Assessing pragmatics in early childhood with the Language Use Inventory across seven languages.

The Language Use Inventory (LUI) is a parent-report measure of the pragmatic functions of young children's language, standardized and norm-referenced in English (Canada) for children aged 18-47 months. The unique focus of the LUI, along with its appeal to parents, reliability and validity, and usefulness in both research and clinical contexts has prompted research teams globally to translate and adapt it to other languages. In this review, we describe the original LUI's key features and report on processes used by seven different research teams to translate and adapt it to Arabic, French, Italian, Mandarin, Norwegian, Polish, and Portuguese. We also review data from the studies of the seven translated versions, which indicate that all the LUI versions were reliable and sensitive to developmental changes. The review demonstrates that the LUI, informed by a social-cognitive and functional approach to language development, captures growth in children's language use across a range of linguistic and cultural contexts, and as such, can serve as a valuable tool for clinical and research purposes.

Curriculum-Based Dynamic Assessment of Narratives for Bilingual Filipino Children.

PURPOSE: Speech-language pathologists need tools that can accurately estimate bilingual children's language abilities and thus help avoid misdiagnoses. This study addresses this need by investigating the accuracy of a novel curriculum-based dynamic assessment of narratives in distinguishing bilingual children with language difficulties (LDs) from children with typically developing (TD) language. METHOD: Participants comprised 34 Filipino-English bilingual children attending elementary school in English: seven with LDs and 27 with TD language. All children were assessed on narrative skills relevant to their school curriculum during a dynamic assessment involving a test-teach-test sequence. We then examined how accurately the children's scores on narrative tasks completed during the test phases, and on a modifiability rating scale completed during the teaching phase, discriminated the LD and TD groups. RESULTS: According to discriminant analyses, logistic regressions, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses, the modifiability rating classified the children with 97.1% accuracy. Children's scores on the narrative measures following the teaching phase were also better at predicting language group than their initial scores, with the Test of Narrative Language-Second Edition (TNL-2) Narrative Language Ability Index score reaching 100% accuracy at posttest. CONCLUSIONS: The curriculum-based dynamic assessment of narratives shows promise at distinguishing TD language from LD in a group of understudied bilingual children that is rapidly growing in both Canada and the United States. The findings compare favorably to past studies of dynamic assessment and extend this work by integrating curricular goals to the narrative assessment process.

A multi-site review of policies affecting opportunities for children with developmental disabilities to become bilingual.

This review of special education and language-in-education policies at six sites in four countries (Canada, United States, United Kingdom, and Netherlands) aimed to determine the opportunities for bilingualism provided at school for children with developmental disabilities (DD). While research has demonstrated that children with DD are capable of learning more than one language (see Kay Raining Bird, Genesee, & Verhoeven, this issue), it was not clear whether recent policies reflect these findings. The review, conducted using the same protocol across sites, showed that special education policies rarely addressed second language learning explicitly. However, at all sites, the policies favoured inclusion and educational planning based on individual needs, and thus implied that students with DD would have opportunities for second language learning. The language-in-education policies occasionally specified the support individuals with special needs would receive. At some sites, policies and educational options provided little support for minority languages, a factor that could contribute to subtractive bilingualism. At others, we found stronger support for minority languages and optional majority languages: conditions that could be more conducive to additive bilingualism.

Thinking aloud: effects on text comprehension by children with specific language impairment and their peers.

BACKGROUND: Many lines of evidence now suggest that inferencing plays a substantial role in text comprehension. However, inferencing appears to be difficult for children with language impairments, many of whom are also struggling readers. AIMS: To assess the effects of a 'think-aloud' procedure on inference generation and narrative text comprehension by children with expressive-receptive specific language impairment (SLI) and age-matched peers with typical language development (TLD). METHODS & PROCEDURES: An SLI group (n = 12; mean age = 10;5) and an age-matched TLD group (n = 12) participated in the study. Narrative passages were read silently by participants and simultaneously read aloud by the examiner in two conditions: (1) uninterrupted reading and (2) a think-aloud, in which children verbalized their understanding as the text was read. Following the passages in both conditions, children responded to comprehension questions requiring either literal or inferential information (specifically, 'informational' and 'causal' inferences). The children's comprehension scores were analysed by group, condition and question type. The statements children generated during the think-aloud were also compared by group and examined in relation to children's comprehension scores. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The SLI group scored lower than the TLD group on all questions (literal, informational and causal), in both conditions. For both groups, however, comprehension scores on all three types of questions increased when the think-aloud procedure was implemented. During the think-aloud, the SLI group generated a comparable number of literal statements compared with the TLD group, but fewer informational and causal statements. The number of causal statements children made correlated with their scores on the inferential comprehension questions. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Children with expressive-receptive SLI showed poorer comprehension of narrative texts than children with TLD, as expected. However, both groups' comprehension improved when participating in the think-aloud condition. While further investigation is warranted, the think-aloud procedure shows promise as a strategy to enhance narrative text comprehension in school-age children with, and without, language impairments.

Predicting later language outcomes from the Language Use Inventory.

PURPOSE: To examine the predictive validity of the Language Use Inventory (LUI), a parent report of language use by children 18-47 months old (O'Neill, 2009). METHOD: 348 children whose parents had completed the LUI were reassessed at 5-6 years old with standardized, norm-referenced language measures and parent report of developmental history. The relationship between scores on the LUI and later measures was examined through correlation, binary classification, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. RESULTS: For children aged 24-47 months at the time of LUI completion, LUI scores correlated significantly with language measure scores. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were also calculated for 4 cutoff scores on the LUI, including -1.64 SD, a score that maximized sensitivity to 81% and specificity to 93%. For children aged 18-23 months at the time of LUI completion, specificity and NPV were high, but sensitivity and PPV were lower than desirable. CONCLUSIONS: The results provide initial support for the LUI's predictive validity, particularly for children 24-47 months, and suggest the LUI can serve as an indicator of later language outcomes in referred populations. The results compare favorably to findings for other early child-language measures.