2011 ASHA Convention, San Diego, CA
November 19, 2011
Shannon Wang,
M.A., CCC-SLP
Nancy Castilleja,
M.A., CCC-SLP
Marie Sepulveda,
M.S., CCC-SLP
Mark H. Daniel,
Ph.D.

Overview: Assessing bilingual children
Conceptual score approach to language assessment
Data collection
Research results

IDEIA Statute:
Reduce the inappropriate over-identification of children, especially minority and limited English-proficient children, as having a disability.
Statute: Title 1.D.664.b.2.D.vii

Normal bilingual phenomena can look similar to a disorder to those unfamiliar with 2 nd language acquisition
Some typical characteristics of bilingual speakers in the
U.S.
•
•
•
•
•
Arrest: The level of proficiency in the language does not change.
Attrition: Language loss and language forgetting
Avoidance: Specific element of a language is not used
Language non use (silent period): a language is not used for communication purposes
Overgeneralization: a language rule is applied in an unrestricted fashion
• Language transfer: phonological, morphological, syntactic, semantic and/or pragmatic characteristic is used in another language
• Fossilization: an inaccurate rule stabilizes to the point of continual usage
(Region 4 Educational Service Center, 2005)
Result: Bilingual children often misdiagnosed
• Low test scores in both Spanish and English

Assessing Bilingual Abilities
“The lower vocabulary of bilinguals at certain stages of development may have nothing to do with handicaps or dominance questions but probably more with a smaller variety of linguistic input in each language taken separately.”
Hugo Baetens-Beardsmore, 1986
Assessing vocabulary in bilingual children: best practice is to test both languages
H. Kayser, 1989; H. W. Langdon, 1989

“Conceptual scoring” is scoring the meaning of a response regardless of the language in which it is produced.
B. Pearson, S. Fernandez, & D.K. Oller, 1993
Bilingual children benefit from conceptual scoring, especially when tested in Spanish
L. Bedore, E. Peña, M. Garcia, & C. Cortez, 2005
Different ways of combining test scores across languages were tested— combining scores across two languages in a composite or selecting combinations of better task or language performance to use as a basis for decision-making…Classification can be more accurate when scores in both language are used systematically for decision-making.
E. Peña and L. Bedore, 2011

Conceptual Scoring ---> Dual Language Score
“Conceptual scoring” is based on literature examining semantic language development (vocabulary and other semantic skills).
PLS-5 Spanish targets oral language (semantic and morphosyntactic skills) and early academic skills.

Does the dual language score approach provide a more valid representation of a bilingual child’s language skills?
Studies Examining a Dual
Language Approach for
PLS-5 Spanish
• PLS–4 Spanish bilingual pilot study
•
PLS–5 Spanish
• bilingual tryout study
• bilingual standardization study

Development of a dual-language scoring procedure
• Bilingual expert panel
–
–
–
Hortencia Kayser, Ph.D.
Henriette Langdon, Ph.D.
Elizabeth Peña, Ph.D.
• Developed PLS–4 Spanish English Record Form supplement
• Administered PLS–4 Spanish to participants
• After administration of the PLS-4 Spanish, items the child missed in Spanish were re-administered in English

PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
Participants n=28
Ages 3:7-6:10
Countries of origin
–
Mexico
–
Caribbean
–
Central & South America
Caregiver education level
–
–
–
–
11 th grade or less
4 or more years of college
37%
High school graduate or GED 22%
1–3 years of college or technical school 22%
19%

PLS–4 Spanish Bilingual Pilot Study
Fluency in Spanish
Exposure to Spanish
•
Primary caregiver speaks Spanish to child
•
•
Child is Spanish-English bilingual
Child may be enrolled in bilingual classes
Language comprehension
•
Understands Spanish and a little English OR
•
•
Understands both Spanish and English OR
Understands some concepts only in Spanish and some only in English
Language expression
•
Speaks Spanish, a little English OR
• Speaks both Spanish and English

Results
• 93% received additional points in AC
Score difference range: 0 to 6 points (mean = 2.9)
• 75% received additional points in EC
Score difference range: 0 to 13 (mean = 3 points)
• 32% of sample earned scores that moved from language-disordered range of performance to typically developing range

Participants n=200
Ages 2:0 through 7:11
Diagnosis TD: n = 166
NonTD: n = 34

Criteria for Language Disorder
Inclusionary Criteria
• Diagnosed with a moderate to severe language disorder (< 77 on standardized test) in either receptive language, expressive
• language or both
OR
Diagnosis based on non-standardized tests results; plus statement provided by clinician indicating a moderate to severe language disorder
• Must be enrolled in language therapy

Criteria for Language Disorder (cont.)
Exclusionary Criteria
•
•
• history of hearing impairment, middle ear infections/ otitis media/PE tubes, or hearing aids phonological disorder verbal apraxia or dyspraxia, or exhibits deletions of final sounds or syllables
•
Exceptions
– aspirated final /s/, common in a Puerto Rican dialect
–
Consistently substitutes final /s/ with another phoneme

TD Non-TD
166 34 N
Age:
Mean
SD
NTD group:
Expressive language
Receptive language
Both
4:11
1:7
5:5
1:5
19%
4%
77%

Method
• PLS-5 Spanish Tryout edition
•
•
Items were administered in Spanish first
Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
• Items were scored based on:
•
Spanish performance
•
Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring)
•
Data analysis compared Spanish-only scores and Spanish-
English scores

Gain from dual language scoring
• Beneficial for children ages 4:0-7:11
•
Strongly related to rated proficiency in English
(Children with “little English” show little gain)
• No relationship to caregiver education level
• No relationship to whether or not the child is typically developing
• For children 2:0-3:11
•
Children still in the early language acquisition process
• There was not the same pattern of gains with dual language scoring as with older children

(continued)
• Children with typical language development showed equal gains in academic and non-academic language
•
Children with a language disorder showed greater gains in non-academic language

• Primarily Spanish speaker with some English abilities
• Bilingual Spanish-English speaker

Language Comprehension in Spanish
1.
Child understands Spanish, but no English
[monolingual]
2.
Child understands Spanish and a little English
[bilingual]
3.
Child understands both Spanish and English
[bilingual]
4.
Child understands some concepts in Spanish and some in
English
(e.g., home concepts in Spanish; school concepts in English) [bilingual]
5.
Child understands English and some Spanish
[not included in sample]
6.
Child does not understand Spanish; only understands English
[not included in sample]

Expressive Language in Spanish
1.
Child converses in Spanish, speaks no English
[monolingual]
2.
Child converses fluently Spanish and speaks Spanish most of the time. He or she speaks a little English
[bilingual]
3.
Child converses fluently in both Spanish and English
[bilingual]
4.
Child converses fluently in English and speaks English most of the time. He or she speaks a little Spanish.
[not included in sample]
5.
Child converses fluently in English; speaks no Spanish
[not included in sample]

Exposure to Spanish
•
•
•
Almost always:
[monolingual]
Interacts in a Spanish speaking environment only
Leisure activities in Spanish
Speaks Spanish with family and friends
•
•
•
Often:
[bilingual] interacts in both Spanish and English environments may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family OR may switch languages without a preference for either
•
•
Occasionally:
[bilingual]
Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only
Speaks Spanish but prefers English with family and friends
•
•
Seldom or Almost Never
[not included in the study]
Interacts with friends or family members who speak Spanish only, but do not live in child’s home (seen infrequently)
Communicates a few messages in Spanish

• 0-11 Months
• 1 Year
• 2 Years
• 3 Years
• 4 Years
• 5 or more Years
• Born in the U.S.
83% of the children living in the U.S. were born in the U.S. or have lived in the U.S. for more than 5 years
* 17% did not report length of time in the U.S.

Field Research
• PLS-5 Spanish Standardization edition
–
Items were administered in Spanish first
–
Any items missed in Spanish were re-administered in English
Scoring
•
Items were scored based on:
–
Spanish performance
–
Spanish-English performance (dual language scoring)
Data Analysis
• Data analysis compared Spanish scores to Spanish-English scores

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Age and Gender
N
Age:
Mean
SD
Gender:
Female
Male
Ages 0-2
Bilingual Monolingual
81
44%
56%
1.5
0.8
44%
56%
Ages 3-5
Bilingual Monolingual
151
46%
54%
4.8
0.8
51%
49%
Ages 6-7
Bilingual Monolingual
76
46%
54%
7.0
0.6
46%
54%

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Caregiver Education
Ages 0-2
Bilingual Monolingual
Ages 3-5
Bilingual Monolingual
Ages 6-7
Bilingual Monolingual
Caregiver education:
< high school grad
high school grad
some college
college graduate
22%
25%
24%
30%
22%
26%
26%
26%
30%
27%
21%
23%
33%
31%
20%
17%
26%
34%
17%
22%
18%
34%
29%
18%

Region:
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Puerto Rico
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Region
Ages 0-2
Bilingual Monolingual
Ages 3-5
Bilingual Monolingual
Ages 6-7
Bilingual Monolingual
4%
0%
51%
44%
1%
3%
0%
42%
26%
30%
5%
6%
69%
17%
3%
0%
1%
48%
7%
44%
4%
3%
66%
22%
5%
0%
0%
13%
1%
86%

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples:
Country of Origin
Ages 0-2 Ages 3-5 Ages 6-7
Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual Bilingual Monolingual
Country of origin:
Mexico
Puerto Rico
South America
Central America
Cuba
Dominican Rep.
61%
11%
16%
10%
3%
0%
53%
31%
6%
4%
5%
1%
66%
5%
17%
10%
1%
1%
41%
43%
4%
7%
4%
1%
75%
9%
8%
4%
4%
0%
15%
85%
0%
0%
0%
0%

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 0-2
Scale
Auditory
Comp
N per group
80
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Exp
Comm
Total
Lang
81
80
Spanish
Dual-Language
Spanish
Dual-Language
Monolingual
M SD
102.0
15.7
102.0
15.7
102.9
13.4
102.9
13.4
102.7
14.3
102.7
14.3
Bilingual
M SD
102.5
12.3
103.6
12.2
103.9
11.1
104.3
11.1
103.5
11.0
104.4
11.0
∆
0.5
1.6
Difference t
0.20
0.73
p
1.0
1.4
0.8
1.7
0.55
0.74
0.38
0.80

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 0-2
100
95
110
Auditory Comprehension
Monolingual
Bilingual
105
Spanish Dual-Language
100
95
110
Expressive Communication
Monolingual
Bilingual
105
Spanish Dual-Language
110
Total Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
105
100
95
Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 3-5
Scale
Auditory
Comp
N per group
150
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Exp
Comm
Total
Lang
145
Spanish
Dual-Language
144
Spanish
Dual-Language
Monolingual
M SD
97.8
11.7
97.8
11.7
99.9
11.8
99.9
11.8
98.8
11.6
98.8
11.6
Bilingual
M SD
100.4
14.6
106.4
14.8
100.5
16.3
104.3
16.3
100.6
16.0
105.9
16.1
∆
2.6
8.6
Difference t p
1.77
5.66
<.001
0.6
4.4
1.8
7.1
0.37
2.60
1.03
4.14
.01
<.001

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 3-5
110
Auditory Comprehension
Monolingual
Bilingual
105
110
Expressive Communication
Monolingual
Bilingual
105
110
Total Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
105
100 100 100
95 95 95
Spanish Dual-Language Spanish Dual-Language Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 6-7
Scale
Auditory
Comp
N per group
75
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Exp
Comm
75
Spanish
Dual-Language
Total
Lang
74
Spanish
Dual-Language
Monolingual
M SD
98.6
11.1
98.6
11.1
97.7
10.0
97.7
10.0
98.0
10.6
98.0
10.6
Bilingual
M SD
97.7
16.9
106.6
13.4
99.0
16.4
105.9
13.4
98.3
17.3
106.9
13.7
∆
Difference t p
-0.9
-0.49
8.0
4.73
<.001
1.3
8.2
0.3
8.9
0.59
4.79
0.13
5.25
<.001
<.001

110
105
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Monolingual and Bilingual Samples
Ages 6-7
Auditory Comprehension
Monolingual
Bilingual
110
105
Expressive Communication
Monolingual
Bilingual
110
105
Total Language
Monolingual
Bilingual
100 100 100
95 95 95
Spanish Dual-Language Spanish Dual-Language Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
(includes a representative number of clinical cases)

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 0-2
Scale
Auditory
Comp
Difference
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Exp
Comm
Difference
Spanish
Dual-Language
Total
Language
Difference
Spanish
Dual-Language
N
286
Monolingual
M SD
98.7
16.3
98.7
16.3
0.0
286
286
100.9
15.2
100.9
15.2
0.0
99.8
15.6
99.8
15.6
0.0
Primarily Spanish
N M SD
26
101.5
12.5
102.2
12.5
0.7
26
26
103.4
10.9
103.8
11.0
0.4
102.7
11.0
103.3
11.1
0.6
N
14
15
14
Bilingual
M
102.4
107.6
5.2
SD
12.3
11.3
8.7
8.7
102.7
104.1
1.4
102.9
106.6
3.7
10.6
9.9

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 0-2
110
Auditory Comprehension
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
105
110
Expressive Communication
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
105
110
105
Total Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
100
100 100
95
Spanish Dual-Language
95
Spanish Dual-Language
95
Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 3-5
Scale
Auditory
Comp
Difference
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Exp
Comm
Difference
Spanish
Dual-Language
Total
Language
Difference
Spanish
Dual-Language
N
305
Monolingual
M SD
97.9
13.6
97.9
13.6
0.0
305
305
98.6
14.8
98.6
14.8
0.0
98.0
14.4
98.0
14.4
0.0
Primarily Spanish
N M SD
88
98.5
15.6
102.9
15.7
4.4
89
88
99.8
16.8
102.8
16.9
3.0
99.0
16.8
103.1
16.8
4.1
N
54
49
49
Bilingual
M
99.3
107.0
7.7
SD
15.0
14.4
17.2
17.1
96.4
101.9
5.5
97.9
105.1
7.2
16.9
16.7

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 3-5
110
Auditory Comprehension
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
105
110
Expressive Communication
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
105
110
Total Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
105
100 100 100
95
Spanish Dual-Language
95
Spanish Dual-Language
95
Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 6-7
Scale
Auditory
Comp
Difference
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Exp
Comm
Difference
Spanish
Dual-Language
Total
Language
Difference
Spanish
Dual-Language
N
69
Monolingual
M SD
97.0
14.7
97.0
14.7
0.0
69
69
96.5
13.1
96.5
13.1
0.0
96.4
14.3
96.4
14.3
0.0
Primarily Spanish
N M SD
43
94.3
18.0
100.7
16.6
6.4
43
41
94.8
16.5
99.5
15.7
4.7
93.8
18.0
99.9
16.8
6.1
N
84
80
80
Bilingual
M
94.2
104.2
10.0
SD
16.9
14.1
17.1
14.7
94.2
103.0
8.8
94.0
104.2
10.2
17.2
14.3

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method and Fluency Group (Norm Sample)
Ages 6-7
110
105
100
95
90
Auditory Comprehension
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Spanish Dual-Language
110
105
100
95
90
Expressive Communication
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Spanish Dual-Language
110
105
100
95
90
Total Language
Bilingual
Primarily Spanish
Monolingual
Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Age and Gender
Expressive Language
Disorder
Receptive Language
Disorder
Exp & Recept
Language Disorder
N
Age: 1
4
5
2
3
6
7
Mean:
Gender: Female
Male
69
14
11
10
3
11
12
8
4.7
28%
72%
53
10
10
8
3
11
6
5
4.6
23%
77%
48
8
8
7
3
11
6
5
4.5
21%
79%

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Caregiver Education
Expressive
Language
Disorder
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Expressive &
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Caregiver education:
< high school grad
high school grad
some college
college graduate
55%
20%
13%
12%
64%
25%
2%
9%
67%
23%
2%
8%

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Region
Expressive
Language
Disorder
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Expressive &
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Region:
Northeast
Midwest
South
West
Puerto Rico
17%
0%
35%
30%
17%
23%
0%
34%
32%
11%
23%
0%
35%
31%
10%

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples:
Country of Origin
Expressive
Language
Disorder
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Expressive &
Receptive
Language
Disorder
Country of origin:
Mexico
Puerto Rico
South America
Central America
Cuba
Dominican Rep.
59%
20%
4%
10%
4%
1%
62%
13%
6%
13%
4%
2%
60%
13%
6%
15%
4%
2%

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Scale
Auditory
Comp
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive Language Disorder
N per group
69
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
M
Clinical
SD
78.8
15.5
79.7
15.2
Nonclinical
M SD
96.1
14.9
98.7
13.4
Exp
Comm
Total
Language
64
Spanish
Dual-Language
64
Spanish
Dual-Language
76.5
12.1
77.1
12.0
76.3
12.6
77.0
12.3
97.8
14.2
99.0
14.4
97.1
14.6
98.8
14.3
∆
17.3
19.0
21.3
21.9
20.8
21.8
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Nonclinical
Clinical
Spanish Dual-Language
Expressive Communication
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Nonclinical
Clinical
Spanish Dual-Language
Total Language
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Nonclinical
Clinical
Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Receptive Language Disorder
Scale
Auditory
Comprehe
N per group
53
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Expressive
Communic
49
Spanish
Dual-Language
Total
Language
49
Spanish
Dual-Language
Clinical
M SD
74.3
13.7
74.9
13.5
76.6
12.9
77.1
13.1
74.2
12.4
74.7
12.3
Nonclinical
M SD
94.2
13.4
97.5
12.3
96.3
12.2
98.0
12.6
95.3
12.3
97.6
12.3
∆
19.9
22.6
19.7
20.9
21.1
22.9
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Receptive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Nonclinical
Clinical
Spanish Dual-Language
Expressive Communication
90
85
80
75
70
105
100
95
Nonclinical
Clinical
Spanish Dual-Language
Total Language
90
85
80
75
70
105
100
95
Nonclinical
Clinical
Spanish Dual-Language

PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Scale
Auditory
Comprehe
N per group
48
Score Type
Spanish
Dual-Language
Expressive
Communic
45
Spanish
Dual-Language
Total
Language
45
Spanish
Dual-Language
Clinical
M SD
73.7
13.9
74.3
13.7
75.5
12.6
75.8
12.9
73.3
12.3
73.7
12.2
Nonclinical
M SD
94.2
13.9
97.0
12.5
96.7
12.6
97.8
12.8
95.5
12.7
97.2
12.7
∆
20.5
22.7
21.2
22.0
22.2
23.5
Note: All clinical vs. nonclinical differences are statistically significant (p < .001).

105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
PLS–5 Spanish Dual Language STDZ Study
Standard Score by Administration Method:
Matched Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Expressive & Receptive Language Disorder
Auditory Comprehension Expressive Communication Total Language
Nonclinical
Clinical
105
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Nonclinical
Clinical
105
100
85
80
75
70
95
90
Nonclinical
Clinical
Spanish Dual-Language Spanish Dual-Language Spanish Dual-Language

1.
Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.

1.
2.
Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.
Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly raised the average standard scores of bilingual children. Children who primarily speak Spanish but know some English had a smaller increase than children who are more fully bilingual.

1.
2.
3.
Little effect of dual-language scoring below age 3.
Nevertheless, dual-language scoring significantly raised the average standard scores of bilingual children. Children who primarily speak Spanish but know some English had a smaller increase than children who are more fully bilingual.
Dual-language scoring did not affect the scores of children with language disorders.

Testing in Spanish and English:
Dominance and Proficiency
“The concept of a ‘dominant’ language is losing favor as there is more evidence that proficiency in two languages occur on a continuum, with individuals being able to understand or express some concepts better in one language and others in another language.”
(Peña, Bedore, & Zlatic-Giunta, 2002)
“…notions such as proficiency and dominance are moving targets altered with differences in tasks, topics, and demands”
(Goldstein, 2004)

Testing in Spanish and English:
Dominance and Proficiency
“Language proficiency measurement is not as concerned as to which language is stronger or dominant, but rather its goal is to provide a description of the language development of the child in listening, speaking, reading, and writing.
(Kayser, 2001)

References
Baetens-Beardsmore, H. (1986). Bilingualism: Basic Principles (2 nd Ed.). San
Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Bedore, L., Peña, E., Garcia, M., & Cortez, C. (2005). Conceptual vs. monolingual scoring: when does it make a difference?. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 36, 188-200.
Kayser, H.R. (1989). Speech and language assessment of Spanish-English
Speaking Children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 20
(3), 226-244.
Kayser, H. (2001) “Assessing Language Proficiency and Language
Dominance.” From the Hart. October 2001. Bilingual Therapies, Inc.
http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/kayser-newsletter/2001/assessinglanguageproficiency-and-language-dominance/
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), Public
Law 108-446 (2004.) 118 Stat. 2647 (2004)

References
(continued)
Langdon, H.W. (1989). Language Disorder or Difference? Assessing the Language
Skills of Hispanic Students. Exceptional Children, 56 (2).
Pearson, B., Fernandez, S. & Oller, D. K. (1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers: comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning, 43
(1), 93-120.
Peña, E.D. & Bedore, L.M. (2011). “It takes two: improving assessment accuracy in bilingual children. ASHA Leader, 16 (13), 20-22.
Peña, E., Bedore, L., Zlatic-Giunta, R. (2002) Category-Generation
Performance of Bilingual Children: The Influence of Condition Category and
Language. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 45, 938-
947.
Region 4 Educational Service Center (2005). Houston, TX (Author).

Contact Information
Shannon Wang
Senior Research Director shannon.wang@pearson.com
Nancy Castilleja
Senior Product Manager nancy.castilleja@pearson.com
Marie Sepulveda
Research Director marie.sepulveda@pearson.com
Mark Daniel
Senior Scientist for Research Innovation mark.daniel@pearson.com