There are a number of reasons to assess a child’s language. The first is to identify children with language disorders. A second reason to assess language is to establish a baseline for the child’s language skills. A third reason is to measures change in the child’s language abilities from baseline. The assessment process enables the speech-language pathologist (SLP) to determine the existence of a problem, establish the causal-related factors, and develop intervention plan (Owens, 2014). Prior to conducting a full assessment, screenings typically are performed.

Screening

The purpose of screening is to determine the need for further assessment. Screenings can include language sampling or other informal measures. There are also standardized screeners. The Children’s Communication Checklist—2 US Edition (Bishop, 2006) is an example of a parent-report measure that assesses a variety of communication behaviors, normed for children aged four through 16 years of age. The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Fifth Edition Screening Test (Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2013) is a direct assessment of the child, and provides norms for ages five through 21 years of age.

Researchers have endeavored to find phenotypic markers of language disorder. Discovery of such markers could lead to the development of accurate screening measures. Tense-marking (Conti-Ramsden, 2003; Falcaro et al., 2008; Rice & Wexler, 1996), non-word repetition (Conti-Ramsden, 2003, Conti-Ramsden, Botting, & Faragher, 2001; Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990), and sentence repetition (Archibald & Joanisse, 2009; Conti-Ramsden et al., 2001) have been identified as potential markers of language disorder. Administering measures that evaluate these constructs could provide valuable information regarding the need for further assessment of language.

Most school districts screen all kindergarten students, and many screen all students new to the district, regardless of grade at district entry. These practices are ideal in order to ensure that children with communication disorders are identified. Although speech sound disorders are often, though not always, readily identifiable by individuals outside the field of speech-language pathology, language disorders often go undetected. Some individuals may hold the erroneous belief that if a child has not been identified as having a language disorder in the early elementary years, the child does not have a language disorder. This is a dangerous assumption that could lead to children “falling through the cracks” and not receiving the services they need to achieve academic and social success. As the language demands of the classroom increase with each subsequent grade level, some students who were able to “squeak by” at earlier educational levels begin to demonstrate difficulty. Thus, screening is necessary beyond kindergarten entry in order to ensure that children needing services are identified.

Integrated Functional Assessment

Owens (2014) describes the integrated functional assessment. This framework utilizes a multi-informant approach in a variety of contexts. Child variables to consider in designing an integrated functional assessment include the child’s chronological and functional age; background information, such as vision, hearing, health, and development; cultural and linguistic background, cognition, interests, activity level, and ability to attend to the assessment measures. The integrated functional assessment is comprised of the following components: questionnaire, interview, and referral; observation; formal testing; and language sampling. Each of these components will be addressed in turn in the chapters in this section.

The integrated functional assessment framework dovetails with the converging evidence approach (Castilla-Earls et al., 2020), described in the chapter of this text that discussed assessment of the language of bilingual children. The converging evidence approach includes observation, parent and teacher ratings, standardized testing, and language sample analysis. The overlap between these two approaches highlights the importance of conducting a multifaceted assessment comprised of data from multiple sources. Best practices for students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds typically can be applied to children from the majority culture.

References

Archibald, L. M., & Joanisse, M. F. (2009). On the sensitivity and specificity of nonword repetition and sentence recall tolanguage and memory impairments in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 899-914.

Bishop, D. V. M. (2006). Children’s communication checklist – 2. Pearson.

Castilla-Earls, A., Bedore, L., Rojas, R., Fabiano-Smith, L., Pruitt-Lord, S., Restrepo, M. A., & Peña, E. (2020). Beyond scores: Using converging evidence to determine speech and language services eligibility for dual language learners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(3), 1116-1132.

Conti-Ramsden, G. (2003). Processing and linguistic markers in young children with specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 46(5), 1029-1037.

Conti‐Ramsden, G., Botting, N., & Faragher, B. (2001). Psycholinguistic markers for specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 42(6), 741-748.

Dollaghan, C., & Campbell, T. F. (1998). Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 41, 1136–1146.

Falcaro, M., Pickles, A., Newbury, D. F., Addis, L., Banfield, E., Fisher, S. E., Monaco, A.P., Simkin, Z., Conti-Ramsden, G., & SLI Consortium. (2008). Genetic and phenotypic effects of phonological short‐term memory and grammatical morphology in specific language impairment. Genes, Brain and Behavior, 7(4), 393-402.

Gathercole, S., & Baddeley, A. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336–360.

Owens, R.E. (2014). Language disorders: A functional approach to assessment and intervention. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Allyn & Bacon.

Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E. M. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fifth Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.