Much advice has been published in the last 40 years that has attempted to aid speech-language pathologists in choosing language assessment tools (e.g., Danwitz, 1981 & Darley, 1979 ). Questions have arisen about what tests are actually being used in public schools and the reasons for those tests being used over other tests. The data bank of information is minimal in this area as only one study has appeared in the literature in which Wilson, Blackmon, Hall, & Elcholtz, (1991), conducted a State survey of currently used language assessment instruments. The primary research question to be answered was: What methods of language assessment are being used in Oregon? Secondary questions to be answered were: (a) What factors influence the selection and use of the chosen procedures?, (b) What are the dates of development of the tests used most frequently, (c) By what means do the public school clinicians keep themselves current with new trends and information in the field? There were 567 questionnaires mailed out to Oregon Speech-Language Pathologists who worked in the public school setting and served children 4-9 years of age. Of the 297 respondees, only 4 reported not using any formal instruments for language assessment. Results show 9 main standardized tests were used for measuring expressive language by the majority of the respondents. Listed in order of frequency of use, they are: TOLD, EOWPVT, WORD test, CELF, LPT, SPELT, ASSET, TOPS, and the PLS. For receptive language, also in order of frequency of use, the 1 O main tests were as follows: PPVT, TOLD, CELF, TACL, ASSET, BOEHM, PLS, ROWPVT, BRACKEN, and the LPT. Factors that influenced the selection and use of specific tests included: personal experience; ease of administration; time restraints; budgets and availability of tests and district protocols for assessments. Dates of publication, new and revisions, for both the expressive and receptive tests used ranged from 1983 - 1990. At the time of this survey, the main ways that clinicians were keeping themselves current for new tests on the market were word of mouth from associates, inservices on new tests, and reading new information in journals.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:pdx.edu/oai:pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu:open_access_etds-6042 |
| Date | 30 January 1995 |
| Creators | Ball, Staci Lee Johnson |
| Publisher | PDXScholar |
| Source Sets | Portland State University |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | text |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Source | Dissertations and Theses |
Page generated in 0.002 seconds