DELV - Norm Referenced Case Studies Following are case studies that illustrate the information that can be obtained from the DELV Norm Referenced edition.
Case Study 1 Eric 4 years, 0 months Reason for Diagnostic Testing: Eric s Pre-Kindergarten teacher referred him for testing because he is difficult to understand and not as vocal as his peers. Eric was screened using the DELV Screening Test. His scores on Part I: Language Variation Status indicate that he is speaking Some Variation from Mainstream American English (MAE). This is consistent with the child s mostly White, Appalachian English-speaking language community. In addition, several articulation errors were noted. His score on Part II: Diagnostic Risk Status revealed that he is at a medium-tohigh risk for a language disorder. Since Eric cannot be considered a MAE speaker, the DELV Norm Referenced was determined to be the most appropriate diagnostic test to administer. Background Information: Background information was collected from conversations with Eric s mother and teachers. Family: Eric, an only child, has lived with his mother since birth in an economically depressed neighborhood. Appalachian English is the predominant variety of American English spoken. Health and Development: Eric s mother reported a normal pregnancy and delivery. Eric began walking at 12 months and talking at 14 months of age. School: Eric was cared for at home by his mother until entering the Pre-Kindergarten program. His attendance has been spotty. Assessment Results: Eric s speech and language skills were assessed using DELV Norm Referenced on April 28, 2007. Figure 1 on page 2, shows Eric s DELV Norm Referenced edition test results. His Total Language Composite Score is 80 (confidence interval of 74 to 89) with a percentile rank of 9. This score and the confidence interval are in the borderline/marginal/mild range not completely below the average range nor completely within the average range. This result, although not conclusive, is consistent with the classroom teacher s report that Eric is not as vocal as his peers. In the Phonology Domain Eric s percentile band is 6 7 which indicates performance in the moderate/low range. These results are consistent with the teacher s report that Eric is difficult to understand. *Clinician s Note: From birth, Eric lived with his mother, who had completed high school (PEL2). The demographics both of the child s low socioeconomic neighborhood and his school were dissimilar to that of the DELV Norm Referenced edition standardization sample (i.e., the general U.S. population sample). After considering the child s overall language-learning environment and exercising her clinical judgment, the examiner decided to adjust the child s scaled scores. Based on the available information, the examiner believed it was most appropriate to compare the child to a PEL1 2 normative sample (Table B.2 in the Manual), not the standardization sample (Table B.1 in the Manual). 2
Case Study 1 Eric Figure 1 Eric s Score Summary and Analysis Page 3
Case Study 1 Eric Interpretation of the Assessment Results: With a score in the borderline range, it is difficult to determine if language intervention is appropriate at this time, so further evaluation of domain scores is appropriate. Eric s Syntax, Pragmatics, and Semantics Adjusted Scaled Scores* are all below 1 SD from the mean. His scaled scores show minimal variability (i.e., they range from 6 to 7); following the steps outlined in chapter 2 of the Manual to determine possible areas of strength or weakness did not reveal any domains of particular weakness or strength. n Impressions and Suggestions: Because Eric s Total Language Composite Score is in the borderline/marginal range (i.e., 80) and no areas of strength or weakness are apparent upon further analysis, best practice indicates that the clinician should evaluate Eric s language further using another test such as the CELF 4. Because Eric speaks a variation from MAE, care should be taken when scoring responses on CELF-4 so he is not penalized for non-mae responses consistent with his dialect. Those test results, in combination with the DELV Norm Referenced edition results and all other information gathered about Eric s performance at home and in school will enable the clinician to make an evidence-based diagnosis. Further evaluation of Eric s articulation/phonological skills appears warranted to determine the exact nature and scope of his problem. 4
Case Study 2 Raymona 5 years, 3 months Reason for Diagnostic Testing: Raymona s speech and language were screened initially as part of her school s routine kindergarten screening program. Raymona s score on Part 1 of the DELV Screening Test (Language Variation Status) indicated that she speaks a variation from Mainstream American English (MAE). Her score on Part II (Diagnostic Risk Status) revealed that she is at the highest risk for a language disorder. Because Raymona speaks a variation from MAE, it was determined that the DELV Norm Referenced would be the most appropriate diagnostic language test for her. Background Information: Background information was collected from conversations with Raymona s parents and teachers. Family: Raymona has lived with both parents since birth in a predominantly middle class, mixed race/ ethnicity neighborhood. Health and Development: Raymona s mother reported a normal pregnancy and delivery. Raymona began walking and talking at 11 months of age. School: Raymona attended several daycare and preschool programs prior to kindergarten enrollment. Assessment Results: Raymona s speech and language skills were assessed using the DELV Norm Referenced on April 10, 2007. Figure 2 on page 5, reports Raymona s DELV Norm Referenced edition test results. Her Total Language Composite Score is 73 (confidence interval of 67 85) with a percentile rank of 4. Raymona obtained the same Unadjusted Scaled Score for each domain (more than 1 SD below the mean). In the Phonology Domain Raymona s percentile band is 17 19. Clinician s Note: Both of Raymona s parents completed high school (PEL2). The demographics of her economically stable neighborhood and her school are similar to that of the DELV Norm Referenced edition standardization sample (i.e., the general U.S. population sample). After considering the child s overall language-learning environment and exercising her clinical judgment, the examiner decided to not adjust Raymona s scaled scores. Based on the available information, the examiner believed it was most appropriate to compare Raymona s scores to the standardization sample (Table B.1 in the Manual) rather than to the PEL1 2 normative sample (Table B.2 in the Manual). 5
Case Study 2 Raymona Figure 2 Raymona s Score Summary and Analysis Page 6
Case Study 2 Raymona Interpretation of the Assessment Results: Raymona s Total Language Composite Score indicates performance in the moderate/low range. This result is consistent with her performance on Part II of the DELV-Screening Test, which indicated she had a high risk of language disorder. Raymona s score in the Phonology Domain indicates performance in the average range. n Impressions and Suggestions Raymona s scores on the language domains of DELV Norm Referenced support a diagnosis of language impairment; a placement decision should be made on the basis of the results of all the information obtained, including other formal and informal language assessments, parent and teacher reports, and observations. Since there have been no concerns about her articulation skills, no further evaluation in the Phonology area is necessary. n Suggestions for the Parent and Teacher Conferences Given these test results, you may want to discuss the following with Raymona s parents and teachers. n If you have not done so previously, begin the discussion by asking Raymona s parents/teachers to talk about what she does well and what accomplishments they are proudest of. Discuss what Raymona s strengths were during testing (e.g., Phonology). n Discuss Raymona s scores on the Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics Domains and explain how those scores relate to the following behaviors they may have observed at home and in the classroom: l Raymona may have trouble following directions (she may not do everything or may forget part of what she was supposed to do). l When asked a question, Raymona may only answer part of it. l Raymona may not learn words easily. l She may get frustrated easily because she can t express herself as easily as other children his age. l Raymona may be quieter than other children her age. l She may use vague or all-purpose words like stuff and thing. l Raymona may refuse to do or avoid activities that require her to speak (e.g., doesn t raise her hand to answer questions in class). l She may get confused about when things happened. n Discuss possible IEP goal areas and classroom/home activities that would be helpful in developing Raymona s language skills: Vocabulary l Kindergarten Expectation: Use new vocabulary l Home and Classroom Accommodation: Provide activities and experiences that encourage Raymona to talk about what she is seeing and doing (e.g., talk to Raymona while grocery shopping about all the different foods; encourage her to talk about what she s doing during center time.) Comprehension l Kindergarten Expectation: Retell a story that has been read to class l Home and Classroom Accommodation: When you read to Raymona, stop and ask her questions throughout the story. When you are done, encourage her to tell the story back to you, draw you a picture about the story, or act the story out. 7
Case Study 3 Denny 7 years, 1 months Reason for Diagnostic Testing: Denny was referred for speech and language testing because he does not follow classroom direction and has difficulty relaying information in a coherent manner. His scores on the DELV Screening Test Part I (Language Variation Status) indicated that he speaks Mainstream American English (MAE). His score on Part II (Diagnostic Risk Status) revealed that he is at the highest risk for a language disorder. Background Information: Background information was collected from conversations with Denny s father and teachers. Family: Denny has lived with his father and younger brother since he was 6 months old. Health and Development: Denny s father reported that his mother had a normal pregnancy and Denny s delivery was uneventful. Denny began talking at 11 months and walking at 11½ months of age. School: Denny has been attending a new school located in an economically stable community since mid-year. Prior to that, Denny lived in and attended a school in an economically depressed area of the city. Assessment Results: Denny s speech and language skills were assessed using the DELV Norm Referenced on June 23, 2007. Figure 3 on page 8, shows Denny s DELV Norm Referenced edition test results. His Total Language Composite Score is 68 (confidence interval of 63 80) with a percentile rank of 2. His Syntax, Pragmatics, and Semantics Adjusted Scaled Scores are all 2 SD below the mean and do not vary (i.e., all are 4). In the Phonology Domain Denny s percentile band is 23 26 Clinician s Note: Denny s father has completed technical courses beyond high school (PEL3). The demographics both of the neighborhood they lived in and the school Denny attended for the first 7 years of his life were dissimilar to that of the DELV Norm Referenced edition standardization sample (i.e., the general U.S. population sample). After considering Denny s overall language-learning environment and exercising her clinical judgment, the examiner decided to adjust the child s scaled scores. Based on the available information, the examiner believed it was most appropriate to compare Denny to a PEL3 normative sample (Table B.2 in the Manual), not the standardization sample (Table B.1 in the Manual). 8
Case Study 3 Denny Figure 3 Denny s Score Summary and Analysis Page 9
Case Study 3 Denny Interpretation of the Assessment Results Denny s Total Language score and the confidence interval indicate language performance in the moderate/low range. This result supports the teacher s initial referral concerns (i.e., trouble following directions and relaying information.) Denny s Phonology score indicates performance in the average range. n Impressions and Suggestions Denny s DELV Norm Referenced results support a diagnosis of language impairment. Eligibility for speech/language services should be made on the basis of all the information obtained on Denny, including other language assessments, parent and teacher report, school records, and observations. Further evaluation of Denny s articulation/phonological skills is not necessary. n Suggestions for the Parent and Teacher Conferences Given these test results, you may want to discuss the following with Denny s father and teachers. n If you have not done so previously, begin the discussion by asking Denny s father/teachers to talk about what he does well and what accomplishments they are proudest of. Discuss what Denny s strengths were during testing (e.g., Phonology). n Discuss Denny s scores on the Syntax, Semantics, and Pragmatics Domains and explain how those scores relate to the following behaviors they may have observed at home and in the classroom: l Doesn t understand words that other children his or her age understand. l Denny may not learn words easily. l He may get frustrated easily because he can t express himself as easily as other children his age. l Denny may use the same words over and over. l He may use vague or all-purpose words like stuff and thing. l Denny may avoid activities that require him to speak (e.g., doesn t raise his hand to answer questions in class). n Discuss possible IEP goal areas and classroom/home activities that would be helpful in developing Denny s language skills: Vocabulary l Grade 2 Expectation: Uses new vocabulary modeled by teacher in conversation l Home and Classroom Accommodation: Provide activities that enhance vocabulary usage. For example, when reading stories, remind Denny of experiences he had that will help him understand the new vocabulary and use it in familiar contexts. Comprehension l Grade 2 Expectation: Uses new vocabulary in conversations with peers l Home and Classroom Accommodation: Encourage Denny to use the new vocabulary words he learns in class at home during dinner conversations. Make a game of doing so by having each family member use the word in a sentence. The same thing can be done at school with the entire class while waiting in line for lunch or recess.