Posted on 6 Comments

Components of Qualitative Writing Assessments: What Exactly are We Trying to Measure?

Writing! The one assessment area that challenges many SLPs on daily basis! If one polls 10 SLPs on the topic of writing, one will get 10 completely different responses ranging from agreement and rejection to the diverse opinions regarding what should actually be assessed and how exactly it should be accomplished.

Consequently, today I wanted to focus on the basics involved in the assessment of adolescent writing. Why adolescents you may ask? Well, frankly because many SLPs (myself included) are far more likely to assess the writing abilities of adolescents rather than elementary-aged children.

Often, when the students are younger and their literacy abilities are weaker, the SLPs may not get to the assessment of writing abilities due to the students presenting with so many other deficits which require precedence intervention-wise. However, as the students get older and the academic requirements increase exponentially, SLPs may be more frequently asked to assess the students’ writing abilities because difficulties in this area significantly affect them in a variety of classes on a variety of subjects.

So what can we assess when it comes to writing? In the words of Helen Lester’s character ‘Pookins’: “Lots!”  There are various types of writing that can be assessed, the most common of which include: expository, persuasive, and fictional. Each of these can be used for assessment purposes in a variety of ways.

To illustrate, if we chose to analyze the student’s written production of fictional narratives then we may broadly choose to analyze the following aspects of the student’s writing: contextual conventions and writing composition.

The former looks at such writing aspects as the use of correct spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, paragraph formation, etc.

The latter looks at the nitty-gritty elements involved in plot development. These include effective use of literate vocabulary, plotline twists, character development,  use of dialogue, etc.

Perhaps we want to analyze the student’s persuasive writing abilities. After all, high school students are expected to utilize this type of writing frequently for essay writing purposes.  Actually, persuasive writing is a complex genre which is particularly difficult for students with language-learning difficulties who struggle to produce essays that are clear, logical, convincing, appropriately sequenced, and take into consideration opposing points of view. It is exactly for that reason that persuasive writing tasks are perfect for assessment purposes.

But what exactly are we looking for analysis wise? What should a typical 15 year old’s persuasive essays contain?

With respect to syntax, a typical student that age is expected to write complex sentences possessing nominal, adverbial, as well as relative clauses.

With the respect to semantics, effective persuasive essays require the use of literate vocabulary words of low frequency such as later developing connectors (e.g., first of all, next, for this reason, on the other hand, consequently, finally, in conclusion) as well as metalinguistic and metacognitive verbs (“metaverbs”) that refer to acts of speaking (e.g., assert, concede, predict, argue, imply) and thinking (e.g., hypothesize, remember, doubt, assume, infer).

With respect to pragmatics, as students  mature, their sensitivity to the perspectives of others improves, as a result, their persuasive essays increase in length (i.e., total number of words produced) and they are able to offer a greater number of different reasons to support their own opinions (Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005).

Now let’s apply our knowledge by analyzing a writing sample of a 15-year-old with suspected literacy deficits. Below 10th-grade student was provided with a written prompt first described in the Nippold, et al, 2005 study, entitled: “The Circus Controversy”.   “People have different views on animals performing in circuses. For example, some people think it is a great idea because it provides lots of entertainment for the public. Also, it gives parents and children something to do together, and the people who train the animals can make some money. However, other people think having animals in circuses is a bad idea because the animals are often locked in small cages and are not fed well. They also believe it is cruel to force a dog, tiger, or elephant to perform certain tricks that might be dangerous. I am interested in learning what you think about this controversy, and whether or not you think circuses with trained animals should be allowed to perform for the public. I would like you to spend the next 20 minutes writing an essay. Tell me exactly what you think about the controversy. Give me lots of good reasons for your opinion. Please use your best writing style, with correct grammar and spelling. If you aren’t sure how to spell a word, just take a guess.”(Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005)

He produced the following written sample during the allotted 20 minutes.

Analysis: This student was able to generate a short, 3-paragraph, composition containing an introduction and a body without a definitive conclusion. His persuasive essay was judged to be very immature for his grade level due to significant disorganization, limited ability to support his point of view as well as the presence of tangential information in the introduction of his composition, which was significantly compromised by many writing mechanics errors (punctuation, capitalization, as well as spelling) that further impacted the coherence and cohesiveness of his written output.

The student’s introduction began with an inventive dialogue, which was irrelevant to the body of his persuasive essay. He did have three important points relevant to the body of the essay: animal cruelty, danger to the animals, and potential for the animals to harm humans. However, he was unable to adequately develop those points into full paragraphs. The notable absence of proofreading and editing of the composition further contributed to its lack of clarity. The above coupled with a lack of a conclusion was not commensurate grade-level expectations.

Based on the above-written sample, the student’s persuasive composition content (thought formulation and elaboration) was judged to be significantly immature for his grade level and is commensurate with the abilities of a much younger student.  The student’s composition contained several emerging claims that suggested a vague position. However, though the student attempted to back up his opinion and support his position (animals should not be performing in circuses), ultimately he was unable to do so in a coherent and cohesive manner.

Now that we know what the student’s written difficulties look like, the following goals will be applicable with respect to his writing remediation:

Long-Term Goals:  Student will improve his written abilities for academic purposes.

  • Short-Term Goals
  1. Student will appropriately utilize parts of speech (e.g., adjectives, adverbs, prepositions, etc.)  in compound and complex sentences.
  2. Student will use a variety of sentence types for story composition purposes (e.g., declarative, interrogative, imperative, and exclamatory sentences).
  3. Student will correctly use past, present, and future verb tenses during writing tasks.
  4. Student will utilize appropriate punctuation at the sentence level (e.g., apostrophes, periods, commas, colons, quotation marks in dialogue, and apostrophes in singular possessives, etc.).
  5. Student will utilize appropriate capitalization at the sentence level (e.g., capitalize proper nouns, holidays, product names, titles with names, initials, geographic locations, historical periods, special events, etc.).
  6. Student will use prewriting techniques to generate writing ideas (e.g., list keywords, state key ideas, etc.).
  7. Student will determine the purpose of his writing and his intended audience in order to establish the tone of his writing as well as outline the main idea of his writing.
  8. Student will generate a draft in which information is organized in chronological order via use of temporal markers (e.g., “meanwhile,” “immediately”) as well as cohesive ties (e.g., ‘but’, ‘yet’, ‘so’, ‘nor’) and cause/effect transitions (e.g., “therefore,” “as a result”).
  9. Student will improve coherence and logical organization of his written output via the use of revision strategies (e.g., modify supporting details, use sentence variety, employ literary devices).
  10. Student will edit his draft for appropriate grammar, spelling, punctuation, and capitalization.

There you have it. A quick and easy qualitative writing assessment which can assist SLPs to determine the extent of the student’s writing difficulties as well as establish writing remediation targets for intervention purposes.

Using a different type of writing assessment with your students? Please share the details below so we can all benefit from each others knowledge of assessment strategies.

References:

  • Nippold, M., Ward-Lonergan, J., & Fanning, J. (2005). Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: a study of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 125-138.

 

Posted on 1 Comment

Can you keep it down? Voice Monsters on the Prowl!

So I have to admit, I don’t really like pediatric voice therapy. I don’t know why. I got A’s and loved all my voice classes and voice clients  in grad school. I voluntarily got some CEUs in pediatric voice therapy after college. But I never quite felt about it the same way I feel about language therapy. So needless to say I could always use some help when searching for materials for pediatric voice clients.  That’s why I was so excited when I got the opportunity to review the   “Voice Monsters” created by Rachel Osborn of The Queen’s Speech Blog.

Rachel has created this voice therapy techniques packet to target clients with vocal nodules. However, the materials in this packet are applicable to clients with a number of different voice diagnoses (e.g., vocal hyperfunction, functional dysphonia, etc) provided of course these clients have been seen by an otolaryngologist and have been cleared to receive vocal therapy).

So what does this 37 page packet contain?

Targeted for children ages 4 and above this packet provides explanation of voice disorders as well as tips on vocal hygiene for kids. Interestingly both the explanations on page 4 and the tips on vocal hygiene on pages 5 and 6 are actually a perfect way to present the information to parents. However, given the complexity of the language on the first two cards on page 4 (e.g., abnormal, characteristics, intensity, causes, inflammation) you might need to simplify this information for the students (especially for younger children) to adjust the language to their level.

The next set of cards explains the yawn sigh (pages 7-20) and the ‘buzzy voice’ (pages 20-30) techniques. The yawn sigh technique cards are very easy to understand and what I particularly like about them that they are arranged in a hierarchy of vowels, words, and sentences. I like the fact that Rachel included blank cards so you can create our own sentences. She does a similar hierarchy of sounds, phrases and sentences for the ‘buzzy voice’  technique as well.

I also like the fact that Rachel included some fun activities into her pack in addition to the exercises. There’s the quiz which reviews things that can hurt and help you voice, the voice detective game  for good and bad voice habits, as well as a voice thermometer to help students monitor their vocal volume. There is even a generic game board for practicing a variety of tasks.

Finally, I really like that fact that Rachel includes information on other voice exercises as well as links to videos and other useful resources.

There’s just so much you can do with these activities, and the adorable graphics make it both fun and functional for the children to participate in therapy.

The best part of me was that in addition to the materials being functional I didn’t have to spend any effort on “cutefying’ them for my clients, and that’s definitely a huge plus in my book. You can grab this cute and functional activity in Rachel’s TPT store for as little as $4.00.

For more information check out Rachel’s blog,  The Queen’s Speech  and don’t forget to follow her on Facebook!

Posted on 7 Comments

Feed Maxi: App Review and Giveaway

Today I am reviewing a fun new app by Speak Easy Apps: Feed Maxi. Developed by a speech language pathologist, Pamela Mandell,  the app’s purpose is to introduce the child to food labeling and identification.

The goal is to feed Maxi the monkey a balanced diet of 80 food items which include: fruits, vegetables, proteins, dairy, grains and snacks. But Maxi doesn’t just request his food, he also comments, makes choices, rejects, as well as asks for more using sign language (ASL animations).

Intended Audience:

  • Toddlers
  • Preschoolers
  • Children with Special Needs (ASD, Down Syndrome, etc)
  • Young children with limited English proficiency

Targeted Skills:

  • Functional communication (expressing basic wants and needs)
  • Pragmatic communication via targeted use of language
  • Attention (to detail) and Concentration
  • Picture identification
  • Following directions
  • Receptive and expressive vocabulary knowledge and use
  • Categorization skills 
  • Cause/effect skills
  • Print Recognition
  • Visual Scanning and Fine Motor control

App Features:

  • Data collection for group therapy (up to 5 children as per federal regulations)
  • E-mail option to send results to self/parents, etc.,
  • On/off option for voice prompts, text, sound effects & statistics
  • Option to specify food item and food category selection
  • Option to specify level of play (choose between easy, moderate or difficult)
  • Parental control option (to avoid accidental level changes)

App Highlights:

  • Real photos of food items
  • High interaction level (tapping on various pictures will produce sounds and/or animations)
  • App highlights correct responses when the child picks a food item incorrectly
  • Fun rewards after correct responses (e.g., balloon popping)

Feed Maxi is a fun and functional app which via a seemingly simple yet engaging set-up (monkey feeding) fosters a number of important skills in emergent communicators. You can find this app in the iTunes store for 4.99, or thanks to Pamela’s generosity you can win your own copy by entering my Rafflecopter giveaway below.
a Rafflecopter giveaway

Posted on Leave a comment

Why ESL Doesn’t Fit: What Parents of Internationally Adopted Children Need to Know About Language Support

During my recent webinar, Navigating Language Development of Older International Adoptees (April 3, 2025), hosted by Holt International, one of the most frequently asked questions from parents was:

“Why shouldn’t my internationally adopted child attend ESL classes?”

It’s a reasonable question—and one I hear often from well-meaning parents and educators who want to ensure their adopted children receive the support they need. But this question also reveals a widespread misunderstanding about the language needs of post-institutionalized internationally adopted children.

This blog post is my response to that conversation—written for families, educators, and professionals who want to better understand why ESL services are not appropriate for internationally adopted children, and what to do instead.

If you weren’t able to attend the webinar live, the full recording will be available through Holt International’s educational webinar series. You can find it on their website HERE.

Let’s unpack why ESL isn’t the right fit—and what kinds of support internationally adopted children actually need to thrive.

Myth: “My child isn’t fluent in English, so ESL must help.”

Reality: Internationally adopted children are not bilingual learners.

Most ESL programs are designed for children who still use their native language at home and gradually acquire English in school. These kids are developing two languages at once and benefit from strategies that build on both.

But internationally adopted children? They experience something very different.

According to Gindis (2005; 2008), children adopted between ages 4–7 lose their birth language within just a few months of arriving in their new home. They’re immersed in English almost immediately—and their native language is rarely maintained because most adoptive families are monolingual.

So, they’re not truly bilingual. But they’re also not fully fluent in English yet. They’re in a unique in-between state that ESL programs aren’t designed to address.

ESL programs don’t target what IA children actually need

While ESL helps students bridge language barriers tied to cultural and home-language continuity, IA children are dealing with something else entirely: language deprivation and language loss.

Many older adoptees spent years in institutions with:

  • Minimal one-on-one interaction
  • Low language stimulation
  • Unaddressed medical or developmental concerns

This means they’re not just “behind in English”—they often have underlying language delays or disorders that impact comprehension, expression, and even literacy (Scott, Roberts & Glennen, 2011; Desmarais, et al, 2012; Kornilov et al., 2019).

They sound fluent… but can’t keep up academically

A major source of confusion is that many IA kids sound great conversationally. They can talk about their favorite games, pets, or foods. But when it comes to classroom work—reading comprehension, writing essays, understanding abstract language—they start to struggle.

This happens because they develop Communicative Language Fluency (CLF) quickly—but take years to develop Cognitive Language Mastery (CLM), which is necessary for school success (Gindis, 2005).

So even if they “sound fluent,” they may:

  • Misunderstand instructions
  • Struggle with academic vocabulary
  • Fall behind in reading and writing
  • Feel overwhelmed and shut down in class

These are not second-language issues. They are language development issues that require specialized intervention.

So what should you do?

Instead of agreeing to an ESL placement, here’s how you can better support your child:

  1. Get a comprehensive speech-language evaluation—especially if your child had speech or language delays in their birth country, or came from an institutional background.
  2. Ask about school-based speech services—not ESL. Many IA children qualify under criteria for language disorders rather than language differences.
  3. Advocate for academic support that targets vocabulary, inferencing, grammar, and literacy.
  4. Monitor progress over time—some delays won’t show up until years later, especially as school demands increase (Glennen, 2009).
  5. Be aware of trauma and sensory history—many IA children also have social, emotional, and attentional challenges that impact language.

Bottom line

Your child may not need ESL. But they do need support.

If your internationally adopted child is struggling in school—even if they speak English well—don’t accept a “wait and see” approach. Push for a full language evaluation. Ask for help from a speech-language pathologist who understands adoption, trauma, and language loss. And most of all, trust your instincts.

Because these kids don’t just need English—they need someone who gets the whole picture.

References

  1. Desmarais, C., Roeber, B. J., Smith, M. E., & Pollak, S. D. (2012). Sentence comprehension in postinstitutionalized school-age children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 55, 45–54.
  2. Elleseff, T. (2025, April 3). Navigating language development of older international adoptees [Webinar presentation]. Holt International.
  3. Gindis, B. (2005). Cognitive, language, and educational issues of children adopted from overseas orphanages. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 4, 290–315.
  4. Gindis, B. (2008). Abrupt native language loss in international adoptees. Advance Healthcare Network for Speech/Language Pathologists and Audiologists, 18(51), 5.
  5. Glennen, S. (2009). Speech and language guidelines for children adopted from abroad at older ages. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(1), 50–64.
  6. Kornilov, S. A., Zhukova, M. A., Ovchinnikova, I. V., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2019). Language outcomes in adults with a history of institutionalization: Behavioral and neurophysiological characterization. Scientific Reports, 9, 4252.
  7. Scott, K. A., Roberts, J. A., & Glennen, S. (2011). How well do children who are internationally adopted acquire language? A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(4), 1153–1169. 
Posted on 13 Comments

Birthday Giveaway Day Fourteen: Vocabulary (Tier 2) Building for Older Students

ap1I am wrapping up the second week of my birthday giveaways by raffling off Vocabulary Building for Older Students Packet by Rose of Speech Snacks. This apple-themed product focuses on developing rich vocabulary through the use of specific strategies and is inspired by the book ”Bringing Words to Life” Isabelle L. Beck, Margaret G. McKeown, and Linda Kucan.

Packet Contents:

  • Vocabulary strategy cards
  • Apple-themed reading passages with tier -2 words and vocabulary-building strategy cards  
  • Comprehension questions related to each story 
  • Reinforcement game

You can find this product in Speech Snacks’ TPT store by clicking HERE or you can enter my one day giveaway for a chance to win.

a Rafflecopter giveaway

Posted on Leave a comment

Guest Post: Forming and Cultivating Positive Relationships with Middle School Students

Today’s guest post on working with middle school students comes from  Zoya Tsirulnikov, MS CCC-SLP, TSSLD , an SLP from the NYC’s Department of Education. 

The middle school population is fun and exciting to work with, however  it may prove to be quite challenging for some SLPs. This is my fifth year working for the New York City Department of Education at the Middle School level. I started out working with high school and elementary school students and quickly realized that this particular age group is different from its younger and older counterparts. Whereas at the elementary grades, students are learning new skills and concepts and building the foundation for expository text, the middle school students are expected to have bridged over to more rigorous text. Therefore, the achievement gap is very noticeable since students are tackling more de-contextualized discourse. Continue reading Guest Post: Forming and Cultivating Positive Relationships with Middle School Students

Posted on Leave a comment

Professional Consultation Services for Speech Language Pathologists

Today I’d like to officially introduce a new professional consultation service for  speech language pathologists (SLPs), which I initiated  with select few clinicians through my practice some time ago.

The idea for this service came after numerous SLPs contacted me and initiated dialogue via email and phone calls regarding cases they were working on or asked for advice on how to initiate assessment or therapy services to new clients with complex communication issues. Here are some details about it.

Professional consultation is a service provided to Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs) seeking specialized in-depth assessment and/or treatment recommendations regarding specific client cases or who are looking to further their professional education in the following specialization areas:

  • Performing Independent Evaluations (IEEs) in Special Education Disputes
  • Comprehensive Early Intervention Assessments of Monolingual and Bilingual Children
  • Speech Language Assessment and Treatment of post-institutionalized Internationally Adopted Children
  • Speech Language Assessment and Treatment of Children with Psychiatric and Emotional Disturbances
  • Speech and Language Assessment and Treatment of Children with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders
  • Assessment and Management of Social Pragmatic Language Disorders
  • Speech Language Assessment and Treatment of Bilingual and Multicultural Children
  • Speech Language Assessment and Treatment of Severely Cognitively Impaired Clients
  • Speech Language Assessment and Treatment of Children with Genetic Disorders

These professional consultation sessions are conducted via GoTo Meeting and includes video conferencing as well as screen sharing.

The goal of this service is to facilitate the SLPs learning process in the desired specialization area. The initial consultation includes extensive literature, material and resource website recommendations, with the exception of Smart Speech Therapy LLC products, which are available separately for purchase through the online store.

The initial consultation length is 1 hour. SLPs are encouraged to forward de-identified client records prior to the consultation for review. In select cases (and with appropriate permissions) forwarding a short video/audio recording (~7 minutes)  of the client in question is recommended.

Upon purchasing a consultation the client will be immediately emailed potential dates and times for the consultation to take place.   Afternoon, Evening and Weekend hours are available for the client’s convenience. In cases of emergencies consultations may be rescheduled at the client’s/Smart Speech Therapy’s mutual convenience.

While refunds are not available for this type of service, in an unlikely event that the consultation lasts less than 1 hour, leftover time can be banked for future calls without any expiration limits.  Call sessions can be requested as needed and conveyed in advance via email.  For further information click HERE. You can also call 917-916-7487 or email tatyana.elleseff@smartspeechtherapy.com if you wanted to find out whether this service is right for you. 

Below is the recent professional consultation testimonial.

Professional Independent Evaluation Consultation Testimonial (8/20/15)

Tatyana,

I just wanted to thank you from the bottom of my heart for the mentorship consultation with you yesterday. I learned a great deal, and appreciated your straight forward approach, and most of all, your scholarly input. You are a thorough professional. This new service that you offer is invaluable for many reasons, one of which is that it buffers the clinical isolation of solo private practice.  I look forward to our next session, about which I will email you in the next week or so. If stars are given, I give you the maximum number of stars possible!    The consultations are pure wonderful!
With gratitude,
Aletta Sinoff Ph.D., CCC-SLP, BCBA-D
Licensed Speech-Language Pathologist
Board Certified Behavior Analyst
Beachwood  OH 44122
Posted on 10 Comments

Birthday Extravaganza Day Twenty Eight: Literacy Checklists for Grades K-3

Today I am bringing you yet another giveaway from the fabulous Maria Del Duca of Communication Station Blog entitled: “Literacy Checklists for K-3rd Grade“. She created a terrific set of checklists to address reading comprehension and written expression in children K-3rd grade because according to Maria: “dynamic assessment of functional skills, when done well, can at times yield more accurate and salient information than standardized tests.”

This 10 page packet uses observational as well as teacher and parent reported information to present a holistic view of a child’s literacy skills with a focus on the following areas: Continue reading Birthday Extravaganza Day Twenty Eight: Literacy Checklists for Grades K-3

Posted on 7 Comments

Review of Social Language Development Test Elementary: What SLPs Need to Know

sldtelAs the awareness of social pragmatic language disorders continues to grow, more and more speech language pathologists are asking questions regarding various sources of social pragmatic language testing.  Today I am reviewing one such test entitled:  Social Language Development Test Elementary  (SLDTE) currently available from PRO-ED.

Basic overview

Release date: 2008
Age Range: 6:00-11:11
Authors:Linda Bowers, Rosemary Huisingh, Carolyn LoGiudice
Publisher: Linguisystems (PRO-ED as of 2014)

This test assesses the students’ social language competence and addresses their ability to take on someone else’s perspective, make correct inferences, negotiate conflicts with peers, be flexible in interpreting situations and supporting friends diplomatically. 

The test is composed of 4 subtests, of which the first two subtests are subdivided into 2 and 3 tasks respectively.

The Making Inferences subtest (composed of 2 tasks) of the SLDT-E is administered to assess student will’s ability to infer what someone in the picture is thinking (task a) as well as state the visual cues that aided the student in the making of that inference (task b). 

On task /a/ errors can result due to student’s difficulty correctly assuming first person perspective (e.g., “Pretend you are this person. What are you thinking?”) and infering (guessing) what someone in the picture was thinking. Errors can also result due to vague, associated and unrelated responses which do not take into account the person’s context (surroundings) as well as emotions expressed by their body language.   

On task /b/ errors can result due to the student’s inability to coherently verbalize his/her responses which may result in the offer of vague, associated, or unrelated answers to presented questions, which do not take into account facial expressions and body language but instead may focus on people’s feelings, or on the items located in the vicinity of the person in the picture. 

student-think-bubble-clipart-thought-girl-color

The Interpersonal Negotiation subtest (composed of 3 tasks) of the SLDT-E is administered to assess the student’s ability to resolve personal conflicts in the absence of visual stimuli.  Student is asked to state the problem (task a) from first person perspective (e.g., pretend the problem is happening with you and a friend), propose an appropriate solution (task b), as well as explain why the solution she was proposing was a good solution (task c).

On task /a/ errors can result due to the student’s difficulty recognizing that a problem exists in the presented scenarios. Errors can also result due to the student’s difficulty stating a problem from a first person perspective, as a result of which they may initiate their responses with reference to other people vs. self (e.g., “They can’t watch both shows”; “The other one doesn’t want to walk”, etc.). Errors also can also result due to the student’s attempt to provide a solution to the presented problem without acknowledging that a problem exists. Here’s an example of how one student responded on this subtest. When presented with: “You and your friend found a stray kitten in the woods. You each want to keep the kitten as a pet. What is the problem?” A responded: “They can’t keep it.”  When presented with:  You and your friend are at an afterschool center. You both want to play a computer game that is played by one person, but there’s only one computer. What is the problem?” A responded: “You have to play something else.”

On task /b/ errors can result due to provision of inappropriate, irrelevant, or ineffective solutions, which lack arrival to a mutual decision based on dialog.  

On task /c/ errors can result due to vague and inappropriate explanations as to why the solution proposed was a good solution.  

The Multiple Interpretations subtest assesses the student’s flexible thinking ability via the provision of two unrelated but plausible interpretations of what is happening in a photo. Here errors can result due to an inability to provide two different ideas regarding what is happening in the pictures. As a result the student may provide vague, irrelevant, or odd interpretations, which do not truly reflect the depictions in the photos. 

The Supporting Peers subtest assesses student’s ability to take the perspective of a person involved in a situation with a friend and state a supportive reaction to a friend’s situation (to provide a “white lie” rather than hurt the person’s feelings).  Errors on this subtest may result due to the student’s difficulty appropriately complementing, criticizing, or talking with peers.  Thus students who as a rule tend to be excessively blunt, tactless, or ‘thoughtless’ regarding the effect their words may have on others will do poorly on this subtest.   However, there could be situations when a high score on this subtest may also be a cause for concern (see the details on why that is HERE). That is because simply repeating the phrase “I like your ____” over and over again without putting much thinking into their response will earn the responder an average subtest score according to the SLDT-E subtest scoring guidelines.   However, such performance will not be reflective of true subtest competence and needs to be interpreted with significant caution

goal-setting

The following goals can be generated based on the performance on this test:

Long Term Goals: Student will improve social pragmatic language competence in order to effectively communicate with a variety of listeners/speakers in all conversational and academic contexts

Short Term Goals

  • Student will improve ability to  make inferences based on social scenarios
  • Student will improve ability to interpret facial expressions, body language, and gestures
  • Student will improve ability to recognize conflicts from a variety of perspectives (e.g., first person, mutual, etc.)
  • Student will improve ability to  resolve personal conflicts using effective solutions relevant to presented scenarios
  • Student will improve ability  to effectively  justify solutions to presented situational conflicts
  • Student will ability to provide multiple interpretations of presented social situations
  • Student will provide effective responses to appropriately support peers in social situations
  • Student will improve ability to engage in perspective taking (e.g., the ability to infer mental states of others and interpret their knowledge, intentions, beliefs, desires, etc.)

Caution

A word of caution regarding testing eligibility: 

I would also not administer this test to the following populations:

  • Students with social pragmatic impairments secondary to intellectual disabilities (IQ <70)
  • Students with severe forms of Autism Spectrum Disorders
  • Students with severe language impairment and limited vocabulary inventories
  • English Language Learners (ELL) with suspected social pragmatic deficits 
  • Students from low SES backgrounds with suspected pragmatic deficits 

—I would not administer this test to Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CLD)  students due to significantly increased potential for linguistic and cultural bias, which may result in test answers being marked incorrect due to the following:

  • Lack of relevant vocabulary knowledge
  • Lack of exposure to certain cultural and social experiences related to low SES status or lack of formal school instruction
  • Life experiences that the child simply hasn’t encountered yet
    • For example the format of the Multiple Interpretations subtest may be confusing to students unfamiliar with being “tested” in this manner (asked to provide two completely different reasons for what is happening ina particular photo)

What I like about this test: 

  • I like the fact that the test begins at 6 years of age, so unlike some other related tests such as the CELF-5:M, which begins at 9 years of age or the informal  Social Thinking Dynamic Assessment Protocol® which can be used when the child is approximately 8 years of age, you can detect social pragmatic language deficits much earlier and initiate early intervention in order to optimize social language gains.
  • I like the fact that the test asks open-ended questions instead of offering orally/visually based multiple choice format as it is far more authentic in its representation of real-world experiences
  • I really like how the select subtests are further subdivided into tasks in order to better determine the students’ error breakdown

Overall, when you carefully review what’s available in the area of assessment of social pragmatic abilities this is an important test to have in your assessment toolkit as it provides very useful information for social pragmatic language treatment goal purposes.

Have YOU purchased SLDTE yet? If so how do you like using it?Post your comments, impressions and questions below.

NEW: Need an SLDTE Template Report? Find it HERE

Helpful Resources Related to Social Pragmatic Language Overview, Assessment  and Remediation:

 Disclaimer: The views expressed in this post are the personal opinion of the author. The author is not affiliated with PRO-ED or Linguisystems in any way and was not provided by them with any complimentary products or compensation for the review of this product.