Standardized and Informal Language Assessments Determining the Communication Needs of Transition-Age Students with Mild Intellectual Disability. EBP Briefs. Volume 14, Issue 5

Clinical Question: Should speech-language pathologists (SLPs) perform a formal standardized speech and language assessment and/or an informal speech and language sample to determine communication skills of students with mild ID during postsecondary transition? Method: Literature Review Study Sources...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inEBP Briefs (Evidence-based Practice Briefs)
Main Authors Roitsch, Jane, Horn, Annemarie L
Format Report
LanguageEnglish
Published NCS Pearson, Inc 01.09.2020
Subjects
Allied Health Personnel
Best Practices
Communication Skills
Evidence Based Practice
Intellectual Disability
Intelligibility
Mild Disabilities
Postsecondary Education
Sampling
Speech Evaluation
Speech Language Pathology
Students with Disabilities
Transitional Programs
Online AccessGet more information

Cover

More Information
Summary:Clinical Question: Should speech-language pathologists (SLPs) perform a formal standardized speech and language assessment and/or an informal speech and language sample to determine communication skills of students with mild ID during postsecondary transition? Method: Literature Review Study Sources: ASHA, ASHA Perspectives, Google Scholar, Academic Search Complete, Education Full Text, ERIC, Cochrane Library, What Works Clearinghouse, PubMed, EBSCOhost, and PsycINFO Search Terms: speech and language assessment AND mild intellectual disability AND transition placement AND speech and language sample Number of Included Studies: 4 Primary Results: In order to best determine the communication skills of students with ID during postsecondary transition, SLPs should: (1) Conduct a formal, standardized speech and language analysis making sure to include assessments that include pragmatic, social, and functional communication, making sure to use the resulting information descriptively as needed; (2) Complete an informal, in-depth, and extensive speech and language sample analysis, making sure to include pragmatic, social, and functional communication in task-specific activities; and (3) Include communication partners' perceptions of the student's speech intelligibility and language interactions prior to transition placement. Conclusions: Studies investigating best practices for speech and language assessments of students with mild ID are limited at best. One study was located that assessed standardized language assessments in students with ID (Cascella, 2006). Language sampling has been identified as a more accurate representation of vocabulary, expressive language, and overall ability in students of varying levels of ID (Kover et al., 2012). However, lack of available information on language sampling accuracy in students with mild ID creates a significant practice gap for clinicians and educators. Incorporating both standardized speech and language testing results (which may require using findings descriptively) as well as informal, robust speech and language samples may provide the most accurate representation(s) of communication skills and abilities in students with mild ID.