Validity of an Observation Screening Instrument in a Multicultural Population

Alberts, Francine M.; Davis, Barbara L.; Prentice, Linda

doi:10.1177/105381519501900209

Cited by 6 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They must be culturally validated and normed on a population that represents the children being tested. Few screening and assessment instruments have been translated into other languages and renormed for the new population (Alberts, Davis, & Prentice, 1995). • Parents and other family members must be included in the assessment process.…”

Section: Assessment Purposes and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Curriculum and Assessment Considerations for Young Children from Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Backgrounds

Espinosa

2005

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early childhood educators and school personnel increasingly will be working with children and families from diverse economic, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic backgrounds. While the student population is rapidly becoming diverse, the teaching force remains predominantly White and from middle‐class backgrounds (Whitebook, 2003). This growing cultural and linguistic discrepancy between the children enrolled and the teachers who teach them underscores the need for all educators to develop the skills, knowledge, and, most importantly, the attitudes to effectively teach in multicultural and multilingual settings. Children from different cultures and low‐income households who enter school programs speaking little or no English are highly vulnerable to chronic academic underachievement and eventual school failure. Recent research has revealed dramatic differences in young children's achievement in mathematics and literacy by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) at school entry (V. Lee & D. Burkam, 2002). This article reviews the relevant research on effective teaching and assessment practices for young children from diverse backgrounds and offers recommendations for school personnel. © 2005 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Psychol Schs 42: 837–853, 2005.

show abstract

Section: Assessment Purposes and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Curriculum and Assessment Considerations for Young Children from Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Backgrounds

Espinosa

2005

Psychology in the Schools

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There were four English tests including the picture naming component of the Woodcock (English Vocabulary 1 in our tables), the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, which requires that the child point to an object named by the tester (English Vocabulary 2; Dunn, 1965;Bochner, 1978;Umbel and Oller, 1994), the Goldman-Fristoe Articulation Test (English Articulation; Goldman and Fristoe, 1969;Alberts et al, 1995), and the English version of the Bilingual Syntax Measure (English Morphology).…”

Section: Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing relations between language (verbal) and nonverbal abilities in children and adults acquiring a nonprimary language

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

General sign theory per Oller et al. (2000a, 2000b) predicts that, to the extent that valid measurements are possible, nonverbal abilities should correlate positively with primary language abilities (Hypothesis 1). Further, nonverbal abilities of persons in the early stages of acquiring a nonprimary language should correlate significantly more positively with proficiencies in their primary language than in their nonprimary language (Hypothesis 2(a)); but as persons approach parity between their primary and any nonprimary language, correlations between nonverbal scores and proficiencies in the two languages should both be positive and not significantly different (Hypothesis 2(b)). The Cattell-Horn theory predicts that nonverbal abilities should correlate equally with primary and nonprimary skills throughout the course of development. Gardner’s theory predicts nonsignificant correlations. Hypotheses 1, 2(a) and 2(b) are examined in within-subjects, repeated measures designs. Study 1 examines 50 children acquiring EFL in a bilingual school in Mexico, and Studies 2 and 3 examine 165 and 203 Korean adults learning EFL. Hypotheses 1, 2(a) and 2(b) are confirmed ( p < .01). The Gardner and Cattell-Horn predictions are disconfirmed.

show abstract

“…27,31,[36][37][38][39]41,44,45,48,50,51 These studies tended to focus on older preschool-age children: 3 studies included children 2 to 3 years of age 44,45,48 45 Northwestern Syntax Screening Test, 37 and SKOLD, 38 indicated at least a moderately lower likelihood of language delay for those who screened negative.…”

Section: Accuracy Of Screening Instruments Used By Trained Examinersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] (Supplemental Table 3). Supplemental Table 4 describes relevant screening instruments.…”

Section: Figurementioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No recommendation exists for or against routine use of brief, formal screening instruments in primary care to detect speech and language delay in children through 5 years of age. This review aimed to update the evidence on screening and treating children for speech and language since the 2006 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review.METHODS: Medline, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists. We included studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of screening tools and randomized controlled trials reporting benefits and harms of treatment of speech and language. Two independent reviewers extracted data, checked accuracy, and assigned quality ratings using predefined criteria. RESULTS:We found no evidence for the impact of screening on speech and language outcomes. In 23 studies evaluating the accuracy of screening tools, sensitivity ranged between 50% and 94%, and specificity ranged between 45% and 96%. Twelve treatment studies improved various outcomes in language, articulation, and stuttering; little evidence emerged for interventions improving other outcomes or for adverse effects of treatment. Risk factors associated with speech and language delay were male gender, family history, and low parental education. A limitation of this review is the lack of well-designed, well-conducted studies addressing whether screening for speech and language delay or disorders improves outcomes.CONCLUSIONS: Several screening tools can accurately identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions, but evidence is inadequate regarding applicability in primary care settings. Some treatments for young children identified with speech and language delays and disorders may be effective.

show abstract

Validity of an Observation Screening Instrument in a Multicultural Population

Cited by 6 publications

References 13 publications

Curriculum and Assessment Considerations for Young Children from Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Backgrounds

Curriculum and Assessment Considerations for Young Children from Culturally, Linguistically, and Economically Diverse Backgrounds

Testing relations between language (verbal) and nonverbal abilities in children and adults acquiring a nonprimary language

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About