| Description |
The purpose of the present study was two-fold. The first aim was to collect preliminary data regarding whether or not Speech-Language Pathologists (SLP) in northern Utah adhere to federal, state, and professional mandates when conducting initial assessments of English learning (EL) children. The second aim was to gather information via survey about SLPs' assessment practices, training, and their confidence in assessing children, regardless of language status, suspected of language impairment. The first aim was addressed by conducting a systematic review of the speech-language assessment reports along with any supporting documentation in two districts and one charter school in northern Utah. Results of the file review clearly demonstrated that SLPs did not adhere to federal, state, and professional mandates regarding appropriate assessment of English learning children. This "nonadherence" consisted of SLPs over-reliance of standardized measures, lack of developmental history information from parents, and the absence of informal measures. Survey results revealed that SLPs tended to use a one-size-fits-all approach to language assessment regardless of whether the child was EL or monolingual English speaking. In terms of confidence in assessing EL children, all SLPs whether bilingual or monolingual English speakers, reported feeling more confident conducting assessments of monolingual English-speaking children. Although the SLPs surveyed reported having knowledge of the more commonly promoted informal measures, evidence of implementation was minimal. As a consequence, English learning children assessed for language impairment seemed to have been assessed using measures that do not align with recommended practices set forth by legal and professional organizations. |
