HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Ballantyne, A. O. Articles by Trauner, D. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Ballantyne, A. O. Articles by Trauner, D. A. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Revision Decision: Is Change Always Good? A Comparison of CELF–R and CELF–3 Test Scores in Children With Language Impairment, Focal Brain Damage, and Typical Development

Contact author: Angela Ballantyne, University of California, San Diego, Department of Neurosciences, 9500 Gilman Drive, #0935, La Jolla, CA 92093-0935. E-mail: aballant{at}crl.ucsd.edu.

Purpose: The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) is a widely used, comprehensive test battery that assesses language in school-age children and adolescents. The CELF–R (E. Semel, E. H. Wiig, & W. Secord, 1987) was updated to the CELF–3 (E. Semel, E. H. Wiig, & W. A. Secord, 1995) in 1995. The goal of the present study was to compare scores and evaluate the diagnostic utility of the CELF–R and CELF–3 in 2 clinical populations and a typically developing control group.

Method: The present study compared CELF–R and CELF–3 test scores of 107 children with language impairment (LI), 54 children with early focal brain damage (FL), and 90 controls.

Results: All 3 groups demonstrated significantly better performance on the CELF–3 than on the CELF–R. LI children scored in the moderately-to-severely impaired range on the CELF–R, but in the mildly-to-moderately impaired range on the CELF–3. FL children went from being mildly-to-moderately impaired on the CELF–R to within normal limits on the CELF–3. Controls went from the average range on the CELF–R to the high average range on the CELF–3.

Conclusion: This study is important for professionals who administer language tests and/or use language testing results to recommend appropriate school placements, additional services, and/or interventions. Although psychometric tests are frequently revised, it is not always the case that a revised version has improved diagnostic utility.

KEY WORDS: CELF–R, CELF–3, language impairment, focal lesion, test revisions, psychometrics, language assessment

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

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. J. Greenslade, E. Plante, and R. Vance The Diagnostic Accuracy and Construct Validity of the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test--Preschool: Second Edition Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, April 1, 2009; 40(2): 150 - 160. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]