Reason for Evaluation:
An updated evaluation was requested as part of a three-year reevaluation to obtain information
regarding functioning in the area of communication.
Background Information:
The student was adopted as an infant to the Smith family. She was born in Pakistan, and at the
age of two and a half, she joined the Smith family in the United States of America. The student
was exosed to Urdu in Pakistan, as well as by her adoptive parents. In the home, it was reported
that initially her parents spoke in Urdu, but currently, both parents and the student’s brother
speak primarily English. The student’s grandmother, who speaks only Urdu, lives in the home,
so the student continues to be exposed to Urdu. However, her pirmary language of
communication is English, both at home and school. Thus, the initial evlauation, as well as the
re-evaluation was conducted in English.
The student has a significant medical history, including the late onset of speaking (reported at
age 3 ½). See report dated March 23, 2015.
The student has attended Anytown Elementary School since kindergarten and began receiving
English Language Learning (ELL) support at that time. After taking the ACCESS in Spring
2014, the student was no longer eligibile for ELL support due to average scores. The student
initially qualified for special education with a primary eligibility of speech impairment in May,
2012, her second grade year. Her goals since that time have focused on articulation.
Testing Environment/Observations:
Testing was completed across a series of individual sessions. The student easily entered the
testing enviroment and rapport with the examiner was quickly established. She was eager to
please and worked hard, but some impulsivity in responses was noted. Frequently, the student
would try to engage the examiner in conversation that was off-topic either before or in the midst
of an assessment session. Testing is considered to be valid. In addition to standardized measures,
a variety of informal measures were utilized to assess the student’s expressive and receptive
language skills.
Evaluation Results:
Expressive and Receptive Language:
The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-5 (CELF-5) was administered to assess
current language functioning. The following paragraphs describe individual subtests that were
given. The number of correct responses (i.e., raw scores) were converted to scaled scores. The
mean for each subtest is 10 and the standard deviation is 3 (i.e., the average range of
performance is from 7 to 13).
Word Classes
The Word Classes subtest is used to evaluate the student's ability to understand relationships
between words based on meaning features, function, or place or time of occurrence. The student
chooses the two words from a field of three or four pictures that best represent the desired
relationship. As the subtest progresses, the student is required to choose from prompts that are
verbally presented (i.e., without picture support).
The student received a scaled score of 13 on the Word Classes subtest, which is considered to be
in the high average range.
Following Directions
The Following Directions subtest is used to evaluate the student's ability to (a) interpret spoken
directions of increasing length and complexity, (b) follow the order of presented objects with
varying characteristics such as color, size, or location, and (c) identify several pictured objects
that were mentioned. The student identifies the objects in response to oral directions.
The student received a scaled score of 8 on the Following Directions subtest, which is considered
to be in the average range.
Formulated Sentences
The Formulated Sentences subtest is used to evaluate the ability to formulate simple, compound,
and complex sentences when given grammatical (semantic and syntactic) constraints. The
student is asked to formulate a sentence, using target word(s) while using an illustration as a
reference.
The student received a scaled score of 9 on the Formulated Sentences subtest, which is
considered to be in the average range.
Recalling Sentences
The Recalling Sentences subtest is used to evaluate the student's ability to recall and reproduce
sentences of varying length and syntactic complexity. The student imitates sentences presented
by the examiner.
The student received a scaled score of 10 on the Recalling Sentences subtest, which is considered
to be in the average range.
Understanding Spoken Paragraphs
The Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest is used to evaluate the student’s ability to
understand information presented in spoken paragraphs. The student answers questions about a
paragraph presented orally. The questions probe the student’s understanding of the paragraph’s
main idea, detail and sequence of events, and the student’s ability to make inferences and
predictions from the information presented.
The student earned a scaled score of 6 on the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest, which is
considered to be in the below average range.
Word Definitions
The Word Definitions subtest is used to evaluate the student’s expressive vocabulary. The
student is orally presented a word, followed by an introductory sentence that includes the word.
The student is then asked to define the word using descriptive language.
The student earned a scaled score of 14 on the Word Deintion subtest, which is considered to be
in the above average range.
Sentence Assembly
The Sentence Assembly subtest is used to evaluate the student’s ability to formulate
grammatically acceptable and semantically meaningful sentences by manipulating and
transforming given words and word groups.
The student earned a scaled score of 10 on the Sentence Assembly subtest, which is considered
to be in the average range.
Semantic Relationships
The Semantic Relationships subtest is used to evaluate the student’s ability to interpret sentences
that a) make comparisons, b) identify location or direction, c) specify time relationships, d)
include serial order, or e) are expressed in passive voice.
The student earned a scaled score of 11 on the Semantic Relationships subtest, which is
considered to be in the average range.
The following table summarizes the results of the subtests administered for the CELF-5.
Raw Score
(Number of Correct
Responses)
Scaled Score
(Average 7-13)
Performance
Level
Word Classes
18
13
High Average
Following Directions
9
8
Average
Formulated Sentences
23
9
Average
Recalling Sentences
Understanding Spoken
Paragraphs
Word Definitions
29
10
Average
13
6
Below Average
10
14
Above Average
Sentence Assembly
8
10
Average
CELF-5
Semantic Relationships
11
11
Average
Performance on individual subtests were then used to calculate the following indices, which have
a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. A score of 100 on this scale represents the
performance of the typical student of a given age. Therefore, the average range of performance
is from 85 to 115.
Core Language Score
The student was administered four tests of the CELF-5 from which the Core Language Score
was derived. The Core Language Score is a measure of general language ability and provides an
easy and reliable way to quantify the student's overall language performance.
For the student's Core Language Score, the following tests were administered:
Word Classes
Formulated Sentences
Recalling Sentences
Semantic Relationships
The student received a Core Language Score of 103, which is considered to be in the average
range.
Receptive Language Index
The Receptive Language Index is a measure of the student's performance on three tests designed
to best probe receptive aspects of language including comprehension and listening.
For the student's Receptive Language Index score, the following tests were administered:
Word Classes
Following Directions
Semantic Relationships
The student received a Receptive Language Index score of 103, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Expressive Language Index
The Expressive Language Index is a measure of the student's performance on three tests that
probe expressive aspects of language including oral language expression.
For the student's Expressive Language Index score, the following tests were administered:
Formulated Sentences
Recalling Sentences
Sentence Assembly
The student received an Expressive Language Index score of 99, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Language Content Index
The Language Content Index is a measure of the student's performance on three tests designed to
probe vocabulary and word knowledge.
For the student's Language Content Index score, the following tests were administered:
Word Classes
Understanding Spoken Paragraphs
Word Definitions
The student received a Language Content Index score of 107, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Language Memory Index
The Language Memory Index is a measure of the student's performance on three tests designed
to probe ability to apply memory to language tasks.
For the student's Language Memory Index score, the following tests were administered:
Following Directions
Formulated Sentences
Recalling Sentences
The student received a LanguageMemory Index score of 93, which is considered to be in the
average range.
The following table summarizesthe CELF-5 Composite Scores.
CELF-5 Composite
Standard Score
(Average 85-115)
Performance Level
Performance
Level
Core Language Score
43
103
Average
Receptive Language Index
32
103
Average
Expressive Language Index
29
99
Average
Language Content Index
33
107
Average
Language Memory Index
27
93
Average
The student’s CELF-5 composite test scores indicate her overall receptive and expressive
language skills to be within the average range for her age. It is noteworthy to mention that the
student’s scaled score on the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest was below average. The
student struggled to correctly answer questions pertaining to orally presented material of
increasing length. The student made consistent errors related to details of a story. Also, it was
also noted that the student’s responses were sometimes related to other aspects of the story, but
did not correctly answer the question. For example, after being read a story about a challenge for
students to read books before a set date in order to win a prize, the student was asked the
question, “When did the students receive their surprise?” The correct answer, as indicated in the
story was ‘May,’ but the student responded “at lunch.” Even though this was not the correct
answer, part of the students prize included being treated to pizza for lunch.
To gain further information about the student’s receptive and expressive language skills, various
informal assessments were conducted. Through the course of therapy it was hypothesized that
the student tends to struggle with comprehending abstract vocabulary words (e.g., obvious,
complex, establish), due to her difficulty following written and verbally presented directions. In
assessing abstract vocabulary, the student was provided with a random sample of words and she
was able to match a word used in a sentence to a definition. An antonym task was employed to
evaluate her word knowledge to understand the meaning of a word to determine its opposite
meaning as well as retrieve the correct vocabulary term to express meaning. Also, a synonym
task was utilized to assess her ability to recognize words that have the same or similar meaning.
For both of these tasks, the student was asked to provide an antonym and then a synonym for
orally presented words. Overall, the student stated an antonym with 80% accuracy and a
synonym with 100% accuracy. It should be noted, when the examiner provided a multiple choice
option, the student selected the correct response.
Given 4-step sequence cards of everyday events, the student correctly sequenced four out of the
five card sets. However, when presented with 5-step sequence cards, the student completed one
out of the five card sets. The student consistently identified the first and last picture for 5-step
sequences, but struggled to identify the second, third, and fourth pictures. The student tended to
overlook the key details indicating the appropriate order, which resulted in inaccuracy in
sequencing the event. When the examiner asked the student to recount the order she provided,
she demonstrated the ability to independently correct her errors 50% of the time. With regards to
describing the events of each picture card, she independently described the main idea but left out
key details of each card.
In order to evaluate the student’s ability to determine the main idea, she was presented with
pictures and short passages. Given a picture, the student independently expressed the main idea
with 100% accuracy. Given a short passage, she independently stated the main idea with 78%
accuracy. However, when given multiple choice options, the student expressed the main idea
with 100% accuracy. When provided with a picture and statements about the picture, the student
was able to discriminate the main idea from the details of a story with 86% accuracy.
The skill of retelling was assessed by reading a passage to the student about a boy who wanted to
bring his pet frog to school. Following the story, the student was asked to recount the story for
the examiner in the correct sequence with appropriate story grammar components (e.g.,
characters, setting, problem, solutions, and details). The student’s retelling of the story included
events that occurred in the beginning, middle, and the end. However, she left out many important
details such as what happened when the boy brought his pet frog to school. To gain additional
information about the student’s retelling abilities, she was asked to recall the events of her
favorite Disney movie, Tangled. She was able to state the main idea but had left out key
components of this story as well. During both of her story retells, the student used generic
language and filler words (e.g., um). For example, when talking about the boy who brought his
pet frog to school, the student stated, “But and he was fine but his thing wasn’t allowed to come
again and he had to talk with the principal.” Overall, the student’s oral narratives contained an
initiating event, an action, and some result or consequence around the central theme.
The Test of Problem Solving 3: Elementary (TOPS) was administered to assess the student’s
problem solving and critical thinking abilities based on language strategies using logic, reason,
and experience. The test is composed of 18 colored photographs depicting individuals in
common, everyday situations. A total of 96 questions were asked focusing on six critical
thinking skills. These six critical thinking skills make up the six subtests including Making
Inferences, Sequencing, Negative Questions, Problem Solving, Predicting, and Determining
Causes. A standard score between 85-115 is considered average.
Task Types
Making Inferences
Sequencing
Negative Questions
Problem Solving
Predicting
Determining Causes
Total Test
Raw Score
22
30
18
22
20
16
128
Standard Score
91
108
87
93
99
92
94
Performance Level
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Average
Making Inferences
The Making Inferences subtest assessed the student’s ability to give a logical explanation about a
situation, combining what he knows or can see with previous experiences and background
information. For example, the student was shown a picture of a boy lying on a couch while a
man feels the boy’s forehead, and was asked, “How do you know this boy is sick?”
The student received a standard score of 91 on this subtest, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Sequencing
The Sequencing subset required the student to determine and explain logical, everyday
sequences of events, such as what one needs to know or do before taking action in a situation or
what one should do first in a given situation. For example, the student was shown a picture of
boys in soccer uniforms, and was asked, “What does the team do to get ready before the game?”
The student received a standard score of 108 for this subtest, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Negative Questions
The Negative Questions subtest required the student to give a reason why one wouldn’t behave
in a certain way or to explain why something wouldn’t/shouldn’t happen. For example, the
student was shown a picture of students singing on a stage, and was asked, “Why isn’t each
singer holding a microphone?”
The student received a standard score of 87 for this subtest, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Problem Solving
The Problem Solving subtest required the student to recognize the problem, think of alternative
solutions, evaluate the options, and state an appropriate solution for a given situation. For
example, the student was shown a picture of parents and their son buying groceries, and was
asked, “This boy wants a sugary kind of cereal and his dad doesn’t. What could they do?”
The student received a standard score of 93 for this subtest, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Predicting
The Predicting subtest assessed the student’s ability to comprehend a presented situation and
make a likely prediction about what might happen if a certain action were taken in the situation.
For example, the student was presented with a classroom situation, and was asked, “What will
happen if the teacher gets sick?”
The student received a standard score of 107 for this subtest, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Determining Causes
The Determining Causes subtest required the student to provide a logical reason for some aspect
of a situation presented in a photograph. For example, the student was presented with a picture of
a lightning storm in a city, and was asked, “The lights in some buildings are out. What caused
that to happen?”
The student received a standard score of 92 for this subtest, which is considered to be in the
average range.
Overall, the student received a total test score in the average range for the TOPS-3. The
student’s score indicated that she is able to think critically, problem solve, make decisions, and
be creative when faced with various situations.
Discussion:
Receptive Language:
Overall, receptive language skills are deemed to be in the average range. Receptively, the student
comprehends orally presented material and is capable of following multi-step directions.
However, following multi-step directions, when presented orally or written, tends to be more
problematic in the classroom environment, as reported by the student’s fourth grade teacher. The
student is able to identify two words that are related and explain how the two words are related.
Therefore, she is aware of how items can be linked based on their function, category, and parts.
The student exhibits the ability to match abstract vocabulary words used in a sentence to the
word’s corresponding definition. She struggles to sequence 5-step cards of everyday events
because she tends to overlook the key details indicating the correct order. She understands
sentences that contain comparisons, identifying location or direction, a specified time relation, a
serial order, or those that are expressed in a passive voice. However, when listening to material
of increasing length, the student struggles to correctly answer questions related to details.
Expressive Language:
Overall, expressive language skills are judged to be in the average range. Expressively, the
student utilizes vocabulary to construct sentences that are age-appropriate regarding grammar
and syntax, as well as appropriate in length and complexity. When presented with a sentence, she
correctly defines the meaning of a word. The student demonstrates the ability to generate
accurate synonyms and antonyms for a targeted word. She is able to recall sentences of
increasing length and complexity at an appropriate level. When provided with a picture, read a
short passage, or asked to retell a story, she verbalizes the main idea, but struggles to generate
the keys details of the story. Overall, she uses language to express a variety of communicative
intents. On a daily basis, the student has the knowledge to appropriately utilize language to ask
questions pertaining to academic material, share her ideas, and make/respond to greetings.
In the area of reasoning, the student performs well with tasks that involve making inferences,
sequencing, predicting, determining causes, and problem solving. Although within the average
range, the skill of answering negative questions was more challenging. This is an area to be
monitored, especially as academic content becomes more abstract.
Pragmatic Language:
Pragmatic language refers to how language and/or words are expressed socially. Pragmatic
development contributes to the child’s growth in school and interpersonal skills as well as
communication skills.
The student exhibits strong skills in the area of pragmatic language based on clinical
observations. Strengths were noted in the student’s ability to respond appropriately to greetings,
use polite markers, initiate and take turns in a conversation, and gain attention appropriately. She
gets along well with her peers and maintains good eye contact during conversations. She shows
interest in and concern for others.
Articulation:
The student has received therapy in the area of articulation, focusing on the /r/ sound at the
reading level. Data collection from therapy sessions and clinical observation reveals that the
student correctly produces the /r/ sound the majority of the time while reading short passages and
does so with the following accuracies- initial- 79%, medial-80%, and final-79%. She continues
to need occasional cueing while reading passages of this length or longer. The student has not
yet generalized her correct productions to conversational speech, but that would be the next
context to target. Overall, the student has made great progress in the area of articulation.
Oral Peripheral Skills:
An oral peripheral examination revealed that the student possess adequate strength, coordination,
and mobility of articulators needed for speech production. In assessing strength and
coordination, the student was able to smile symmetrically, protrude lips and tongue, and click her
tongue. Adequate lip closure was detected, and she was able to pucker her lips. She was able to
move her tongue up, down, and to the left and right sides of her mouth. The student’s jaw
alignment was typical, as was dentition with some normal diastema. A normal hard and soft
palate with sufficient velar elevation for velopharyngeal closure was also noted.
Voice:
Voice quality was judged to be appropriate for age and gender based on clinical observation.
Fluency:
Fluency skills were judged to be within normal limits based on clinical observation.
Summary
Based on the evaluation, overall expressive and receptive language skills are considered to be
within normal limits. She demonstrated strengths in sentence construction, use of grammar to
complete and generate sentences across contexts, and word relationships (e.g., associations,
antonyms, synonyms). She also exhibited strengths in determining the main idea of a picture, a
short passage, and while retelling a story. However, deficits were noted in the student’s ability to
identify key details in all of these contexts. While sequencing cards of everyday events, the
student tended to overlook the key details, which resulted in inaccuracy in sequencing the steps.
She struggled to recall important details in order to answer questions related to orally presented
information. Also, the student’s difficulty following multi-step directions in the classroom may
be attributed to her deficits in recalling significant details of the verbal or written directions
provided.
In the area of articulation, she produces the /r/ sound while reading a short passage with at least
79-80% accuracy. The student is knowledgeable of the proper technique she must utilize in order
to correctly produce the /r/ and is beginning to independently self-correct incorrect productions.
However, the student continues to need occasional cues while reading short passages.
All other areas evaluated (i.e., pragmatic, voice, and fluency) were considered to be within
normal developmental limits.
Recommendations:
Recommendations will be discussed at the IEP meeting.
__________________________________
Ann A. Robertson, M.A., CCC-SLP
Licensed Speech-Language Pathologist
__________________________________
Rachel A. Unterfranz, B.S.
Graduate Student Intern