Clinical Considerations From Researcher-Created Morphological Awareness Assessments.

PURPOSE: Morphological awareness develops throughout formal schooling and is positively related to later reading abilities. However, there are limited standardized measures available for speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to use when assessing morphological awareness in clinical practice. The purpose of this tutorial is to guide clinicians in choosing between researcher-created measures of morphological awareness to use with their school-aged students. METHOD: We first summarize previous morphological awareness assessment research and outline important clinical considerations when choosing a morphological awareness assessment for students in early elementary grades and beyond. Second, we highlight item characteristics regarding morpheme type, frequency, shift transparency, and imageability for students in early elementary versus later grades. Third, we discuss the type of tasks (i.e., production, decomposition, and judgment) and administration modes (i.e., oral or written and static or dynamic) available to clinicians assessing the morphological awareness skills of school-aged students. Throughout the tutorial, we reference a hypothetical case study to illustrate how SLPs might apply these suggestions and link morphological awareness assessment to treatment recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: This tutorial highlights the importance of including morphological awareness assessments in clinical practice to support oral and written language development. We provide practical guidelines to help SLPs evaluate and choose appropriate morphological awareness assessments for their school-aged students as part of their comprehensive language evaluations and to support intervention planning. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24545470.

Adapting Curricula for Children With Language Comprehension Deficits.

PURPOSE: We will describe how a multisite research team adapted a language-focused curriculum to be used in a scale-up project. Specifically, we identified underlying principles to modify a Tier 1 whole-classroom language comprehension-focused curriculum to be used as a Tier 2 small-group curriculum with children identified as at risk for low language comprehension, including children with developmental language disorder (DLD). METHOD: We discuss how researchers used the following five guiding principles to adapt a curriculum for children at risk for low language comprehension, including children with DLD: (a) increased and ongoing professional development, (b) simplification of language input, (c) increased scaffolding, (d) attention to distributed practice, and (e) materials to support diversity and inclusion. RESULTS: We used these guiding principles to modify a popular language-based curriculum used in schools across the country. CONCLUSION: This clinical focus article showcases how guiding principles and frameworks for adaptation, within implementation science, can serve as a guidepost for speech-language pathologists and other educators who are adapting or scaling up a curriculum or intervention that was not designed for their target population.

The Process and Product of Coherence Monitoring in Young Readers: Effects of Reader and Text Characteristics.

We examined sixth graders' detection of inconsistencies in narrative and expository passages, contrasting participants who were monolingual speakers (N = 85) or Spanish-English DLLs (N = 94) when recruited in pre-kindergarten (PK). We recorded self-paced reading times and judgments about whether the text made sense, and took an independent measure of word reading. Main findings were that inconsistency detection was better for narratives, for participants who were monolingual speakers in PK, and for those who were better word readers. When the text processing demands were increased by separating the inconsistent sentence and its premise with filler sentences there was a stronger signal for inconsistency detection during reading for better word readers. Reading patterns differed for texts for which children reported an inconsistency compared to those for which they did not, indicating a failure to adequately monitor for coherence while reading. Our performance measures indicate that narrative and expository texts make different demands on readers.