bilingual evaluations: writing the fie report for bilingual students

Bilingual Evaluations: Writing the FIE report for Bilingual Students

Ellen Kester, Ph.D., CCC-SLPScott Prath, M.A., CCC-SLP

Region 13 Education Service CenterAugust 2013

Components of the FIE ReportTypical Affected by Language&Culture

• Reason for Referral• Sources of Information• Physical Abilities• Emotional/Behavioral• Cognitive/Adaptive Behavior• Behavior During Evaluation

• Background Information• Sociological• Language History• Assessment

Procedures/Personnel• Test Results• Speech• Language• Academic

Background Information• Age• Gender• Grade• Language(s)• Educational Placement (ESL- bilingual)• School• Medical History• Parent Concern• Teacher Concern• Observation Information

Sociological • Who does the child live with?• What are the ages of siblings?• What languages are spoken in the home?• Have there been any significant life changes in

the past three years▫ Divorce▫ Moves▫ Death of friends/family members▫ Birth of siblings▫ Recent immigrant▫ High family mobility▫ School attendance

Academic

• Language of instruction is a critical component of this section for ELLs.

• Specify language of reading and writing concerns.

Language History

• Details from your thorough language history form/interview

• Details of educational language environment▫ ESL Assessment Results▫ Educational Program ESL Transitional Bilingual Early Exit Transitional Bilingual Dual Language English

Do you need Continuing Education or want to listen to this course live?

Click here to visit the online courses.

http://bilinguistics.com/online-continuing-education-courses/

Assessment Procedures/Personnel

• Who completed the evaluation• In what languages was evaluation completed• Standard procedures or not• Modifications that were used▫ Additional Repetitions▫ Additional Response Time▫ Visual support

Assessment Procedures/Personnel• The Speech and Language assessment was

completed in both English and Spanish by a bilingual speech-language pathologist. Standard evaluation procedures were used during formal testing.

• OR Parent/Other served as interpreter for the evaluation and standard evaluation procedures were not used.

Assessment Procedures/Personnel• A note regarding the bilingual assessment framework: The

primary reason for referral was to rule-out an underlying disorder in communication abilities. When a child is exposed to two languages, this is investigated using a “difference vs. disorder” approach. Specifically, assessment data is obtained in both languages of exposure. Any noted errors or differences in communication skills are then analyzed and assigned to three main categories: 1) errors appropriate for the child’s age (developmental errors); 2) errors attributed to the interaction between the two languages spoken (cross-linguistic influence); and 3) atypical errors.

Assessment Procedures/Personnel• Formal testing was conducted in ?? based on a history of

exposure to ?? and ?? skills were probed informally. • OR Based on the findings of informal probes in English and

parental report that ?? is only exposed to and only uses Spanish, formal English testing was not indicated for the purposes of assessing ?? underlying language skills.

• OR Formal testing was conducted in English, however, as the student is not represented in the normative sample, standardized scores are not valid and not reported here. Qualitative information from the administration of the English test is included below in a discussion of <Student>’s strengths and weaknesses.

Strengths and Weaknesses

Formal and Informal Results

Content, Form, and Use

Spanish and English

Receptive and Expressive

All of the documents and charts in this presentation can be downloaded from our Free Resource Library.

Click here to visit the Resource Library

http://bilinguistics.com/speech-therapy-materials/

Test Results

• Chart• We always attempt formal testing in both

languages if it seems feasible.• Do we include English scores????

Receptive Language Skills

• Assessment statement.• Scores on Formal Measures• Statements of consistency between test results

and parent concern, teacher concern, informal measures, and dynamic assessment.

• Areas of Strength• Areas of Need

Receptive Language Skills• <<Student>> demonstrated receptive language skills that were

within normal limits/impaired. He/She obtained a standard score of XX on the receptive language portion of the English/Spanish tests, placing him/her in the Xth percentile relative to children of his age and language background. Performance on Spanish testing was significantly higher than performance on English testing. This suggests lower proficiency in English and indicates that Spanish scores are a better reflection of current receptive language abilities. Informal measures were/were not consistent with results from formal assessments and were indicative of normal language learning/an impairment. Dynamic assessment results did/did not support these findings. Overall, the conclusions of this evaluation were consistent/inconsistent with parent and teacher concerns.

Areas of Strength - Receptive

• Content▫ Formal

testing Spanish English

▫ Informal measures Spanish English

• Form▫ Formal



• Relative strengths in Student’s receptive language skills were noted in his ability to follow directions that included the concepts of inclusion and exclusion (e.g. todos…menos/all…except) and location (e.g. dentro/in). Student also demonstrated an understanding of a variety of sentence types, including negation, modifers, prepositional phrases, interrogatives, and direct and indirect requests. He understood a variety of verb tenses, including the past perfect, infinitive, and the present progressive. In the area of semantics, or word meanings, Student demonstrated an understanding of a variety of word relationships, including items that belong in the same category, part-whole relationships, an item and the material it is made of, and items with the same functions. Student listened to a story and was asked questions about it. He demonstrated good understanding of the story and was able to correctly answer “Who,” “What,” “When,” and “Where” questions following the story.

Areas of Need - Receptive




• Form▫ Formal



• Student demonstrated difficulty following directions that included sequences (e.g. primero/first, ultimo/last), conditionals (e.g. al menos que/unless), and temporal information (e.g. mientras/while). He demonstrated difficulty understanding sentences that included future tense verbs. A dynamic assessment was completed that indicated that with minimal cues (repetition or rewording), Student was able to follow directions with sequential, conditional, and temporal information.

Expressive Language Skills

• Assessment statement.• Scores on Formal Measures• Statements of consistency between test results

and parent concern, teacher concern, informal measures, and dynamic assessment.

• Areas of Strength• Areas of Need

Expressive Language Skills

• <<Student>> demonstrated expressive language skills that were within normal limits/impaired. He/She obtained a standard score of XX on the expressive language portion of the English/Spanish tests, placing him/her in the Xth percentile relative to children of his age and language background. Performance on Spanish testing was significantly higher than performance on English testing. This suggests lower proficiency in English and indicates that Spanish scores are a better reflection of current expressive language abilities. Informal measures were/were not consistent with results from formal assessments and were indicative of normal language learning/an impairment. Dynamic assessment results did/did not support these findings. Overall, the conclusions of this evaluation were consistent/inconsistent with parent and teacher concerns.

Areas of Strength - Expressive




• Form

▫ Formal testing Spanish English


• Relative strengths in Student’s expressive language skills were noted in his use of social greetings and niceties (e.g. Thank-you, I’m sorry…), labeling of objects, and use of object descriptors. In the area of morphology, Student successfully used plurals in both languages. In Spanish he was able to use the present subjunctive form appropriately. Another relative strength was seen in Student’s ability to describe the relationship between two objects. For example, he was able to tell the examiner that 4 and 7 “son números”/are numbers and that a circle and a triangle are shapes. He also scored within normal limits on an expressive vocabulary subtest, in which he named pictures of objects, such as “un castillo”/a castle and “un esqueleto”/a skeleton.

Areas of Need – Expressive




• Form▫ Formal



• Student’s greatest area of difficulty in expressive language was noted in the form of his language, both morphology and syntax. Morphology refers to word inflections, such as plural endings and verb endings. Syntax refers to the way words are put together in sentences. Difficulty in language form was noted in his standard score of 49 (<1st percentile) on the Language Structure Index of the Spanish test. He was also noted to have difficulty with language form in informal testing in both Spanish and English. Specifically, he demonstrated difficulty with pronouns, possessives, noun and adjective derivations, and verb tenses, including present, past, future, and conditional. Student was not able to repeat sentences verbatim. He typically repeated a noun from the sentence but did not repeat the entire sentence. When asked to formulate sentences using a given word, he was not able to do so. He attempted the task but gave sentences that were not grammatical, such as “Los niños jugar (instead of juegan).”

Narrative Language

• Macrostructure of the Story• Story grammar components▫ Characters▫ Setting▫ Events▫ Attempts▫ Resolution

Narrative Language• <<Student>>’s language sample was also analyzed for story grammar

elements, including information about characters, setting, events, attempts, and resolution. In his/her sample, <<Student>> gave the names of the characters, provided descriptions of the characters, described internal responses and motivations of the characters, described the initiating event, discussed attempts to solve the problem in the story, described the outcome of the attempts to solve problems, and provided an ending. <<Student>> did not give the names of the characters, provide descriptions of the characters, describe internal responses or motivations of the characters, describe the initiating event, discuss attempts to solve the problem in the story, describe the outcome of the attempts to solve problems, or provide an ending. <<Student>>’s use of story grammar components is age appropriate/below that of same-age peers. Performance on the narrative tasks was consistent with performance on formal and informal testing, parent report, and teacher report.

Speech

• Speech patterns need to be examined in each language and how they interact.

• Phonology• Articulation• Intelligibility• Fluency

Dynamic Assessment

• Examiner Effort• Response level• Indicative of Impairment• Prognostic Indicator

Dynamic Assessment• Could be included under Receptive,

Expressive, or Narrative Section)• <<Student>>'s difficulties with ??? in

formal/informal assessment were specifically targeted as part of a Dynamic Assessment during the evaluation/in one/two separate session/sessions. After a mediated learning experience that provided targeted instruction on the importance of ???, <<Student>> was given the opportunity to practice this skill and then was given a similar task to perform.

Dynamic Assessment• <<Student>>'s ability to ??? improved from successfully

demonstrating the skill in X/X opportunities to X/X opportunities. He/She improved in this area to the extent that he/she (INSERT EXAMPLE), OR he/she demonstrated her improvement by ???, OR his/her performance on the same type of task improved, however, he/she needed prompts to continue to ???. <<Student>> had continued difficulty with ???, and he/she was only able to ??? in X/X opportunities during one/two Dynamic Assessment trials. It has been observed that he/she has had limited exposure to ??? and is currently learning ??? in his/her classroom. <<Student>> was observed to ??? by his/her teacher/parent/the examiner, which indicates that he/she is/is not making improvements in this area as a result of exposure and classroom instruction, and that he/she requires/does not require additional support to be a successful language learner in this area.

What makes up a bilingual evaluation testing packet

Referral Packet

Vision and Hearing

Parent Info

Teacher Info

Educational History

English Testing

Informal Speech

Formal Speech

Informal Language

Formal Language

Second Language

Testing

Informal Speech

Formal Speech

Informal Language

Formal Language

Take Away Points

• Thorough language history is critical.• Thorough health (especially hearing) history is

needed.• Testing in all languages is the only way to get a

complete picture of a student’s abilities• Understanding the features of the non-English

language as well as how those compare to English will help identify what errors may be due to cross-linguistic influence.

Summary for the FIE

•DNQ

• You put 60 days of work into this student and know him better than anyone at this point

• Share the data to explain how to support the student and make him successful in the classroom

•DO NOT QUIT here!

Supporting our Colleagues Effectively –A Case Study

TEACHERS LLSPs/DIAGNOSTICINS INTERPRETERS

Collaborating with Teachers

Simultaneously:Supporting Teachers Responding to AdministrationsMonitoring Student ProgressImproving ReferralsReducing our workload

Case Study of a District

• Timeframe: Fall Semester, 2011• Population: ▫ Kindergarten and first grade students on two

campuses▫ Dual Language Program

• Number of Students: 23 • Teacher Concerns: ▫ Speech▫ Language▫ Fluency▫ Attention/Pragmatics

Our Question:

Can we improve the referral process?• Measures▫ Reduced # of referrals resulting in a full evaluation▫ Reduced # of evaluations resulting in a DNQ▫ Reduced SLP time spent on referrals and evaluations▫ Teacher satisfaction▫ Administrator satisfaction▫ SLP satisfaction

RTI Problem Solving Method*

*Adapted from NASDSE, 2006

Gather Student

Information

Analyze student’s

difficulties

Develop strategies

Implement the

strategies

Evaluate student’s success

Who is concerned?

Is there a problem?

What shall we do

about it?Here are the steps.

Did our plan work?

Gather Student Information

1. Name2. Date of Birth3. Grade4. Teacher5. Vision and Hearing6. Parent Concern and History7. Teacher Concern

1. I can’t understand my student2. My student doesn’t speak enough, is

confusing, or can’t understand me

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies

Implement Strategies

Evaluate Student Success 1

Initial Data

• Hearing Concern• Parent Concern• Teacher Concern

• I can’t understand the words that my student uses.

• My student doesn’t speak enough, is confusing, or can’t understand me.

Part A - Everyone

Part B – Which best describes your student

Speech and Language Concerns

The Language Information generates data about each area of possible concern.

Teachers read it from top to bottom

SLPs read it from left to right

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Speech and Language ConcernsGather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Analyze Student Difficulties

1. I can’t understand my student.2. 27 common outcomes (not including

multiple issues, 2nd language, or age).

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Analyze Student Difficulties

1. My student doesn’t speak enough, is confusing, or can’t understand me

2. 7 common outcomes across expressive and receptive domains

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Why referrals might be daunting to teachers

• There are 7 pieces of data from three sources• Multiple Causes▫ There are 27 common speech outcomes▫ There are 7 common language outcomes

• There are 12 steps across 3 tiers

• Referral Manuals can be 12-58 pages• Teachers on average receive less than 2 hours of

training per year

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Are Teachers Referring the Right Students?

Research on agreement between teachers and SLPs

• Numerous studies have explored the rate of agreement between teachers and SLPs about who should receive speech services (Friberg, 2008).

Diehl & Sinnet (1959) – 60% James & Cooper (1966) – 40% Clauson & Kopatic (1975) – 18% Davis and Harris (1992) – 81% Cartwright-Gard, Harmon & Bryne (2002) – 58%

• On average, teachers- SLP agreement is 60%.• Research indicates that 40% of students who should be

referred are not (Mosheim, 2009)

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Teacher confidence• Cartwright-Gard, Harmon & Bryne (2002)

surveyed teachers and found:▫ 75% of teachers reported low confidence in

making referrals▫ 80% of teachers indicated a desire for more

training to improve their referrals• Many teachers report very low confidence when

making referrals for bilingual children

Are Teachers Referring the Right Students?

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Distribution of time over a student’s week

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Develop Strategies

1. What problem is a child having?2. Example: Answering questions

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Implement Strategies1. Example: Answering questions2. Tell the student this story and ask him these

questions

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Who wanted to go to the ball?

What did Cinderella lose?

When did she have to leave?

Where did the prince live?

Evaluate Student Success

1. Example: Answering questions2. How did he do?

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Who wanted to go to the ball?

What did Cinderella lose?

When did she have to leave?

Where did the prince live?

Repeat if unsuccessful

Develop Strategies

Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies



Gather Student

Information

Analyze Student

Difficulties

Develop Strategies




Develop Strategies

Following Progress

Tracking Students Interactions with Teachers

The two greatest roadblocks to RTI

Beginning the Referral Process

Trying things out in the classroom

Collaboration with Diagnosticians/LSSPs in the Referral and Evaluation Process

Two sides to the same house

Exploring the differences between Speech and Academic Special Education

Professional Responsibilities

Speech & Language academic

• SLPs perform ▫ Evaluations▫ Intervention ▫ Dismissals

• Diagnostic Staff perform▫ Evaluations▫ Dismissals

• Special Education Teachers perform▫ Intervention

Focus of Evaluation


• Intelligibility• Social appropriateness• Expressive language• Receptive language

• Written expression• Basic reading• Reading comprehension• Reading fluency• Math reasoning• Math calculation• Oral expression• Listening comprehension

We will discuss the similarities and differences of the last two items.

Qualification Guidelines


• Percent unintelligible• Mean length of utterance• 1.5 standard deviation below

the mean

• Local norms (in-class tests, benchmarks, universal screenings)

• Grade averages over time• Norm-referenced tests,

criterion-referenced tests• Statewide assessments • Response to research based

interventions targeting the student’s area of need

Age of Students Tested


• Greatest number in pre-k and kindergarten

• Initial evaluations taper off by 3rd -5th grade

• Initial evaluations can be less common in kindergarten in first grade

Age of Students Tested – Why?


• Differences at a young age are more apparent

• Communication deficits neutralize themselves with years of exposure to language

• In order for a learning disability to be identified, a child has to have had educational opportunity.

• Standardized testing compares students to national norms.

• In districts using response to intervention, child has to have had research-based interventions targeting their area of need

Referral Concerns


• Can’t follow directions• Unorganized• Not completing assignments• Does not understand what is

read to him• Writes/speaks in short

utterances• Confusing• Cannot answer questions• Frustrated• Does not retain from day to

day

• Can’t follow directions• Unorganized• Not completing assignments• Does not understand what is

read to him• Writes/speaks in short

utterances• Confusing• Cannot answer questions• Frustrated• Does not retain from day to

day

How to reduce the number of evaluations that we undertake that result in DNQs.

How to improve the caliber of information shared with Special Education Professionals.

Current State

• Evaluations of 3rd – 5th graders are time intensive

• Evaluations suggested by special education professionals result in a high number of DNQs

• The process can pin Diagnosticians against SLPs in the eyes of the administration

• Team relationships are strained when testing timelines and support is compromised

Where do the referrals begin?

Speech and Language academic

• “During my testing, the teacher said that he is having difficulty with writing/reading/math. We don’t do that . Let’s refer him for academic testing.”

• “During my testing, she scored in the 60s on oral expression and comprehension. Let’s sign consent to rule out speech.”

Research Study on referrals from LD to Speech

• Question #1:▫ Can we reduce the number of evaluations that

result in DNQs? • Question #2:▫ What do previous evaluations tell us about the

nature of the process?

Research Methods

• Population Identification▫ Mined academic and speech-language evaluations

from the 09-10 school year to identify the greatest area of overlap (LD & SL) and concern

• Population Pool▫ 3rd – 5th graders▫ Bilingual* (not limited to bilingual)▫ Male and female▫ Initial Referrals for Academic Concerns, referred

on to Speech

Population PoolName Grade Age Gender Speech

ResultsAR 5th 9:0 Male DNQ

JD 5th 12;2 Male DNQ

MA 4th 9:11 Female DNQ

HG 4th 10;9 Male DNQ

ES 5th 11;1 Female DNQ

DR 3rd 10;10 Female Q

WS 4th 10:7 Male Q

BS 4th 10:7 Male DNQ

JG 4th 9:11 Male DNQ

Research Methods

• Data Collection▫ Referral Packets▫ Academic Testing▫ Speech-Language Testing▫ CUM folder

• Documents were searched for concerns that related to poor academic performance.

• Data was accepted from entire academic career.

Research Methods

• Results▫ Referrals were made largely based on Oral

Language and Achievement Scores Oral Expression Listening Comprehension

▫ These formal scores carried the most weight but were the worst predictor for qualification (2/8)

▫ 6 other areas of information, when combined, provided the greatest predictor for accurate diagnosis.

Research Methods

• Results• 7 areas of concern that create the greatest

predictive value for proper evaluation1. Prior academic history2. Current academic history3. Current speech/language concerns4. Teacher Concerns5. Parent Concern6. Medical History (to include hearing data)7. Oral Language Achievement Scores

Predictive Value

1. Prior academic history▫ PPCD?▫ How many schools were attended?▫ Was the student retained?▫ Were notes passed between grades in the CUM

folder

Predictive Value

2. Current academic history▫ Where is she struggling?▫ Is she receiving resource?▫ How long has she been in the RTI process?▫ What are they targeting?

Predictive Value

3. Current speech/language concerns?▫ Is there ANY mention of communication?▫ There was a big difference between when a

professional was asked if they wanted speech/language testing and if any anecdotal or direct reference to communicative difficulties were made in any of the referral paperwork.

4. Teacher Concerns▫ A teacher’s informal or formal description of a

child’s performance in class was highly predictive.

▫ It was the truest measure against the child’s peers.

▫ Teachers possess data charts on TAKS, TAKS benchmarks and reading. These give you a general trend of academic growth.

Predictive Value

Predictive Value

5. Parent Concerns▫ Are there any?▫ Is there a family history?▫ Can the parent understand the student?

6. Medical History (including hearing status)▫ Are there medical issues or other diagnoses?▫ Has the child passed the hearing and vision

screening?

Perils and Value of the Home Language

Survey

Click here to download this chart as a pdf.

http://bilinguistics.com/speech-therapy-materials/

Predictive Value

7. Oral Language Achievement Scores▫ The child has low oral expression and/or low

comprehension .▫ This is measured by: The Woodcock Johnson III (Spanish)

Habits and work-culture beliefs that make the process difficult

Habit #1RTI is thought to be a one time process. It is not begun

anew with secondary or tertiary concerns.

Habit #2Initial referrals result in a DNQ:• The administration says: “Well since they didn’t

qualify for A, let’s try B”• Even though there was never any concern in the

initial packet

Research Methods

• Results of evaluations have 3 possibilities▫ Good referral – Qualified▫ Good referral – Did not qualify (DNQ)▫ Bad referral – Did not qualify(DNQ)

• Results of the study▫ A student did not need ALL 7 areas to be considered to be a

good referral.▫ On average, the students who qualified had information in

5/7 areas.▫ The students that were DNQs had 1-2 of the 7 areas.▫ All had low formal Oral Expression /Comprehension Scores

ResourcesVocabulary Building and Improved Recall Recommendations

Crystalized Knowledge/Intelligence as it relates to a Learning Disability

• Recommendations for building vocabulary and background knowledge

• Recommendations to assist student in tasks that require the formation and recall of associations

• Links to Achievement in Reading and Math

• Links to achievement in Written Language

• Links to Achievement in Expression/Oral Language

Accessing clients and families through their home language.

How to find an interpreter

• The family▫ Extended members preferred

• The Professional Community▫ Bilingual SLP fluent in child’s native language▫ Professional in education (e.g., teacher, paraprofessional)▫ Professor or student at local university▫ Nurses, healthcare professionals

• Community Members▫ Cultural centers▫ Member of child’s church or community group

• On-line resources ▫ www.professionalinterpreters.com

Interpreter bias

• It is human nature to want a member of your culture to perform well

• An interpreter should:▫ Maintain Neutrality▫ Translate verbatim statements▫ Maintain confidentiality

Types of Interpretation

• Consecutive Interpreting▫ The interpreter listens to a

section and then the speaker pauses to give time to interpret

▫ Used in one-to-one and small group meetings

• Simultaneous Interpreting▫ The interpreter attempts to relay the meaning in real

time.▫ Used more for conferences and speeches to large

groups

How to work with an interpreter

The encounter with the family should not be the first time you speak with an interpreter.

• Ask that they interpret consecutively (not concurrently)

• Explain the format• Explain your job and what

you are looking for

How to work with an interpreter

• Talk to the family, not to the interpreter (i.e., use eye contact appropriately)

• Sit across from client and interpreter takes a mediating position

Note: An inexperienced interpreter may talk more or less than you do.

How to prepare an interpreter• Ensure that the interpreter/translator has

knowledge and skills in the following areas: ▫ Native proficiency in the child's

language/dialect and the ability to provide accurate interpretation/translations.

▫ Familiarity with and positive regard for the child’s particular culture, and speech community or communicative environment.

▫ Understanding of the role of the interpreter on the team (not including their own opinion)

How to prepare an interpreter

▫ Knowledge of interview techniques, including ethnographic interviewing.▫ http://www.asha.org/practice/multicultural/i

ssues/casehx.htm▫ Professional ethics and client/patient

confidentiality.▫ Professional terminology.▫ Basic principles of assessment and/or

intervention principles to provide context to understand objectives.

How to train an interpreter

• Basic Principles:▫ Characteristics of speech and language disorders▫ Information about 1st and 2nd language

acquisition▫ Guidelines for distinguishing between language

differences and disorders▫ Special education terminology ▫ Strategies related to working with families▫ Cultural differences and their impact on

assessment▫ Use of assessment results in placement decisions


• Procedures for administering tests▫ Follow directions and record responses verbatim,

in addition to: Response delays (latencies) Use of gestures to replace words False starts, word repetitions Clarity of message Vocabulary use Sample sentences Language and articulation errors An estimate of overall intelligibility


• Interpreters should AVOID:▫ Recording of assessment data incorrectly▫ Prompting the student or giving clues▫ Using too many words▫ Giving directions that are too brief or too

complicated▫ Over- or under-using reinforcement


• Important considerations:▫ Recognize limitations of interpreted tests!▫ Allow interpreter only to carry out activities for

which he/she was trained▫ Involve others in training interpreter when

appropriate▫ Make sure consent to test specifies that

interpreter will be used▫ Specify in report that interpreter was used


• Important considerations:▫ Provide interpreter with background information

about student▫ Prepare interpreter for testing session and

debrief following testing▫ Show interpreter how to use tests ▫ Allow the interpreter time to organize test

materials, read instructions, and clarify areas of concern

▫ Ensure that interpreter does not protect student by hiding extent of limitations/disabilities

Debriefing and writing the report

• Debriefing▫ Ask the interpreter their impressions of the

interaction and client after the interaction▫ Use a “team approach” to assist interpreter in

providing sufficient information to form clinical judgment

• Reporting▫ Note that an interpreter was used▫ Supplement testing with other data Observations Teacher/family input

The Top Ten Tips

1. Establish and agree to ground rules▫ How to run the session▫ Number of sentences at a time▫ Confirmation of jargon/idioms – Avoid it!▫ When to take breaks

2. Brief the interpreter prior to the session▫ Who, what, why▫ Specific terminology▫ Format▫ Your job and what you are looking for

The Top Ten Tips (continued)

3. Familiarize them with the topic▫ Best if your interpreter has some experience in

education, special education, speech-language▫ Important for interpreter to know what you need

4. Avoid humor5. Plan your time carefully (twice the time)6. Do not rush, speak slowly and clearly and

provide pauses for the interpreter

The Top Ten Tips (continued)

7. An interpreter should never translate emotions, body language works for that8. An interpreter should never answer questions on your behalf.9. Ask them their opinion after the session10. An interpreter should never alter what you say.

References• Feuerstein, R., Rand, Y., & Hoffman, M. (1979). The dynamic assessment of

retarded performers: The Learning Potential Assessment Device. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.

• Hughes et al. (1997). Guide to Narrative Language. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.

• Gillam, R., & Pearson, N. (2004). Test of Narrative Language, Examiner’s Manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

• Gutierrez-Clellen, Vera F. (2002). Narratives in Two Languages: Assessing Performance of Bilingual Children. Linguistics & Education, Vol.13 Issue 2, p199.

• Heath, S.B. (1982). What no bedtime story means: Narrative skills at home and school. Language in Society, 11(1), 49-76.

• Metzi, Gigliana. (2000). Cultural variations in the construction of personal narratives: Central American and European American mothers’ elicitation styles. Discourse Processes. Vol. 30(2). 153-177.

References• Miller, L., Gillam, R., & Peña, E. (2000). Dynamic Assessment and

Intervention: Improving Children’s Narrative Abilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

• Poveda, David. (2002). La Ronda in a Spanish kindergarten classroom with a cross-cultural comparison to sharing time in the U.S.A. Anthorpology & Educaiton Quarterly. Vol 32(3). 301-325.

• Shiro, Martha Klein (1998). A discourse analysis approach to evaluate stance in Venezuelan children’s narratives. Dissertation Abstracts International: Sediton B: the Sciences and Engineering. Vol. 58 (8-B),

• Silliman et. al. (2002). Spanish and English Proficiency in the Linguistic Encoding of Mental States in Narrative Retellings. Linguistics and Education, Vol.13 Issue 2, p175.

• Vygotsky, L.S. (1967). Play and its Role in the Mental Development of the Child. Soviet Psychology, 5, 6-18.

• Westby, C. (2001). Dynamic Assessment. Austin, TX: Word of Mouth, 13(1), 7-9.

Click to visit www.bilinguistics.com

http://bilinguistics.com/

Difference or Disorder? Understanding Speech and Language Patterns in Culturally and Linguistically

Diverse Students

Rapidly identify speech‐language patterns related to second language acquisition to distinguish difference from disorder.

http://bilinguistics.com/catalog/products/difference-vs-disorder-understanding-speech-and-language-patterns/