LSHSS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol.27 3-9 January 1996.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by McFadden, T. U.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by McFadden, T. U.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Creating Language Impairments in Typically Achieving Children

The Pitfalls of "Normal" Normative Sampling

Teresa Ukrainetz McFadden 1
1 University of Texas at Austin

tumcf{at}uwyo.edu

Many popular standardized language tests use a "normal" sample for their normative comparison group. This article describes the errors that result from current uses of such tests; (a) identification of normal children as language impaired, (b) provision of misleading profiles of verbal and nonverbal performance, (c) inability to estimate the severity or describe the general nature of a language impairment, and (d) a gradual increase in the number of children identified as language impaired with progressive test re-normings. Recommendations to alleviate this problem include (a) test users employing only full-range standardized tests; (b) test users using flexible cutoff scores, with the major emphasis on descriptive, criterion-referenced testing, and (c) test makers moving to full-range normative samples with descriptions of what particular test performances indicate in terms of the daily communication functioning of typically achieving children and clinical subgroups of children.

KEY WORDS: assessment, standardized testing, language disorder

Submitted on June 14, 1994
Accepted on January 25, 1995


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 AJSLPHome page
E. D. Pena, T. J. Spaulding, and E. Plante
The composition of normative groups and diagnostic decision making: shooting ourselves in the foot.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, August 1, 2006; 15(3): 247 - 254.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJSLPHome page
L. M. Justice, R. P. Bowles, J. N. Kaderavek, T. A. Ukrainetz, S. L. Eisenberg, and R. B. Gillam
The Index of Narrative Microstructure: A Clinical Tool for Analyzing School-Age Children's Narrative Performances.
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, May 1, 2006; 15(2): 177 - 191.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 LSHSSHome page
T. J. Spaulding, E. Plante, and K. A. Farinella
Eligibility Criteria for Language Impairment: Is the Low End of Normal Always Appropriate?
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, January 1, 2006; 37(1): 61 - 72.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Child Language Teaching and TherapyHome page
T. A. Ukrainetz and C. Blomquist
The criterion validity of four vocabulary tests compared with a language sample
Child Language Teaching and Therapy, February 1, 2002; 18(1): 59 - 78.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1996 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.