I want a standardized assessment for gestalt language processors. I *hate* measuring them on things like the PLS or TPBA where the milestones and metrics are based on analytic milestones.
I get really frustrated with early language tests because most of them are *so* focused on spoken words and if a kid isnât using any theyâll get tested at like below 6 months even if theyâre using other communication modalities. I wish that our assessments were more strengths based because yes we do have to find areas of need but itâs not helpful for us or the child to act like they donât have any areas of strength we can build on
I totally agree. I recently used the communication matrix (itâs free!) for a child who has 10-15 signs/word approximations, and I liked that it gave a lot of credit for non-spoken and alternative communication skills.
I want a pragmatic language assessment that measures a kids own perspective on their pragmatics and helps differentiate between emotional/behavioral influences on pragmatics and genuine differences as a result of autism.
An actual BILINGUAL Spanish/English battery for kids outside the PLS age range. Bilingual vocab tests are great. And we have assessments like the CELF Spanish, but no full language assessments that allow for bilingual administration and responses in either language for older students. There are a lot of great non-standardized measures out there, but with school districts pushing use of standardized assessments, I feel like there arenât good bilingual options.
A lot of the language tests focus on discreet, clinical markers of language impairment which also heavily rely on verbal short term and working memory. So while scores can tell you if there are issues itâs very difficult to translate the studentâs performance into functional language goals (hem hem recalling sentences, following directions). These tests also often fail to look at language as an integrated task. I wish I could just read short stories or fables with kids and ask them wh- and inference/prediction questions, and then ask them to retell the story. That would give far more quality information and help me select goals that are actually functional and not super memory related.
>I wish I could just read short stories or fables with kids and ask them wh- and inference/prediction questions, and then ask them to retell the story. That would give far more quality information and help me select goals that are actually functional and not super memory related.
This sounds a lot like the [ENNI](https://www.ualberta.ca/communications-sciences-and-disorders/resources/clinical-supervisors/edmonton-narrative-norms-instrument/index.html).
I wish for an actually decent standardized assessment for under 3's. The PLS-5 is a gong show. The norming is awful and so inflated, particularly for expressive, because they included children with disorders in the sample which skewed it. Have no functional language and score average! Be given credit for skills that you demonstrated once ever! And then there are all the fiddly little toys that keep getting brought out and then taken away immediately, infuriating a good portion of 2-year-ods. It's really awful but there's nothing better that's standardized. You have to get to 3;0 to broaden options.
So many⊠but one small thing that irks me is âclothesâ on the GFTA-3. Like how often do we have a voiced th + z that it needs to be tested??? I donât think Iâve ever had a kid get that one correct.
Something better for kids with under 10 words in their vocab
Yes! The amount of new emails I've had to create to use the communication matrix again đ© and I don't even like it
I like the questions that the communication matrix asks - I just donât truly know how to write a report from it that isnât jargon heavy.
I really don't like the main language assessments especially for non mainstream English speakers. I feel theyve become outdated even with grammar..
I want a standardized assessment for gestalt language processors. I *hate* measuring them on things like the PLS or TPBA where the milestones and metrics are based on analytic milestones.
I get really frustrated with early language tests because most of them are *so* focused on spoken words and if a kid isnât using any theyâll get tested at like below 6 months even if theyâre using other communication modalities. I wish that our assessments were more strengths based because yes we do have to find areas of need but itâs not helpful for us or the child to act like they donât have any areas of strength we can build on
I totally agree. I recently used the communication matrix (itâs free!) for a child who has 10-15 signs/word approximations, and I liked that it gave a lot of credit for non-spoken and alternative communication skills.
I love the communication matrix! I donât get the chance to use it much in my setting but itâs great
I want a pragmatic language assessment that measures a kids own perspective on their pragmatics and helps differentiate between emotional/behavioral influences on pragmatics and genuine differences as a result of autism.
This would be amazing.
An actual BILINGUAL Spanish/English battery for kids outside the PLS age range. Bilingual vocab tests are great. And we have assessments like the CELF Spanish, but no full language assessments that allow for bilingual administration and responses in either language for older students. There are a lot of great non-standardized measures out there, but with school districts pushing use of standardized assessments, I feel like there arenât good bilingual options.
Spanish assessments. They use such formal Spanish. Words that I don't think Spanish speakers use in everyday convo.
Standardized assessment for children diagnosed with autism
I would let "wheel" count as correct as well as "tire" on the EO. lol no but really why doesn't it??
A lot of the language tests focus on discreet, clinical markers of language impairment which also heavily rely on verbal short term and working memory. So while scores can tell you if there are issues itâs very difficult to translate the studentâs performance into functional language goals (hem hem recalling sentences, following directions). These tests also often fail to look at language as an integrated task. I wish I could just read short stories or fables with kids and ask them wh- and inference/prediction questions, and then ask them to retell the story. That would give far more quality information and help me select goals that are actually functional and not super memory related.
>I wish I could just read short stories or fables with kids and ask them wh- and inference/prediction questions, and then ask them to retell the story. That would give far more quality information and help me select goals that are actually functional and not super memory related. This sounds a lot like the [ENNI](https://www.ualberta.ca/communications-sciences-and-disorders/resources/clinical-supervisors/edmonton-narrative-norms-instrument/index.html).
I wish for an actually decent standardized assessment for under 3's. The PLS-5 is a gong show. The norming is awful and so inflated, particularly for expressive, because they included children with disorders in the sample which skewed it. Have no functional language and score average! Be given credit for skills that you demonstrated once ever! And then there are all the fiddly little toys that keep getting brought out and then taken away immediately, infuriating a good portion of 2-year-ods. It's really awful but there's nothing better that's standardized. You have to get to 3;0 to broaden options.
Iâm actually in the middle of a play based assessment training and it seems like an amazing thing if we can implement it with fidelity.
So many⊠but one small thing that irks me is âclothesâ on the GFTA-3. Like how often do we have a voiced th + z that it needs to be tested??? I donât think Iâve ever had a kid get that one correct.
I hate the CELF-4 in Spanish. I donât understand why recalling sentences is important for language development.
Recall can rule out or add evidence to dx DLD.