adaptations of standardized assessments, more reliable results require additional resources and the development of additional analysis items in different languages.
References
Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice.The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 1-29. Web.
Ebert, K. D. (2020). Language sample analysis with bilingual children.Topics in Language Disorders, 40(2), 182–201. Web.
McLeod, S., Verdon, S., Baker, E., Ball, M. J., Ballard, E., David, A. B., Bernhardt, Berube, D., Blumenthal, M., Bowen, C., Brosseau-Lapré, F., Bunta, F., Crowe, K., Cruz-Ferrerira, M., Davis, B., Fox-Boyer, A., Gildersleeve-Neumann, C., Grech, H., Goldstein, B., … The International Expert Panel on Multilingual Children’s Speech. (2017). Tutorial: Speech assessment for multilingual children who do not speak the same language(s) as the speech-language pathologist.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 26(3), 691-708. Web.
Mercier, M. (n.d.) A resource and informational toolkit for speech-language pathologists working with bilingual children. Web.
Nellum Davis, P., & Banks, T. (2012). Intervention for multicultural and international clients with communication disorders. In D. E. Battle (Ed.), Communication disorders in multicultural populations (pp. 279-296). Butterworth-Heinemann.