CELE Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals val SPANISH EDITION Te Ce Oe) anism ON O)N Manual técnico ©PsychCorpee, er peat pre err err rer re eee ii CELE Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 4 SPANISH EDITION Manual técnico Eleanor Semel Elisabeth H. Wiig Wayne A. Secord with contributions from Henriette W. Langdon @PsychCorp brand of Harcourt Assesement, A. 44.400 -(4b6-Bh.006. @PsychCorp Copyright @ 2006, 1997 by Harcourt Assessment, ne. ‘Standardization edition copyright © 2004 by Harcourt Assessment, nc. Normative data copytight © 2004 by Harcourt Assessment, Inc. All rghts reserved. No part of his publcation may be reproduced or transmitted in any frm or by ary means, electronic or mechanical, incuding photocopy, recording, ac any information storage and retrieval system, without pormission in wring from the publisher. ‘The PStlogo and CELF are trademarks of Harcourt Assessment Ic. regetered inthe United States of America andiorotner jurisdictions. PsychCorp is trademark of Harcourt Assessment, Inc. Printed inthe United States of America 0158038428 34567891011 2ABCDE Visit our website at wun PsychCorp.com Published by Harcourt Assessment, nc, 19500 Buverde Road, San Antonio, TX 78259, USA 1-800-211-8578Contents CHAPTER 1 CELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Design : 1 Purpose : oe settee . cee a Goals of the Revision : ppaopanepsens ee 1 CELF-A Spanish Scores 0... eee ce teeeteteeteeeees witteetetenees 3 Core Language Score A i) Content, Structure, and Language Memory Index Scores. 3 Working Memory Index Score 3 Receptive and Expressive Language Index Scores 4 Overview of the CELF-4 Spanish Assessment Process Model. . 4 How CELE-4 Spanish Compares to CELF-3 Spanish .... 4 How CELF-4 Spanish Compares to the English Edition of CELE-4 5 CELF-4 Spanish Subtest Design 7 Conceptos y siguiendo direcciones Estructura de palabras... we feo : ou oo Recordando oraciones 9 Formulacién de oraciones : cece : 10 Clases de palabras 1 and 2 u Estructura de oraciones 12 Vocabulario expresivo. ‘ ee “4 Definiciones de palabras. . 15 Entendiendo parrafos. : : : 16 Conocimiento fonologico .........+ . . . we 7 Asociacién de palabras 18 Repeticién de nuimeros | and 2 pocooct) Secuencias familiares 1 and 2 ee eee 20) Enumeracién répida y automstica cee a Clasificacién pragmatica Escala de valoracién del lenguaje.......00cee0ceceseee . . BContents CHAPTER 2 Development and Standardization Development of CELF-4 Spanish ... . eres Ttem Development Bias and Content Review Standardization Research Recruiting and Qualifying Examiners... Description of the Sample ee Investigating the Appropriateness of Separate Percentile Ranks for Monolingual and Bilingual Students Developing Norms ceo Determining Start Points and Discontinue Rules Raw Scores Standard Scores, Age Equivalents Criterion-Referenced Scores. CHAPTER 3 Evidence of Reliability....... Evidence of Reliability of CELF-4 Spanish. Evidence of Test-Retest Rel Evidence of Internal Consistency. Evidence of Reliability Using Coefficient Alpha ......0..0000006 Evidence of Reliability Based on the Split-Half Method Reliability of Subtest Scores Reliability of Index Scores Evidence of Reliability for the Clinical Group Evidence of Interscorer Reliability. Standard Error of Measurement and Confidence Intervals... Score Differences Statistical Significance of Index Score Differences Frequency of Index Score Differences . Receptive and Expressive Language Index Score Differences Language Content and Language Structure Index Score Differences Language Content and Language Memory Index Score Differences Summary 26 6 60 62 64 64 64 -65 65 69) 69Contents CHAPTER 4 Evidence of Validity a Applicability of the CELF-4 Spanish 7 Evidence Based on Test Content ......0..00.000 00 0c0eecsceeee eens eeene seen 7 Evidence Based on Response Processes n Evidence Based on Internal Structure .. Intercorrelational Studies Factor Analytic Studies... ..6600c00:00seeeseesrsesseeeseeeseee Summary Evidence Based on Relationships With Other Variables 84 Correlation With CELF-3 Spanish ....2..20.005 vette teteeteeeteeeee 2 8H Children Diagnosed With Language Disorders . . 89 Diagnostic Accuracy fee baeb boca osoc bos saosanaecosooseses 2 Appropriateness of the Normative Scores for Monolingual and Bilingual Populations. 4 Summary 4 References List of Tables Table 1.1 iterion ranges for Enumeracién rapida y automtica 2 Table 2.1 CELF-4 Spanish panel of bias and content reviewers ........ ce eeceerees e126 ‘Table 2.2. Distribution of CELE-4 Spanish standardization sample by age. 28 Table 2.3 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by Sex. .....6c.cccee0eeeeeee1e228 Table 24 Distribution of CELP-4 Spanish standardization sample by place of origin. 28 Table 2.5 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample and population by parent education level ....2..2c.ee.e+0 229 Table 26 Distribution of C :.F-4 Spanish standardization sample by length of tne ved in the US, 30 Table 2.7 Distribution of CELE-4 Spanish standardization sample by type of school attended 30 Table 2.8 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by parent report of frequency and context of student's Spanish usage 31 Table 2.9 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by parent report of student's language proficiency by modality. 31 Table 2.10 Percentage of the CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by age, place of origin, and parent education level vee 32 Table 2.11 Percentage of the CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by age, sex, and place of origin. eo Table 2.12 Percentage of the CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by age, sex, and parent education level ...s06e000ceecseeceseeetevttecsseesseeeteneeeenes SM Table 2.13 Percentage of the CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by ae, place of origin, and region of the 35 Table 2.14 4 Spanish mean scores and standard deviations for Spanish-speaking students at different levels of exposure to Spanish (n= 794) 39Contents Table 2.15 Table 2.16 Table 2.17 Table 2.18 Table 2.19 Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 3.3, Table 3.4 Table 3.5 Table 3.6 Table 3.7 Table 3.8 Table 3.9 Table 3.10 Table 3.11 Table 3.12 ‘Table 4.1 Table 4.2 Table 4.3 Table 44 Table 4.5, vi CELF-4 Spanish mean scores and standard deviations for Spanish-speaking students at different levels of language comprehension (= 773)... Spanish mean scores and standard deviations for Spanish-speaking students at different levels of expressive language (1 = 799). B CELF~4 Spanish subtest standardization administration by age... cee AB ions for CELF-4 eae norm-referenced Raw score means and standard devi subtests by age . 48 Raw score means and standard deviations for CELI-4 Spanish rte subtests by age... 48 CELE-A Spanish test-retest reliability coefcens for subtest and composite scores by age and across all ages - 233 Porcentage of decision agreement betwen test and retest administrations for criterion-teferenced subtests.......-..- Geoooaua pecoseeou0u0G) CCELF-4 Spanish internal consistency reliability coetficent (coefficient alpha) by age and average for all ages. 36 CCELE-A Spanish internal consistency relay coefcints (spli-half) for norm-referenced subtests by age and average for all ages CCELF-4 Spanish internal consistency reliability coefficients (oelicient alpha and split-half) for criterion-referenced subtests by age and average for all ages. . ee) y coefficients (coefficient aia) for students Internal consistency reliabil with a language disorder ar) Internal consistency reli with a language disorder 61 ty coefficients (oes half for stants Average interscorer decision agreement for subtens that required scoring judgments 2 CELE-4 Spanish standard errors of measurement based on internal consistency reliability coefficients (split-half) for subtests and composite scores by age and average forall ages . 6 Cumulative percentages (base rates) of receptive and expressive language index score differences in the standardization sample and a sample of students with language-learning disorders .. Cumulative percentages (base rates) of language content and language structure index score differences in the standardization sample and a sample of students: with language-learning disorders . Specube ‘Cumulative percentages (base rates) of language content and language memory index score differences in the standardization sample anda sample of students with language-learning disorders 66 67 68 CCELE-4 Spanish intercorrelations of norm-referenced subtests and composite scores (11 = 800) oS CELE-4 Spanish goodness-of-fit indexes of thee hierarchical aructural equation models... CELF-4 Spanish standardized solutions by confirmatory factor analysis for ages 5-7. CELE-4 Spanish standardized solutions by confirmatory factor analysis for ages 10-12... CELF-4 Spanish standardized solutions by confirmatory factor analysis for ages 13-21.( ( Table 4.6 ‘Table 4.7 Table 4.8 Table 4.9 ‘Table 4.10 Table 4.11 Demographic characteristics for CELF—4 Spanish and CELF-3 Spanish study sample Means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients between CELE—4 Spanish and CELE-3 Spanish subtest and composite scores for students without LD... ‘Comparison of CELE-4 Spanish and CELE-2 Spanish composite scores at selected percentiles on the score distribution for each test, typically developing sample (11 = 91). Demographic characteristics for the CELE-4 Spanish clinical group study Mean performance and difference of CELF-4 Spanish subtest and composite scores for students diagnosed with LLD and a typically developing matched sample... .- Classification of language-learning disorder by CELF-4 Spanish core language score at I, 1.5, and 2 5Ds below the mean, and PPP and NPP for five base rates List of Figures Figure 2.1 Figure 4.1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4.3 Figure 44 Distribution of CFLF—4 Spanish standardization sample by regions of the US. CELE Spai CELE-4 Spanish hierarchical structural equation models for ages 10-12. (CELE-4 Spanish hierarchical structural equation models for ages 13-21. hierarchical structural equation models for ages 5-7. . Possible test outcomes of positive predictive power (+) and negative predictive power (-) Contents 85, = 86 88 291 92 oor) 7 oe 81 283 28 viiChapter 1 CELF—4 Spanish Purpose and Design Purpose ‘This edition of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Edition (CELF—4 Spanish) was developed to include a more comprehensive, flexible, multiperspective assess- ment process that responds to educational mandates for (a) determining eligibility for language services, (b) identifying language strengths and weaknesses, and (c) providing performance-based, authentic assessment with a stronger relationship to educational objectives and the curriculum than CELF-3 Spanish. To meet the objective of developing a comprehensive and flexible assessment process, subtests ant tasks were added to address content areas not evaluated with CELF-3 Spanish, such as vocabulary development, phono logical awareness, and communication in context. Specific goals were delineated to fulfill the stated purpose of this revision; these goals defined the design and research for develop- ment of the final version of CELF-4 Spanish. Goals of the Revision In conceptualizing and developing a model for the revision, the goal was to incorporate the best features of CELE-3 Spanish, improve the diagnostic power and sensitivity of subtests, and determine the most discriminating subtest constructs that would enable clinicians to make decisions about the presence or absence of a language disorder. Based on the feedback of clinicians, diagnosticians, experts in the area of bilingual/multicultural assessment, and ‘on current state and federal regulations, the following goals were established for develop- ment of the CELF-4 Spanish model 1. Increase the scope and content of CELE-3 Spanish to respond to current trends in education and retain the value it provides as atest for the classification and! diagnosis of language and communication disorders. Make CELF-4 Spanish easier to use and score to enable clinicians to make faster interpretations and answer practical clinical-educational questions. 3. Improve usability by reformatting the Manuales de estimulos to include the verbal and visual stimuli needed to administer items, separating the administration and technical information into two different manuals (Manual del examinador andChapter 1 Manual téenico), and reformatting the Folleto de registro so that only age-appropriate subtests are included in each. |. Increase the internal consistency reliability, and diagnostic sensitivity of norm referenced composite and subtest scores, and provide evidence of the test’s reliability and validity for the diagnosis and classification of a language disorder. Expand the test to include descriptive and authentic measures of communication skills . Expand the floor of CELF-4 Spanish to age 5 to provide greater diagnostic value and enable clinicians to use CELF-4 Spanish with kindergarten students, Increase the ceiling of the test to extend and improve the upper limits for evaluating the language skills of students 13-21 years old. Expand and refine the features of the CELF-—4 Spanish model to ensure that CELE-4 Spanish is applicable to a diverse Hispanic population; refine the content of the test to rake it as unbiased and as inclusive as possible. Investigate the clinical utility of test items based on current research of morphosyntac- tic structures and concepis to identify those that best differentiate Spanish- speaking students with typically developing skills from those with a language disorder. Review current items and develop new items that depict routines at home, at school, and in the community that are familiar to a wide range of Spanish-speaking students. Strengthen links between CELF-4 Spanish assessment, IDEA (Individuals with Dis- abilities Education Improvement Act, 2004) education mandates, and literacy acquisi- tion by providing measures of phonological awareness, as well as checklists and a rating scale to measure classroom language performance (e.g, listening, speaking, reading, writing) and social communication (pragmatics). Include subtests that provide crterion-referenced, age-based scores for tasks that probe underlying clinical behaviors. the Provide clinicians with test materials and procedures that improve accuracy standardized presentation of subtests and items. Assess aspects of Basic Interpersonal Communication Skills (BICS) and Cognitive- Academic Language Skills (CALP), including vocabulary from typical language arts, ‘math, science, and social studies curricula used in the United States and Puerto Rico. List dialectal differences in test stimuli in the Folleto de registro to help examiners identify when alternate vocabulary may be needed. Examine the appropriateness of the subtests new to the English edition of CELF-4 for Spanish-speaking students: ¢# the Vocabulario expresivo and Definiciones de palabras subtests, to expand the semantic content of CELF-4 Spanish «the Conocimiento fonolégico subtest to evaluate students’ phonological awareness; «© the Clasificacion pragmatica to rate observations of communication in contexts ‘© the Repeticién de ntimeros and Secuencias familiares subtests to measure ‘working memory in conjunction with the Enumeracién répida y automatica sub test; and, finally,CELE-4 Spanish Purpose and Design the Escala de valoracién del lenguaje (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 1997) was included for authentic assessment of language in different contexts. Those CELF-3 Spanish subtests that were included in CELF—4 Spanish were broadened in scope. Lower- and higher-level items and new items were added to more adequately cover the range of developmental skills. The items in Clases de palabras, for example, were broad: ened to include an expressive response—an explanation of the relationships between the two words selected by the student. In CELF-3 Spanish, the student was required only to identify related words, a primarily receptive task. CELF-4 Spanish Scores Core Language Score A significant difference between the structure of CELF-3 Spanish and CELE-4 Spanish is the identification of four core subtests for each age that are the most discriminating and clinically sensitive in identifying a language disorder. This enables you to accurately identify language disorders within a shorter time frame for younger students, ages 5-8 (approxi- mately 30-45 minutes), than you would by administering six subtests to make the same determination with CELF-3 Spanish for 6-8-year-old students. For children ages 9-12, the Core Language Score includes the same four subtests as the Total Language Score in CELF-3 Spanish. For students older than age 12, the most discriminating and clinically sensitive subtests include Definiciones de palabras, a new subtest in CELF—4 Spanish, Content, Structure, and Language Memory Index Scores ‘The Language Content, Language Structure, and Language Memory index scores are new to CELF-4 Spanish. They are composite scores based on the content-based clustering of CELF-4 Spanish subtests, During the early phases of development of the English edition of CELF-4, the subtests were organized on the basis of the researchers’ combined clinical judgment and on current research. The subtests were grouped to form one composite with primarily semantic content, a second composite with primarily morphological and syntactic content, and a third composite, in which meaning, structure, and memory interfaced. ‘The results of the factor analy cs that were conducted following standardization research confirmed these groupings on the English edition of CELF-4. Factor analyses conducted following CELF-4 Spanish standardization research confirmed these groupings for Spanish-speaking students Working Memory Index Score The significance of working memory in relation to language learning and use has gained acceptance in speech-language pathology during the past decade. This change in the field is supported by numerous research studies (Baddeley, 1995, 1999; Gillam, 1998; Weismer, Evans, & Hesketh, 1999). Gutiérrez-Clellen, Calderén, and Weismer (2004) studied working memory with typically developing bilingual students. They concluded that there are no sig. nificant differences between bilingual children fluent in both languages and bilingual chil- dren with proficiency in only one language, nor ate there significant processing differences between Spanish and English in fluent bilinguals who are following a typical course of development. In recognition of the importance of examining working memory to assist inChapter 1 identifying students with language-learning deficits, four existing subtests of immediate and working memory were included in CELF=4 Spanish. These subtests were taken from the Children’s Memory Scale (Cohen, 1997) and Wechsler Memory Seale-Third Edition (Wechsler, 1997) and included in standardization research, The Working Memory index score, which is new to CELF-—4 Spanish, is formed with the scaled scores of these subtests. Receptive and Expressive Language Index Scores Whether or not to maintain CELP’s traditional Receptive Language composite and Expres- sive Language composite was considered during the developmental process of the English edition of CELF-4. One reason to support this division in scores is that several states and regions continue to require separate receptive language and expressive language scores as part of the diagnostic process. On the other hand, a reason to eliminate these composites was the growing recognition that separating primarily receptive subtests from primarily expressive subtests can be arbitrary and artificial ‘The decision was made to retain the Receptive Language composite and Expressive Lan guage composite in CELF-4 only ifthe divisions could be supported by factor analyses. Because the factor analyses performed at several stages of the development process sup- ported a modality factor (receptive versus expressive), the Receptive Language and Expres sive Language composites were included in CELF-4. Additional factor analysis of the results of the CELF—4 Spanish research was conducted. Because the Receptive Language and Expressive Language composites were identified or confirmed by factor analysis, scores are called index scores in CELF-4 Spanish, as are the other composite scores in the new test. The factor analyses are discussed in greater detail in chapter 4 of this manual Overview of the CELF—4 Spanish Assessment Process Model How CELF-4 Spanish Compares to CELF-3 Spanish CELE-3 Spanish (Semel, Wiig, & Second, 1997) was the first published version of CELF in Spanish. CELF-3 Spanish was one of the few tests available that provided normed scores based on research with Spanish speikers living in the United States. CELF-4 Spanish uses ‘many of the tests items from CELE Spanish, with additional items and subtests intended to improve the tes’ floor and ceiling and to improve the tests diagnostic power. © CELF-4 Spanish introduces a Core Language score that is the sum of the scaled scores from the four most reliable and discriminating subtests at each age, which results in a quick and reliable decision about a student’s overall language ability and eligibility for language intervention. In CELF-3 Spanish, a total of six subtests had to be adminis- tered to children 6 to 8 years old to determine language ability and eligibility status. In CELE-4 Spanish only four subtests need to be administered to identify a language disorder and qualify a child for services. The CELF-4 Spanish Core Language score includes the same four subtests used to obtain a Total Language Seore for CELF-3 Spanish for students 9-12 years old. For students ages 13 through 21 years, a new subtest (Definiciones de palabras) replaces Conceptos y direcciones to comprise a Core (Total) Language score.( eas (et f (ert f CELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Design @ In CELF-4 Spanish, only one or two subtests in addition to the four Core Language subtests need to be administered to derive language modality (Receptive and Expres sive Language), Language Structure, Language Content, and Language Memory index scores. This reduces the tinte it takes to administer CELF-4 Spanish as compared to CELF-3 Spanish for students below age 9 because these additional subtests are administered only to students with evidence of a language disorder (as indicated by the Core Language score) rather than administering these subtests to every child you test. @ The CELF-4 Spanish index scores (including the Working Memory index score) increase the test’s clinical utility and sensitivity as compared to CELF-3 Spanish. ¢ CELF-4 Spanish features new subtests for vocabulary (Vocabulario expresivo), word knowledge (Definiciones de palabras), and phonological awareness (Conocimiento fonol6gico), as well as rating scales for communication competence (Clasificacién pragmitica), These additions provide a broader scope and a more flexible and practi- cal assessment process than CELE-3 Spanish. The measure of language-based performance in the classroom (Escala de valoracion del lenguaje) was previously available in the CELF-3 Spanish Manual ‘¢ CELF-4 Spanish delineates an assessment process that gives clinicians flexibility in selecting and administering only those subtest, related clinical-behavior probes, and behavioral rating scales relevant to the specific objectives for an evaluation, How CELF—4 Spanish Compares to the English Edition of CELF—4 CELE-A Spanish incorporates the results of new research in the area of Spanish-speaking students’ language abilities and methods for examining these skills. CELF-4 Spanish also incorporates improvements made to the CELF-4 English edition. ‘© The test items in the Spanish edition are not translations of the items in the English edition. Some of the picture stimuli on the Estructura de oraciones/Sentence Struc~ ture subtests and the Formulacién de oraciones/Formulating Sentences subtests appear in both editions of CELF4. In both subtests, however, the verbal stimulus differs. A few items appear in both the Expressive Vocabulary subtest of the English edition and the Vocabulario expresivo subtest of the Spanish edition. These subtests focus on vocabulary based on school curriculum, ‘@ Both tests have similar formats, administration directions, and scoring rules. ‘© Both tests are used to assess the same age range (5-21 years) and yield standard scores, percentile ranks, and age equivalents. ‘© Both tests are built on the same test model, in which receptive and expressive language skills are tested within the areas of semantics, morphology, syntax, and working memory. © There are different numbers of test items in many of the subtests and a separate set of norms on CELF-4 Spanish. Neither raw scores nor normed scores are comparable between the two tests because the tests are based on normative data developed on different populations. © The normative samples and demographic characteristics of the samples differ. Om CELF-4 Spanish, the number of students tested at each socioeconomic level (assigned by level of education of the primary caregiver) was based on U.S. census figures for Hispanics in the United States.Chapter 1 There are many parallel morphosyntactic forms in the English and Spanish editions; however, there are also forms specific to Spanish (e.g, subjuntivo, copretérito, condi- ional). The morphosyntactic structures assessed in CELF—4 Spanish are those shown in standardization research to best discriminate typically performing students from students with a language disorder. ‘© The test items in CELE-4 Spanish were ordered to reflect the difficulty of the items in Spanish, based on the performance of Spanish-speaking students in the standardization sample. © Start points and discontinue rules differ from the English edition and reflect the performance of students in the standardization sample. # CELF-4 Spanish does not include a Spamish version of the Sentence Assembly or Semantic Relationships subtests. Research conducted with CELF-3 Spanish showed that these subtests did not differentiate typically developing Spanish-speaking stu- dents from those Afentified as having a language disorder. Because of this, the Sen- tence Assembly and Semantic Relationship substests were deleted from CELF-4 Spanith, The Expressive Language and Language Content index scores for the 13-21 age group are derived from only two subtests rather than the three in the CELE—4 English edition. © Dialectal variations for words in the CELE-4 Spanish subtests are listed on the Folleto de registro and/or in the scoring guidelines in the Manual del examinador. © The Folletos de registro include a Language Environment Checklist on page 2, which enables an examiner to evaluate influences of home language and academic language instruction on the students languag. ‘The model for CELE—4 Spanish, based on the CELF—4 English edition and confirmed by additional research with CELF-4 Spanish, developed into a multiperspective assessment process, consisting of several relatively independent levels. This model is shown in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 in the Manual del examinador. The subtests and tasks at some levels are norm- referenced with standard scores and percentile ranks reported to reflect performance. As an outcome of administering the subtests, a student's raw score is translated into a derived {seaied and standard) score, which allows for comparisons with the performance of others at the same age, Other subtests and tasks are criterion-referenced, meaning that a student's score is related to functional performance levels or educational benchmarks, For these tasks, a student's performance is judged to meet or not meet functional performance crite- ria established by age. ‘The subtests at each level of the CELF-4 Spanish assessment process were grouped! to iden- tify the presence or absence of a language disorder (Level 1), and to delineate modality or content strengths and weaknesses (Level 2). Subtests and tasks used to evaluate clinical hohaviors that related to language and reading acquisition, or communication competence, or that stressed the system to deter- mine performance levels and/or brain-behavior relationships were grouped to form Level 3. Finally, the Clasficacion pragmatica and the Escala de valoracion del lenguaje, which provide both performance-based and curriculum-related assessment, compose Level 4 (authentic assessment). You can determine which of the four levels of assessment to use based upon the reasons a student was referred for assessment. You can then administer subtests atthe levels that you judge to be relevant to the referral. This saves time in the initial evaluation ofa student because you do not need to administer all subtests to every student you assess. aso tt FECCOCES f{ CeCe ( f ( eee ( f CELE-4 Spanish Purpose and Design enables you to return to CELE-4 Spanish after the initial evaluation to explore other aspects related to a student’ language difficulties (e.., evaluate underlying clinical behav- iors) or assess how observed deficits are reflected in classroom performance and/or com- ‘munication in context. CELF—4 Spanish Subtest Design Conceptos y siguiendo direcciones Ages Purpose ‘To measure the scent’ ability to (a) interpret spoken directions of increasing length and complexity that contain concepts requiting logical operations: (b) remember the names, characteristics, and order of mention of objects; and (c) identify the pictured objects that were mentioned from among several choices. Format The student identifies pictured objects in response to an orally presented direction. Background A diminished ability to follow directions in the classroom and in other daily life situations is an indicator of possible underlying language disorder. This difficulty may manifest itself, ima wide variety of educationally and linguistically related tasks, such as delays in ‘© acquiring and interpreting concepts that express quantity, spatial relationships, or temporal relationships: ‘© understanding sequential directions or ordering tasks according to a specified sequences interpreting and following time sequences or order of actions in instructions (tempo- ral relations); and ¢ interpreting and following conditions stated in instructions or directions (conditional relationships). Comparison to the CELF-4 English Edition ‘This subtest includes parallel, not translated, items that assess the same concepts as the English edition. There are no shared items on this subtest in the English and Spanish editions of CELF-4. tems have been ordered to account for differences in item difficulty in Spanish, Items that did not discriminate between Spanish-speaking students with typically developing language skills and Spanish-speaking students with a language disorder were dropped from the subtest. Alternate vocabulary is provided for words such as carro and pelota Summary ‘© The Conceptos y siguiendo direcciones subtest in CELF-4 Spanish was renamed to reflect the change in items that are used to evaluate a student's ability to interpret oral directions that contain linguistic concepts requiring logical operationsChapter 1 © CELF-S Spanish Conceptos y siguiendo direcciones has 50 items, an increase from 24 items in CELF-3 Spanish Conceptos y direcciones. There are 54 items on the Eng- lish edition of CELF-4. © The floor of the subtest was extended to include 5-year-olds. ‘# Age-dependent start points were revised; ages 5-8 start at Item I, and ages 9-12 start at Item 12, Both age ranges have demonstration and trial items Items 1-23 require logical operators (and; either ... or); Items 24-50 measure the ability to interpret, recall, and execute oral directions that contain orientation, multiple commands, and modification. A discontinue rule is used for al ages. ‘© Visual stimuli were changed to common objects (e.g. shoe, ball, car, house, apple, fish) instead of the geometric shapes used in CELF-3 English and Spanish editions. ‘The objects in Items 1-21 are in color; however, the ability to discriminate colors is, not requited for this subtest. The objects in Items 22-50 are in black and whit, with black and white used as modifiers. ‘¢ Although norm-referenced scores for Conceptos y siguiendo direcciones are not pro- vided beyond age 12 years 11 months, this subtest can be administered to gain crite- rion-referenced information about students ages 13 years and older who appear to be functioning below their age level in language development. 4 This subtest must be administered to derive the Core Language score and the Recep- tive Language, Language Content, and Language Memory index scores, depending upon the age of the student tested, Estructura de palabras Ages Purpose “To measure the acquisition of Spanish morphological rules, Format The student completes orally presented sentences in reference to visual stimuli Background Individuals with language disorders may have a difficult time mastering word structure rules. They may have trouble with the semantic distinctions of number, case, tense, aspect, and comparison; the phonological conditioning rules for inflectional morphemes: and the distinctions in the syntactic role of words. ‘Comparison to the CELE-4 English Edition ‘Test items and art differ from the English edition—there are no shared items on this subtest in the English and Spanish editions of CELE-4. The morphological structures selected for inclusion in the final version of the test are those that showed differential performance between typically developing Spanish-speaking students and students with a language disorder. The morphological structures are presented in order of difficulty for Spanish- speaking students ia eet f { (CELE-4 Spanish Purpose and Design Summary ‘© There are 29 items in the CELF-4 Spanish Estructura de palabras subtest. The test items were revised to reflect the rescarch into the development of grammar in chil: dren with language disorders, and the visual and verbal stimuli reflect contemporary contexts. Current research has questioned the usefulness of testing certain mor- phosyntactic structures (e.g, certain verb structures and noun derivations) to identify children with language impairments (Jackson-Maldonado, 2004; Restrepo & Gutigrrez-Clellan, 20043, However, analysis of the CELF-4 Spanish standardization data (n= 800) shows that while these structures are not as highly discriminating as other grammatical forms, asa group, these items increase discrimination of this sub- test between typically developing students and those identified with a language impairment. Inclusion of the items testing those grammatical forms in this subtest improves the psychometric properties of the subtest (ic, item-to-total correlations are acceptable and the overall subtest reliability is improved with the inclusion of these items). There are 32 items on the English edition of CELF-4, The floor of the subtest was extended to include age 5 years Although norm-referenced scores are not provided for students older than 8 years 11 months, this subtest can be administered to gain content-referenced information about students ages 9 years and older who appear to be functioning below their age level in language development. ‘© This subtest must be administered to derive the Core Language score and the Expres- sive Language and Language Structure index scores, for ages 5-8 Recordando oraciones Ages 521 Purpose To measure the ability to recall and reproduce sentences of varying length and syntactic complexity Format ‘The student imitates sentences presented by the clinician Background Individuals with language disorders frequently experience difficulty remembering spoken sentences. These difficulties relate to structural complexity, word length, and idea density of the information to be remembered. For example, individuals with language disorders may have trouble recalling propositions or intents expressed in passive voice, indirect object transformations, and relative chuse transformations Deficits in sentence imitation are widely regarded as potential markers for English-speaking children with specific language impairment (SLI), Sentence imitation appears to tap both children’s linguistic knowledge and theit phonological working memories, making sentence repetition tasks important indicators of SLL. As early as 1964, researchers began using sen- tence repetition tasks as a tool to discriminate between normal and disordered language development in children (Menyuk, 1964; Menyuk & Looney, 1972),Chapter 1 10 Other investigators have demonstrated that children’s imitative language is essentially the same in content and structure as their spontaneous language (Brown & Belhugi, 1964; Ervin, 19645 Slobin & Welsh, 1973). Slobin and Welsh incieate that children translate sen tences into their own language system and then repeat the sentences using their own Jan- guage rules. To these researchers, imitation was seen as a valuable tool for providing information about a child's language abilities. Features of a child's language system can be obtained using imitation only ifthe stimulus sentences are long enough to tax the child's ‘memory, as a child will imitate perfectly any sentence if the length of the sentence is within the child’s memory capacity. A recent study by Eadie, Fey, Douglas and Parsons (2002) demonstrated a group of children with SLI attained significantly lower raw scores on the Sentences subscale of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence—Revised (Wechsler, 1989) as compared to the typical language development group matched for mean length of utterance. Comparison to the CELF-4 English Edition ‘The English and Spanish editions of CELP-4 have no shared items in this subtest. The sen- tences in CELE-4 Spanish were developed to represent the range of sentence structures in Spanish, including sentences with condicional, copretérito, subjunctivo, and pronombres| reflexivos forms. The sentence structures tested are those that best differentiated between typically developing Spanish-speaking students and Spanish-speaking students with lan- guage disorders. Items are arranged in order of difficulty for Spanish-speaking students. Summary ‘# Recordando oraciones has 32 items in CELI-4 Spanish, an increase from 26 items in CELF=3 Spanish, There are 32 items in the English edition of CELF-4, {© The floor ofthe subtest was extended to include 5-year-olds. ‘@ Sentence contexts were updated to include more universal situations across diverse Hispanic cultural groups. ‘¢Notm-referenced scores are provided forages 51021 ‘© Recordando oraciones retains the weighted scoring system used in CELF-3 and (CELE-3 Spanish that provides credit for minor variations in responses, © This subtest must be administered to derive the Core Language score forall ages and for computing the Expressive Language, Language Structure, and Language Memory index scores depending on the age of the student. Formulacion de oraciones Ages 5-21 Purpose ‘To measure the ability to formulate complete semantically and grammatically correct sentences of increasing length and complexity within given semantic, syntactic, and pragmatic constraints. Format ‘The student formulates a sentence using an orally presented target word or phrase with a stimulus picture asa reference COOOL f(CELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Design Background Individuals with language disorders often experience difficulty in formulating compound and complex sentences with adverbial clauses, embedded noun-phrase complements, coor- dinated or subordinated clauses, and embedded relative clauses. Comparison to the CELF-4 English Edition The start point and discontinue rules differ from the English edition. Start points and discontinue rules are based on the performance of the Spanish-speaking students in the standardization sample. While you will find many of the picture stimuli are the same as those in the English edition, the pictures are paired with different stimulus words in the Spanish edition, Many of the same words appear in both the English and Spanish editions. The items in this subtest are those that best differentiated between typically developing Spanish-speaking students and Spanish-speaking students with a language disorder. Items are arranged by order of difficulty for Spanish-speaking students. Summary # Formulaciéin de oraciones has 26 items in CELE-4 Spanish, an increase from 20 items in CELF-3 Spanish. There are 28 items on the English edition of CELE © Examples of scored responses and the morphosyntactic rules on which they are based are provided in chapter 2 of the Manual del examinador. © Added items target nouns, verbs, adverbs, and adjectives. © The floor of the subtest was extended to include 5-year-olds. © Age-dependent start and stop points were revised so that ages 5-8 start at [lem 1 and stop at Item 23; they do not take Items 24-26, Ages 9-21 start at Item 1, and continue through Item 26. ‘© The 3-point scoring scale (2, 1,0) was retained from CELP-4 and CELP-3 Spanish, Scoring is holistic, with responses scored for accuracy of syntax, semantics, and pragmatics ‘© As with CELF-3 and the English edition of CELI—4, the students responses must ‘make reference to the visual stimuli in order for the student to earn points. ‘© This subtest must be administered to derive the Core Language score and the Expres- sive Language, Language Structure, and Language Memory index scores, depending, ‘upon age. Clases de palabras 1 and 2 Ages 5-7 and 8-21 Purpose ‘To measure the ability to perceive, understand, and explain relationships between associated words. Format The student selects two words that go together best from three or four verbally presented words and explains the relationship between the selected words. "112 Background Individuals with language disorders often have difficulty understanding specific categories, ‘of words. Problems may be evident in both the interpretation and production of language. Ability to perceive associations among words depends upon adequacy in identifying the dimensions of « relationship between the words (e-g» whether the words belong to the some word class; are antonyms or synonyms; and/or have an underlying whole-part, spatial, temporal, or other relationship). Comparison to the CELF-4 English Edition There are no shared items on this subtest in the English and Spanish editions of CELE-4. The test items in the CELE-4 Spanish were developed to be parallel versions of the English edition, The items that were selected for inclusion in this Spanish edition are those that best differentiated between typically developing Spanish-speaking students and Spanish-speak ing students with language disorders. The test items are arranged in order of difficulty for Spanish-speaking students. Summary '© Clases de palabras has been revised substantially from CELF~3 Spanish and is two subtests in this edition: Clases de palabras I for ages 5-7 and Clases de palabras 2 for ages 8-21. Both now include an expressive component. f¢ There are 25 items in Clases de palabras 1 and 26 items in Clases de palabras 2. The student selects che two words that best go together from three or four verbally presented words. The student then is asked to explain why the two selected words go together (.., explain the relationship between the words). For Clases de palabras 1, the student looks at pictures in the Manual de estimulos; Clases de palabras 2 does, not include picture stimuli. © Scoring of Clases de palabras was significantly revised. Because an expressive ‘component was added, each subtest now has three scaled scores: Clases de palabras Receptive, Clases de palabras-Expressive, and Clases de palabras—Total. The Receptive score is obtained from the student’s performance on the original receptive task, and the Expressive score is obtained from the student’ performance on the new expressive task. The Clases de palabras~Total score is a composite score derived from the sum of Clases de palabras-Receptive and Clases de palabras-Expressive scaled scores, which is then converted toa scaled score with a mean of 10 and a standard deviation of 3. 4 Norm-referenced scores are available for ages 5-7 for Class de palabras 1 and ages 8-21 for Clases de palabras 2. 4¢) This subtest must be administered to derive the Core Language score for ages 9-21 and the Receptive Language, Expressive Language, and Language Content index scores, depending on age Estructura de oraciones ‘Ages 38 Purpose ‘To measure the acquisition of grammatical (structural) rules at the sentence level. iG {fe COOCOTEOI CET ELS eee Creer cret?e C CeCe r ere t f rece CELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Design Format After listening to an orally presented stimulus, the student points to the picture that repre- sents the stimulus. Background Individuals with a language disorder frequently experience difficulty in mastering receptive and expressive syntactic structures. They have problems with processing and interpreting spoken sentences when the language increases in structural complexity (sentence transfor- mations) and in syntactic compression (idea density). Studies suggest that individuals with a language disorder may have problems integrating the surface sentence structure and deep sentence structure. Although some appear to perceive and interpret the words used in spoken sentences, they do not grasp the interrelationships among the words in the sentences. This seems especially evident for spoken sentences that contain subordinate or relative clauses. This subtest focuses specifically on syntax at the spoken sentence level in order to provide a comparison with expressive syntactic abilities (Formulacién de oraciones) and facilitate extension testing and planning for intervention. ‘Comparison to the CELF-4 English Edition ‘There are no items on this subtest that appear in both the English and Spanish editions of CELF-4. The sentences were developed to represent sentence structuresin Spanish and include structures specific only to the Spanish language, such as condicional forms (€.8. 42No deberias ponerte zapatos?) and pronombres reflexivos (e.., se estd alejando, se lastimé ‘su rodilla). The items that were selected for inclusion in this Spanish edition are these that best differentiated between typically developing Spanish-speaking students and Spanist- speaking students with language disorders. The test items are arranged in order of difficulty for Spanish-speaking students Summary ‘© Estructura de oraciones has 31 items in CELF-4 Spanish, increased from 16 items in CCELE-3 Spanish, New items have been added to increase the floor and ceiling and to increase reliability. The English edition of CELF has 26 items. ‘© The floor of the subtest was extended to include 5-year-olds. © Norm-referenced scores are provided for students ages 5-8 years, Although norm-referenced scores are not provided for students older than 8 years 11 months, the subtest can be administered to gain content-referenced information about stu- dents ages 9 years and older who appear to be functioning below their age level in language development. This subtest must be administered to derive the Receptive Language or Language Structure index scores for ages 5-8 years. In addition to using the item analysis table in chapter 2 of the Manual del exami- nador, you can analyze a student’ syntactic skills by examining the verb tense used in each Estructura de oraciones item the student missed. 13Chapter 1 14 Vocabulario expresivo Purpose ‘To measure the student’s ability to name illustrations of people, objects, and actions (referential naming), Format ‘The student identifies an object, person, or activity portrayed in the Manual de estimulos. Background Individuals with language disorders often lack the essential semantic skills required in both classroom and social situations. Vocabulario expresivo is new to CELF-4 Spanish and was added, along with Definiciones de palabras, o probe semantic components of language miore broadly than in CELF-3 Spanish. It evaluates the ability to label and remember names for people, objects, and actions. This subtest taps skills that students need in aca~ demic contexts to respond to pictures, graphs, diagrams, and other illustrations, and in spontaneous language to express concise meaning. In the classroom, the precise ase of ‘words to create meaning is emphasized in telling stories, giving descriptions of events, and Tabeling pictured references. Comparison to the CELF-4 English Edition Both the Spanish and English editions of this subtest include vocabulary taken from school curricula in the areas of language arts, science, math, social studies, sports, and music. Approximately 40% of the test items on the Spanish edition also appear on the English edition, The test items that were selected for this subtest are those that best differentiated between typically developing Spanish-speaking students and Spanish-speaking students identified with a language disorder. The test items are arranged in order of difficulty for Spanish-speaking students Summary '© Vocabulario expresivo isa new subtest in CELP-4 Spanish for students ages 5-9 years. ‘© The subtest comprises 29 items that target various semantic categories (e.g. animals, shapes, occupations, science, and mathematics). The English edition includes 27 items. ‘© Norm-referenced scores are provided for students ages 5-9 years. Although norm-ref- cerenced scores are not provided for students older than 9 years 11 months, the subtest can be administered to gain content-referenced information about vocabulary skills for students ages 10 years and older who appear to be functioning below their age level in language development. 4 This subtest must be administered to derive the Language Content index score for ages 5-9 years. COCOCOCOCOECOCECE ( fif freee ( (error ee t ree CELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Design Definiciones de palabras Ages. 10-21 Purpose To measure the student’s ability to analyze words for meaning features and define them by roferring to class relationships and shared meanings. Format The student defines a word that is named and used in a sentence, Background Many individuals with language disorders have difficulty with semantics, the meaning of individual words, and the rules that govern the combinations of word meanings to form meaningful phrases and sentences. Difficulty with semantics can take many forms, inchud- ng reduced vocabulary; restricted semantic categories; word retrieval deficits; poor word association skills; and difficulty with figurative language metaphors, humor, and idioms. ‘The Definiciones de palabras subtest was added to CELF-4 Spanish to provide a tool to fur- ther assess semantic abilities. The abilities that are measured relate to upper elementary and secondary grade curriculum objectives for comprehending and using words as concepts with broad, generic applications, rather than with narrow, concrete, and contextually bound meanings. Along with Vocabulario expresivo, Definiciones de palabras was added to probe semantic components of language (content) more broadly than in CELE-3 Spanish, Comparison to the CELF-4 English Edition Both the Spanish and English editions of this subtest include vocabulary taken from language arts, science, and social studies curricula. A few words reflect world/community knowledge. This subtest includes items developed as parallel items to the English edition. No items on this subtest appear in both the English and Spanish editions of CELF-4. The test items that were selected for this subtest are those that best differentiated between typi- cally developing Spanish-speaking students and Spanish-speaking students with language disorders. The test items are arranged in order of difficulty for Spanish-speaking students ‘Summary ¢ Definiciones de palabras is a new vocabulary measure in CELF-4 Spanish for ages, 10-21 years, The subtest is composed of 26 items that target various semantic categories (science, social studies, language/literature/art). The items on the Spanish edition are designed to target vocabulary items at the same grade levels of items on the English edition of CELF-4, There are 24 items on the English edition of CBLE-4. ‘© The clinician introduces a target word and uses it in a sentence. The sentences were developed ta provide only minimal context from which meaning can be inferred. ‘© Norm-referenced scores are provided for students ages 10-21 years ‘© Definiciones de palabras can be administered to contribute to an index score (Core Language or Language Content) or can stand alone as a measure of the student's vocabulary skills, 15Chapter 1 16 Entendiendo pérrafos Ages 5-21 Purpose ‘To measure the ability to interpret factual and inferential information presented in spoken paragraphs. Format The student answers questions about orally presented paragraphs. Background Individuals with language disorders may encounter difficulty recalling information (facts and details) and using the information presented in spoken paragraphs to identify cause- effect relationships and make inferences and predictions. The difficulties may stem from problems in recalling meaningful predictable elements; understanding sentences of increas- ing length and syntactic complexity; and perceiving and interpreting the semantic interrela tionships expressed by individual words, phrases, and sentences. A more complete description of problems associated with the interpretation and recall of Paragraphs and stories can be found in Language Assessment and Intervention for the Learn- ing Disabled (Wiig & Semel, 1984, pp. 342357) Comparison to the CELE-4 English Edition Both the English and Spanish editions include three paragraphs: one about home routines; another about familiar school routines; and a third intended to be more curriculum based, incorporating academic vocabulary. Parageaphs were written to represent home and academic experiences for Hispanic students. There is one paragraph that is a Spanish trans lation paragraph on the English ition of CELF-4 (age 11-12). The items that were selected for this subtest following standardization are those that best differentiated between typically developing Spanish-speaking students and Spanish-speaking students identified with language disorders. Summary @ The CELF-3 Spanish Escuchando parrafos was renamed Entendiendo parrafos in the CELP-4 Spanish revision to reflect the emphasis on comprehension of information included in each paragraph. © The floor of the subtest was extended to include 5-year-olds © CELF-3 Spanish paragraphs were revised and new paragraphs were written to present appropriate contexts and relevant themes for specific age levels in the age range for CELF-4 Spanish. Each paragraph has five questions that target different content in the paragraph: details, main idea, prediction, inference, and sequence information. ‘# Sentence complexity is appropriate for the targeted ages ‘# For each two-year age interval from ages 5~14 years and the seven-year interval for ages 15-21, there are three paragraphs accompanied by five questions. Detail and sequence questions tend to be the most difficult questions, while the inference and COOCOCOCTCOOCOECE (ei {Cree (CELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Design prediction questions tend to be easier for students to answer correctly. Within an age ‘group, no one paragraph is much harder or much easier than the other paragraphs. ‘@ This subtest must be administered to derive the Receptive Language index score for ages 13-21 and the Language Content index score for ages 9-21 years, Conocimiento fonolégico Ages 5-12 Purpose ‘To measure the student’s knowledge of the sound structure of the language and the ability to manipulate sound through (a) syllable and phoneme segmentat {(b) syllable and phoneme blending; (c) syllable detection; and (d) phoneme identification and manipulation, Format ‘The Conocimiento fonoligico subtest comprises 11 tasks, each of which has specific directions for administration and trial items. The tasks are: A. Syllable Blending Initial Phoneme Identification . Syllable Segmentation ‘Medial Phoneme Identification Finai Phoneme Identification ‘Two Syllable Deletion Three Syllable Deletion Final Syllable Deletion Phoneme Segmentation -morroos J. Initial Phoneme Substitution K. Initial Phoneme Deletion Background Conocimiento fonolégico may be defined as the explicit awareness of the sound system of language, including word, syllable, and phoneme awareness. During the past 30 years, speech-language pathologists have played a major role in assessment of and intervention for phonological awareness, illustrating the need to include Conocimiento fonolégico as a new subtest in CELF-4. TThe predictive relationship between learning to read and phonological awareness has been clearly established across multiple studies, with a clear message delineated by the National Reading Panel (2002) to both assess and provide phonological awareness intervention as a strong component of literacy programs. Phonological awareness is predictive of students, who may experience reading difficulties. Itis often one of the primary processing issues presented by those who have reading difficulties and supports the development of reading and spelling when specifically taught. Because phonological awareness is one part of language and is o closely linked to reading, and spelling, its inclusion in CELF-4 Spanish was essential. In addition to its relationship to literacy, phonological awareness has an impact on articulation, relates to auditory pro- cessing, and supports the development of word pronunciation and word knowledge. Many 7Chapter 1 18 students with more severe reading disabilities often exhibit difficulty with both phonologi- cal awareness and rapid naming, both of which are measured with CELF-4 Spanish. As a result of research conducted vith Spanish-speaking students on all 17 of the tasks that appear in the English edition of CELF-4, only 11 Conocimiento fonoligico tasks are included in CELF-4 Spanish. Research showed that for certain tasks, especially rhyming, phoneme blending, and sentence segmentation tasks, there was little difference in the performance of Spanish-speaking students with typically developing skills and students ‘with language disorders, These tasks were d:opped from CELF-4 Spanish, and the remaining phonological awareness tasks were arranged in order of difficulty for Spanish- speaking students. Summary ‘© Conocimiento fonologico is a new criterion-referenced subtest in CELF-4 Spanish for students ages 5-12 years. Because it isa supplementary subtest, administration is ‘optional. It was designed to enable you to do a preliminary evaluation of a student’ phonological awareness skills across 11 tasks. Each task consists of five items used asa measure of the stucent’s mastery of that particular skill, ‘© This subtest should be administered to all students who eshibit delays in literacy, specifically in reading, decoding, and spelling, Students witk early histories of speech/language delays should be evaluated as they approach literacy in school. Using this subtest will provide diagnostic information regarding a processing area closely linked to reading and spelling and will help you develop specific goals for intervention. ‘© This subtest i criterion-referenced in order to identify the level of phonological awareness attained by the student and the specific areas yet to be acquired. Results of this assessment provide a description of the specific skills or processes that the stu~ dent has attained and which areas require specific support and/or intervention. ¢ Although criterion-referenced scores for Conocimiento fonologico are provided for ages 5-12 years, this subtest can be administered for content-referenced information about students’ phonological awareness skills for ages 13 years and older who appear to be functioning below their age level in language or below their grade level in reading, Asociacion de palabras Ages 5-21 Purpose ‘To measure the ability to recall labels of members ofa semantic class within a time limit. Format ‘The student lists members of targeted categories of words within I minute, Background Many individuals with language disorders lack fluency on verbal association and naming tasks. Their responses often shift between groups or classes of words in their attempts to retrieve a series of related words, and they may not employ efficent clustering, grouping, or planning strategies. These limitations may manifest themselves in numerous language for- ‘mulation and mediation tasks C1 CCE tt Ceerce (re ( { Cf CELE-4 Spanish Purpose and Design For a complete description of the deficits related to difficulties in word association and associative naming, see Language Assessment and Intervention for the Learning Disabled (Wiig & Semel, 1984, pp. 118-121). If you are testing a bilingual student, it may be useful to examine the student's category naming in his or her second language as well as in Spanish. Pena, Bedore, and Zlatie-Giunta (2002) report that 5-year-old children name approximately equal numbers of items in sepa- rate Spanish and English tasks, whereas slightly older children (mean age 6.5) demonstrate «a bias toward linguistic or taxonomic categories, with a large percentage of items that are unique to each language. Because of the strategies used by children learning two languages, vocabulary size in each language may be the same, but some vocabulary words overlap both languages: others are used in one language and not the other. Summary ‘© Asociacién de palabras isa supplementary subtest in CELF-4 Spanish used to gather additional information about the language skills of students ages 5-21 years ‘© The subtest includes a new criterion-referenced scoring system that is more descrip- tive of the student's processing and production skills and is more useful in interpret- ing the student’s performance on this task. ‘© Questions that will help you summarize the student’s response patterns on this sub- test was retained from CELF-3 Spanish and is presented in chapter 4 of the Manual del examinador. Repeticién de ntimeros 1 and 2 Ages 5-16 and 17-21 Purpose To measure working memory. Format ‘The clinician reads a series of digits and asks the student to say the digits in the same order. Next, the clinician reads a series of digits and asks the student to say them in the reverse order. Background ‘The tasks in Repeticién de ntimeros 1 and 2 require a significant amount of attention, con- centration, and working memory (auditory and verbal). Along with Secuencias familiares and 2, Repeticién de miimeros | and 2 were added to CELF-4 Spanish to enable you to evaluate the effects of working memory and language. Subtests that are designed to measure working memory were included in CELE~4 Spanish a5 an initial step in exploring the possible contribution memory skills may make to a stu dent’s language disorder. Current research (Baddeley, 1995; Gillam & van Kleeck, 1998; ‘Montgomery, 1998) in short-term, working, and long-term memory and their influence ‘on language development, language impairments, and academic achievement suggests that language assessment include evaluation of memory. Performance on the Repeticion de niimeros and the Secuencias familiares subtests and the Working Memory index score 19Chapter 1 20 should be considered preliminary screening information to be used, along with other infor: ‘mation, to make decisions about the need for referrals to other professionals who can fully evaluate the student's memory abilities. Summary ‘© Repeticién de miimeros 1 and 2 are new subtests in CELF-4 Spanish and are used to provide intial information about working memory. ‘© Repeticidn de miimeros | is administered to students ages 5~16 years; Repeticin de niimeros 2 is for students ages 17-21 years. ‘¢ Norm-referenced scores are provided for ages 5-21 years, ‘© Both age-based forms of the subtest are supplementary tasks that can be used with the Secuencias familiares subtest to derive the Working Memory index score, which is also new in CELF-4 Spanish. ‘© This subtest can provide information about the need for referring the student for a comprehensive evaluation of memory abilities. Secuencias familiares 1 and 2 Ages 5-I6and 17-21 Purpose ‘To measure the student’ ability to retrieve common information as well as retrieve this information and mentally manipulate it as quickly as possible. Format While being timed, the student performs familiar tasks such as reciting the days of the ‘week, counting backward, and ordering othe: information. Background ‘Along with Repeticién de miimeros 1 and 2, Secuencias familiares 1 and 2 were added to CELI-4 Spanish to measure the effect of working memory on language. The tasks require a significant amount of attention, concentration, processing speed, and working memory. Subtests that are designed to measure working memory were included in CELF-4 Spanish to provide a first-step in exploring the possible contribution memory skills may make to a student’s language impairment or disorder. Performance on Repeticidn de numeros and the Secuencias familiares subtests and the Working Memory index score should be considered preliminary information to be used, along with other information, to make decisions, about the need for referrals to other professionals who can fully evaluate the students memory abilities Summary © Secuencias familiares I and 2 are new subtests in CELE-4 Spanish and are used to measure the ability to sequence auditory and verbal information as quickly as possible. © Secuencias familiares | is administered to students ages 5-16 years; Secuencias famil- iares 2 is for students ages 17-21 years. CCC 6 (et Certs {CELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Design ¢ Norm-referenced scores are provided for ages 5-21 years 4 Both age-based forms of the subtest are supplementary tasks that can be used with the Repeticidn de ndmeros subtest to derive the Working Memory index score, which is new in CELF-4 Spanish. 4. This subtest can provide information about the need for referring the student fora comprehensive evaluation of memory abilities. Enumeraci6n rapida y automatica Ages 5.21 Purpose “To measure the ability to produce automatic speech (e.g., naming familiar colors, shapes, color-shape combinations) rapidly and spontaneously. Format ‘The student is timed as he or she names colors, shapes, and color-shape combinations. Background ‘The theoretical background of Emumeracién ripida y automatica is drawn from the origi- nal work of Stroop (1935). In one experiment, Stroop explored the interference effect of incompatibility in colors on reading color names aloud. He used rapid automatic naming tasks that counterbalanced naming of color names printed on solid-color squares in red, blue, green, brown, and purple, and color names printed with incongruent colors. Stroop and later researchers (Macleod, 1991) observed a significant interference effect, reflected in increased naming time (decreased speed in naming) for the second color-naming task. ‘They interpreted this as reflecting a primitive type of response competition. Developmental studies with the Stroop task (Comalli, Wapner, & Werner, 1962) indicated that the interference effect begins in the early school years and reaches a maximum at around grades 2 and 3 as reading skills improve. There is also evidence that children with reading disabilities, autistic disorder, childhood aphasia, and hyperactivity show a robust and diagnostically relevant Stroop effect (Alwitt, 1966; Bryson, 1983; Cohen, Meier, 8 Schulze, 1983; DeHaas & Young, 1984). Gender comparisons have indicated that girls in grade school tend to name colors faster than boys, but that there is no gender difference in interference during integrated naming (Dash & Dash, 1982). ‘Wiig, Langdon, and Flores (2001) found that Spanish-speaking students demonstrated the same patterns of performance on the rapid automatic naming task as the general popula- tion tested for the English edition of CELF-3. Summary © Enumeracién répida y automatica is presented and administered in CELF—4 Spanish the same way as it was in CELF-3 Spanish, ‘© The subtest uses simple shapes and colors (eg. squares, circles, triangles, stars/red, seen, blue, yellow) in the three naming tasks 21Chapter 1 22 ‘© The subtest includes a new, criterion-teferenced scoring system that is more descriptive of the student’ skills and more useful in interpreting the students task performance than on CELE-3 Spanish. TABLE 1.1 Criterion ranges for Enumeracion rapida y automatica Typical Shower Than Typical Atypical Typecal More Than Typical Atypical Clasificacion pragmatica Ages Purpose To obtain information about a student’s development of verbal and nonverbal social communication skills and aspects of language use. The tool was designed for parents, teachers, and other professionals to gather data about a student's pragmatic language skill development. Format TThe four-point Likert-scale questionnaire targets three areas (Ritaals and Conversational Skills: Asking For, Giving, and Responding to Information; and Nonverbal Communication Skills) and is completed by yous a parent, or teacher—someone who is familiar with the student. Background Because many students with language processing problems have difficulty with social com- munication skills it was appropriate to include this component in CELF-4 Spanish. Stuc dents with language disorders may have difficulty formulating various speech acts (e.g. introducing, negotiating, reminding) due to specific language delays. However, there are ‘many individuals who have well-developed language skills in the domains of syntax, mor- phology, and semantics, who cannot apply this knowledge to communicate effectively. Others may exhibit specific delays in nonverbal components of language, which affect their overall ability to communicate, Because pragmatics is one of the primary domains of Ianguage, and may or may not co-oecur with other language delays, itis included in CELF-4 Spanish Summary © Clasificacién pragmiatica is new in CELE~4 Spanish and was designed to help the clinician develop a quick profile of a student's overall pragmatic development. © The Clasificacién pragmatica is a 52-item checklist of speech intentions that are typically expected skills for social and school interactions in mainstream school class- rooms in the United States. Reviewers evaluated the tasks on the English edition to determine if the checklist included items that might be culturally inappropriate for Spanish-speaking students living in the United States. Because the items are to be CCOCOCTCOOCOCOCECELF-4 Spanish Purpose and Desig evaluated in light of what is appropriate in the cultural setting ofthe student, the reviewers determined that none of the items from the English edition needed to be modified or deleted. @ A respondent (c.g. parent/guardian, teacher, coach, counselor) who is familiar with the student’s social behaviors and classroom interaction skills can complete the CClasificacion pragmatica Escala de valoracion del lenguaje Ages 521 Purpose ‘To identify situations or contexts in which language difficulties occur. Format Multiple raters (teachers, parents, student) complete the form with information about the student's listening, speaking, reading, and writing abilities. The clinician summarizes the raters’ responses. Background Due to the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, speech-language pathologists and other special «educators must now be familiar with general curricular goals and academic benchmarks. In addition, speech-language pathologists and educators must focus their attention on stu- dents classroom language performance in the school curriculum. On the CELP-4 English edition, the Observational Rating Scale (ORS) provides teachers, parents, and students with € too! for describing how the student is performing in the classroom. ORS was translated. into Spanish (becoming the EVL), and data was collected for Spanish-speaking students in the United States. The information obtained on the EVL enables you to better plan interven tion that helps the student reach higher levels of classroom performance. Summary ‘The EVL can be used to obtain information about a student's language skills outside of the testing situation. Parents and teachers can use the EVL to rate the student's language skills at home and in the classroom. The student, if mavare enough, can use the rating scale to self evaluate language abilities in these situations. 23Chapter 2 Development and Standardization Development of CELF—4 Spanish CELE Spanish is a revision of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, origi nally published in 1997. lems have been refined, some subtest tasks have been changed, new subtests have been added, and norms have been updated to enhance the diagnostic value of the test. The development of CELF-4 Spanish was based on feedback from clini- cians, diagnosticians, other CELF-3 Spanish users; an expert panel; a thorough review of current literature; and a nationwide standardization, Feedback was obtained from speech-language pathologists from across the country; from CELF-3 Spanish users’ questions about test administration; test items; scoring and inter pretation; and from comments from speech-language pathologists, special educators, school psychologists, and educational diagnosticians who participated in field-testing, A comprehensive review of literature was conducted to examine how clinicians and researchers used CELF-3 Spanish to assess language skills in children, adolescents, and young adults. An expert panel completed an item and subtest content review. Based on feedback and a literature review, it was determined that CELF-4 Spanish needed to match the improvements made to the English edition of CELF In response to clinicians’ needs, the floor of the test was lowered, and a four-level assessment process was implemented to better reflect the decision-making process clinicians typically follow. In addition, it was important that CELF-4 Spanish address the diverse needs of the Spanish-speaking popula- tion in school settings. A nationwide standardization, along with numerous research studies, was conducted to provide data to develop norms and evidence of reliability, validity, and clinical utility Item Development Bias and Content Review All CELF-4 Spanish items and test m and Record Forms) were submitted to a rigorous bias review by a panel of speech-languay pathologists experienced in test construction and use. The group reviewed the test speci cally for sex, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic status, and regional biases: as well as cultural relevance, content relevance, and clinical utility. The panel members provided written, rials (Administration Directions, Stimulus Books, 25Chapter 2 26 detailed critiques ofall visual and verbal stimuli, and evaluations of the items, the subtests, and the administration procedures. Items that were considered biased were either edited or rewritten to correct cultural concerns, or dropped from consideration for the final item set Al items were analyzed for their contribution to discrimination of typical and disordered language performance, reliability, and contribution to the subtest constructs. Data were analyzed for the entire standardization sample. Table 2.1 lists the bias and content review panel participants. ‘TABLE 2.1 CELF-4 Spanish panel of bias and content reviewers ‘Maris Bustilo-Formara, MS, CCC-SLP Ellen stubbe Kester PhD, CCC-SLP rate Pac UUnwversty of Texas at Austin San Juan, PR austin, Tk ‘Alina de a Paz, MS, CCC-SLP Henriette Langdon, E40, CCC-SLP Center for Bingual Speech and Language Dsorders San Jose State University Mam A San Jose, CA Memencia Kayser Lopez, PD, CCC-SLP Luis Riquelme, MS, CCC-SLP ous Universty uqueime & Santo us, MO nd Univers, Brooklyn Camu 08 NY Standardization Research Recruiting and Qualifying Examiners ‘The standardization version of CELF=4 Spanish was administered by 116 examiners— speech-language pathologists who were state licensed and/or ASHA-certified, psychologists, ‘educational diagnosticians, and bilingual education teachers—in 21 states and Puerto Rico. For the clinical study, children were also tested in Mexico, To ensure that examiners were experienced in individual, standardized test administration, each completed a detailed background questionnaire. To verify competency of potential examiners in spoken and written Spanish skills a screening interview was scheduled with a test development team member who was a native Spanish speaker. The screening interview consisted of three tasks conversing briefly on a familiar topic, reading Spanish text aloud, and transcribing sen- tences presented in Spanish, ‘The team member conversed with the potential examiner and rated him or her on intelligibility, vocabulary, grammar, fluency, and appropriate social lan- guage. The potential examiner was asked to read a brief reading passage of their choice in Spanish, and was rated for pronunciation accuracy and fluency. Finally, the potential exam- {ner was asked to transcribe orally presented sentences with varying degrees of difficulty Transcriptions were faxed to the development team member, who rated the transcription for accuracy, speling, and legibility Examiners who passed the screening submitted one case as a practice test before being approved for further standardization testing. Throughout testing, examiners received detailed written and telephone feedback on the cases submitted. Newsletters with informa- tion about potential testing problems and progress of the standardization research were also sent to examiners periodically during the data collection phase of development. Description of the Sample Norm-referenced data for CELF-4 Spanish ensbles the clinician to compare an individ uals scores to the performances of others of the same age in the standardization sample CELF-4 Spanish norms presented in this manual were derived from a standardization sample that is representative of the Hispanic population in the United States for COCOCEPOCOCECE ( (Development and Standardization individuals 5 through 21 years old. The sample was stratified by parent education level. Specific targets were identified for age, sex, and place of origin, ‘The standardization and related reliability and validity studies involved more than 1,100 children, adolescents, and young adults. The CELF-4 Spanish standardization research began in May 2004 and continued through May 2005. Nortwative data for CELF-4 Spanish are reported in 6-month intervals from 5:0-6c1, in |-year intervals from 7:0-16:11, and in ‘one 5-year interval from 17:0-21:11 Sample sizes for each age group ranged from 50 to 80 students. To be included in the stan- dardization study, participants had to be able to take the test in the standard manner. (It could not be administered in sign language.) Although the sample included individuals who were bilingual, Spanish was the primary language (first language) ofall participants in the standardization and related rela validity, and clinical studies. Approximately 30% of the sample lived in homes in which a language other than Spanish was also spoken. Of that group, the following languages were reported: 96.8% English, and 3.296 other languages (French, Italian and Portuguese.) Examiners reported 39.7% of the students in the sample received some type of school serv- ices and/or were identified as having a specific condition impacting educational perform- ance, Many students were enrolled in one ot more services. In the standardization sample, 1.4% students were enrolled in gifted and talented programs; 19.9% in English as a second anguage instruction, 9.6% were enrolled in classes for students identified as having limited English proficiency, 11.2% were identified as English language learners, 12% were enrolled in bilingual education, 29% were identified as learning disabled, 1% were identified as hav- ing ADHD; and less than 19 were identified as having developmental delays, hearing impairments and other conditions or services, Less than 19% of the sample was receiving occupational or physical therapy, or was in self-contained classrooms receiving suppart services for reading, writing, and/or arithmetic remediation. Almost 11% of the sample was receiving speech or language services: 3.1% for articulation; 6.2% for language: and 1.6% for auditory habilitation, voice disorders, fhuency, phonology, and pragmatics. ‘The standardization edition of the test could be administered in one or two sessions; 81% of the examiners administered it in one session and 19% administered it in two sessions, ‘Tables 2.2 through 2.5 report the demographic characteristics of the sample. Table 2.4, Which reports on place of origin for each student, uses the parent’s place of origin for those students under 18 years of age. Estimation of the socioeconomic status (SES) of the students in the CELE—4 standardiza- tion sample was obtained by using the education level of the parents. Obtaining informa- tion about the number of years of education i less intrusive than requesting information about family income, and is a common method of estimating SES. The CELF-—4 Spanish standardization sample was stratified according to the following four parent education (PED) level categories: Lith grade or less 12 years of school (high school diploma or GED) 3-15 years of school (1-3 years of college or technical school) = 16+ years of school (4 or more years of college) Parent included natural parent, guardian, or primary caregiver. Information on parent edu- cation level was obtained from responses to a question on the consent to test form that 27‘Chapter 2 28 asked the parent(s) to specify the highest grade completed by each parent, and specify which parent was the primary caregiver. The primary caregiver's education level was used as the stratification variable. The sample included individuals employed in a wide variety of ‘occupations. Examples of the occupations reported for the participants’ fathers included farm workers, day laborers, construction workers, military police, merchants, small business ‘owners, and professionals with advanced training, including physicians and civil engineers Examples of occupations reported for the students’ mothers included homemakers, child «are providers, adult-care providers, cosmetologists, and professionals with advanced edu- cation such as nurses, journalists, and university professors ‘TABLE 2.2 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by age ‘Age 2 fe = 56-511 70 60-65 70 e561 70 70-711 50 20-811 50 90-811 70 100-1011 50 roan i021 120-141 150-1611 s0 rro-2i1 80 Total 800 TABLE 2.3 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by sex Sex a 6 of Sample Female 401 50.13 Male 309 49.88 Total ‘200 100.00 Note Due to rounding, sample percentages may not add to 100 ‘TABLE 2.4 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by place of origin m of Sample 367 1588 Cental and 224 28.00 Puerta Rico vas 1813 Dominican Rep % 450 ba ‘3 28 other _10 tas - Total 200 100.00 Note. Bue to rounding, sample percentages may not add to 100. Cree Ceeecr rere I {Development and Standardization ‘TABLE 2.5 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample and population by parent education level Hispanic Population Parent Education Level a % of Sample in the US. 0-11 years fa 12 yeas or GED 29.60 15 years (1-3 yeas of «college of techs! schoo) 187 1969 16+ (colege dear) 4 760 Total 00 00.00 ora. US. Population data ae from Curent Population Survey, October 2002: School Enrolment Supplemenial Fie. Washwssfon, DC: US. Bureau ofthe Census PrasuceN/Distributr) *Due to rounding, sample percentages may not add to 100 Figure 2.1 shows the distribution of the standardization sample by four geographic regions of the United States. Midwest Northeast 7.1% 3.6% FIGURE 2.1 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by regions of the U.S. According to the National institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (2004), the prevalence of speech/language disorders i estimated at 8% of American school children. Tomblin et al. (1997) found the prevalence of SLL in a group of over 7,000 kinder garten children to be 7.4%. The standardization sample collection was monitored to ensure reptesentation of children with language impairments in the general population. Five to seven percent of each age group in the standardization sample were reported to have a diagnosed language impairment, Additional demographic data was collected on the length of time each student in the stan- dardization sample had lived in the United States, which ranged from 2 weeks to 17 years. The type of school attended by each student was also reported; choices were public school, private school, charter school, home schooling, other, and “does not go to school.” 29Chapter 2 30 Table 2.5 reports the percentages of the standardization sample by the length of time the student lived in the United States. able 2.7 reports the percentages ofthe standardization sample by type of school attended by the student. TABLE 2.6 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by length of time lived in the U.S. ‘Years student has lived in the US." ° % of Sample yearorles 39 nm 1 year to3 yeas 12 1795 >3 eas o 5 yeas 158 928 35 years 269 3362 Not Appcale 81 012 Not Reporte 65 a1 Totat 800 100.00 3 may nat add to 100) Note Due to rounding, sample percent "otal range: 2 weeks t0 17 yeas in the US. ‘TABLE 2.7 Distribution of CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by type of school attended ‘ype of School = % of Sample ile 699 sis? - Provate Schoo! 38 725 1 on 1 on 1 ou oes nat gota school 4 050 Not Rep 7.00 Total +100.00 fe. Due to rounding, sample fercentages may not ad to 100. Data on the stucients’ use of Spanish was collected from the standardization sample. Fre- quency of usage (Always, Often, Sometimes, Never) in different contexts was reported, as well as the parental perception of which language (English, Spanish, both) the student was ‘most proficient in listening, speaking, reading, and writing. Table 2.8 displays the results of parental report of frequency of student Spanish usage in different contexts. Table 2.9 displays the results of parental report of student language proficiency in understanding, speaking, reading, and writing in Spanish. Tables 2.10 through 2.13 report additional infor- mation on characteristics of the standardization sample, ({ Cea ( C¢ [Development and Standardization (001 01 pe 10U haw sabenuad.ed a fs “Bupunos 01 ng =10N) ooo 008 vont 008 008) 00001 008 ee oe «ae wt 06 % 063 6 Pau ION oszz oat ceee 06 oe core ve 209 ossi ea ort ® oo 8 7 ozs 010s 69 ts oes ess sues vues jo% uv edwesjo% wv odunsjo% uv aduesjo% uw ~ ‘Sanwa Buipeow Sued Buipueisiepun Fouopyoig wee 40 oBen6uey yePOW ‘Ayjepoui Aq /ouapyoud aBenbue| sauepms jo Hodas uaied Aq ajdwes uonezipiepuers Ysiueds y-J13D Jo uoNN ez aiav. 1 ou a dues “Bupunos 01 ang Ce) ovo, 008 oooor oe ‘ooor tooo. 008 reo 8L e 7 w 9 % re 9 3 PaUOGR ION sco 0s 6 ue cs < sez evo ‘ 12H Be9r 962 eee Ele eee cat se 20 ‘ seuneuos ovr sot 6 ast eae 62 soe 18 3 0 oer ae eve seo 6 0509 seo omy siduesjo% uv aduesjo% v ajduesjom uw —_jdwes jo% iaws 0% a — ae SuBTH WaIMA ous WA oor ‘in 70 Fouwabany pe WUOD 40 1X@1U09 pue fouanbayj Jo odes quared Aq ajdules uonezipiepuers yslueds f-I79D Jo UORNgINSH ‘abesn ysiueds sauepnas ec atau 31Chapter 2 ‘TABLE 2.10 Percentage of the CELF-4 Spanish standardization sample by age, place of origin, and parent education level Parent Education Level | Parent Education Level] _ Parent Education Level Cuba Dominican Republic Mexico Age fr | Saas anger es ee ats |e aera ees a oss | 70 | — 286 as 286 ‘| aria 1857 286 143 sesi1 | 70 = — 429 age 1286 571 143 soss {| — ~— 29 — | 296 143 — —| 2857 1143 857 143 seen | 70 | 143 286 143 — | 143 — =| 2a 257 429. 714 rorn | so} — ~~ 200 - =| 2400 200 400 600 gost | 50] — 200 200 2.00 =| 2600 1400 209 200 gost | 7) — — 143 143] 296 429 rag] 3143 286 7.14 286 100-10:11 | 50 = = = Jao 200 —} 3400 600 1000 400 sion | 50 . = 4.00 3000 600 400 2.00 rzo-1| 50 | 200 — | 20 — 200 3600 800 800 200 raotaat | 70 | — 143 | 286 429 1857 1429 1000 1.83 ssote1t | so | — — | 400 400 200 1800 860 6.00 200 sro-aia1| 30 | 125 — 25 = 2125 1875 10.00 Al soo | a3 963 063 063 | 175 163 100 013] 2550 1100 688 250 Parent Education Level | Parent Education Level Puerto Rico Central or South America Other Age ve | et se ea | ea = TO arama soss | 70 | 714 s71 429 — [266 714 7.18 2a6[ — 2a sest1 | 70 | 429 423 143 286] 571 1571 1000 296] 206 — 143 — 6o-6s | 70 | 571 1000 149 143] 571 429 571 7.14 Ss = e611 | 70 | 429 429 429 286] 429 1143 857 1000) ~ 143 — 7or11 | 50 | 1000 1000 400 200] 800 1200 406 400 — = soett | so | 400 400 200 600 | 10.00 1020 8.00 == goer | 7 | 571s 143 a29]as7 asy 714 143] — 14s — too-10:11| so | 600 600 400 490 | 800 600 80 —| — — 2.00 stort] so | 10.00 200 a5 600 | 400 1500 800 — | — == sz0-12:11| 50 | 1000 660 200 290 | 800 200 600 400) — — = sa0ra11| 70 | 429 143 857 429 | 1429 1000 286 143] — - ssote11| 52 | 1000 400 200 209 |1200 1600 600 400 — — = srozss{ 2 | 375 625 500 — |12s0 12s 625 125| — — 1.25 al ao | 625 536 375 275 | e200 1013 675 313] 025 025 063 0.13 = 11th grader ess; 2 = 12 years of school 3 = 13-15 years of schoo, 4 = 16+ years of school 32 i i Creat (Development and Standardization cove See. ert sco ae ere aC ste ee sete = = ooo —sovor~SCSBL set sti oot woe = eo 000i owt oor = wie ee = = fu settee see er ws —ooe = oe ooze = we oe co oowr~—~=C«aL coe ooze «we oe coor os ove cov = eee ee ew = wee oo0z me et ovo coz = cost 0092 = woz oe = =| ost = voz ew ert wt [wt voz ey wi owe we ee we et wt vie et et eer we ie eer = we sez a et ooo erie CBZ = TahO” Biowy Wines Oy OuIny aomayy —oyjqnday end | vy. POU AMOS ony omeng ODay ~——sganday—~—~eqnD 2 ue jenvey veotiwog ue jee ueimwioa aren —_ ayewoy UIBu0 yo aed pue “xas ‘abe Aq aidwes uoneziprepuers ystueds P4149 ou Jo ebeuered LEZ TTHWL 33JIIII JIIIIIIS ey ) J J eee) oou2s Jo sieak 494 = p JooIps o SAK SI-E1 = E JOOIPS Jo SOK ZL ees eee Osh e812) eve eam ost S202, v = Ce ove SE os see 00 oe oor ooa ove 008 008) cov ove ee ican eic ei ies eer seat wet coz oe 08 ooze 009 009 ‘ooo 09 teei-ozt 008 coor est bose ove ‘oor or cr Heo wo oor coz ware oe oat 008 ove ts ws sei oz ves erin ie ese 00% 009 cour 00 008 eee coo ooee 08 09 009 ove 09 008 ost oa! wal ayer eat wi Gan we ove ace ws erm atv 1s Gan 921 wa we (oor oe oH et erie ect ey ies et on om sev Sa aE ed he a Chapter 2 een 249] woneonpa wareg J9A9] uoneonpa quased pue “es “@Be Aq ajdures uoneziprepuers ysiueds 7-473 OM 40 ae Ua>:eg TLE TIGA 34Development and Standardization 10 a1 popaje> sam sa8e9 ou wont Ul SuO.6) Bunuasaiday Su 109 310M sno ‘eyawy tpnog pue yenuey ‘ony ouang, Seo ceca ocr eo ose at oz Sto 008 Ww ste one = seo set = = Ea = os ooo cost = coe ‘ovr = = = 05 IOs =m ezve = “we ery owe et = ox evvi-orer cos ford = 008 oe coz coz = os | wvziorze oom oor = os | ore ove = = os [ui Crd oo = cos oo coy = = os | tro 1 ese = wre wr 1s. aw et a ford = 008 = oe cow = 05 oot = oor = a ove = 0s eee et owe = ww = us = 0 see et 1s wr we wt ee = a we ez vee evi 8e ca = o_| ese = us see see sec eve 0 oN ms 3N os wpe open ouanday vesyunwog eqn “S'11 yp 40 UoIGa1 pue “UIbI0 jo ered ‘abe Aq ajdwes uoneziprepuers ysiueds p73 ou Jo BBeIUeDIe4 ELE TIAWL py} dd ) J) PSD 35Chapter 2 36 Scoring Before scoring the standardization protocols, additional studies were conducted to refine scoring rules for Formulacién de oraciones, Estructura de palabras, Definiciones de pal- bras, Vocabulario expresivo, and Clases de palabras 1 and 2 subtests. Examiners recorded all open-ended responses verbatim for these subtests on the test protocols. Verbatim responses were analyzed to develop scoring rules for new subtests and items and refine scoring rules for subtests and items retained from the CELF-3 Spanish. Scoring rules for the Formulacién de oraciones subtest were enhanced by additional exam. piles of each point value and expanded explanations of acceptable sentence structures, Addi- tional examples of inaccurate responses for the Estructura de palabras subtest were added to the scoring guidelines and are also presented in chapter 2 of the Manual del examinador. All other item responses were scored by Harcourt Assessment’ trained staff. The Asociacién de palabras subtest scoring rules were also refined by adding more examples of acceptable and unacceptable responses for each item. Responses to Definiciones de palabras and Vocabulario expresivo items were compiled and added to the scoring criteria, Scoring rules ‘were adjusted to reflect new data from the standardization cases. All scorers, who had a minimum of a bachelor’s degree, attended a five-day training pro- gram led by members of the test development team. The scorers were trained to score all subtests, using the updated and enhanced scoring rules, with modules that included multi- ple examples of students’ responses to the test items and practice tests. All scorers had to score at least 2 90% on a quiz that required them to score actual responses from the stan- dardization sample. Fourteen scorers completed scoring training and participated in scoring test cases. Each CELF-4 Spanish protocol collected during standardization was re-scored and entered into a database by two of the 14 qualified scorers, working independently. Any discrepancies between the two scorers were resolved by a third scorer (resolver). The resolvers were selected based on demonstrated scoring accuracy and previous scoring experience. All scorers received feedback about scoring errors. Additional training was conducted, needed, Over the course of data entry; (and prior to resolution by the third scorer) the aver- age agreement between scorers for the open-ended subtests ranged from .81 (Formulacién de oraciones, Asociacién de palabras) to 99 (Vocabulario expresivo, Estructura de palabras, Clases de palabras 1 & 2). See chapter 3, Interscorer Reliability, for more information. In addition to the scoring and data entry quality assurance procedures, several other proce- ures were employed to ensure accuracy of the research data. A computer program auto- ‘matically checked the values entered by the scorers for contradictory information. An entered value that fell outside of a specified range would not be accepted by the program. After all protocols were entered and discrepancies between scorers resolved, a data cleanup team performed additional checks for discrepancies in scoring information. CeCe cccrcctr (Crores i Cre ere Development and Standardization Investigating the Appropriateness of Separate Percentile Ranks for Monolingual and Bilingual Students The Spanish-speaking population isa heterogeneous group (Brice, 2002; Langdon & Cheng, 1992). Especially in the United States, where the majority language is English, there is great diversity of Spanish speakers in terms of acculturation and language proficiency in Spanish. An individual considered to be bilingual may have skills that range from emerging abilities in the second language to advanced academic knowledge in the second language. ‘Valdés and Figueroa (1894) describe a continuum of proficiency for bilingual individuals ranging from proficiency ia the first language with little proficiency in the second, to proficiency in two languages, to loss ofthe first language and strong proficiency in the second language. {An individual's proficiency may shit depending on exposure to a language. An individual ‘who has advanced academic language skills in two languages may lose skills in an environ- ment in which only the second language is spoken. The individual may lose proficiency in the primary language that is related to advanced academic topics, but maintain social lan guage skill. Ina study conducted with the CELF-3 Spanish, subtest and composite scores were com- pared for a matched sample of students tested in the U.S. and in Spanish speaking countries outside the U.S. (Argentina, Dominican Republic, Mexico, Nicaragua, Puerto Rico}. A large ‘number of the students in the Spanish speaking countries were monolingual Spanish speakers (72%); none of the students in the U.S. were monolingual Spanish speakers. ‘The students in the two samples were matched by age, gender, and parent education level. Students tested outside the U.S. (the monolingual Spanish speakers) had subtest standard scores 14 10 2.8 points higher and composite scores 11-14 standard score points higher than the students in the U.S, who were bilingual. Because there is such a wide range of Spanish proficieney among Spanish speakers, Restrepo and Silverman (2001) recommended that separate normative data be provided for monolingual and bilingual Spanish speakers on standardized assessments in Spanish, A study was conducted to determine if separate normative data was necessary for monolin- sual and bilingual Spanish speakers. It was expected that a large percentage of variance in CELE-4 Spanish scores could be accounted for by level of language proticiency. For each student tested during the CELE—4 Spanish research, examiners rated students’ lan- guage skills in three areas: exposure to Spanish, language comprehension, and expressive language using a five- or six-point Likert scale (see Tables 2.14, 215, 2.16). 37Chapter 2 38 Exposure to Spanish ‘The examiner circled the number next to the statement that best described the student's exposure to Spanish, 1. Almost always. ‘The student lives ina home in whieh he or she interacts in a Spanish 2. Often 3. Occasionally 4, Seldom 5. Almost never speaking environment almost all the time, He or she lives in a house- hold in which everyone speaks Spanish, and the family prefers TV programs, radio, and movies in Spanish. The student prefers to speak Spanish with friends and family. ‘The student interacts in both Spanish and English environments on a daily basis, for example, conversing in Spanish in the home, but in at school. The student may prefer to speak Spanish with friends and family or may go back and forth between the two lan- ‘guages without an apparent preference for either, ‘The student interacts sometimes with some friends or family mem- bers who speak Spanish only, such as.a grandmother, aunts, or cousins. The student speaks Spanish occasionally but prefers English when speaking with friends and family. ‘The student interacts in Spanish with family members or friends who only speak Spanish, but the family members do not live at the child's home, and the student sees them infrequently. ‘The student almost never interacts in Spanish with family members or friends who only speak Spanish, ‘Note, Students with ratings of 4 or 5 were not included in CELF-A Spanish studies. Table 2.14 reports mean scores and standard deviations for Spanish speaking students at different levels of exposure to Spanish. CECCCe rece s f{ { Development and Standardization ‘TABLE 2.14 CELF-4 Spanish mean scores and standard deviations for Spanish-speaking students at different levels of exposure to Spanish (n = 794) 72 & 3 Exposed to Spanish Often or 1 Almost Always Exposed to Spanish Occasionally (Some Exposure to English) Age a ‘Mean 50 ” Mean so as S081 243 1003 155 136 986 145 sean a 1016 26 2 108.1 151 too-t21 9 988 a6 a oat 167 wBo02nn 142 100 3 tag 56 $99 159 al 527 100%, 149 261 99.4 153 RU soen 248 oa 157 136 1035 131 soon 4a 1008 125 2 tos. ms root 99 987 150 a 100.9 179 102001 142 986 142 56 ios 140 a 527 98.7 149 267 1039 147 eu 50-81 243 1016 163 136 977 ist soot 4a 18 wa 2 080 wwe woos 99 993 146 43 78 161 130211 a2 999 130 56 989 133 al 327 1008 a9 267 286 152 tet so8n 243 977 152 136 1030 ao soit 8 rat. 125 n 1035 339 yo0-1211 99 996 149 8 981 185, oat 142 997 150 56 ora sag al 527 geo ag 267 1020 151 ist sai 203 1007 154 136 989 aa al 243 1007 154 136 229 iaa im soar 3 roa M46 a 1080 151 roo-211 99 oat 145 a 977 sa Boat 142 rout 151 6 973 14s a rea 1005 148 131 989 51 we sean 2a 992 146 136 1016 151 gost 3 967 146 ra 995 153 roo 9 1017 143 48 987 162 woz az 1006 155 56 978 158 at 527 100.1 148 267 100.1 185 Note. Students who were “seldom” or never" exposed to Spanish were excluded from the CELF-4 Spanish studies The datas based on 794 students. No information about the students" exposure to Spanish was reported for the remaining sie students in the standardization sample CLS Core Language Score LCI Language Content index WMI Wrking Memary Index RL Receptive Language index SI Language Structure Index FUL Expressive Language Index LMI Language Memory Index 39Chapter 2 40 Language Comprehension ‘The examiner circled the number next to the statement that best described the child’s com- prehension of English and Spanish. 1. Student understands Spanish but no English. Student understands Spanish and a little English. Student understands both Spanish and English, Student understands some concepts in Spanish and some in English, 3. 4 5. Student understands English and some Spanish. 6. Student does not understand Spanish. He or she only understands English Note, Students with ratings of 5 or 6 were not included in the CELF—4 Spanish studies. ‘Table 2.15 reports mean scores and standard deviations for monolingual and bilingual Spanish speaking students at different levels of language comprehension, COCOCCCECOCOCE OC E {Development and Standardization ‘TABLE 2.15 CELF-4 Spanish mean scores and standard deviations for Spanish-speaking students at different levels of language comprehension (n = 773) 1 Understands Spanish Only 2-4 Understands Spanish and English Age a Mean sD n Mean $0 7 as — soe 6 oa8 179 303 997 145 = gost “4 72 ng 53 1043 140 woo-1 2 930 123 ng 988 156 ie woz 31 934 131 165 1014 142 - a 132 74 156. 6a 1003 146 e RU soe 6s 47 163 303 101.0 us 7 ooon 1 9a nt 33 1048 151 - root 2 970 132 na 00.2 162 i wo2n 3 912 164 166 1012 134 al 132 942 153 eat 1912 146 i eu e so8t 6s 101.3 186. 203 o98 155 sos 14 996 ie. 53 1046 139 woo-1211 2 101.0 135 ng 985. 152 - waozt 3 46 167 165 00.8 23 i all 132 995 169) 6a 100.1 146 tcl Es 50-811 6 ong 150 303 100.5 143 ~ 90-811 14 om 29 53 1036 132 Ee woz 2 96 47 ns 999 161 Boat 3 906 135 166 1017 47 i A 132 sag 14s eat 101.0 149 = ist 50-811 65 995 184 203 9 142 a al 6s 995 134 303, 999 142 - iM 7 gost 14 oe 132 53 ro40 154 woo-1211 2 993 122 ng see 152 7 02011 a 96.2 195 166 100.7 141 + al 6 976 160. 38 100.6 147 i watt 50-811 6 9n7 14g 303 100.1 14s ad s0-5:11 14 102.0 169 53 989 145 eS woo-1211 2 104.1 1a ng 100.1 188 10.2011 31 987 162 166 997 155 Ee al 132 995 151 eat 999 149 Mote. Students who only understand "sore Spanish” or who did “not understand Spanish” were excluded fom the CELF-4 ~ Spanish studies = ‘The data is based on 773 students No information about the students language comprehension in Spanish was reported for the remaining 27 students n the standardization sample f fChapter 2 Expressive Language ‘The examiner circled the number next to the statement that best described the student's expressive language skills in English and Spanish 1 2 3. Student understands Spanish, speaks no English. Student converses fluently in Spanish and speaks Spanish most of the time; speaks a litte English Student converses fluently in both Spanish and English, Student converses fluently in English and speaks English most of the time; speaks a little Spanish. Student converses fluently in English; speaks no Spanish Note, Students with a rating of 4 or 5 were not included in the CELP-4 Spanish studies, ‘Table 2.16 reports mean scores and standard deviations for monolingual and bilingual Spanish speaking students a different levels of expressive language 42 COCOCOCOCCTCOCE CE (Development and Standardization TABLE 2.16 CELF-4 Spanish mean scores and standard deviations for Spanish-speaking students at different levels of expressive language (n = 799) or 3 Speaks Spanish and a ite - 1 Speaks Spanish Only English" or Speaks Both Fluently — age a ‘Mean 50 a Mean $0 ~ as soen o 986 7 na 999 145 > 90-9: 6 980 ng 55 1038 38 ~ 109-1211 2 1002 134 128 987 156 = 1302011 ” 9a7 183 162 01.1 at Overall ut o78 167, 658 1003 146 - Ru - 50-811 o 946 165 38 tora 144 -_ sos11 5 ms 108 55 1086 149 woo-1249 2 982 142 128 1000 163 i 102811 37 out 159 162 ora 134 = vera 141 94s 155. 558 tora 145 on 50-81 6 1007 183 313 100.1 157 ~ 90-91 15, 1008 132 55 1039 136 7 woo-r211 2 1022 147 128 cea 15.1 naga 3 957 168 62 100.2 120 Ne Oe 141 997 163 68 100.1 145, - uct EB 50-811 or 49 153 313 100.6 17 soot 15 978 125 5 103.2 130 oor 2 101.0 156 18 94 161 S 0201 7 917 142 18 1019 146 vera tat 95.3 149. 658 1009 148 7 1st so8tt 6 300 181 313 100.3 143 veal 6 280) 181 313 100.3 143 La 90-91 15 985 Bo 55 1035 151 toos21 2 100.4 BO 128 988 153 roan a 983 18 162 1002 Be Overall 4 989 156 305 1002 145. P= wm sot a 975 144 a8 1006 9 90-811 15 101s 165 55 991 144 = 100-1211 2 105.1 125 128 100.0 152 1302011 37 991 163 162 997 154 5 Overall ut 99.5 180 658 100.2 150 e [Note Students who only speak “a ite Spanish” or who "speak no Spanish” were excluded from the CEL Spanish studies ‘The datas based on 799 students, No information about the students’ expressive language in Spanish was reported for the enaiing students inthe standardzaton sample 43Chapter 2 ‘The relationship of the CELF-4 Spanish Core Language score to these ratings were exam- ined. A series of investigations were conducted using hierarchical regression and ANCOVA procedures to determine if certain demographic variables and/or varying levels of exposure to Spanish, language comprehension, and expressive language skills predict CELF-4 Span- ish performance. It was expected that differences in the students’ bilingualism/Spanish pro- ficiency, as well as parent education level would have an impact on students’ performance on the CELF-4 Spanish. ‘The results of an ANCOVA with the CELF—4 Spanish Core Language score as the depend- ent variable and some important demographic variables and their interaction terms as predictors indicated that all terms in the model account for approximately 6~7% of the variance in the Core Language score. The results did not support the use of language profi- ciency ratings or demographic variables (such as parent education or gender) for the devel- ‘opment of adjusted norms. Parent education accounts for the highest proportion of the variance in the Core Language score (6.97%); ratings of expressive language proficiency accounts for an additional .56%. Parent education and Expressive Language score combined (7.5%) have a low correlation ‘of 22 with the Core Language score. The only variable significant at a 05 level was parent ‘education. Because the differences in performance among groups did not provide clinically useful information, it was determined that it was not necessary to report adjusted norms for students who are able to converse fluently in Spanish (regardless of whether they are ‘monolingual or bilingual), nor was it appropriate to develop or report adjusted norms for subgroups of students similar in terms of parent education, ‘The CELF-4 Spanish research did not include students from the full range of Spanish pro- ficiency. To participate in the CELPF-4 Spanish research a student had to be able to converse fluently in Spanish. While it may be theorized that monolingual Spanish speakers would ‘obtain higher scores on CELF-4 Spanish than bilingual speakers, differences in parent edu- «ation level may be a confounding variable. It is important to note that the students identi- fied as monolingual Spanish speakers in this study (e.g, neither understand nor speak English) generally had parents with less than a high school education. Students identified as emerging bilingual (e.g., understand or speak a little English) or as bilingual (e.g. speak Spanish and English fluently) in this study generally had parents with 1-3 years of college or technical school or a college degree. Further exploration of these interactions is beyond the scope of this manual. More research is needed to understand how various demographic characteristics, educational experiences, language proficiency, and home environment variables affect educational outcomes throughout the acculturation process. Differences in language skill for individuals learning Spanish and a second language from birth and individuals learning Spanish first with a sec- ‘ond language acquired after age three were not examined during standardization testing, and is an area that merits further research. CCOCEEL COCCOCE (Development and Standardization Developing Norms Standardization testing included a longer-than-normal discontinue rule, Only two subtests included age-specific start points. Administration of all other subtests started at Item | for all students. This enabled the collection of as much item-specific data as possible, without having to administer too many items beyond a student’ ability. Based on the standardiza~ tion data, items were analyzed for level of difficulty, discrimination, differential item func- tioning, and ease and reliability of scoring. Based on these results, some items were deleted. Items in some subtests were reordered by difficulty based on standardization data, facilitat- ing the application of age-specific start points and discontinue rules. Items in the Estructura de palabras subtest were reordered by a combination of item content and item difficulty. Normative data for CELE-4 Spanish are reported in 6-month intervals from 5:0 to 6:11, in 1-year intervals from 7:0 to 16:11, and in one 5-year interval from 17:0 to 21:11. Sample sizes for each age group ranged from 30 to 80 students. McCauley (2001) reports that norms should be based on at least 50 students within a relatively small range in age from the student you are testing Normative information was developed using the method of Inferential Norming (Wilkins, Rolfhus, Weiss, & Zhu, 2005). Various moments (means, standard deviations, and skew- ness) of each scale were calculated for each age group of the CELF-4 Spanish normative samples. The moments were plotted across age, and various polynomial regressions (rang. ing from linear to 5th degree polynomials) were fit to the moment data. Functions for each subtest moment were selected based on consistency with underlying theoretical expecta- tions, with the corresponding moments for the CELE-3 Spanish and CELF=4 English, and the pattern of growth curves observed in the normative sample. For each subtest, the func- tions were used to derive estimates of the population moments as a function of age. The estimated moments were then used to generate theoretical distributions for each of the reported normative age groups, yielding percentiles for each raw score, These percentiles ‘were converted to scaled scores with a mean of 10, a standard deviation of 3, and a range of 1-19, The progression of scaled scores within and across age groups was then examined, and minor irregularities eliminated by smoothing. Appendix A in the Manual del exami- nador presents the scaled score equivalents of the subtest scaled scores for each age group. ‘To assist with clinical decision making, various index scores were developed: Core Lan- guage, Receptive Language, Language Content, Language Structure, Language Memory, and, Working Memory. The Core Language sore was derived from the sum of the Conceptos y direcciones, Estructura de palabras, Recordando oraciones, and Formulacién de oraciones subtests for ages $-8 years. The Core Language score was derived from the sum of the Con- ceptos y direcciones, Recordando oraciones, Formulacién de oraciones, and Clases de pal- abras—Total scores for ages 9-12, For students 13-21, the Core Language score was derived from the sum of the Recordando oraciones, Formulacién de oraciones, Clases de pal- abras“Total and Definiciones de palabras scores. To see the subtest scores that contribute to the various index scores for each age, see Figure 1.3 in the Manual del examinador. The sum of scaled scores was calculated for each student in the normative sample. The distribu- tion of the sum of scaled scores in the normative sample was used to derive corresponding percentiles, which were converted to index scores with a mean of 100 and a standard devia- tion of 15. The resulting composite score distribution was smoothed to remove minor irregularities, and to ensure that the distribution was approximately normal. 45