The proposed WDE Eligibility Changes to Section 11: Speech or Language Impairment are not valid for multiple reasons. I focus on the language impairment (III) criteria here, although there are serious problems with the other parts of this section too. If the WDE proposed/emergency rules stand, we will be using these as examples of invalid and inappropriate practices in our university courses.
The rules require both:
1. The child is -1.5sd on standardized tests of morphologic, syntactic, semantic, or pragmatic patterns
2. Documentation that the receptive or expressive language interferes with the child’s oral communication or primary mode of communication.
Problems:
1. NORM-REFERENCED SCORES DO NOT REVEAL ACTUAL PERFORMANCE. There is little correspondence between a particular level of standard score on a test of discrete skills and actual performance in academic activities. Low scores generally correspond to low academic performance, but children can struggle in school due to language problems that are not manifest in extremely low scores.
2. Norm-referenced tests are NOT GOOD at testing language production. The responses are short and structured to allow for quick, easy, and reliable administration and scoring. However very little productive language is elicited. These tests do not demonstrate difficulty in sentence formulation, vocabulary use, or narrative and expository discourse organization.
3. Norm-referenced tests ARE NOT GOOD AT TESTING PRAGMATICS. Pragmatics is a stated area of eligibility, but the appropriate use of language in different contexts cannot be determined by standardized, norm-referenced tests. Pragmatic problems, which do affect academic problems, can only be determined through language sampling, observation, interview, and response-to-learning data.
4. ORAL COMMUNICATION DEFICITS ARE REQUIRED BUT CANNOT BE DEMONSTRATED. The second eligibility requirement is not operationalized. As previously explained, norm-referenced tests do not demonstrate use of language. Clinicians must use some other measure, such as observation, language sampling, or work products to meet the second eligibility requirement. So additional measures are implied, but the lack of explicit requirement/permission will lead to variable and confusing enactment.
5. DEFICITS IN ORAL LANGUAGE AFFECT WRITTEN LANGUAGE. Children should be tested through oral language tests because these avoid the problem of poor decoding/encoding (word reading and spelling) interfering with demonstration of language skills. However, receptive or expressive language problems may interfere with the child’s performance with written language tasks to a greater degree than with oral conversational language.
6. RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE ELIGIBILITY STANDARDS. Federal requirements now allow RTI judgments for reading disabilities. Language (and speech) impairment also fit well within this model. Children can be seen for short periods of intensive intervention with minimal paperwork to quickly and efficiently correct their learning trajectories so they do not need long-term services or, alternatively, to determine if serious underlying language problems are present. If clinicians were supported in investigating ways of using RTI, caseloads could be reduced and limited only to those who really need special education services. (See Ukrainetz, 2006 for further information on RTI and speech-language eligibility)
Recommendations:
1. Keep the conservative level of -1.5 standard deviations (7%ile) on norm-referenced tests to control caseload size.
2. Operationalize the second requirement as involving some measure of actual life performance.
3. Modify the second requirement so that either oral or written language performance is included.
4. Require investigation and documentation of performance, especially that of expressive language and pragmatics, beyond norm-referenced tests. Possible avenues include language sampling, observation, or work products.
5. Allow clinical judgment to bring together the evidence for a determination of eligibility.
6. Include eligibility language that allows use of RTI as part of determination of eligibility.
Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). EBP, RTI, and the Implications for SLPs. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 298-303.
Teresa A. Ukrainetz, Ph.D.
Director and Professor
Division of Communication Disorders
University of Wyoming
No comments:
Post a Comment