Parental Questionnaires As A Reliable Instrument For The Assessment Of Child Language Development

Language is crucial in child development. Therefore, general questions such as what are the possible challenges in language acquisition or such as how well the/my child is doing, are commonly present for researchers, clinicians, teachers, and parents. Parent-child interaction offers a privileged setting to observe children’s behavior in multiple communicative situations, which often is only available to the parents/caregivers. For this reason, within the broad range of methods used to assess children’s development, parental questionnaires are widely used being a non-invasive and inexpensive instrument to obtain information which is otherwise difficult to obtain. Data obtained with the many questionnaires covering various aspects of child development and communicative competence are equally relevant for basic research and everyday clinical practice. Development and use of parental questionnaires as well as data interpretation frequently require an interdisciplinary and cross-sector approach, bringing together developmental psychologists and practitioners. This interdisciplinarity is assumed but rarely addressed directly.

- A test of narrative speech.- Age range: 3 to 9 years.Booklet, photocopiable scoring form, manual, boxed.

In certain areas, caregiver reports did not conclusively identify any language or communication difficulty. However, using the CQ, caregivers provided information regarding their child's language and communication abilities that was not detected by the PLS-4 on the day of assessment. This study also proposes that caregivers are able to provide background information into their child's language and communication history that may increase the validity of Speech Pathologist-administered screenings.

This book constitutes a clear, comprehensive, up-to-date introduction to the basic principles of psychological and educational assessment that underlie effective clinical decisions about childhood language disorders. Rebecca McCauley describes specific commonly used tools, as well as general approaches ranging from traditional standardized norm-referenced testing to more recent ones, such as dynamic and qualitative assessment. Highlighting special considerations in testing and expected patterns of performance, she reviews the challenges presented by children with a variety of problems--specific language impairment, hearing loss, mental retardation, and autism spectrum disorders. Three extended case examples illustrate her discussion of each of these target groups. Her overarching theme is the crucial role of well-formed questions as fundamental guides to decision making, independent of approach. Each chapter features lists of key concepts and terms, study questions, and recommended readings. Tables throughout offer succinct summaries and aids to memory. Students, their instructors, and speech-language pathologists continuing their professional education will all welcome this invaluable new resource. Distinctive features include: A comprehensive consideration of both psychometric and descriptive approaches to the characterization of children's language A detailed discussion of background issues important in the language assessment of the major groups of children with language impairment Timely information on assessment of change--a topic frequently not covered in other texts Extensive guidance on how to evaluate individual norm-referenced measures for adoption An extensive appendix listing about 50 measures used to assess language in children A test review guide that can be reproduced for use by readers.

This Element has two main purposes. Firstly, it discusses purposes, advantages, and disadvantages as well as the challenges of different formats of language assessment, concluding with a focus on educator-administered language assessment in early childhood and education programs. It addresses the selection of assessment domains, the trade-off between brevity and precision, the challenge of assessing bilinguals, and accommodating the requirements of funders (e.g., government agencies) and users (e.g., educators and schools). It draws on lessons learned from developing two instruments for a national Danish-language and preliteracy assessment program. Secondly, it introduces those two educator-administered instruments-Language Assessment 3-6 (LA 3-6) and Language Assessment 2-year-olds (LA 2)-with respect to content, norming, gender and socioeconomic influences as well as psychometric qualities. The intention is that this experience can help enable the extension of the educator-based approach to other languages and contexts, while simultaneously acknowledging that linguistic and cultural adaptations are crucial.

The study of language has changed substantially in the last decades. In particular, the development of new technologies has allowed the emergence of new experimental techniques which complement more traditional approaches to data in linguistics (like informal reports of native speakers’ judgments, surveys, corpus studies, or fieldwork). This move is an enriching feature of contemporary linguistics, allowing for a better understanding of a phenomenon as complex as natural language, where all sorts of factors (internal and external to the individual) interact (Chomsky 2005). This has generated some sort of divergence not only in research approaches, but also in the phenomena studied, with an increasing specialization between subfields and accounts. At the same time, it has also led to subfield isolation and methodological a priori, with some researchers even claiming that theoretical linguistics has little to offer to cognitive science (see for instance Edelman & Christiansen 2003). We believe that this view of linguistics (and cognitive science as a whole) is misguided, and that the complementarity of different approaches to such a multidimensional phenomenon as language should be highlighted for convergence and further development of its scientific study (see also Jackendoff 1988, 2007; Phillips & Lasnik 2003; den Dikken, Bernstein, Tortora & Zanuttini 2007; Sprouse, Schütze & Almeida 2013; Phillips 2013).