Clinical Evaluation Of Language Fundamentals: A Comprehensive Assessment Tool

Overview of Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals

Discuss About The Clinical Evaluation Language Fundamentals.

The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5) is a language assessment tool that was individually administered to the student X. This assessment tool is composed of 18 subtests that are further organized into four different levels of language testing. The primary aim of using this tool was to evaluate or investigate X’s skills that pertain to language structure, content, and use (Zibulsky & Viezel, 2013). The specific groups of subtests were administered, with the aim of gaining significant information on the different aspects of language disorder that are prevalent in X. An analysis of the results demonstrates that X suffered from severe general language disability, which in turn confirms the presence of language disorder. The subsequent levels of testing helped to evaluate the presence of disabilities in expressive language, in addition to problems in forming the appropriate content and structure. The four core language skills that must be demonstrated by the student X are related to listening, reading, speaking, and writing (Uccelli, Barr, Dobbs, Galloway, Meneses & Sanchez, 2015). The results suggest that X shows a disability in regards to concepts of phonological awareness and reading skills. Further weaknesses are related to the fact that there were persistent difficulties in communicating the needs and wants, in the form of verbal and nonverbal communication.

Hence, the low score suggests that X suffered from severe problems with the use of sentences, gestures, words, and while writing. Moreover, language is absolutely central to the overall learning process that occurs in a classroom (Bornstein, Hahn & Putnick, 2016). Low scores for the language content and structure provide supporting evidences for the fact that X faced inconvenience in framing appropriate sentences (Overvliet et al., 2013). Hence, his words were incoherent, not structured well and resulted in his failure to convey his intended thoughts and actions. However, the major strength that can be deduced from the aforementioned scores is related to the fact that his severity was of a moderate level in terms of receptive language. Furthermore, he provides support to his peer as well. This indicates that X could often understand what was being conveyed to him.

The scores will directly affect his learning process in the classroom. He has a moderate understanding of the sentences, words and meaning of what others said or what is being read to him. Thus, he will be most often display a moderate likelihood of understanding the instructions of his teachers. However, the low scores for all other subset of tests will make it uncomfortable for him to put his thoughts into words and proper sentences. He will also display an inability to make sense through his sentences that will be grammatically inaccurate. These difficulties will make it extremely inconvenient for him to communicate with his teachers and classmates, which in turn will impede questioning sessions and result in a delay in the learning process.

Evaluation of Language Skills for a Student

Prior to implementing any therapy that will improve the language disabilities, which X suffers from, there is a need to conduct a dyslexia screening test as well that will identify if the child is suffering from or is at a risk of dyslexia. The screening test will give a clear understanding of possible difficulties related to dyslexia. Dyslexia refers to specific learning disabilities among children, and is often referred to as reading disorders (Sun et al., 2013). Children suffering from dyslexia often face troubles in reading, despite having high intelligence. Research evidences have correlated dyslexia with other language difficulties such as, spelling words, writing and reading quickly (Mohtaram, Pee & Sibgatullah, 2014). There is a need to conduct the dyslexia screening test due to the fact that children suffering from language disorder might often report problems related to sounding out words in their head, or pronouncing wrong words while reading aloud.

Owing to the fact that high severity was reported in expressive and core language, in addition to problems in language structure and content, there are possible chances of exhibiting delay in phonological awareness and segmenting words into separate fragments or sounds. This test would therefore indicate presence of symptoms related to reduction in phonemic awareness. The test will also help in determining presence of dysgraphia related symptoms, thereby indicating if the child X finds difficulties in eye-hand coordination. The twelve subsets present in the test will facilitate evaluation of the fluency and accuracy of the child in writing, reading and spelling words. Dyslexia is often associated with a range of other conditions such as, elaborative difficulties, impaired forming of visual words and poor motor control (Bishop, 2015). Conduction of this screening test will help to determine the attention span, vocabulary skills and reasoning ability, all of which form an integral part of classroom interaction. The simple scoring of the test will help in investigating the nature and extent of the prevailing disorder (Hazawawi & Hisham, 2014). Furthermore, it will also provide assistance in developing ways that can be used for carrying out the therapy.

S (Specific) - The child will be able to identify common objects when they are shown, on their specific function and feature

 M (Measurable) - With the use of flash cards the children will be asked to name pictures of objects or to identify an object when it is named by an adult. Success in identifying the objects will indicate attainment of the short term goal (Suárez-Coalla, Ramos, Álvarez-Cañizo & Cuetos, 2014).

Significance of Dyslexia Screening Test

A (Achievable) –

• Five to ten common objects will be gathered from around the house such as, sock, spoon, cup, shoe, car, phone, book, brush, and balls, and they will be put inside a bag or a box. In place of collecting these objects, small flash cards that contain images of animals or identifiable objects can also be used.
• The child will be given a card or the object one at a time and a conversation will be fostered, where the name and specific features of the objects will be repeatedly confirmed.  
• Following interaction of the child with each object or flash card, two similar cards/objects will be held up and the child will be asked to identify a specific one. This activity will be continued until the child shows the consistency in identifying each object.

R (Relevance) - Identifying objects by looking at them on hearing their pronunciation forms an essential part of the language skills and demonstrates presence of proper visual and auditory discrimination among the children (Yoder, Watson & Lambert, 2015). Hence, development of this receptive language capability will help the child X to engage more during the classroom sessions.

T (Time-bound) - The entire activity will be conducted over a period of 3 months, for 30 minutes every day.

With the aim of improving the receptive language skills of the child X, several strategies can be adopted. Appropriate eye contact should be maintained before providing any instructions, in addition to refraining from giving multiple instructions at a time. A simplified language will be used in front of the child to help them understand the meaning of what is being intended (Bishop, 2014).  Verbal instructions should be segmented into different parts. Asking the child to repeat the instructions in order to ensure that they have properly understood what is required of them, and encouraging the child to always ask for clarification also form an essential approach. Use of proper visual aids such as, body language, facial expression, gestures, and pictures can also assist the comprehension capability of the child and help him to recall be given instructions (Grow & LeBlanc, 2013).

S (Specific) - X will be able to build his vocabulary by identifying appropriate pictures of objects in order to increase his expressive language skills

M (Measurable) – Determining whether the child is shows an increased capability to learn and read out new words, while pointing to pictures of animals, objects or school items, will help in measuring achievement of the goal.

A (Achievable) – The goal can be achieved by the following:

• Following the child’s lead- This would encompass the process of emphasizing on words that often arise during daily conversations and interactions with the child.
• Making the child hear a word several times- Appropriate words must be used before the child multiple times before he is actually able to pronounce the word himself. A child’s understanding of accurate words is often found to precede use of those words (McCartney, Boyle, Ellis, Bannatyne & Turnbull, 2015).
• Tapping into other senses- Children have been found to demonstrate a better understanding of new terms that are presented to them through the use of multiple senses. Senses of tough, sight, smell and sound must be effectively utilized to help the child learn each syllable of the new words

R (Relevant) - The goal is important in this case scenario due to the fact that it will encourage vocabulary development, which in turn will enhance the language acquisition and literary skills, required for X to succeed in school. Thus, development of vocabulary is directly linked to the overall school achievement (Smith?Lock, Leitao, Lambert & Nickels, 2013). The size of the child’s vocabulary will also be able to predict his learning ability. Furthermore, an improvement in vocabulary will facilitate access to a wide range of information and will also assist X to gain a clear understanding of the surrounding world.

T (Time-bound) – Increase in the child X’s vocabulary is expected to get accomplished within 7 months from the beginning of the SMART goals implementation. The aforementioned techniques will be implemented for four days, each week, with a duration of 30-40 minutes each day.

Improvement in Receptive Language Skills

Core vocabulary therapy will be implemented in this case, with the aim of improving the accuracy of sounds and vocabulary related to everyday words. This vocabulary approach is generally intended to be implemented up on children, who suffer from inconsistent speech disorder. The structured therapy will be adapted in a way that the child X is able to practice words that will be used in everyday life.  The basic benefit of this approach can be attributed to the fact that it is ideal for children who face difficulties in pronouncing appropriate sounds of words (Weismer, 2014). This treatment will also target the speech processing deficit that underlies the speech and language disorder exhibited by the child X, as evident from the scores, thereby bringing about a system wide change. The vocabulary therapy approach will begin with the selection of 50 words by the therapist, parents, and teacher of the child (Herman, Ford, Thomas, Oyebade, Bennett & Dodd, 2015).  These words will be selected in a way that they present themselves as functionally powerful and hold significant meaning such as, names of his friends, family members, places, pet, library, school, eating places and parks. Ten words that are selected from the provided list will be drilled in sessions that are held twice a week.

At the end of the week that child will be asked to produce the selected ten words for three times. Words that have been produced consistently by the child will be removed from the existing list of 50 words. On the other hand, those words that are inconsistently produced will remain on the list, from which random ten words will be selected for the session that is intended to get continued for the next week (Boenisch & Soto, 2015). Other activities that will the therapy will encompass include scavenger and treasure hunt. The child will be made to go searching for items that are related to the core vocabulary. To make the entire intervention interesting, the child will be given clues and dressed up as Treasure Hunters. Creating word clouds and embedding words in images that are related to experiences will also form an essential part of this approach. Helping the child learn such words during snack time, or while playing games such as, blowing bubbles and arranging blocks will also help in enhancing the vocabulary.

References

Bishop, D. V. (2014). Pragmatic language impairment: A correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum?. In Speech and language impairments in children(pp. 113-128). Psychology press. Retrieved from- https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781317715825/chapters/10.4324%2F9781315784878-12

Improvement in Expressive Language Skills

Bishop, D. V. (2015). The interface between genetics and psychology: lessons from developmental dyslexia. Proc. R. Soc. B, 282(1806), 20143139. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2014.3139

Boenisch, J., & Soto, G. (2015). The oral core vocabulary of typically developing English-speaking school-aged children: Implications for AAC practice. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 31(1), 77-84. https://doi.org/10.3109/07434618.2014.1001521

Bornstein, M. H., Hahn, C. S., & Putnick, D. L. (2016). Long-term stability of core language skill in children with contrasting language skills. Developmental psychology, 52(5), 704. Retrieved from- https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-13817-001

Grow, L., & LeBlanc, L. (2013). Teaching Receptive Language Skills. Behavior analysis in practice, 6(1), 56-75. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391791

Hazawawi, N. A. M., & Hisham, S. (2014, November). Online dyslexia screening test for Malaysian young adults in Bahasa Melayu. In Information and Communication Technology for The Muslim World (ICT4M), 2014 The 5th International Conference on (pp. 1-5). IEEE. DOI: 10.1109/ICT4M.2014.7020676

Herman, R., Ford, K., Thomas, J., Oyebade, N., Bennett, D., & Dodd, B. (2015). Evaluation of core vocabulary therapy for deaf children: Four treatment case studies. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 31(2), 221-235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659014561875

McCartney, E., Boyle, J., Ellis, S., Bannatyne, S., & Turnbull, M. (2015). Indirect language therapy for children with persistent language impairment in mainstream primary schools: outcomes from a cohort intervention. International journal of language & communication disorders, 1-9. Retrieved from- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/13682820903560302

Mohtaram, S., Pee, N. C., & Sibgatullah, A. S. (2014, November). Mobile dyslexia screening test: A new approach through multiple deficit model mobile game to screen developmental dyslexia children. In Malaysia University Conference Engineering Technology. Retrieved from- https://ocs.utem.edu.my/index.php/mucet2014/MUCET2014/paper/viewFile/129/132

Overvliet, G. M., Besseling, R. M., van der Kruijs, S. J., Vles, J. S., Backes, W. H., Hendriksen, J. G., ... & Aldenkamp, A. P. (2013). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals in Rolandic epilepsy, an assessment with CELF-4. european journal of paediatric neurology, 17(4), 390-396. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpn.2013.01.001

Smith?Lock, K. M., Leitao, S., Lambert, L., & Nickels, L. (2013). Effective intervention for expressive grammar in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(3), 265-282. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12003

Suárez-Coalla, P., Ramos, S., Álvarez-Cañizo, M., & Cuetos, F. (2014). Orthographic learning in dyslexic Spanish children. Annals of Dyslexia, 64(2), 166-181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11881-014-0092-5

Sun, Z., Zou, L., Zhang, J., Mo, S., Shao, S., Zhong, R., ... & Song, R. (2013). Prevalence and associated risk factors of dyslexic children in a middle-sized city of China: a cross-sectional study. PloS one, 8(2), e56688. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0056688

Uccelli, P., Barr, C. D., Dobbs, C. L., Galloway, E. P., Meneses, A., & Sanchez, E. (2015). Core academic language skills: An expanded operational construct and a novel instrument to chart school-relevant language proficiency in preadolescent and adolescent learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 36(5), 1077-1109. https://doi.org/10.1017/S014271641400006X

Weismer, S. E. (2014). Intervention for children with developmental language delay. In Speech and language impairments in children (pp. 171-190). Psychology Press. Retrieved from- https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/e/9781317715825/chapters/10.4324%2F9781315784878-15

Yoder, P., Watson, L. R., & Lambert, W. (2015). Value-added predictors of expressive and receptive language growth in initially nonverbal preschoolers with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of autism and developmental disorders, 45(5), 1254-1270. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2286-4

Zibulsky, J., & Viezel, K. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. Encyclopedia of Special Education: A Reference for the Education of Children, Adolescents, and Adults with Disabilities and Other Exceptional Individuals. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118660584.ese0502