Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 01/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx specificity, however, we have no reason to expect high classification accuracy, even if conceptual scoring is used. Thus, we explore the diagnostic accuracy of conceptual vocabulary scoring to determine if using conceptual scoring with single-word vocabulary tests increased their sensitivity so they might contribute to the identification of SLI in bilingual children. Vocabulary Difficulties in Children With SLILexical acquisition deficits are a commonly noted characteristic of SLI in research and clinical practice (Gray, 2004(Gray, , 2005(Gray, , 2006Horohov & Oetting, 2004;Kiernan & Gray, 1998;Nash & Donaldson, 2005;Rice, Oetting, Marquis, Bode, & Pae, 1994;Weismer & Hesketh, 1998). Compared with peers with typically developing (TD) language skills, children with SLI exhibit slower vocabulary growth (Rescorla, Roberts, & Dahlsgaard, 1997), difficulty learning new words (Alt, Plante, & Creusere, 2004;Alt & Suddarth, 2012), and limited expressive vocabulary (Gray & Brinkley, 2011). Experimental studies comparing children with SLI and TD language skills document significant difficulties in word learning. For example, Weismer and Hesketh (1998) found that children with SLI require more exposures to a word to comprehend or produce it than their TD peers. In both fast mapping and quick incidental learning tasks, children with SLI learn fewer novel words (Alt, 2011;Alt et al., 2004;Gray, 2004Gray, , 2006Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995;Rice, Cleave, & Oetting, 2000;Rice et al., 1994). They also demonstrate weaknesses in word retrieval (Gray, 2004;Gray & Brinkley, 2011;Kambanaros et al., 2015;McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002), naming errors, and word approximation difficulties (Dollaghan, 1998;Sheng & McGregor, 2010;Spaulding, 2010).Due to these documented deficits in word learning and perhaps to their ease of administration and scoring, vocabulary tests are widely used by clinicians to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (Campbell, Bell, & Keith, 2001), as a method of identifying SLI in children for research studies (Rice et al., 1990;Rice, Buhr, & Oetting, 1992;Rice et al., 1994), or to document vocabulary growth (Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012). While numerous comprehensive language batteries are commercially available to clinicians, vocabulary tests are frequently used as a component of diagnostic evaluations of children to determine if a child meets the criteria for SLI (Betz et al., 2013), even though test manuals may not recommend them for this purpose (Brownell, 2000a). Vocabulary Tests as Indicators of SLITo use vocabulary test scores for screening or identification purposes, clinicians must first be confident that the assessment has evidence of validity and reliability (McCauley & Swisher, 1984). Plante and Vance (1994) suggested that language tests that discriminate between children with and without SLI with an accuracy...

It is possible to accurately identify LI in English language learners once they use English 40% of the time or more. However, for children with high Spanish experience, more information about development and patterns of impairment is needed to positively identify LI.

An increasing number of United States school children are from culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD) backgrounds and speak multiple languages. Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) are often challenged with differentiating the performance of bilingual children with language impairment from those who may display a language difference. While there is consensus that we should consider both languages of a bilingual child in formal and informal assessments, there is no agreed way to interpret results of testing in both languages. The aim of this article is to propose a framework for conducting and interpreting the results from comprehensive and unbiased evaluations that incorporate language samples, parent and teacher reports, and standardized testing. We will illustrate the use of this bilingual coordinate approach via a pair of case studies.

Purpose: Our proof-of-concept study tested the feasibility of virtual testing using child assessments that were originally validated for in-person testing only. Method: Ten adult–child dyads were assigned to complete both in-person and virtual tests of language, cognition, and narratives. Child participants fell between the ages of 4 and 8 years; adult participants were speech-language clinicians or researchers with experience in administering child assessments. Half of child participants were Spanish–English bilinguals, and half were monolingual English speakers. Results: Results showed similar performance across in-person and virtual modalities on all assessments. Recommendations for adapting, administering, and scoring virtual measures with linguistically diverse children are discussed. Conclusions: Although additional research on virtual assessment is needed, our results open opportunities for appropriate remote assessment, particularly for bilingual children, who may not have in-person access to speech-language pathology services.

Purpose We examined the English semantic performance of three hundred twenty-seven 7- to 10-year-old Spanish–English bilinguals with ( n = 66) and without ( n = 261) developmental language disorder (DLD) with varying levels of English experience to classify groups. Method English semantic performance on the Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment—Middle Extension Experimental Test Version (Peña et al., 2008) was evaluated by language experience, language ability, and task type. Items that best identified DLD for children with balanced and high English experience were selected. Separately, items that best identified children with high Spanish experience were selected. Results Typically developing bilingual children performed significantly higher than their peers with DLD across semantic tasks, with differences associated with task type. Classification accuracy was fair when item selection corresponded to balanced or high level of experience in English, but poor for children with high Spanish experience. Selecting items specifically for children with high Spanish experience improved classification accuracy. Conclusions Tailoring semantic items based on children's experience is a promising direction toward organizing items on a continuum of exposure. Here, classification effectively ruled in impairment. Future work to refine semantic items that more accurately represent the continuum of exposure may help rule out language impairment.