Poway Unified School District
Chaparral Elementary School
17250 Tannin Drive
Poway, CA 92064
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE EVALUATION SUMMARY
DATE OF REPORT:
NAME:
SCHOOL YEAR:
DATE OF BIRTH:
AGE:
GRADE:
CURRENT PROGRAM:
PARENTS/GUARDIAN:
SCHOOL OF ATTENDANCE:
ADDRESS:
SCHOOL OF RESIDENCE:
TEACHER:
PHONE NUMBER:
PRIMARY LANGUAGE:
ASSESSOR:
EL: No
REASON FOR REFERRAL
Jeffrey was referred for evaluation by the IEP team as part of his triennial review to determine if
he continues to demonstrate eligibility for speech and/or language services. He is currently
enrolled in the 5th grade.
EDUCATIONALLY RELEVANT HEALTH, DEVELOPMENTAL AND/OR MEDICAL
FINDINGS
Jeffrey initially qualified for special education services through PUSD in October 2004 under the
eligibility category of Autism. He has been receiving speech therapy 30 times direct, 5 times
push-in, and 4 consults at 30 minutes each year. He has made excellent progress towards all
pragmatic language goals. Additionally, he has been receiving consultative Occupation
Therapy services 4 times per year for 30 minute sessions to work on sensory processing.
Please see Psycho-Educational report for more details (dated March 2012).
LANGUAGE BACKGROUND
Jeffrey’s primary language is English; the primary language of the home is English as well.
RELEVANT BEHAVIOR NOTED DURING OBSERVATION
Jeffrey was assessed over several sessions in a quiet room by this examiner. He came to the
speech room willingly and engaged in conversation with this examiner. He was compliant
throughout testing procedures and responded well to praise and encouragement. He appeared
to be comfortable and worked hard to complete all tasks presented. It was a pleasure working
with Jeffrey.
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 1
EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The assessment instruments and procedures used are valid for the purpose of this evaluation,
are nondiscriminatory, and were administered by qualified personnel. The student’s language
proficiency was considered in the administration of all instruments and procedures.
The evaluation included review of records, speech/language evaluation, clinical observation,
progress review, and teacher/parent feedback.
SPEECH AND LANGUAGE EVALUATION RESULTS
This speech and language evaluation was conducted by Morwenna Kehoe, Speech-Language
Pathologist.
ARTICULATION/PHONOLOGY
Based on informal observation and assessment, Jeffrey presents with age appropriate
articulation skills. His intelligibility is greater than 80% in conversational speech when the
context is unknown.
VOICE
Based on informal observation and assessment, Jeffrey’s voice is within normal limits for age
and gender.
FLUENCY
Jeffrey’s fluency is within normal limits.
LANGUAGE
Cognitive Measure: Jeffrey’s Full Scale IQ is 129, in the above average range. Please see
Psycho-Educational Report (dated March 2012).
Formal Language Assessment Results
The Social Language Development Test – Elementary was administered to assess Jeffrey’s
social language skills. It is a diagnostic test of social language skills, including nonverbal
communication for elementary students aged 6.0 to 11.11. The tasks focus on taking someone
else’s perspective, making correct inferences, negotiating conflicts with peers, being flexible in
interpreting situations, and supporting friends diplomatically. Following is a description of each
subtest:
1. Making Inferences: The student takes the perspective of someone in a photograph and,
based on the context clues (facial expression, gesture, posture, background clues, etc.)
tells what the person is thinking as a direct quote from the character. The student,
therefore, must state a relevant thought from that character’s perspective and then state
the relevant visual clues suggesting the character’s thought.
2. Interpersonal Negotiations: The student is asked to imagine being in a conflict situation
with a friend. The student must then state the problem, propose an appropriate solution,
and explain why that solution would be a good one.
3. Multiple Interpretations: The student provides two distinctly different, plausible
interpretations to the same photo.
4. Supporting Peers: The student assumes the perspective of a main character in a
situation with a friend. The student tells the friend something that supports or pleases
the friend, even if the comment isn’t truthful.
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 2
The following tables illustrate Jeffrey’s performance on this test:
MAKING
Expressing
Stating Visual Cues
INFERENCES
Perspective
Standard Score
88- Low Average
81 – Below Average
Percentile Rank
21
11
INTERPERSONAL
NEGOTIATIONS
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
MULTIPLE
INTERPRETATIONS
Standard Score
Percentile Rank
Stating
Problems
99 - Average
47
Stating
Solutions
97 - Average
43
Total
83 – Below Average
13
Justifying
Solutions
102 – Average
55
Total
99 - Average
48
Multiple
Interpretations
95 – Average
38
SUPPORTING
Supporting
PEERS
Peers
Standard Score
108 – Average
Percentile Rank
69
Average standard scores are achieved between 85-115
Jeffrey achieved an overall Test Total Standard Score of 97, indicating average
performance, in the 43rd percentile. Jeffrey demonstrated strengths in the areas of stating
problems from a mutual perspective (i.e.: We want to do different things.), stating solutions to
problems, justifying solutions for the current situation, providing multiple interpretations of a
photograph, and telling a friend something that supports or pleases the friend, even if the
comment isn’t truthful (i.e.: friend gets bad haircut – “Your hair looks nice.”). Jeffrey
demonstrated relative weakness in the area of expressing someone’s perspective by
formulating a direct quote relevant to a person’s situation and the emotional intensity exhibited
(i.e.: I finally got a car!) and identifying and stating a visual clue in a picture to suggest what a
character was thinking (i.e.: holding up keys and smiling).
The Children’s Communication Checklist –Second Edition (CCC-2), a measure designed to
assess children’s communication skills in the areas of pragmatics, syntax, morphology,
semantics, and speech, was given to Jeffrey’s teacher to fill out. It is administered using a
Caregiver Response Form on which the caregiver rates the fluency that the child demonstrates
the communication behavior described in each item.
The first four scales – A: Speech, B: Syntax, C: Semantics, and D: Coherence – assesses
aspects of articulation and phonology, language structure, vocabulary, and discourse. These
are areas that are often impaired in children with Speech Language Impairment.
The next four scales – E: Initiation, F: Scripted Language, G: Context, and H: Nonverbal
Communication – address pragmatic aspects of communication that are not readily assessed by
conventional language assessments. Pragmatic skills can be impaired in children with or
without structural language difficulties. In other words, Scales E, F, G, and H identify children
whose language is not impaired in the areas of content and form, but is impaired in the area of
use. The last two scales – I: Social Relations and J: Interests – assess behaviors that are
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 3
usually impaired in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD). These scales are included
because pragmatic language impairment is a hallmark feature of Autism Spectrum Disorders
(ASD). CCC-2 cannot be used to diagnose ASD, but a finding of disproportionately poor scores
on the scales assessing pragmatics, in addition to evidence of impairment on Scales I and J,
would suggest that the child needs further evaluation.
The following table illustrates teacher ratings:
Scaled Scores of 7-13 are in the average range
Scaled Scores
Percentile Ranks
A. Speech
12 – High Average
75%
B. Syntax
C. Semantics
D. Coherence
12– High Average
10– Average
8– Average
75%
50%
25%
Scaled Scores
Percentile Ranks
E. Initiation
F. Scripted Lang
11 – Average
13 – High Average
63%
84%
G. Context
H. Nonverbal
Communication
9 – Average
9 – Average
37%
37%
I. Social Relations
J. Interests
TEACHER
COMPOSITE
SCORES
(TOTALS)
General
Communication
Composite (GCC)
Social Interaction
Difference Index
(SIDI)
Scaled Scores
Percentile Ranks
6 – Slightly Below
Average
11– Average
9%
63%
Standard
Score
Percentile
Rank
Summary of Performance
104
61
(Sum of Scores A – H)
AVERAGE
---------------- ---------------- Index score of -5 = performance in typical
range
(-10 to 10 typical; >10 indicates
characteristics similar to Speech Language
Impairment; <-10 indicates characteristics
similar to Autism Spectrum Disorder)
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 4
The GCC is a norm-referenced standard score which enables the examiner to compare the
child’s performance to the performances of other children the same age. The GCC is on a
normalized standard score scale that has a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. The
GCC may be used to identify children likely to have significant communication problems.
Overall, based on teacher ratings, Jeffrey achieved a General Communication Composite
(GCC) Standard Score of 104, in the 61st percentile, indicating average communication
skills in the classroom.
The Social Interaction Difference Index (SIDI) was designed to be helpful in identifying children
with a communication profile that might be characteristic of language impairment or Autism
Spectrum Disorder (ASD). Based on teacher ratings, Jeffrey achieved a SIDI score of -5,
indicating typical communication skills for his age.
Based on this checklist, in the area of language content and form (A, B, C, D), Jeffrey presented
with average language skills with strengths in the area of speech (articulation and phonology),
syntax, and semantics. He presented with relative weakness in the area of coherence. In the
area of pragmatics (E, F, G, H), Jeffrey presented with average skills with relative strengths in
the areas of initiation and scripted language. He presented with relative weakness in the areas
of context and nonverbal communication. On the last two scales (I, J) which assess behaviors
that are usually impaired in children with Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD), Jeffrey presented
with strengths in the area of initiation but weakness in the area of social relations. Examples of
areas of weakness are outlined below:

Coherence: Occasionally talks about things in the past or future

Context: Occasional difficulty talking in different situations; less than once a week he
appreciates humor that is ironic

Nonverbal Communication: occasionally stands too close when talking to someone;
occasionally uses gestures to get meaning across

Social Relations: occasionally seems inattentive with adults; less than once a week he
shows concern when others are upset; less than once a week he talks about his friends
Portions of the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL) were
administered to Jeffrey to assess his ability to use language for special tasks requiring higherlevel cognitive functions and to assess his knowledge and use of language in communicative
contexts. The following areas of language were assessed with this measure
1. Supralinguistic language skills - measures comprehension of complex language
in which meaning is not directly available from lexical or grammatical information
(nonliteral language subtest and inference subtest).
2. Pragmatic language skills–measures awareness of the appropriateness of language
in relation to the situation in which it is used and ability to modify language to the
situation (pragmatic judgement subtest).
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 5
The following table illustrates Jeffrey’s performance on this measure. Please note that Standard
Scores of 85-115 are within the average range.
CASL Subtest
Standard Score
Nonliteral Language
110
Inference
97
Pragmatic Judgment
122
Performance
High Average
Average
Above Average
Descriptions of the subtests of the CASL are provided below:
Nonliteral Language: On this subtest, Jeffrey listened to a sentence read aloud by the
examiner that contained a nonliteral expression, followed by a question such as, “What does
that mean?” Jeffrey then needed to state what the nonliteral expression meant. This subtest
measures a student’s understanding of the meaning of spoken messages independent of literal
interpretation (i.e.: figurative speech, indirect requests, and sarcasm). Jeffrey correctly
responded to 26 of 36 presented items. He achieved a standard score of 110, indicating
average skills in the area of supralinguistics.
Inference: On this subtest, Jeffrey listened to 2 to 3 sentence episodes read aloud by the
examiner, followed by a question that required Jeffrey to use his background and world
knowledge to infer the answer. This subtest measures a student’s use of previously acquired
world knowledge to derive meaning from inferences. Jeffrey correctly responded to 25 of 39
presented items. He achieved a standard score of 97, indicating average skills in the area of
supralinguistics.
Pragmatic Judgment: On this subtest, Jeffrey listened to a series of vignettes read aloud by
the examiner. He then was required to judge the appropriateness of the language used by the
characters in the vignette or to supply the appropriate language for the situation. This subtest
measures a student’s knowledge and use of pragmatic language rules and judgment of their
appropriate application. Jeffrey correctly responded to 63 out of 68 presented items. He
achieved a standard score of 122, indicating above average skills in the area of pragmatics.
Additionally, the Pragmatics Profile from the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4) was distributed and completed by Jeffrey’s current classroom
teacher. The purpose of the Pragmatics Profile is to identify verbal and nonverbal pragmatic
deficits that may negatively influence social and academic communication. Rituals and
Conversational skill; Asking For, Giving, and Responding to Information; and Nonverbal
Communication Skills are the areas that are assessed. The evaluator can respond with
“Never,” “Sometimes,” “Often,” “Always,” “Not Observed,” or “Not Appropriate” for each
behavior. The table below represents the teacher’s score regarding Jeffrey’s pragmatic
language:
Evaluator
Classroom
Teacher
Score
147
The Average Criterion score for a student aged 10:0-11:11 is > 136. Jeffrey achieved a
total scores of 147 on the Pragmatics Profile which does meet the criterion score of
greater than or equal to 136, indicating adequate communication abilities in context. The
following areas were rated as “Sometimes” by the classroom teacher:
 Sometimes maintains eye contact, appropriate body position during conversations
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 6


Sometimes participates/interacts appropriately in unstructured group activities
Sometimes adjusts body distance appropriate to the situation
Informal Language Assessment Results: The following informal assessments from Michelle
Garcia Winner’s Social Thinking Dynamic Assessment were also conducted to further assess
Jeffrey’s language skills: writing sample, the double interview, thinking with eyes, sequencing
pictures, language sample, classroom observations. Descriptions and observations are outlined
below:
Writing Sample: Jeffrey was asked to complete a worksheet containing basic information such
as name, birthday, address, parent’s names, etc. This task assesses the student’s ability to ask
for help and provide general information about self. Jeffrey was familiar with all information
requested and asked for help effortlessly indicating strengths in asking for clarification of
information and personal knowledge.
The Double Interview: This task consisted of the therapist interviewing Jeffrey about his life at
home and at school and then having Jeffrey interview the therapist. During the interview
process, Jeffrey answered all questions quickly and appropriately about himself and his family.
He needed a verbal prompt to provide additional important information to only one question
(provided names of pets but didn’t provide animal type). After the therapist led interview 2
additional tasks were presented, both of which required Jeffrey to take the perspective of the
therapist. In the first task Jeffrey was shown 3 photographs of the therapist and her family and
was asked to describe the people in the pictures. Jeffrey was able to shift his perspective
during this task and interpret the photographs based on the therapist’s perspective. He was also
able to account for contextual cues and make inferences about the photos. In the second task
Jeffrey was asked to interview the therapist. Strengths noted during this task were the ability to
generate questions with ease. Weaknesses noted during this task were difficulty taking the
therapist’s perspective as evidenced by asking some similar questions that the therapist asked
him that weren’t appropriate given the age difference (i.e.: If your mom had a day to herself,
when she did not have to focus on being a mom, what would she choose to do on that day?),
prompting to ask follow-up questions to gain more information, and asking questions about
areas of interest other than Jeffrey’s interests. These areas of weakness may indicate some
difficulty generating language to learn about other’s interests (limited perspective taking) and
that conversations involve both what you know about someone and what you think they might
want to talk about.
Thinking with Eyes: During this task, Jeffrey was asked to look at the therapist’s eyes and
determine what the therapist was looking at and thinking about. Jeffrey was able to easily and
quickly engage in all parts of this task.
Sequencing Pictures: During this task, Jeffrey was presented with 8 pictures that he needed
to order in the correct sequence, narrate the story, create a title, and discuss what people in the
story may be saying to each other. This task assesses the student’s gestalt processing (ability
to see the big picture and relate pieces to an overarching thought or concept) and to arrange
items in a logical flow. Jeffrey was able to sequence all pictures appropriately, narrate the
story, and identify conversation. The titles that he generated, however (The Pizza Panic or The
Pizza Pacman) were rather abstract and may indicate some difficulty recognizing the main idea
of the story and how that relates to a more comprehensive and descriptive title.
Language Sample: A conversational language sample was obtained and analyzed by this
therapist. Please see last page of report for transcription. Jeffrey easily engaged in
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 7
conversation with this therapist about a past event, The Superbowl. Semantics, syntax, and
morphology all appeared within normal limits during conversational sample. Appropriate eye
contact, body language and proximity were observed during sample. Additionally, Jeffrey
utilized the following appropriately: initiating response, requesting information, conveying
information, expressing emotion, turn-taking, and narrative skills. Areas of weakness included
topic maintenance (went off topic about made up games), monitoring the length of talking time
paired with taking the perspective of the therapist and her background knowledge of the topic
(talking about all sorts of made-up games he plays which therapist is already familiar with).
Observations: Two observations were completed by this therapist: one in the classroom and
one on the playground. The classroom observation occurred during Mr. Voorhees advanced
math lesson. The activity consisted of discussion and independent work on word problems.
Jeffrey was observed to follow all directions given by the teacher in a timely fashion and
complete all tasks when instructed to do so. The teacher sporadically called on Jeffrey to
explain 3 components of a chart that he needed to interpret in order to answer the word problem
and Jeffrey successfully described each chart to the class. Some fidgeting behaviors with his
hand and his pencil were observed; however, Jeffrey appeared to be able to maintain attention
and complete the activity successfully. The second observation was completed during morning
recess time. Jeffrey was observed to pick up a ball from the ball bin and walk to the snack
tables while chatting with a friend. He saw a group of his peers sitting and looking at a NOOK at
the snack tables. Jeffrey independently walked over to the group of peers and initiated
communication with the owner of the tablet. He was observed to ask questions and make
comments while chatting with his peer and looking at the tablet while he ate his snack.
The results of these assessment tasks will be reviewed and discussed using the I LAUGH
model of social understanding as a framework. This framework was developed by Michelle
Garcia Winner in 2000 in order to help parents and professionals understand the impact of
social thinking/social skill deficits on academic learning and classroom participation. I LAUGH is
an acronym describing social communication components that affect the student’s social
thinking and his ability to engage in academic curriculum that requires social thinking, such as
reading comprehension, written expression, group work, perspective taking, etc. Each of the
components will be described along with Jeffrey’s strengths and weaknesses noted across the
assessment. Jeffrey’s profile is reviewed below:
I=Initiation of Language: This is the ability to initiate socialization or requests for help across
the day. Students with social cognitive deficits often have difficulty asking for help, seeking
clarification, and initiating appropriate social entrance and exit with other people. During formal
testing Jeffrey independently asked for repetition of testing material as needed and initiated
communication to ask for clarification during writing sample. As per recess observation, Jeffrey
initiated conversations with students independently. As per the Initiation section on the CCC-2,
Jeffrey scored in the average range. Additionally, during a language sample, when given a
topic Jeffrey independently initiated his response. Overall, this is a strength for Jeffrey.
L=Listening with Eyes and Brain: This speaks to the fact that in classrooms children need to
not only process auditory information, but they also need to use the knowledge gained from
what they see to help make sense of their surroundings. This also requires the student to notice
nonverbal cues of other people in the group to fully interpret the spoken or unspoken messages.
Formal testing revealed that Jeffrey demonstrated weaknesses on the Stating Visual Cues
section of the Social Language Development Test as measured by a standard score of 81
indicating weakness in the ability to consistently interpret nonverbal cues in other people. As
per informal assessment, Jeffrey demonstrated strength in the area of determining where
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 8
people’s eyes were looking and what they were thinking about. Additionally, as per the
Nonverbal Communication section on the CCC=2, Jeffrey presented with a scaled score of 9
which is within the average range; however, teacher did report some difficulty using appropriate
proximity during interactions. Overall, Jeffrey may benefit from some cueing to fully interpret
nonverbal cues and use appropriate personal space.
A= Abstract and Inferential Language: Communication comprehension depends on one’s
ability to recognize that most language/communication is not intended for literal interpretation.
To interpret adequately one must be able to flexibly make smart guesses about the intended
meaning of the message. At times one must pursue the analysis of language/communication to
seek the intended meaning. Formal testing revealed that Jeffrey demonstrated strength in the
area of understanding the meaning of spoken messages independent of literal interpretations as
measured by a standard score of 110 on the Nonliteral subtest and a standard score of 97 on
the Inference subtest on the CASL. However, Jeffrey achieved a standard score of 83 on the
Making Inferences subtest of the Social Language Development Test indicating that he
demonstrates some difficulty with this task when he is only provided with visual cues and no
language content.
U= Understanding Perspective Taking: This is the ability to understand the moods, emotions,
thoughts, intents, and motives of other people through your interactions or observations of them.
The ability to take perspective is key to participation in any type of group. Formal testing
revealed that Jeffrey demonstrated strengths in this area on the Pragmatic Judgment subtest
of the CASL, as measured by a standard score of 122. However, he demonstrated weakness
on the Expressing Perspectives section on the Social Language Development Test, as
measured by a standard score of 81 indicating difficulty when he is only provided with visual
cues and no language content. As per informal assessments, Jeffrey demonstrated some
difficulty with perspective taking during The Double Interview and during the Language Sample.
G= Getting the Big Picture/ Gestalt Processing: This is the ability to take the information you
have and understand it in terms of a larger concept. In social relationships, underlying concepts
are woven throughout conversational language, play, or even your desire or lack of desire to be
with another person. Difficulty with organizational strategies is born from problems with
conceptual processing. This skill is an example of an executive function task. Informal
assessment and observations revealed that Jeffrey performed well in this area as measured by
language abilities that appear within the average range in the areas of semantics, syntax, and
morphology. Jeffrey also demonstrated strengths in this area during the Sequencing Pictures
task when required to sequence the pictures and narrate the story. His only weakness in the
area was evident when asked to formulate an appropriate title for the story.
H= Humor and Human Relatedness: This is the ability to understand and use humor
appropriately based on timing, subject matter, and the subjective quality of humor.
As per the Context section on the CCC-2, Jeff demonstrated difficultly understanding humor
and irony consistently. However, during the Language Sample, Jeffrey communicated
humorous activities that he likes to take part in.
Functional/Education Language Skills: Jeffrey’s language deficits have minimal impact
social/emotional, educational and/or vocational functioning at this time.
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 9
SUMMARY
The results indicate that Jeffrey presents with a mild pragmatic language delay in comparison to
his age/developmental level as evidenced by mild difficulty with making inferences that involve
interpreting nonverbal cues when no language context is provided and perspective taking during
conversations.
These mild difficulties, however, have minimal impact on Jeffrey’s
social/emotional and educational functioning at this time.
Jeffrey’s speech or language performance is not due to cultural, environmental, or economic
disadvantages, limited school attendance, or second language acquisition.
The results of this evaluation will be brought to the IEP team for consideration. A copy of this
evaluation will be provided to the parent(s).
3/1/2012
© 2007 North Inland SELPA
Page | 10