CELF 5 Report Template

Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5: Metalinguistics Report
Results of the Clinical Evaluation Of Language Fundamentals-5: Metalinguistics (CELF-5:M)1
Raw Score
Scaled Score
Percentile Rank
Metalinguistics Profile
Making Inferences
Conversation Skills
Multiple Meanings
Figurative Language
CELF-5:M Indices
Sum of Scaled Scores Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Total Metalinguistic Index
Meta-Pragmatics Index
Meta-Semantics Index
Recommendations for using severity ratings based on Scaled Scores (Also see Examiner Manual p. 130):
Scaled Score 1 - Profoundly Impaired
Scaled Score 2 - Severely Impaired
Scaled Score 3 - Moderately Impaired
Scaled Scores 4-7 - Below Average
Scaled Scores 8-12 - Average
Scaled Scores 13+ - Superior
Recommendation: Administer this test to higher functioning (but not too high functioning) students undergoing language assessment for
the first time or to higher functioning students receiving a re-evaluation, who have previously passed the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals-5 with ease. This test would not be appropriate for Severely Challenged and Challenged Social Communicators (see Winner,
2011). Testing administration is NOT recommended to Nuance Challenged Social Communicators (Winner, 2011). Specifically to Socially
Anxious and Weak Interactive Social Communicators (Winner, 2011 pg. 9-12 ). These are the students with average or above average
verbal language abilities most of whom did not have language delays when they were young. They have a ‘well-developed social radar’ and
they’re highly aware of other people feelings and thoughts. However they have difficulties navigating subtle social cues of others. As a
result this particular group of students tends to score quite on metalinguistic and social pragmatic testing of reduced complexity yet still
present with pervasive social pragmatic language deficits.
This score is based on parental observations and is not calculated as a part of standardized testing scores.
Copyright © 2018 Smart Speech Therapy LLC
Page 1
Student Name, a ___ year old female/male was seen by ________________________ for a metalinguistic evaluation
for __ testing sessions in on ____ dates due to parental/teacher concerns over his/her metalinguistic language
Student’s background history was obtained from provided records/interviews/intake questionnaires.
Prenatal/perinatal/postnatal history
Medical history
Developmental milestones were reached
Social/emotional/behavior history is applicable
Psychiatric history
Family history is remarkable for
Language background and use history
Results of previous testing
Speech and Language
Occupational Therapy
Present testing was conducted in __hour increments over a series of __ sessions in order to reduce the potential for
stress, anxiety, and fatigue and ensure optimal performance.
Description of student performance during testing: Include eye contact, affect, any unusual behaviors, compliance and
cooperation status, as well as any utterances and comments. Was the student behavior consistent with reports of
functioning in the classroom or at home. If not speculate why not?
The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals -5: Metalinguistics (CELF-5:M) was administered to
_______to determine his/her metalinguistic abilities (ability to talk about, analyze, and think about language). CELF5:M was created for students ages 9-21, who have adequate basic knowledge (understand basic concepts and speak
in grammatically correct sentences), but who may lack the metalinguistic skills needed for successful functioning in
academic setting or present with select subtle language disorders undetectable via core language testing alone.
Copyright © 2018 Smart Speech Therapy LLC
Page 2
The Metalinguistics Profile subtest3 of the CELF-5:M is a questionnaire (filled out by caregiver or teacher) which
targets three areas: Words, Concepts, and Multiple Meanings; Inferences and Predictions; as well as Conversational
Knowledge and Use. Its aim is to obtain information about a student’s metalinguistic skills in everyday educational
and social contexts to complement the evidence of metalinguistic strengths and weaknesses identified by the other
subtests that comprise the CELF-5:M test battery.
Questions address such topics as the child’s comprehension of idioms and abstract language, their predicting and
inferencing abilities, their ability to deal with unpleasant situations, participate in group discussions, as well as
understand jokes and sarcasm, just to name a few. A maximum of four points can be obtained on each of it 30
questions. The following is the rating criteria: a score of one is obtained when a child ‘never’ does something in a
particular category (e.g., doesn’t get the punchline of jokes). A score of two is given when a child is capable of
understanding or using something ‘some of the time’. A score of three is given when a child is able to understand or
perform something ‘often’. Finally, a score of four is given when a child is capable of comprehending something
‘always’ or ‘almost always’.
Student obtained a scaled score of __ and a percentile rank of ___ indicating _______ performance. According to its
results (as per parental report) Student presents with significant weaknesses understanding: (examples) multiple
meaning words, idiomatic expressions, jokes, and sarcasm, predicting effects of actions in spoken and written
information, drawing inferences from text, using judgment to predict positive/negative outcomes of actions, following
expectations of social interactions, participating in group discussions, as well as appropriately participating in
unpleased conversations/discussions.
Alternatively it can be documented as follows:
According to its results (as per parental feedback) Student presents with the following most prominent deficit areas:
 Maintaining the themes of discussions
 Knowing when to enter and exit conversations smoothly
 Comprehension and usage of abstract words, idioms, provers, metaphoric language, etc.
 Comprehension of idiomatic expressions
 Prediction of emotional reactions
 Tactful reactions to another person’s point of view in discussions
 Difficulty following expectations of social interactions
 Use of appropriate words to express complex intentions (negotiating)
 Extension of topics of conversation/discussions in a logical manner
 Recognition when communication is not effective by paraphrasing/taking a different approach
 Understanding of others perspectives (point of view) in discussions or conversations
 Appropriate participation in unpleased conversations/discussions
A word of caution, when giving this profile to either teachers or parents to fill out, the SLP must ensure that no overinflation or
underestimation of scores takes place. Frequently, some parents may not have a clear understanding of the extent of their child’s level of
deficits. Similarly, some teachers, especially those who may not know the child very well, or those who have worked with a child for a
very short period of time, may overinflate the scores when filling out the questionnaire. However, the opposite may also occur. A small
group of parents may underestimate their children’s abilities, and provide poor scores as a result also not providing an objective
picture of the child’s level of deficits. In such situations, the best option may be for the SLP to fill out the questionnaire together with
the parent or teacher in order to provide explanations of questions in a different categories.
Copyright © 2018 Smart Speech Therapy LLC
Page 3
The Making Inferences subtest of the CELF-5:M was administered to Student to evaluate her ability to identify and
formulate logical inferences on the basis of existing causal relationships presented in short narrative texts. Student
was visually and auditorily presented with a particular situation by the examiner. She was then asked to identify the
best two out of four written answers for the ending and come up with her own additional reason other than the ones
listed in the stimulus book. Student obtained a scaled score of ____and a percentile rank of ____ indicating ________
performance in her/his ability to make logical inferences pertaining to everyday events.
On the multiple choice responses errors resulted due to provision of contradictory, unrelated, incomplete and
irrelevant responses. On the open ended questions errors resulted due to vague, confusing, incomplete, unlikely or
illogical responses. Errors also resulted due to contradictory and off topic answers. On the open-ended portion of this
subtest, errors also resulted due to a predominance of: “I don’t know responses”.
For example, when told a story of a woman who rushed out of the house because she was late for work but who then
returned to the house two minutes later smiling, Student was asked why she did that. Student responded: “She missed
her family”. When presented with a story about the hardest worker in a restaurant who did not get a raise, Student was
asked to come up with a reason why his boss refused to give him a raise. Student responded: “Because he was being
bad.” When told a story of a boy who patiently waited in line for a hamburger but then left the fast-food restaurant
when he got to the counter Student was asked why he did that. Student began responding correctly but then added a
vague comment: “He changed his mind that he didn’t want to go”.
The Conversational Skills4 subtest of the CELF-5:M was administered to evaluate Student’s ability to initiate a
conversation or respond in a way that is relevant and is pragmatically appropriate to the context and audience while
incorporating given words in semantically and syntactically correct sentences. He was presented with a picture scene
that created a conversational context and two or three words, which were also printed above the pictured scene. He
was then asked to formulate a conversationally and pragmatically appropriate sentence for the given context using all
of the target words in the form (tense, number, etc.) provided.
On this subtest, Student obtained a scaled score of ____and a percentile rank of ____ indicating ______ performance
in his ability to formulate semantically and syntactically correct sentences based on presented visual and written
stimuli. On this subtest, errors resulted due to Student’s repeated difficulty formulating sentences with the provided
words, three times in a row, which resulted in a discontinuation of the presented subtest. For example, when
presented with a picture seen in which a boy was selecting his lunch in a cafeteria and told: “While ordering food you
hear the words: “either / have / corn”, can you make up a sentence of what someone may have said?” Student
responded: “I don’t know”. As a consequence of several more similar responses, subtest presentation was
discontinued as per subtest instructions. Errors resulted due to illogical, nonsensical, vague, and incomplete
responses, as well as use of sentence fragments. Errors also resulted due to use of language that did not match the
pictured scene. Student was presented with a scene of people folding clothes and was asked to make a relevant
sentence with the following words: “myself, even though, hard.” In response, Student provided the following
sentence: “Me myself even though it’s hard.” When presented with a picture of children looking at a cat locked
outside on a rainy day, Student was told to make a sentence with the following words: “inside, however, cat.” The
following was the sentence that Student provided: “I’ll get the cat inside, however I love cats.”
The Multiple Meanings subtest of the CELF-5:M was administered to evaluate Student’s ability to recognize and
interpret different meanings of selected lexical (word level) and structural (sentence level) ambiguities. She was
Detailed item analysis HERE
Copyright © 2018 Smart Speech Therapy LLC
Page 4
presented a sentence (orally and in text) that contained an ambiguity at either the word or sentence level. She was then
asked to describe two meanings for each presented sentence. Student obtained a scaled score of ___ and a percentile
rank of ___ indicating ________ performance.
Errors resulted due to Student’s difficulty interpreting lexical and structural ambiguities as well as due to his inability
to provide more than one interpretation to presented multiple meaning words. For example, when presented with: “I
saw her duck when she came out of the building” Student was asked to explain two things that sentence could mean.
A correct response needed to reference bending and a bird without the use of the presented word in an explanation.
Student correctly produced: “I saw her bird” and then stated “I don’t know the second one”. When presented with:
“The teacher told us to make a line” Student was asked to explain two things that sentence could mean. Student
correctly responded: “stand in line” and then nonspecifically stated “make a sentence”, which again resulted in a loss
of credit. When presented with: “Did you see that fly?” Student was asked to explain two things that sentence could
mean. Instead of responding that the sentence could have been referring to an insect and an object moving through the
air, Student responded: “bird fly” and “did you see the fly”. When asked to explain two meanings of a sentence:
“Katie made a basket during the game.” Instead of responding that Katie made a shot while playing the game or Katie
wove a basket during the game, student replied: “Basketball and Easter Egg Hunt.”
The Figurative Language subtest of the CELF-5:M was administered to evaluate Student’s ability to interpret
figurative expressions (idioms) within a given context and match each expression with another figurative expression
of similar meaning given verbal and written support. Student obtained a scaled score of ___ and a percentile rank of
___ indicating ________ performance.
Errors resulted due to difficulty explaining the meanings of idiomatic expressions, as well as difficulty selecting the
appropriate meaning from visually provided multiple choice answers. When asked to explain of the phrase “Spill the
beans,” Student responded: “Talk a lot.” When asked to visually match the expression “Mary is going to spill the
beans”, instead of selecting the choice “Mary will let the cat out of the bag” Student selected “Mary will cry over spilt
milk.” When asked to explain “Step on it,” Student responded: “Get up.” When asked to visually select a relevant
choice that could also mean “step on it,” instead of selecting “shake a leg,” Student responded “Step on a bus.” When
asked to explain of the phrase “his bark is worse than his bite,” Student responded: “he is mean.” When asked to
visually match the expression “You guys need to step on it”, instead of selecting the choice “Shake a leg!” Student
selected “Step on the bus.” When asked to visually select a relevant choice that could also mean “beating around the
bush,” rather than selecting “You are talking in circles,” Student responded by selecting: “You’re cutting to the
chase.” Frequently, when asked to explain a particular idiomatic expression Student stated: “I don’t know”, which
resulted in a loss of credit for that testing portion.
Alternative: Student obtained a scaled score of 8 and a percentile rank of 25 indicating low average performance.
While Student’s performance on this subtest is still within the average range of functioning, it is recommended that
her abilities in this area be monitored on ongoing basis in therapy sessions in order to ensure that deterioration in
performance does not take place.
The Meta-Pragmatics Index is a measure of Student's performance on two tests (Making Inferences Conversation
Skills) of the CELF-5M. It was designed to probe meta-pragmatic aspects of language including using content and
context to make situationally-appropriate inferences and engage in appropriate conversations, given constraints set by
word choices. Student received a Meta-Pragmatics Index score of ____ and a percentile rank _____ indicating _____
Copyright © 2018 Smart Speech Therapy LLC
Page 5
The Meta-Semantics Index is a measure of Student's performance on two tests (Multiple Meanings Figurative
Language) of the CELF-5M. It was designed to probe meta-semantic aspects of language including the student’s
ability to process and understand sentences with either multiple meanings or abstract, idiomatic expressions. Student
received a Meta-Semantics Index score of ____ and a percentile rank _____ indicating _____ performance.
The Total Metalinguistics Index is obtained via the administration of the all of the four subtests from the CELF-5 M.
It is a measure of general metalinguistic ability and quantifies Student's overall metalinguistic performance. Student
received a Total Metalinguistics Index score of ____ and a percentile rank of ___ indicating ____ overall
It is important to note that both IDEA-2004 as well as the New Jersey Educational Code do not mention any
information regarding qualifying students based on index or composite scores. “Test interpretation and decisionmaking regarding eligibility the criteria do not limit the types of scores that can be considered (e.g., index,
subtest, standard score, etc.).” Consequently, “test analyses, presented with the functional assessment of
language and information about the educational impact of the communication difficulties on the student’s
ability to be involved in academic, nonacademic, and extracurricular activities, assist in determining
Student, a ___ year old female/male was seen by ________________________ for a metalinguistic evaluation for __
testing sessions in on ____ dates due to parental/teacher concerns over his/her expressive and social communication
Assessment revealed that student presents with _______ metalinguistic deficits characterized by impaired ability to
make inferences, engage in conversational exchanges, flexibly explain multiple meaning words, as well as verbally
interpret ambiguously worded sentences, idioms, and figurative expressions.
ICD-10 Diagnoses (pertaining to present assessment):
F80.2 - Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder
F80.82 -Social pragmatic communication disorder
While students with language and learning disorders do require accommodations to fully benefit from the curriculum,
for appropriate long-term benefit, these deficits will need to be addressed and effectively remediated with
carefully targeted individualized therapeutic intervention.
Based on assessment results, it is strongly recommended that the student begin receiving language therapy
services, immediately with a focus on improving the student’s metalinguistic abilities. Therapy frequency and
length are deferred to the clinical judgment of the treating therapist.
Given student performance during the assessment the following modifications may be beneficial in order to optimize
his learning:
Session Materials Modifications
Copyright © 2018 Smart Speech Therapy LLC
Page 6
o When deciding on the complexity of selected materials, student maintaining factors should be taken into
consideration. Maintaining factors are those factors, which maintain a disorder/condition and delay progress in
therapy (Klein & Moses, 1999). They include: cognitive, sensorimotor, psychosocial and linguistic deficits.
Since student has maintaining factors in some of these areas, the treating speech language pathologist must
compensate for them in therapy; otherwise limited progress will be made in achieving the potential goals of
o It’s very important to incorporate known information when teaching new tasks in order not to increase complexity
too rapidly
o A list of predetermined strategies can be created to improve student awareness when he is having difficulties
working on particular tasks, so he could tell the teacher/therapist when he is experiencing difficulties
Maintaining Factors (factors contributing to the maintenance of linguistic deficits)5
 Psychosocial
o Significant weaknesses in the area of social communication (social immaturity, impaired pattern of
socializations with peers)
 Linguistic
o Student presents with decreased metalinguistic abilities resulting in impaired expressive as well as social
communication abilities
 Long Term Goal: Student will improve his metalinguistic abilities in order to effectively communicate with a
variety of listeners/speakers in all conversational and academic contexts.
 Short Term Goals:
1. Student will make social inferences with and without written support
2. Student will make social predictions with and without written support
3. Student will produce syntactically, semantically, and pragmatically appropriate compound and complex
sentences with and without visual support
4. Student will explain context embedded multiple meaning words
5. Student will explain ambiguously worded language
6. Student will explain figurative language and idiomatic expressions
Reward system and rationale:
Internal and social system of reward for targeted skill achievement (fostering intrinsic motivation to take pride in own
Goal Termination: Contingent on a 90% or above accuracy marker over a period of 3 consecutive sessions
Expected duration of treatment: To be determined based on progress in therapy, parental (homework and carryover
activities and exercises) and school involvement (whether any additional support services are provided).
Prognosis: Good but cautious due to the above maintaining factors
Therapy Discharge: Contingent on successful reassessment of target deficit areas.
Please contact me with any questions and/or concerns regarding this report at ___________
Therapist Credentials
These maintaining factors are expected to affect duration of intervention but not its ultimate goal achievement
Copyright © 2018 Smart Speech Therapy LLC
Page 7