Student Language Scale (SLS)

USER’S MANUAL

Excerpted from Student Language Scale (SLS) User's Manual by Nickola Wolf Nelson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, BCS-CL, Barbara M. Howes, Ph.D., LMSW, & Michele A. Anderson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP

Table of Contents

About the Authors ... vii

About the Contributors ... ix

Acknowledgments ... xi

1 Overview of the Student Language Scale ... 1
Three Purposes ... 1
Purpose 1: Screening ... 1
Purpose 2: Gathering Input for Evaluation and Planning ... 1
Purpose 3: School–Home Communication ... 1
Outline for Realizing the Three Purposes ... 2
Organization ... 2
Section 1: Rating Scale ... 2
Section 2: Ability Checklist ... 5
Section 3: Priority Question ... 6
2 How to Administer the Student Language Scale ... 7
Using the Student Language Scale with Teachers ... 7
Using the Student Language Scale with Parents ... 8
Using the Student Language Scale with Students ... 8
Section 1: Rating Scale ... 8
Section 2: Ability Checklist ... 9
Section 3: Priority Question ... 9
3 Using the Student Language Scale for Three Primary Purposes ... 11
Purpose 1: Screening ... 11
Purpose 2: Gathering Input for Evaluation and Planning ... 13
Purpose 3: School–Home Communication ... 14
4 Reliability and Validity of the Student Language Scale ... 17
Scientific Methods ... 17
Theoretical Models and Expert Consultation ... 17
Data Gathering ... 18
Identifying Student Participants’ Status ... 18
Criteria for Normal Language Group ... 19
Criteria for Language Learning Disabilities Group ... 19
Criteria for Language and Literacy Risk Group ... 19
Three Additional Groups of Students in Special Populations ... 19
Construct and Content Validity: Focus Groups and Factor Analysis ... 19
Focus Groups ... 20
Factor Analysis ... 20
Sensitivity and Specificity Evidence Supporting Validity for Screening ... 21
Evidence Supporting Validity for Gathering Multi-Informant Input ... 26
Evidence Supporting Reliability ... 27
Summary of Evidence ... 29
5 Student Examples ... 31
Student Example 1: Screening and Evaluation Input ... 31
Student Example 2: Early Identification and Individualized Planning ... 41
Student Example 3: Prioritizing Concerns ... 50

Afterword ... 59

References ... 61

Appendix Scientific, Technical, and Parent Consultants ... 63

Index ... 65

About the Authors

Nickola Wolf Nelson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP, BCS-CL
Professor Emerita, Department of Language, Speech, and Hearing Sciences, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Dr. Nelson continues to conduct research and publish regarding language/literacy development and disorders.

Barbara M. Howes, Ph.D., LMSW
Private Consultant, Cassopolis, Michigan
Her research interests lie in the study of interdisciplinary practice.

Michele A. Anderson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Research Affiliate, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan
Her research interests include language and literacy assessment as well as work in adult neurorehabilitation.

About the Contributors

E. Brooks Applegate, Ph.D.
Professor, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan

Elena Plante, Ph.D., CCC-SLP
Professor, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona

Reliability and Validity of the Student Language Scale

In evaluating assessment instruments, evidence is needed to determine whether a tool is reliable in its consistency and valid for its stated purposes. This section describes evidence that the SLS measures the constructs and content it purports to measure (validity) and does so consistently (reliability).

Data Gathering

Following try-outs with multiple preliminary versions of the SLS, we gathered quantitative data for analyzing the validity and reliability of the standardization version of the tool. The work was conducted from 2010 to 2015 and was coordinated by SLS coauthor Michele Anderson, Ph.D., CCC-SLP.

Identifying Student Participants’ Status

Identifying the sensitivity and specificity of a new assessment tool requires the independent establishment of each person’s status regarding the condition of concern: in this case, language/literacy disorder.

Criteria for Normal Language Group

Criteria were met if a student was progressing through school on time, had never had language intervention, and did not have a diagnosed disability (with some exceptions).

Criteria for Language Learning Disabilities Group

Criteria were met if the parent checked yes for any of the following: language impairment, reading impairment, or learning disability.

Criteria for Language and Literacy Risk Group

Criteria were met if a parent indicated that a student had been tested previously or received services for concerns about learning to use language or to read and write.

Evidence Supporting Validity

The evidence supporting validity of the SLS for screening purposes, shows that ratings provided by teachers and parents are valid for the purposes of screening for language/literacy disorders.

Evidence Supporting Reliability

One important measure of reliability is internal consistency, which was evaluated and reported as coefficient ω (omega). Coefficient ω for the 12-item scale was 0.96 for teachers, 0.94 for parents, and 0.84 for students. These results indicate strong internal reliability.

Summary of Evidence

In summary, the scientific evidence indicates that ratings provided by teachers and parents using this tool are valid for the purposes of screening for language/literacy disorders and for describing a student’s language strengths and weaknesses.