The purpose of this study was to determine if different language measures resulted in the same classifications of language dominance and proficiency for a group of bilingual pre-kindergarteners and kindergarteners. Data were analyzed for 1029 Spanish–English bilingual pre-kindergarteners who spanned the full range of bilingual language proficiency. Parent questionnaires were used to quantify age of first exposure and current language use. Scores from a short test of semantic and morphosyntactic development in Spanish and English were used to quantify children’s performance. Some children who were in the functionally monolingual range based on interview data demonstrated minimal knowledge of their other languages when tested. Current use accounted for more of the variance in language dominance than did age of first exposure. Results indicate that at different levels of language exposure children differed in their performance on semantic and morphosyntax tasks. These patterns suggest that it may be difficult to compare the results of studies that employ different measures of language dominance and proficiency. Current use is likely to be a useful metric of bilingual development that can be used to build a comprehensive picture of child bilingualism.

Two experiments examined reliability and classification accuracy of a narration-based dynamic assessment task.Purpose-The first experiment evaluated whether parallel results were obtained from stories created in response to 2 different wordless picture books. If so, the tasks and measures would be appropriate for assessing pretest and posttest change within a dynamic assessment format. The second experiment evaluated the extent to which children with language impairments performed differently than typically developing controls on dynamic assessment of narrative language.Method-In the first experiment, 58 1st-and 2nd-grade children told 2 stories about wordless picture books. Stories were rated on macrostructural and microstructural aspects of language form and content, and the ratings were subjected to reliability analyses. In the second experiment, 71 children participated in dynamic assessment. There were 3 phases: a pretest phase, in which children created a story that corresponded to 1 of the wordless picture books from Experiment 1; a teaching phase, in which children attended 2 short mediation sessions that focused on storytelling ability; and a posttest phase, in which children created a story that corresponded to a second wordless picture book from Experiment 1. Analyses compared the pretest and posttest stories that were told by 2 groups of children who received mediated learning (typical and language impaired groups) and a no-treatment control group of typically developing children from Experiment 1.Results-The results of the first experiment indicated that the narrative measures applied to stories about 2 different wordless picture books had good internal consistency. In Experiment 2, typically developing children who received mediated learning demonstrated a greater amount of pretest to posttest change than children in the language impaired and control groups. Classification analysis indicated better specificity and sensitivity values for measures of response to intervention (modifiability) and posttest storytelling than for measures of pretest storytelling. Observation of modifiability was the single best indicator of language impairment. Posttest measures and modifiability together yielded no misclassifications. Conclusion-The first experiment supported the use of 2 wordless picture books as stimulus materials for collecting narratives before and after mediation within a dynamic assessment paradigm. The second experiment supported the use of dynamic assessment for accurately identifying language impairments in school-age children. Traditionally, speech-language pathologists diagnose children with language impairments (LI) by comparing their performance on standardized tests with the performance of their same-age peers (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996). There is growing dissatisfaction with single-time assessment because of the potential for measurement error (Bracken, 1988;McCauley & Swisher, 1984a, 1984bPlante & Vance, 1994) as well as the interfering effects of potential cultural bias (De...

The primary objective of this study was to closely examine the notion of child modifiability in response to scripted mediated learning experience (MLE) sessions that targeted narrative abilities. Forty children (25 with normal language ability and 15 with language impairment) participated in the study. Clinicians who were blinded to child language ability made judgements of children's social-emotional behaviour, cognitive arousal, and cognitive elaboration at the conclusion of each of two MLE sessions. Results indicate that children with and without language impairment performed differently across the four domains that were observed. The strongest predictors of language ability were cognitive arousal and cognitive elaboration. Within these two domains, a composite score of flexibility and metacognition accurately classified children into impaired and nonimpaired groups with 93% accuracy. A follow-up case study examining clinician-child discourse examined clinician questions and child response to questions by a child with language impairment and his age-, gender-, and ethnicity-matched peer. Consistent with the group results, findings were that the child with language impairment required more question repetition and reformulations and demonstrated significantly more ''no response'' reactions to inferential questions. Implications of use of clinical judgements of language learning are discussed.

Purpose: The majority of supervision literature has focused on the supervision of graduate students. The purpose of this study was to examine the preparation of and explore the thinking styles of mentoring speech-language pathologists (SLPs) of Speech-Language Pathology graduates who are completing their clinical fellowship. Method: A questionnaire was sent to 1626 SLPs by email who reported working in school settings and 102 participants responded. They were asked questions about demographics, caseloads, supervisory experiences, knowledge of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA, 2008) standards for supervision, and thinking styles. Forty of the participants reported on the number of years of experience they had with supervision and reported mentoring a clinical fellow in the past 3 years. These 40 participants were divided into two groups: mentoring SLPs with less experience (LEM; 1–5 years) and mentoring SLPs with more experience (MEM; 6 or more years). Results: The LEM and MEM groups demonstrated different patterns in meeting and contacting their Clinical Fellows (CF) and in participating in training activities for mentoring SLPs. There were also differences in the thinking styles of the groups. The MEM group rated themselves as having preferences for tasks that allowed them to work on one thing at a time as well as tasks that had a more global focus more than those in the LEM group. Conclusions: Differences in thinking styles may affect the style of supervision and mentoring. These relationships warrant further examination.

International collaborations usually involve individuals from one country traveling to another country (Kuehn & Henne, 2003). However, for various reasons, students and faculty from the United States do not always have the option to travel to another country. This was the case when the Department of Communication Disorders Speech-Language Hearing Clinic at Texas State University was contacted by personnel from a clinic in Monterrey, México. Together, we developed an international collaboration that would be mutually beneficial to all parties involved. We developed goals for the clinical component of the speech-language pathology graduate program, the participating clients and their families, professionals employed at the private clinic in Monterrey, México, and research goals to document the effectiveness of the international collaboration we called the Multicultural Intensive Speech-Language Therapy Intervention Clinic (MISTIC). In this case, families and professionals from México traveled to the United States to participate in this international collaboration.