The cultural diversity of our caseloads is growing exponentially. Correctly identifying children with speech and language disorders is made easier by understanding how to use 1) the referral process, 2) the interview process, 3) formal assessment, 4) alternative assessment, and 5) reporting procedures to reduce our work and create truly rich data to confidently diagnose a child.
Bilingual Evaluations: Writing the FIE report for Bilingual Students
1. Bilingual Evaluations: Writing the FIE report for
Bilingual Students
Ellen Kester, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Scott Prath, M.A., CCC-SLP
Region 13 Education Service Center
August 2013
2. Components of the FIE Report
Typical 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
3. Background Information
• Age
• Gender
• Grade
• Language(s)
• Educational Placement (ESL- bilingual)
• School
• Medical History
• Parent Concern
• Teacher Concern
• Observation Information
4. 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
5. Academic
• Language of instruction is a critical component
of this section for ELLs.
• Specify language of reading and writing
concerns.
6. 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
8. 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
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
14. Test Results
• Chart
• We always attempt formal testing in both
languages if it seems feasible.
• Do we include English scores????
15. 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
16. 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.
17. Areas of Strength - Receptive
• Content
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
• Form
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
18. • 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.
19. Areas of Need - Receptive
• Content
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
• Form
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
20. • 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.
21. 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
22. 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.
23. Areas of Strength - Expressive
• Content
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
• Form
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
24. • 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.
25. Areas of Need – Expressive
• Content
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
• Form
▫ Formal
testing
Spanish
English
▫ Informal
measures
Spanish
English
26. • 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).”
28. 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.
29. Speech
• Speech patterns need to be examined in each
language and how they interact.
• Phonology
• Articulation
• Intelligibility
• Fluency
31. 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.
32. 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.
33. 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
34. 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.
35. 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!
38. 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
39. 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
40. 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?
41. Gather Student Information
1. Name
2. Date of Birth
3. Grade
4. Teacher
5. Vision and Hearing
6. Parent Concern and History
7. Teacher Concern
1. I can’t understand my student
2. 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
42. 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
43. 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
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
1
44. Speech and Language Concerns
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
1
45. 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
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
46. 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
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
47. 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
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
48. 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
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
49. 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
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
50. Distribution of time over a
student’s week
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
51. Develop Strategies
1. What problem is a child having?
2. Example: Answering questions
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
3
52. Implement Strategies
1. Example: Answering questions
2. Tell the student this story and ask him these
questions
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
4
Who wanted to
go to the ball?
What did
Cinderella
lose?
When did she
have to leave?
Where did the
prince live?
53. Evaluate Student Success
1. Example: Answering questions
2. How did he do?
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
5
Who wanted to
go to the ball?
What did
Cinderella
lose?
When did she
have to leave?
Where did the
prince live?
58. 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
60. Focus of Evaluation
Speech & Language academic
• 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.
61. Qualification Guidelines
Speech & Language academic
• 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
62. Age of Students Tested
Speech & Language academic
• 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
63. Age of Students Tested – Why?
Speech & Language academic
• 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
64. Referral Concerns
Speech & Language academic
• 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
65. 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.
66. 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
67. 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.”
68. 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?
69. 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
70. Population Pool
Name Grade Age Gender Speech
Results
AR 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
71. 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.
72. 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.
73. Research Methods
• Results
• 7 areas of concern that create the greatest
predictive value for proper evaluation
1. Prior academic history
2. Current academic history
3. Current speech/language concerns
4. Teacher Concerns
5. Parent Concern
6. Medical History (to include hearing data)
7. Oral Language Achievement Scores
74. 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
75. 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?
76. 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.
77. 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
78. 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.
79. 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)
80. Habits and work-culture beliefs
that make the process difficult
Habit #1
RTI is thought to be a one time process. It is not begun
anew with secondary or tertiary concerns.
Habit #2
Initial 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
81. 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
82. Resources
Vocabulary 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
84. 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
85. 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
86. 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
87. 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
88. 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.
89. 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)
90. 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.
91. 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
92. How to train an interpreter
• 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
93. How to train an interpreter
• 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
94. How to train an interpreter
• 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
95. How to train an interpreter
• 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
96. 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
97. 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
98. 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 humor
5. Plan your time carefully (twice the time)
6. Do not rush, speak slowly and clearly and
provide pauses for the interpreter
99. The Top Ten Tips (continued)
7. An interpreter should never translate emotions,
body language works for that
8. An interpreter should never answer questions
on your behalf.
9. Ask them their opinion after the session
10. An interpreter should
never alter what you say.
100. 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.
101. 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.