The population in the United States is becoming more and more culturally and linguistically diverse. The state of Wyoming will likely not be an exception to this trend. For example, approximately 7% of the population in the state of Wyoming is Hispanic, and in some counties of the state, the percentage is much higher (e.g. nearly 14% of the population were Hispanic in Carbon County in the year 2000). It has been projected that by 2050 the Hispanic population will be the majority ethnic group in the U.S. As this diversity increases, speech-language pathologists will encounter a greater number of children who are from cultural and linguistic backgrounds different from their own.
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) has had a longstanding position on multicultural considerations of the assessment of language. ASHA has made it clear that no social dialect of English is a disorder (e.g. African American English), and that speech-language pathologists must be competent in distinguishing between a language difference and a language disorder. In fact, this mandate transcends language and applies to all facets of communication.
It has been well established that the use of standardized norm-referenced assessments to evaluate language impairment in culturally and linguistically diverse children can be inappropriate (please see Kamhi, Pollock, and Harris, 1996; Taylor and Payne, 1983; Vaughn-Cooke, 1983, 1986). Standardized norm-referenced assessments are often replete with content bias, linguistic bias, and are typically based on a normative sample that does not include culturally and linguistically diverse populations. This test bias can (and often does) lead to the overidentification of language impairment. If a child were administered a standardized norm-referenced language assessment in a language in which they were not fluent, that child would invariably receive scores well below the norm. Under the Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) Emergency Chapter 7 Rules, almost every child who is culturally and linguistically diverse, and for which there is no valid or reliable standardized norm-referenced assessment based on their specific population, would qualify for language services.
Fortunately, language assessment methods have emerged that are typically more culturally and linguistically sensitive over norm-referenced assessments. These alternative assessment methods have strong evidence of reliably and validly. Processing-dependent methods such as non-word repetition tasks (Campbell, Dollaghan, Needlemen, & Janosky, 1997; Rodekohr & Haynes, 2001) and dynamic assessment procedures (Gutierrez-Clellen & Peña, 2001; Miller, Gillam, & Peña, 2001) have been shown to validly differentiate children who have a language impairment instead of a language difference. Speech language pathologists must be able to use alternative assessment methods including criterion-referenced measures, processing tasks, and dynamic assessment to determine whether a child has a language disorder or a language difference due to cultural or linguistic factors.
Section 612(a)(6)(B) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) states that:
Procedures to ensure that testing and evaluation materials and procedures utilized for the purposes of evaluation and placement of children with disabilities for services under this title will be selected and administered so as not to be racially or culturally discriminatory. Such materials or procedures shall be provided and administered in the child’s native language or mode of communication, unless it clearly is not feasible to do so, and no single procedure shall be the sole criterion for determining an appropriate educational program for a child.
It is my understanding that the Wyoming Department of Education has implemented policy contrary to Federal law by mandating that language impairment be diagnosed using a standardized norm-referenced assessment. Apart from any legal concerns, it is clear that the use of standardized norm-referenced assessments can be discriminatory and unethical. As the instructor of the course on assessment and diagnosis of communication disorders at the University of Wyoming, I stand firm in saying that at no time will the students enrolled in the Communication Disorders Program at the University of Wyoming be taught that a language impairment must be diagnosed using standardized norm-referenced assessments.
I strongly urge the Wyoming Department of Education to consider alternative wording in the proposed regulations that align with a more valid, accurate, and ethical approach to the assessment of language. Several states, including the neighboring state of Utah mandates that “multiple measures (formal and informal) are required for a student suspected of having a speech or language impairment (primary disability or requiring related services).” The WDE would be well served to follow the lead of those who have acknowledged the importance of alternative assessment procedures in the diagnosis of language impairment.
Respectfully,
Douglas B. Petersen PhC, CCC-SLP
Division of Communication Disorders
College of Health Sciences
University of Wyoming
No comments:
Post a Comment