LSHSS
Article
Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning
Skills: Identifying Language Impairment
in Bilingual Children
Maria Kapantzoglou, a M. Adelaida Restrepo, a and Marilyn S. Thompson a
Purpose: Bilingual children are often diagnosed with language
impairment, although they may simply have fewer opportunities
to learn English than English-speaking monolingual children.
This study examined whether dynamic assessment (DA) of word
learning skills is an effective method for identifying bilingual
children with primary language impairment (PLI).
Method: Fifteen 4- and 5-year-old predominantly Spanish-
speaking children with typical language development (TLD) and
13 with PLI each participated in a 30- to 40-min session of DA of
word learning skills following a pretest–teach–posttest design.
Results: Results indicated that TLD children made associations
between the phonological and semantic representations of
valuation of language skills in bilingual children
E poses a significant challenge. The quantity and qual-
ity of input in their native and second languages influ-
ence the growth trajectories in those languages (Goldstein,
2004; Hart & Risley, 1992, 1995; Pearson, Fernández,
Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997). Given the diversity of language
experiences in bilingual children, language proficiency and
dominance vary among bilinguals and change as children
grow according to children’s experiences in each language
(Kohnert & Bates, 2002). Thus, static measures that assess
bilingual children’s existing knowledge in a particular do-
main may lead to incorrect diagnoses of primary language
impairment (PLI).1
At young ages, there is underrepresentation of bilinguals
in special education because professionals often attribute
early language and literacy deficits to difficulties related
a
Arizona State University, Tempe
Correspondence to Maria Kapantzoglou: mkapantz@asu.edu
Editor: Marilyn Nippold
Associate Editor: Gary Troia
Received October 29, 2010
Revision received February 9, 2011
Accepted July 3, 2011
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0095)
LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012 * American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
the new words faster than children with PLI did, showing
greater modifiability. Further, a combination of word learning
in the receptive modality and the Learning Strategies Checklist
(Lidz, 1991; Peña, 1993) provided the best accuracy in identi-
fying PLI in these children.
Conclusion: Findings suggest that a brief DA is a promising
method for accurately differentiating children with TLD from
children with PLI.
Key Words: language impairment, bilingual, dynamic
assessment, word learning
to learning a second language (e.g., Limbos & Geva, 2001;
Samson & Lesaux, 2009). In the later elementary grades,
if bilinguals present with low academic skills, concerns in-
crease, and often there is overrepresentation of bilinguals in
special education (e.g., Samson & Lesaux, 2009). Research
indicates that the norms used for monolingual children in
static measures (i.e., standardized measures) do not apply to
bilingual /multicultural populations (Horton-Ikard & Ellis
Weismer, 2007; Restrepo & Silverman, 2001). For example,
Restrepo and Silverman (2001) examined the validity of
the Spanish version of the Preschool Language Scale—3
(PLS–3; Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 1993) score inter-
pretations and found that PLS–3 scores over-identified
Spanish–English-speaking children as having PLI.
Investigators have evaluated alternative methods of
assessment that could reduce the bias of previous language
experiences when assessing bilinguals, such as using adap-
tations of existing measures for different cultural and lin-
guistic populations, measuring processing skills, and using
dynamic assessment (DA; e.g., Burton & Watkins, 2007;
Campbell, Dollaghan, Needleman, & Janosky, 1997;
Gutiérrez-Clellen, Peña, & Quinn, 1995; Peña, Iglesias,
& Lidz, 2001; Seiger-Gardner & Brooks, 2008; Windsor,
1
We used the term PLI for all terms such as language impairment, specific
language impairment, and language disorder found in the literature.
81
Kohnert, Loxtercamp, & Kan, 2008). DA evaluates how
much a child can learn rather than how much a child knows.
Intervention is part of the assessment as the examiner teaches
a concept, skill, or task and provides support to the child
during the learning process. Based on the child’s perfor-
mance during the instruction and on the posttest, the exam-
iner makes conclusions regarding gains resulting from the
intervention, the strategies the child uses in learning, and
the amount and type of prompts the child needs to learn
(modifiability; Feuerstein, 1979; Lidz, 1991; Peña, 1993).
DA
DA is a method derived from Vygotsky’s (1978)
sociocultural theory. He observed that immigrants were
erroneously identified as having limited intelligence based
on standardized static measures. According to his theory,
high-level mental processes, such as problem solving, vol-
untary attention and memory, and concept formation, occur
and develop through interaction with the environment in
daily activities and socialization. Language serves as a tool
that mediates the relationship between cognition and the
environment. According to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory,
learning moves gradually from being regulated primarily
by the environment to self-regulation (internalization). The
more internalized learning processes become, the more
independently a person can learn. Vygotsky presented the
concept of zone of proximal development (ZPD), which he
defined as the distance between the “actual developmental
level as determined by independent problem solving and
the level of potential development as determined through
problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration
with more capable peers” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). DA is
intended to examine a child’s ZPD through the child’s inter-
action with a clinician, for instance, to assess the child’s poten-
tial for learning independently in a stimulating environment.
Based on Vygotsky’s (1978) ideas or parallel to his work,
various approaches of DA have been developed, and some
common characteristics of these approaches have been
highlighted in reviews of the different types of DA (e.g.,
Grigorenko, 2009; Grigorenko & Sternberg, 1998; Swanson
& Lussier, 2001; Tzuriel, 2001). In DA, a pretest–teaching–
posttest method is often applied. During the pretest, the
existing level of knowledge of the participant is assessed,
often through standardized static tests. During the teaching
phase, teaching methods vary; some are less structured,
such as those in the mediated learning experience (MLE)
approach (Feuerstein, 1979), and others are more structured,
such as those in the graduated prompt method (GPM;
Campione & Brown, 1987). In the MLE approach, there
is not a strict script to follow. The examiner observes how
the child learns, detects problems in the learning process,
and addresses the problems during the assessment. The
child’s response serves as feedback for the effectiveness of
the mediation applied, and the examiner adjusts the mediation
82 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
accordingly during the assessment (Tzuriel, 2001). Con-
versely, in more structured DA approaches such as the GPM,
cues are predetermined and are presented in hierarchical
order, with the examiner providing increasing levels of sup-
port. The posttest in DA evaluates learning, maintenance,
and/or transfer of the concepts or skills addressed in the
teaching phase. For less structured dynamic procedures to be
successful, the examiner must be highly skilled at mediating
and assessing. Also, the less structured the method is, the
more difficult it is to standardize. On the other hand, Lidz
(1991) argued that structured DA may not be flexible enough
to adjust to the particular characteristics of each examinee.
In comparison to static tests, DA addresses not only
cognition and/or language, but also the child’s behavioral
and motivational factors during his or her interaction with
the mediator—elements that are considered critical for learn-
ing (Tzuriel, 2001). Further, DA gives weight to social/
interpersonal interaction, thereby providing a more natural-
istic environment for learning in comparison with static tests.
In static tests, the absence of interaction and context may
influence the child’s performance negatively, particularly
when the child is not familiar with a task, such as pointing to
named pictures (e.g., Gutiérrez-Clellen, 1996). In contrast,
DA reduces task familiarity biases through interpersonal
interaction and contextual assessment, thereby reducing test
anxiety (Carlson & Wiedl, 1992). The drawback is that
such factors make DA more subjective than static tests.
How DA Differentiates Children With
and Without PLI
A number of studies have examined DA as a method to
differentiate between children from culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse backgrounds with typical language development
(TLD) and those with PLI and have reported promising re-
sults. Specifically, studies have followed the common DA
pretest–teaching–posttest design with a brief intervention to
assess children’s learning abilities regarding narrative skills
(Peña et al., 2006), categorization skills (Ukrainetz, Harpell,
Walsh, & Coyle, 2000), and labeling skills in the Expressive
One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised (EOWPVT–R;
Gardner, 1990; Peña et al., 2001). Modifiability assessments
have been based on one or both of the following Likert scales:
the Learning Strategies Checklist (LSC; Lidz, 1991; Peña,
1993), which assesses the child’s responsivity (i.e., attention,
planning, self-regulation, and motivation) and transfer of
knowledge or skills, and the Modifiability Scale (MS; Lidz,
1987, 1991), which indicates the effort the examiner made
and the support the child needed during the sessions.
In all studies, posttest scores and modifiability yielded
the best discrimination. For instance, in the Peña et al. (2006)
study, the posttest of narrative skills and modifiability mea-
sures provided 100% correct classification of children in
both groups, with modifiability being the most accurate
individual measure. Although results from this study are
promising for school-age children, a limitation to consider in
evaluating preschool children is that storytelling skills, and
particularly use of story grammar, are not useful criteria
given that in preschool age, these skills are just beginning
to emerge (Berman & Slobin, 1994; Muñoz, Gillam, Peña,
& Gulley-Faehnle, 2003; Trabasso, Stein, Rodkin, Munger,
& Baughn, 1991). In the Ukrainetz et al. (2000) study, based
on the posttest scores, sensitivity of the expressive catego-
rization subtests from the Assessing Semantic Skills Through
Everyday Themes (ASSET; Barret, Zachman, & Huisingh,
1988) was 75% and specificity was 87%. Modifiability
correctly classified the stronger and weaker language learn-
ers with 87% sensitivity and 100% specificity; the MS
discriminated better than the LSC. Nevertheless, children’s
performance in a categorization task may still be influenced
by the depth of their vocabulary knowledge, so bilinguals
may be disadvantaged by decreased exposure to and use of
particular vocabulary rather than due to PLI. Consequently,
categorization skills are not an optimal criterion for accurately
differentiating preschool children with and without PLI due
to biases associated with previous language experience.
Finally, in the study by Peña et al. (2001), results indicated
that after working with children on understanding the impor-
tance of using “special names”/single words for objects,
versus descriptives for example, using 19 words of the test
as explanations of when to use “special names,” the sensitiv-
ity of the EOWPVT–R based on the posttest was 78%, but
specificity was very good (95%; cf. Plante & Vance, 1994).
Overall, results showed that DA can limit cultural biases in
diagnostic procedures and improve accuracy in classification
of bilinguals. Such a DA process addresses communication
style bias and potential disadvantage due to lack of test-taking
experience (i.e., lack of test wiseness). However, the main
drawback of this approach is that it does not account for
differences in vocabulary knowledge due to different lan-
guage and cultural experiences. The target words are common
words, and average exposure to those varies in culturally
diverse populations; thus, different levels of performance
do not necessarily reflect different language abilities.
The assessment of novel-word learning skills through
DA may be a more accurate method than the assessment of
existing vocabulary in bilinguals for identification of PLI.
Using DA in domains minimally related to previous language
experiences and culture may minimize respective biases and
help accurately identify children with PLI. Further, language
learning tasks would indicate children’s ability to acquire
language. Previous studies suggest that children with PLI
tend to have difficulties in word learning (e.g., Gray, 2004;
McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002).
Word Learning Differences Between Children
With and Without PLI
Based on models of lexical processing, words are
represented at the phonological, semantic, and syntactic
Kapantzoglou et al.: Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning Skills
levels (Caramazza, 1997). The phonological representation
refers to information related to the sounds or combination
of sounds of a word, whereas semantic representation refers
to the meaning of a word. Morphological and syntactic
information also contribute to the meaning of a word. The
form of the word and its position in a sentence provide cues
for obtaining information about the word’s meaning (i.e.,
syntactic bootstrapping; Gleitman, 1990).
Word learning occurs gradually (Bloom, 2001; Nelson,
1985; Vygotsky, 1986). Initially, a single or a few exposures
to a novel word create a partial mental representation of
that word, which includes only a few word features captured
during the initial exposures to the verbal stimulus ( fast
mapping; Carey & Bartlett, 1978). Then, succeeding expo-
sures to the word in a variety of contexts increase the pho-
nological, semantic, and syntactic information associated
with the word and strengthen its mental representations
as shown, for example, through reduced naming errors
(Gershkoff-Stowe, 2001, 2002; Gershkoff-Stowe & Smith,
1997; Gray, 2004; McGregor et al., 2002), more elaborate
definitions (McGregor et al., 2002; Ordoñez, Carlo, Snow,
& McLaughlin, 2002), and drawings (Gray, 2004; McGregor
et al., 2002).
In English-speaking monolingual populations, numerous
studies have shown that children with PLI have word learn-
ing difficulties (e.g., Alt, Plante, & Creusere, 2004; Gray,
2003, 2004, 2005; Kan & Windsor, 2010; Kiernan & Gray,
1998; Rice, Buhr, & Nemeth, 1990; Stothard, Snowling,
Bishop, Chipchase, & Kaplan, 1998). To differentiate chil-
dren with PLI from their TLD peers, researchers have tried
to identify word learning phases in which differences
between the two groups are maximized. In some studies,
investigators have assessed word learning in the initial
phases through fast mapping (Carey & Bartlett, 1978) or
quick incidental learning (QUIL) tasks (e.g., Rice, Oetting,
Marquis, Bode, & Pae, 1994). In such tasks, participants
are exposed to novel stimuli once or a few times, and no
feedback or support is provided for learning. Other studies
have assessed differences in word learning skills between
monolingual children with and without PLI in later phases
through supportive intervention, in which cues and/or feed-
back are provided (e.g., Gray, 2004, 2005; Weismer &
Hesketh, 1993, 1996, 1998).
A number of studies have shown that word production
tasks reveal word learning limitations in children with PLI,
which suggests possible limitations in the perception or
storage of, or access to, the phonological representations
of the words (e.g., Dollaghan, 1987; Kan & Windsor, 2010).
In the initial stages of word learning, on a fast mapping task
of a single nonword, Dollaghan (1987) found statistically
significant differences between preschoolers with and with-
out PLI in word production, but not in word identification.
In contrast, Alt et al. (2004) assessed the ability of children
with PLI to fast map semantic characteristics of novel words
in receptive tasks and found that the children with PLI had
83
poorer performance than their TLD peers. Past the initial stage
of word learning, using supportive word learning interven-
tion, Gray (2005) found restrictions in both phonological and
semantic representations in preschoolers with PLI. Gray
reported significant between-group differences in the num-
ber of words learned as measured in word identification and
production tasks, regardless of the type of cues provided,
phonological or semantic. In a meta-analysis of word learn-
ing studies, Kan and Windsor (2010) reported that word
identification and recognition (forced choice given) tasks
resulted in greater effect sizes than production tasks, but
effect sizes were considered across various types of inter-
vention (e.g., with both low and high numbers of exposures
to stimuli). Given that we do not know how other task
characteristics affect results, further examination of both
word production and identification skills will help determine
what type of assessment works best for specific tasks for
accurate identification of PLI.
Kiernan and Gray (1998) examined whether a word
learning task following a trials-to-criterion approach could
accurately differentiate English-speaking preschoolers with
and without PLI. Intervention took place during 2–4 days
and included three target words, modeling of novel words
(e.g., “This is a. . .”), imitation (e.g., “Can you say. . .?”),
word production (e.g., “What’s this?”), word identification
probes (e.g., “Point to. . .”), and feedback (correct word)
in structured play activities. Task administration continued
until children achieved 75% accuracy in word production
in 2 consecutive days or for 4 days maximum. Kiernan and
Gray found significant group differences at the production
level, but 73% of the children with PLI produced the same
number of words correctly as their TLD peers. Also, chil-
dren with PLI who had low production scores were able to
comprehend most of the target words. Subsequently, Gray
(2003) used a similar task to that of Kiernan and Gray using
four target words. The trials-to-criterion approach classified
English-speaking preschoolers with and without PLI with
90% specificity considering word production and 93%
specificity considering word identification. Sensitivity was
77% considering word production and 53% considering
word identification. Later, Gray (2004) found significant
differences between preschoolers with and without PLI in
production, with 30% of scores overlapping between groups.
Perhaps increased support through lengthy intervention
facilitates word learning for children with PLI enough to
reduce the gap in performance between the two groups
and limit classification accuracy.
Despite the strong evidence of word learning limitations
in monolingual children with PLI (e.g., Alt et al., 2004;
Dollaghan, 1987; Gray 2005), to our knowledge, only one
study assessed differences in novel-word learning skills
between bilinguals with PLI and their TLD peers (Restrepo,
1998). Restrepo (1998) used a trials-to-criterion word
learning task as part of a set of measures to assess whether
such a task could identify 5- to 7-year-old, predominantly
84 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
Spanish-speaking bilinguals with PLI. The task included
modeling, imitation, word identification, and production
probes, but only production was analyzed. Restrepo did
not find significant differences in learning performance
between children with and without PLI. Similar to the trials-
to-criterion approaches reported earlier, it is plausible that
the support provided to the children through intensive expo-
sure to novel stimuli reduced cognitive demands and elim-
inated differences in processing skills between the two
groups (e.g., Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Edwards &
Lahey, 1996; Kohnert, Windsor, & Miller, 2004; Lahey,
Edwards, & Munson, 2001; Montgomery & Windsor, 2007).
Factors That Influence Word Learning in
Children With and Without PLI
Various studies have examined factors that may influence
word learning in children with and without PLI, including
the number of presentations in the input, neighborhood
density, and phonotactic probability. Rice et al. (1994) inves-
tigated the influence of the number of presentations in the
input on the word learning performance of 5-year-old
children with and without PLI in QUIL tasks. Using eight
target words, Rice et al. (1994) assessed participants’ per-
formance when words were repeated three times and 10 times.
After three presentations, only the TLD group made statis-
tically significant gains. After 10 presentations, the group
with PLI was able to fast map new words and performed
similarly to the TLD group. Rice et al. (1990) also presented
20 new words, five times each, in short videos to 5-year-
old children. In a word identification posttest, the authors
found that the children with PLI scored significantly lower
than the groups matched for mean length of utterance (MLU)
and age. Results suggest that tasks aiming to differentiate
the two groups should be sufficiently easy to avoid floor
effects but also challenging enough to reveal the processing
limitations of children with PLI.
In a meta-analysis, Kan and Windsor (2010) found that,
when comparing children with and without PLI, greater
numbers of exposures in a word learning task resulted in
larger effect sizes than low numbers of exposures. These
results should be interpreted with caution because first, as
the authors indicated, there was a limited number (i.e., five)
of studies available with high numbers of exposures. Second,
there were significant methodological differences across
studies. For example, some studies using QUIL tasks (e.g.,
Rice et al., 1994) were assessed together with studies using
trials-to-criterion approaches (e.g., Gray, 2003, 2004, 2005),
and the numbers of novel words varied across tasks. Due
to methodological differences, the cognitive demands of a
task in the high-number-of-exposures condition in one study
may be similar to the cognitive demands of a task in the
low-number-of-exposures condition in another study.
Neighborhood density (i.e., number of similar words in a
given language) of words and phonotactic probability (i.e.,
frequency with which phonemes and phoneme sequences
occur in a language) may also influence word learning. High
neighborhood density increases cognitive demands for
recognition and production because similar words compete
for semantic activation (e.g., Garlock, Walley, & Metsala,
2001; Gupta & MacWhinney, 1997; Luce, Goldinger, Auer,
& Vitevitch, 2000; Metsala, 1997). The more neighbors a
target stimulus has, the more inhibition takes place and the
more difficult it is for the target’s semantic information to
become activated (Storkel & Morrisette, 2002). In addition,
high phonotactic probability facilitates word learning in
preschoolers (Storkel, 2001); however, some studies found
the opposite pattern in children with phonological deficits
(e.g., Storkel, 2004) and in Spanish speakers (e.g., Vitevitch
& Stamer, 2006).
In summary, previous studies suggest that supportive
novel-word learning tasks may be a promising procedure
for the differentiation of children with and without PLI in
monolingual populations (e.g., Gray, 2003, 2004, 2005; Kan
& Windsor, 2010). DA has shown high accuracy in differ-
entiating bilinguals with and without PLI in various areas
by taking into consideration the child’s modifiability and
decreasing previous language experience biases. Nonword
learning tasks would further reduce such biases by ensuring
that none of the children have previously heard the words.
A trials-to-criterion approach may provide too much support
to bilinguals with PLI and, as a result, decrease classifica-
tion accuracy in such populations (e.g., Kiernan & Gray,
1998; Restrepo, 1998). A brief DA of nonword learning skills
in which number of presentations, word neighborhood den-
sity, and phonotactic probability are taken into account to
control for cognitive demands could give enough support to
children to reveal their learning potential while challenging
them cognitively so that processing limitations consistent
with children with PLI could be identified correctly (e.g.,
Kohnert, Windsor, & Yim, 2006).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine whether a brief
DA of word learning skills that uses verbal and visual sup-
port differentiates preschool bilinguals with PLI from their
TLD peers. Specifically, this study evaluated whether a set of
word production and word identification scores after nine,
18, or 27 exposures, combined with modifiability scores
based on the LSC and MS, could accurately classify pre-
school bilinguals with and without PLI.
METHOD
Participants
Twenty-eight predominantly Spanish-speaking children
(15 TLD and 13 with PLI) with low socioeconomic status
Kapantzoglou et al.: Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning Skills
(SES) participated in this study. SES was assessed based on
children’s eligibility for free or reduced price lunch. Thirteen
children were males (6 TLD and 7 with PLI) and 15 were
females (9 TLD and 6 with PLI). The mean ages were
4;9 (years;months, SD = 5.23 months) for the TLD group,
and 4;6 (SD = 6.97 months) for the group with PLI. The
difference in ages between groups was not statistically signif-
icant, t(22) = 1.36, p = .19. All children were recruited from
public school programs in a metropolitan area in the South-
west. Consent forms and a short letter were given to teachers
to distribute to children. Children whose parents signed and
returned the consent forms to the teachers participated in the
study. Children attended half-day preschool programs with
bilingual staff, but most of the curriculum instruction was
in English. All participants met the following criteria:
& Children did not have any significant hearing loss,
medical problem, or cognitive problem, based on a
pure-tone hearing screening (American National
Standards Institute [ANSI], 1969); chart review for
children with PLI; and reports from a bilingual speech-
language pathologist (SLP), parents, and teachers.
& Children were identified as predominantly Spanish
speaking when they met three of the following
four criteria:
& Parents reported on a parent questionnaire that the
child spoke Spanish > 50% of the time during the day
or communicated with the majority of the family
members in Spanish.
& Teachers reported on a teacher questionnaire that the
child’s English language skills were lower than those
of a native speaker at least at the expressive level.
& On a language proficiency scale (Smyk, Restrepo,
Gorin, & Kapantzoglou, 2009) that uses story retell in
both languages (English and Spanish) as a language
elicitation technique, children demonstrated better
expressive language skills in Spanish by at least .5
point on a 1- to 5-point scale with intervals of .5.
& On the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary
Test—Spanish–Bilingual Edition (EOWPVT–SBE;
Brownell, 2001), children named items correctly in
Spanish as opposed to English >50% of the time.
All children classified as TLD also met the following criteria:
& Parents reported no concerns regarding their child’s
language development (Restrepo, 1998).
& The number of grammatical errors per terminal unit
(T-unit) in the Spanish language sample was <18%
(Restrepo, 1998).
& A bilingual SLP concurred with the children’s identi-
fication as TLD.
All children classified as having PLI also met the following
criteria:
& Parents reported concerns regarding their child’s lan-
guage development.
85
 & The number of grammatical errors per T-unit in the
Spanish language sample was ≥18%.
& A bilingual SLP concurred with the children’s identi-
fication as having PLI.
Identification Measures
Parent report. All parents completed a questionnaire
requesting demographic information, parents’ and child’s
education, child’s language skills, child’s medical history,
family history related to language and learning abilities, and
child’s exposure to and use of each language. A proxy for
family SES was school lunch assistance. Parent question-
naires and consent forms were distributed and collected by
the children’s teachers.
Teacher report. All teachers filled out a questionnaire
for each child whose parents agreed to participate in the
study. Teachers provided information regarding each child’s
Spanish and English language abilities; the frequency with
which the child spoke each language; and concerns regarding
the children’s learning, cognitive, and social skills.
Vocabulary tests. Children took the EOWPVT–SBE,
which includes picture labeling and in which responses in
both languages are accepted. Naming items correctly in
Spanish > 50% of the time was used as one of the criteria for
determining Spanish language dominance. The measure was
administered according to the instructions in the manual.
Language samples and language proficiency. Children
completed a story retelling task in English and Spanish using
the books A Boy, a Dog, and a Frog (Mayer, 1967a) and
Frog on His Own (Mayer, 1967b). Both stories were avail-
able in both languages; the four versions were used in
random order. Each language was assessed using different
stories to avoid memory effects. All four versions were
equivalent regarding length, vocabulary, and complexity
(Smyk, Restrepo, Morgan, & Kapantzoglou, 2009). Picture
support was provided when the test administrator was
reading the story and during the child’s retell to decrease
cognitive load. Samples were transcribed and coded using
Systematic Analyses of Language Transcripts, research
version (Miller & Iglesias, 2008). The language samples
were segmented in T-units, which are main clauses with their
subordinate clauses (Hunt, 1965). Language samples were
evaluated for number of grammatical errors per T-unit
(Restrepo, 1998) as a measure of language skills.
The story retelling language samples were also used to
assess each child’s language proficiency based on a language
proficiency scale that measured sentence length and com-
plexity, grammaticality, vocabulary, and fluency in each
language. Initially, each area was rated on a 1- to 5-point
scale with .5 intervals, and then an overall proficiency level
was determined ranging from 1 to 5 (1 = silent/observer;
2 = a few words or formulaic phrases; 3 = short sentences
and phrases with multiple grammatical errors; 4 = full
sentences with a few grammatical errors; 5 = native-like
86 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
productions). Language samples were rated immediately
after completion of the retelling task by the examiner in
each language. Evidence for the validity and reliability of
this language proficiency measure has been examined for
Spanish–English bilingual children with varying degrees of
English proficiency. Scale ratings were highly correlated
with language sample analysis results, for example, for
grammaticality, r = .73; for vocabulary with number of
tokens, r = .62; and for MLU, r = .66. Interrater reliability
for language proficiency levels was 96% (Smyk, Restrepo,
Gorin, & Kapantzoglou, 2009).
DA Materials
Stimuli. Three unfamiliar target objects (an animal that
could not be determined, seeds, and a bubble level presented
as a toy) from three semantic categories (animal, food, and
toy) and three familiar objects (flower, pizza, and sunglasses)
were used. Five adults who work with children agreed that
preschoolers could not identify any of the three target objects.
The target words were three CVCV (consonant/vowel/
consonant/vowel) nonwords ( fote, depa, and kina) that fol-
lowed Spanish phonological rules. Words were chosen to be
CVCV because this is a very frequent phonotactic sequence
in Spanish. To minimize word misarticulations, the target
words included early acquired consonants.
Nonwords as opposed to unfamiliar real words were
used to control for word characteristics. To reduce cognitive
demands and facilitate word learning, target words of low
neighborhood density and of high phonotactic probability
(Table 1) were chosen. Very low neighborhood density words
were avoided because words with very few neighbors tend
to sound less natural in a language. Very high phonotactic
probabilities were avoided as well because word learning may
be influenced by previous language experience when using
Table 1. Neighborhood density and phonotactic probability of
the novel words.
Neighborhood Phonotactic
density probability
Fote (animal) 8 .40
Depa (food) 9 .45
Kina (toy) 9 .47
Note. Neighborhood density reflects the number of words that
sound similar in Spanish due to variations in one phoneme (e.g.,
zero neighborhood density would indicate that no word in Spanish
sounds similar to the nonword with only one phoneme difference).
Phonotactic probability reflects how frequently word segments
occur in their particular word position based on a database of words
encountered in Spanish (e.g., zero phonotactic probability would
indicate that none of the nonword segments was in a legal word
position for Spanish).
words with frequent combinations of phonemic sounds (Kan
& Kohnert, 2008). Less frequent phonemic sounds and com-
binations are probably unfamiliar to all participants; thus,
previous language experience may be less influential. Target
words were presented randomly in sentences of similar
syntactic complexity.
DA Procedure
The DA task was presented in Spanish, which was the
children’s stronger language. It followed a pretest–teach–
posttest design and was completed in a single session of
30–40 min. Given that we taught three nonwords with
three unfamiliar items in a brief session, knowledge of the
words before teaching or generalization of word learning
skills after teaching was not expected. In the pretest, we
asked participants to name all the items to confirm that
they could name all of the familiar items and none of the
unfamiliar items. No child could name the unfamiliar items.
Two children could not name one of the familiar items. In
each case, that item was replaced with one the child could
name (e.g., a ball).
Target words were taught using a scripted structured play
activity following Lidz’s (1991) mediation principles (see
script in the Appendix) adapted to the activity and the chil-
dren’s age. An MLE approach was used with a script for
consistency of procedures across participants, allowing feed-
back adjusted to the children’s responses (Peña et al., 2001).
Interactions and the pace of the procedures were adjusted
to each child’s needs (contingent responsivity and competence/
task regulation). For the play activity, the examiner used
puppets. The script was designed for a birthday occasion.
It was one of the puppets’ birthday and her friends were
coming to bring her presents, which were the three familiar
and three unfamiliar objects.
The examiner established rapport with the children before
initiating the activity. Affective involvement and enthusiasm
were critical elements of the sessions and motivated the
participants. In the beginning, the goal of the activity was
stated explicitly (mediation of intentionality): “Now, we are
going to play and learn some new words. Try to remember
the names of the objects. . .” Also, before each assessment,
the examiner said: “Now let’s see if we remember the names
of the objects.”
The purpose (mediation of meaning) was communicated
mainly by connecting the activities with the children’s
previous experiences (mediation of transcendence): “Try
to remember the names of these toys, the same way you
remember the names of objects you have at home. What
kinds of objects do you have at home? Do you have toys?
What toys do you have?” If the child did not name any,
the examiner said: “Do you have cars? Barbies? You know
their names!” The examiner repeated some of the toys the
child mentioned and said: “These are the names of your
toys.”
Kapantzoglou et al.: Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning Skills
Children were helped to develop a plan for this session
as follows: “Now I would like you to remember the names
of objects we are going to see here. We are going to play
and I am going to help you. Do your best. When we are done,
you can pick a sticker.” Also, while working on the first
two familiar words, the examiner reminded the children to
focus on the names of the objects when giving feedback by
saying, for example, “Yes, pizza, like this, keep giving me
the names of objects.” Finally, before starting each new
phase, the examiner said, “Remember, you have to pay
attention to the names of the objects. To remember their
names really well, we are going to play this game one more
time.” At the end of each assessment, the examiner com-
mented on positive change by saying, for example, “You
are learning new words!”
Each word was addressed individually, with the following
sequence of presentation: two familiar words, so the child
would become familiar with the task; two unfamiliar words;
then, a familiar word followed by an unfamiliar word, using
an alternating pattern to avoid frustration.
Each word was presented nine times in the script, includ-
ing the feedback (e.g., “yes, it’s a depa” for a correct re-
sponse or “it’s a depa, what is it?” in case of an incorrect
response). The words were always matched with their ref-
erents. Imitations were elicited on three occasions. An ad-
ditional imitation was requested in the cases of incorrect
responses without providing additional input or feedback in
this case, as seen in the earlier examples. Thus, all children
were given the opportunity to produce each word correctly
three times. Correct productions were considered those in
which the child produced all of the phonemes of the word
correctly. Children who presented with phonological pro-
cesses were identified during the EOWPVT–SBE and the
story retelling task. Their responses were considered correct
if the children demonstrated consistent phonological pro-
cesses or phonemic errors.
The examiner provided support for learning for each word
as follows: The examiner reported the category in which
each item belonged (e.g., animal, food, or toy); talked about
its function/use (e.g., she can cook them with meat) using
a corresponding gesture at the same time; provided a de-
scription (e.g., it has a bubble); allowed the child to manip-
ulate the object to become familiar with its characteristics
(e.g., shape); and asked the child to imitate the word on three
occasions. The first imitation requested was an immediate
imitation (e.g., “Mr. Cow brought her a depa. What is this?).
The second imitation was requested after a gesture (e.g.,
“Give the depa to Lola. What’s this?). Finally, the third
imitation requested was a delayed imitation (e.g., “The depa
tastes good. Lola can cook it with meat. What is this?).
Probes. The script as described previously was used three
times in the DA session (Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3).
At the end of each phase, the examiner assessed the child’s
ability to identify and name the objects. The examiner put
all objects, familiar and unfamiliar, on the table and asked the
87
child to name them (word production) and then identify them
(word identification). After using the script three times,
the examiner had provided a total of three production and
three identification probes for each word (familiar and un-
familiar). Children’s scores for word production and iden-
tification were obtained from the total of nine opportunities
(3 nonwords × 3 opportunities/nonword) to produce the
nonwords and nine opportunities (3 nonwords × 3 opportu-
nities/nonword) to identify them. Target words were pre-
sented in random order in each phase to avoid order effects.
However, to minimize recency effects, target words were
assessed at the end of each phase in the same order in which
they were presented in the script.
Modifiability. Modifiability was assessed using the LSC
and the MS at the end of the third phase. The LSC was used
to assess the child’s strategies when learning new words.
This measure includes 13 items scored on a 3-point scale
(0–2) for a total of 26 possible points. The LSC addresses
a child’s attention/discrimination skills, planning, self-
regulation /awareness, application, and motivation. The MS
expresses a general judgment of the child’s response to inter-
vention. This measure includes three Likert-type items, two
of which are scored on a 4-point scale (1–4) and one on a
3-point scale (1–3), for a total of 11 possible points. This
measure addresses examiner’s effort, child’s responsivity,
and transfer. Peña et al. (2001) calculated a total score for
modifiability, called the modifiability index (MI), as the mean
of the z scores for each scale. In this study, however, we
considered the two scales separately given that the two scales
address different constructs.
General Procedure
Each child participated in three sessions of 30–40 min
each. Children were seen during the school day in a quiet
room in the school. In the first two sessions, preliminary test-
ing was completed for participant recruitment and place-
ment in the appropriate group (TLD or with PLI) by the first
author, who was blind to the children’s diagnoses at that time.
In the first session, children completed the EOWPVT–BSE
and the story retell task in one of the two languages. In
the second session, the children completed the Receptive
One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test—Spanish-Bilingual
Edition (ROWPVT–SBE; Brownell, 2000) and the story
retell task in the other language. Results from the ROWPVT–
SBE were not used for this study. In the third session,
children participated in the three-phase DA task. Sessions
were conducted at least 1 day apart to avoid participant
fatigue.
DA Training
All DA sessions were conducted by a single research
assistant (RA) who was a native Spanish speaker and second-
year master student with extensive experience working
88 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
with children. The RA was blind to the purpose of the study
and the children’s diagnoses. Training was provided by
the first author in three sessions. At the end of each train-
ing session, the RA completed a self-evaluation and the
first author assessed the RA’s performance using Lidz’s
(1991) mediation principles with a pass/no pass criterion.
Training sessions were completed when both the author
and the RA agreed that the RA was following the mediation
principles.
Reliability
In 57% (16/28) of the sessions, the first author was
present to ensure procedural integrity, and scored outcomes
simultaneously with the RA. Interrater reliability was cal-
culated for each phase separately based on the word pro-
duction and word identification scores in that phase, along
with the LSC and MS scores. For the LSC scale (0–26 points
possible), ratings were considered to be in agreement if
the total scores were within two points of difference. For the
MS scale (0–11 points possible), ratings were considered
to be in agreement if the total scores were within one point
of difference. Levels of interrater agreement for word pro-
duction and identification for Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3
were 91%, 100%, and 94%, respectively. Interrater agree-
ment for LSC and MS scores was 94% and 97%, respec-
tively. When there was lack of agreement, the scores of the
RA were maintained.
Regarding the language sample analyses, 18% (10/56) of
randomly selected samples were double scored. Interrater
agreement for total number of words was 99%; for T-units,
98%; and for grammatical errors, 93%.
Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics were estimated for each group and
phase separately. Between-group differences for each of
the measures were assessed using independent t tests. Three
discriminant analyses, one for each phase, were conducted
using SPSS for Windows Release 11.0.1 (SPSS Inc., 2001)
to assess whether word production, word identification,
LSC, and/or MS scores classified children with and with-
out PLI accurately. The Bonferroni procedure was used to
control for Type I error, so alpha was set at .016 for each
discriminant analysis. The three discriminant functions
were assessed based on their level of significance and effect
size.
Follow-up analyses were conducted for the statistically
significant discriminant function. Sensitivity and specificity
were calculated to assess the percentage of children with
PLI who were classified as with PLI and the percentage of
children with TLD who were classified as with TLD, respec-
tively. To estimate classification accuracy in a hypothetical
new sample, the percentage of participants who were cor-
rectly classified was also estimated using the leave-one-out
procedure. The correlation between each measure and the Table 3. Correlations among measures for the group with and
discriminant function (structure correlation coefficients), without PLI.
and the unique contribution of each measure with respect
to the discriminant function in differentiating groups
P2 P3 I1 I2 I3 LSC MS
(standardized discriminant function coefficients) were
provided.
TLD (n = 15)
P1 –.11 .46 .00 .00 .05 –.31 .30
P2 — –.03 .19 .22 –.23 .40 .26
RESULTS P3 — .46 .16 .46 .36 .49
I1 — .20 .56* .28 .30
Means and standard deviations for word production and I2 — .00 .28 .40
word identification for each group for Phases 1–3 are I3 — .05 –.33
presented in Table 2. As expected, means tended to be higher LSC — .36
PLI (n = 13)
in the TLD group. A series of t tests allowing for unequal
P1 –.16 .43 –.07 .37 .27 –.06 –.05
variances between groups showed significant between-group P2 — .82** .06 .09 .20 .50 .60*
differences for word identification in Phase 1, t(24) = 2.16, P3 — .01 .30 .34 .42 .52
p = .04, and for LSC, t(21) = 2.92, p < .01. Between-group I1 — –.35 .43 .09 .00
differences were not significant for MS, p = .06, or for word I2 — .36 .23 .18
I3 — .20 .16
production in Phase 1, p = .10, Phase 2, p = .83, and Phase 3,
LSC — .90**
p = .34; or for word identification in Phase 2, p = .10, and
Phase 3, p = .32. Correlations among the variables for each
Note. P1 = Production Phase 1; P2 = Production Phase 2; P3 =
group are shown in Table 3. For the TLD group, a significant Production Phase 3; I1 = Identification Phase 1; I2 = Identification
correlation was found between word identification in Phases 1 Phase 2; I3 = Identification Phase 3.
and 3, r = .56, p = .03. For the group with PLI, a significant *p ≤ .05; **p ≤ .01.
correlation was found between word production in Phases 1
and 3, r = .82, p < .01; word production in Phase 2 and MS,
r = .60, p = .03; and LSC and MS, r = .90, p < .01. analyses were conducted again using only word production,
Three discriminant analyses, one for each phase, were word identification, and LSC scores as predictors. Results
conducted with word production scores, word identification were very similar for analyses with and without inclusion
scores, LSC scores, and MS scores entered as predictors. of MS; therefore, we present only the results of the latter
Considering the high correlation between the LSC and the analysis with the most parsimonious group of predictors.
MS in the group with PLI and the small unique contribution Effect sizes and the classification accuracies of the discrim-
of MS with respect to the discriminant function in differ- inant analyses by phase are given in Table 4.
entiating groups, MS was removed and the discriminant The discriminant function for Phase 1 was statistically
significant, h2 = .39, L = .61, c2(3, N = 28) = 12.31, p = .01,
indicating that Phase 1 word production and word identifi-
Table 2. Means and standard deviations of measures by group. cation scores, in combination with the LSC scores, differ-
entiated significantly the group with and without PLI. The
overall Wilk’s lambda was neither significant for Phase 2,
TLD PLI h2 = .31, L = .69, c2(3, N = 28) = 9.22, p = .03, nor for
Measure M SD M SD Phase 3, h2 = .27, L =.73, c2(3, N = 28) = 7.65, p = .05.
We focused our follow-up analyses on Phase 1 measures
because the greatest differentiation was observed at this
Production Phase 1 .33 .49 .08 .28
Production Phase 2 .27 .46 .23 .44
phase.
Production Phase 3 .53 .74 .31 .48 For Phase 1, the discriminant function classified 78.6%
Identification Phase 1 2.00 .85 1.23 1.01 of the sample correctly as TLD or PLI. Sensitivity was 76.9%,
Identification Phase 2 2.20 .86 1.46 1.27 with 10 of the 13 children with PLI classified correctly.
Identification Phase 3 2.33 .90 1.92 1.19 Specificity was 80%, with 12 of the 15 TLD children classi-
LSC 18.13 3.68 13.00 5.34
MS 9.53 1.13 8.31 1.93
fied correctly. The leave-one-out procedure yielded cross-
validation classification accuracy of 78.6%. Table 5 shows
the structure coefficients and standardized discriminant
Note. TLD = children with typical language development; PLI =
children with primary language impairment; LSC = Learning function coefficients for the Phase I discriminant analysis.
Strategies Checklist (Lidz, 1991; Peña, 1993); MS = Modifiability Based on both sets of coefficients, word identification and
Scale (Lidz, 1991; Peña, 1993). especially LSC demonstrated strong relationships with

Kapantzoglou et al.: Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning Skills 89

 Table 4. Effect sizes and classification accuracy for discriminant analyses by phase.

Classification accuracy/ Sensitivity Specificity

h2 crossvalidation (PLI classified correctly) (TLD classified correctly)

Phase 1 .39* 78.6%/78.6% 76.9% (10/13) 80% (12/15)

Phase 2 .31 67.9%/53.6% 53.8% (7/13) 80% (12/15)
Phase 3 .27 67.9%/64.3% 53.8% (7/13) 80% (12/15)

*p < .016.

the discriminant function and were therefore important in
distinguishing between groups with and without PLI.
DISCUSSION
This study examined whether a DA of word learning
skills can accurately differentiate predominantly Spanish-
speaking preschoolers with PLI from their TLD peers. Spe-
cifically, this study investigated whether word production
and word identification scores after nine, 18, or 27 exposures
to novel words (Phases 1, 2, and 3), combined with chil-
dren’s modifiability scores, could accurately classify chil-
dren with and without PLI. The target words were three
nonwords that were associated with three unfamiliar referents.
Word production, word identification, and modifiability were
addressed using a pretest–teach–posttest design. It was hypoth-
esized that word learning skills assessed based on word
production, word identification, and modifiability would
classify participants with high accuracy.
Three discriminant analyses were conducted using the
word production and identification scores in each phase,
respectively, combined with the LSC and the MS scores.
Classification was more accurate when scores from Phase 1
were considered in combination with the LSC modifiability
scale. Phase 1 included nine exposures to each novel word;
three word imitations; and verbal and visual cues such as
iconic gestures, descriptions, physical manipulations, the
main function, and the semantic category of each word.
Overall, 78.6% of the participants were classified accurately,
with 76.9% sensitivity and 80% specificity. These results
Table 5. Coefficients from the discriminant analysis for Phase 1.
Structure Standardized discriminant
coefficients function coefficients
Predictor Function 1 Function 1
LSC .73 .76
Identification .53 .42
Production .41 .55
were lower than the 90% classification accuracy suggested
for measures of PLI (Plante & Vance, 1994). Nonetheless,
considering the low effectiveness or efficiency of existing
measures, and that methodological modifications could im-
prove the identification accuracy of the current task, results
suggest that DA of word learning skills is a promising tool
for screening language skills for PLI in bilinguals. Based
on the findings from the discriminant analysis, the word
identification and LSC scores were the best predictors of
children’s diagnosis as TLD and with PLI.
Our findings are consistent with those of Ukrainetz
et al. (2000), who found that modifiability scores were the
strongest component that separated strong and weak lan-
guage learners in Native American kindergartners. However,
Ukrainetz et al. reported that the MS was a stronger predictor
than the LSC, which is opposite to the findings in the current
study. In this study, the unique contribution of the MS
with respect to the discriminant function in differentiating
groups was small, and classification accuracy remained the
same when MS was removed from the predictors. Given
the greater variety of behaviors specified and scored with
LSC compared to MS, perhaps the LSC facilitated a more
refined assessment of children’s modifiability during the
task. The results of the current study are also consistent
with those reported by Peña et al. (2001), who found that
the classification accuracy of a dynamic version of the
EOWPVT–R improved when scores were combined with
modifiability. Peña et al. combined LSC and MS scale scores
by taking the mean of the z scores on each scale, so the
individual contribution of each scale to classification
accuracy was not reported.
The results of higher classification accuracy when con-
sidering word learning after only nine exposures to the novel
words coincide with research suggesting that children with
PLI have limited abilities to fast map the semantic charac-
teristics of novel words (e.g., Alt et al., 2004; Dollaghan,
1987). In addition, the DA process indicated that word
identification scores are a better predictor of children’s
language skills in comparison with expressive scores. This
is consistent with results by Alt et al. (2004), which suggested
that children with PLI have limited abilities to fast map
the semantic characteristics of novel words in receptive
tasks in relation to their TLD peers. It may be that additional

90 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
exposures to novel stimuli facilitate learning for the chil-
dren with PLI, at least at the receptive level, and therefore
reduce the difference between the two groups. Results from
follow-up t tests for each phase (within-time differences)
supported this claim, with statistically significant between-
group differences after nine exposures but not after 18 or
27 exposures. A larger sample is necessary to assess group
differences across time with adequate precision and power.
Limited fast mapping abilities could be an indicator of
poor information processing skills, which appears to be a
key point of difference between children with and without
PLI (e.g., Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Gray, 2004; Kohnert
et al., 2006).
The result of better differentiation in Phase 1 than in
Phase 2 or 3 contrasts those found in Kan and Windsor’s
(2010) meta-analysis; their effect size estimates indicated
that higher numbers of exposures better shows the differ-
ences in learning between groups with and without PLI.
As discussed earlier, the meta-analytic results should be
interpreted with caution due to the limited number of studies
available with high numbers of exposures and to method-
ological differences in the studies examined. For example,
the number of words used in the tasks varied across studies:
Rice et al. (1994) used eight words, Gray (2003, 2004, 2005)
used four words, and three were used in the present study.
Also, Gray (2003, 2004, 2005) used trials-to-criterion ap-
proaches, providing minimal contextual support for learn-
ing, which probably required more exposures for learning
than the current study in which there was more contextual
support. Further, what was considered “low” and “high”
numbers of presentations also varied across studies. For
instance, in the study by Rice et al. (1994), the condition
with the higher number of presentations included 10 presen-
tations of each of the eight words, whereas in the current
study, the condition with the lowest number of presentations,
Phase 1, included almost the same amount of presentations
(nine) for each of the three words. Several task characteris-
tics need to be taken into account to make judgments
regarding the cognitive demands of each task. Cross-study
comparisons at this point do not seem helpful for drawing
conclusions regarding how a particular task characteristic,
such as number of presentations, influences task effective-
ness, because other task features were not held constant
across studies.
Better differentiation from word identification rather
than expressive scores is consistent with Kan and Windsor’s
(2010) meta-analytic findings that word identification and
recognition tasks resulted in greater effect sizes than word
production tasks. However, these results contrast with those
of Gray (2003, 2004) and Kiernan and Gray (1998), who
used trials-to-criterion approaches and found that word pro-
duction measures were more predictive of PLI than word
identification in word learning studies. It is possible that
the support provided to children through a trials-to-criterion
approach helped the children with PLI and minimized their
Kapantzoglou et al.: Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning Skills
learning differences for word identification but not for word
production, which appears to be a more challenging task.
By including a brief intervention, DA perhaps helped TLD
children establish strong enough representations for word
identification while being challenging enough for children
with PLI to reveal their limitations in word learning at
the identification level. Methodological variations in
word learning activities seem to influence the outcomes
considerably.
Follow-up t tests for each phase showed no significant
differences between the groups with and without PLI in word
production after any of the three teaching phases; neverthe-
less, interpretation of such results should be made cautiously
because all children scored poorly on the expressive task.
Children in both groups had difficulties naming the novel
words accurately even after 27 presentations, suggesting
that the naming task may have been too difficult for the
participants. Considering similar results from previous
studies (e.g., Gray, 2003), learning novel words well enough
to name their referents seems to require not only a variety
of cues, but also a great number of presentations of the novel
words in a variety of supportive contexts. The current study
used a 30- to 40-min session for the intervention with a
maximum of 27 presentations of each novel word, whereas
previous research has used more than one session (e.g., Gray,
2003, used up to four sessions) with similar numbers of
presentations per session.
In the current study, even though a variety of cues were
provided and word characteristics such as neighborhood
density and phonotactic probability were manipulated to
decrease cognitive demands for production, this brief task
was not sufficient to help children produce the novel words,
even for the TLD group. However, making the task easier
by reducing the number of words or increasing the number
of presentations, for example, may increase differentiation
based on production but may also impact word identification,
which differentiated the children well. Perhaps these two
areas should be assessed separately while providing the
adequate level of support in each case to avoid floor or
ceiling effects. It is also possible that evaluating partial word
learning may be more productive than examining full pro-
duction probes, as children were able to retrieve a label
on the incorrect referent.
At times, children with and without PLI were able to
retrieve the novel words but with an incorrect referent, sug-
gesting early phonological mapping of the word. On other
occasions, children reported the semantic category or similar
real words differing in one or more phonemes. The variety
of errors reflects the diversity of challenges that children may
face during word learning and demonstrates that partial word
learning is taking place, especially in a brief session. Such
errors support results from previous studies (e.g., McGregor
et al., 2002) indicating that encoding happens gradually
and that, although children may be able to produce a word,
they may not comprehend it totally. Further, partial word
91
learning results indicate that in the initial stages of word
learning, children may have the phonological or semantic
map, but not both. Therefore, use of measures that are more
sensitive to partial word learning may lead to better differ-
entiation between groups.
Data from the current experimental study yielded prom-
ising results for using DA as an alternative method for
evaluating vocabulary learning skills in predominately
Spanish-speaking preschoolers. Static vocabulary measures
are not accurate in differentiating children with and without
PLI and are often biased for bilinguals (e.g., Gray, Plante,
Vance, & Henrichsen, 1999; Peña et al., 2001). Children’s
potential to change through adult guidance in this word
learning task was a good indicator of their overall language
abilities (ZPD; Vygotsky, 1978). Further support of such
outcomes would have significant clinical implications for
the differentiation of bilinguals who present with language
difference from those who have language impairment.
Assessing language learning skills as opposed to existing
knowledge reduces biases of previous language experience
(e.g., Peña et al., 2006; Ukrainetz et al., 2000). In addition,
assessment of the child’s attention, self-regulation, planning,
motivation, and response to intervention seems to provide
valuable information for an accurate diagnosis (e.g., Peña,
2000; Peña et al., 2001, 2006; Ukrainetz et al., 2000).
Competent SLPs may intuitively take such factors into con-
sideration in both assessment and intervention and provide
additional support for learning. In DA, the clinician addresses
these areas by following the mediation principles and eval-
uates them more systematically as part of the assessment
process. These results suggest that brief word learning tasks
reveal slower learning processes in children with PLI, but
longer adult–child interactions also provide necessary infor-
mation regarding children’s learning strategies and modifi-
ability. Assessing word learning skills at various levels may
be the key to an accurate diagnosis of PLI.
Limitations and Future Directions
The current study indicates that DA of word learning
skills can be used to screen language skills for PLI in young
bilinguals. However, it is important to consider that the cog-
nitive demands of the word learning task are highly sensitive
to methodological variations and may influence classification
accuracy. This study took into consideration a number of
task characteristics, but results indicate that further method-
ological manipulations could facilitate word production and
improve classification accuracy. Systematic manipulations
of one task characteristic at a time would facilitate better
understanding of how task demands change and influence
classification accuracy. The current study assessed changes
in classification accuracy when the numbers of exposures
changed, but more exposures and/or imitations seem nec-
essary for greater performance across groups in word pro-
duction. Such modifications and a larger sample size are
92 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
needed to examine more accurately group differences across
times. Examination of partial word learning may also help
improve discrimination between groups with and without
PLI. Further, in some circumstances, DA of other skills
may be more accurate, considering that not all children with
PLI may have word learning difficulties (Gray, 2004). For
example, Roseberry and Connell (1991) and Anderson
(2001) used rule learning rather than a word learning task
to examine differences between preschool Spanish speakers
with and without PLI.
In summary, the current DA method of word learning
shows promise as an adequate tool for screening Spanish-
speaking children who are at risk of PLI. It is possible that
this measure alone is not sufficient for 90% accuracy in
classification (Plante & Vance, 1994). However, classification
accuracy is good for screening purposes, and given the
brief administration time, the task is clinically efficient. The
results indicate that word comprehension after nine expo-
sures in combination with the LSC classified children
with near 80% accuracy. Future research may make small
modifications to the task to examine improvement in clas-
sification accuracy.
REFERENCES
Alt, M., Plante, E., & Creusere, M. (2004). Semantic features
in fast-mapping: Performance of preschoolers with specific
language impairment versus preschoolers with normal language.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47,
407–420.
American National Standards Institute. (1969). Specifications
for audiometers. New York, NY: Author.
Anderson, R. T. (2001). Learning an invented inflectional mor-
pheme in Spanish by children with typical language skills and
with specific language impairment (SLI). International Journal
of Language and Communication Disorders, 36, 1–19.
Barret, M., Zachman, L., & Huisingh, R. (1988). Assessing
Semantic Skills Through Everyday Themes. Moline, IA:
Linguisystems.
Berman, R. A., & Slobin, D. I. (1994). Relating events in
narrative: A cross linguistic developmental study. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bloom, P. (2001). Précis of how children learn the meanings of
words. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(6), 1095–1103.
Brownell, R. (2000). Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test
(Spanish–Bilingual ed.). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy
Publications.
Brownell, R. (2001). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary
Test (Spanish–Bilingual ed.). Novato, CA: Academic Therapy
Publications.
Burton, V. J., & Watkins, R. V. (2007). Measuring word
learning: Dynamic versus static assessment of kindergarten
vocabulary. Journal of Communication Disorders, 40(5),
335–356.
Campbell, T., Dollaghan, C., Needleman, H., & Janosky, J.
(1997). Reducing bias in language assessment: Processing-
dependent measures. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
40(3), 519–525.
Campione, J. C., & Brown, A. L. (1987). Linking dynamic
assessment with school achievement. In C. S. Lidz (Ed.),
Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach to evaluating
learning potential (pp. 82–115). New York, NY: Guilford
Press.
Caramazza, A. (1997). How many levels of processing are
there in lexical access? Cognitive Neuropsychology, 14(1),
177–208.
Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word.
Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 17–29.
Carlson, J. S., & Wiedl, K. H. (1992). The dynamic assessment
of intelligence. In H. C. Hollywood & D. Tzuriel (Eds.),
Interactive assessment (pp. 167–186). Berlin, Germany:
Springer-Verlag.
Dollaghan, C. (1987). Fast mapping in normal and language-
impaired children. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
52(3), 218–222.
Dollaghan, C., & Campbell, T. F. (1998). Nonword repetition
and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 41(5), 1136–1146.
Edwards, J., & Lahey, M. (1996). Auditory lexical decisions of
children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 39(6), 1263–1273.
Feuerstein, R. (1979). The dynamic assessment of retarded per-
formers: The learning potential assessment device, theory, instru-
ments, and techniques. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
Gardner, M. F. (1990). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary
Test—Revised. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications.
Garlock, V. M., Walley, A. C., & Metsala, J. L. (2001). Age-of-
acquisition, word frequency, and neighborhood density effects
on spoken word recognition by children and adults. Journal of
Memory and Language, 45(3), 468–492.
Gershkoff-Stowe, L. (2001). The course of children’s naming
errors in early word learning. Journal of Cognition & Develop-
ment, 2(2), 131–155.
Gershkoff-Stowe, L. (2002). Object naming, vocabulary growth,
and the development of word retrieval abilities. Journal of
Memory and Language, 46(4), 665–687.
Gershkoff-Stowe, L., & Smith, L. B. (1997). A curvilinear trend
in naming errors as a function of early vocabulary growth.
Cognitive Psychology, 34(1), 37–71.
Gleitman, L. (1990). The structural sources of verb meanings.
Language Acquisition, 1(1), 3–56.
Goldstein, B. A. (2004). Bilingual language development and
disorders in Spanish–English speakers. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Gray, S. (2003). Word-learning by preschoolers with specific
language impairment: What predicts success? Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 46, 56–67.
Gray, S. (2004). Word learning by preschoolers with specific
language impairment: Predictors and poor learners. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1117–1132.
Kapantzoglou et al.: Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning Skills
Gray, S. (2005). Word learning by preschoolers with specific
language impairment: Effect of phonological or semantic cues.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48,
1452–1467.
Gray, S., Plante, E., Vance, R., & Henrichsen, M. (1999). The
diagnostic accuracy of four vocabulary tests administered to
preschool-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
in Schools, 30(2), 196–206.
Grigorenko, E. L. (2009). Dynamic assessment and response to
intervention: Two sides of one coin. Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 42, 111–132.
Grigorenko, E. L., & Sternberg, R. J. (1998). Dynamic testing.
Psychological Bulletin, 124(1), 75–111.
Gupta, P., & MacWhinney, B. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition
and verbal short-term memory: Computational and neural bases.
Brain and Language, 59(2), 267–333.
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F. (1996). Language diversity: Implications
for assessment. In K. N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J. Thal (Eds.),
Assessment of communication and language (Vol. 6, pp. 29–56).
Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., Peña, E. D., & Quinn, R. (1995).
Accommodating cultural differences in narrative style: A multi-
cultural perspective. Topics in Language Disorders, 15(4), 54–67.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1992). American parenting of language
learning children: Persisting differences in family–child inter-
actions observed in natural home environments. Developmental
Psychology, 28, 1096–1105.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the
everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore,
MD: Brookes.
Horton-Ikard, R., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2007). A preliminary
examination of vocabulary and word learning in African
American toddlers from middle and low socioeconomic status
homes. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
16(4), 381–392.
Hunt, K. (1965). Grammatical structures written at three grade
levels (Research Report No. 3). Champaign, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English.
Kan, P. F., & Kohnert, K. (2008). Fast mapping by bilingual
preschool children. Journal of Child Language, 35(3), 495–514.
Kan, P. F., & Windsor, J. (2010). Word learning in children with
primary language impairment: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53, 739–756.
Kiernan, B., & Gray, S. (1998). Word learning in a supported-
learning context by preschool children with specific language
impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 41, 161–171.
Kohnert, K., Windsor, J., & Miller, R. (2004). Crossing borders:
Recognition of Spanish words by English-speaking children with
and without language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics,
25(4), 543–564.
Kohnert, K., Windsor, J., & Yim, D. (2006). Do language-based
processing tasks separate children with language impairment
from typical bilinguals? Learning Disabilities Research &
Practice, 21(1), 19–29.
93
Kohnert, K. J., & Bates, E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II:
Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children
learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 45, 347–359.
Lahey, M., Edwards, J., & Munson, B. (2001). Is processing
speed related to severity of language impairment? Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 1354–1361.
Lidz, C. S. (1987). Dynamic assessment: An interactional approach
to evaluating learning potential. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lidz, C. S. (1991). Practitioner’s guide to dynamic assessment.
New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Limbos, M. M., & Geva, E. (2001). Accuracy of teacher
assessments of second-language students at risk for reading
disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 136–151.
Luce, P. A., Goldinger, S. D., Auer, E. T. Jr., & Vitevitch,
M. S. (2000). Phonetic priming, neighborhood activation, and
PARSYN. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(3), 615–625.
Mayer, M. (1967a). A boy, a dog, and a frog. New York, NY: Pied
Piper Books.
Mayer, M. (1967b). Frog on his own. New York, NY: Pied Piper
Books.
McGregor, K. K., Newman, R. M., Reilly, R. M., & Capone,
N. C. (2002). Semantic representation and naming in children
with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Lan-
guage, and Hearing Research, 45, 998–1014.
Metsala, J. L. (1997). An examination of word frequency and
neighborhood density in the development of spoken-word
recognition. Memory & Cognition, 25(1), 47–56.
Miller, J. F., & Iglesias, A. (2008). Systematic Analysis of Lan-
guage Transcripts, Bilingual SE Version [Computer software].
SALT Software, LLC.
Montgomery, J. W., & Windsor, J. (2007). Examining the
language performances of children with and without specific
language impairment: Contributions of phonological short-term
memory and speed of processing. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 50, 778–797.
Muñoz, M. L., Gillam, R. B., Peña, E. D., & Gulley-Faehnle,
A. (2003). Measures of language development in fictional
narratives of Latino children. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 34, 332–342.
Nelson, K. (1985). Making sense: The acquisition of shared
meaning. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Ordoñez, C., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., & McLaughlin, B.
(2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages:
Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(4), 719–728.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller, K.
(1997). The relation of input factors to lexical learning by
bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics, 18(1), 41–58.
Peña, E. (1993). Dynamic assessment: A non-biased approach for
assessing the language of young children. (Doctoral dissertation).
Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Order
No. 9316518)
Peña, E. (2000). Measurement of modifiability in children from
culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Communica-
tion Disorders Quarterly, 21(2), 87–97.
94 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R.,
Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C., & Sabel, T. (2006). Dynamic
assessment of school-age children’s narrative ability: An
experimental investigation of classification accuracy. Journal
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1037–1057.
Peña, E. D., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. S. (2001). Reducing test bias
through dynamic assessment of children’s word-learning ability.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(2), 138–154.
Plante, E. D., & Vance, R. (1994). Selection of preschool lan-
guage tests: A data-based approach. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 15–24.
Restrepo, M. A. (1998). Identifiers of predominantly Spanish-
speaking children with language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1398–1411.
Restrepo, M. A., & Silverman, S. (2001). The validity of the
Spanish Preschool Language Scale for use with bilingual
children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology,
10, 382–393.
Rice, M. L., Buhr, J. C., & Nemeth, M. (1990). Fast mapping
word-learning abilities of language-delayed preschoolers. The
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55(1), 33–42.
Rice, M. L., Oetting, J. B., Marquis, J., Bode, J., & Pae, S.
(1994). Frequency of input effects on word comprehension of
children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 37(1), 106–122.
Roseberry, C., & Connell, P. (1991). Use of an invented language
rule in the differentiation of normal and specific language-
impaired Spanish-speaking children. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 34, 596–603.
Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority
learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identifica-
tion for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2),
148–162.
Seiger-Gardner, L., & Brooks, P. J. (2008). Effects of onset-
and rhyme-related distractors on phonological processing in
children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 1263–1281.
Smyk, E., Restrepo, M. A., Gorin, J., & Kapantzoglou, M.
(2009, November). A global rating scale of language proficiency
in Spanish–English bilingual children. Paper session presented at
the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association, New Orleans, LA.
Smyk, E., Restrepo, M. A., Morgan, G., & Kapantzoglou, M.
(2009, June). Development of parallel measures for story re-
telling and comprehension tasks for Spanish-speaking first
graders. Poster session presented at the annual Symposium on
Research in Child Language Disorders, Madison, WI.
SPSS for Windows. (2011). Release 11.0.1 [Computer software].
Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
Storkel, H. L. (2001). Learning new words: Phonotactic proba-
bility in language development. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 44, 1321–1337.
Storkel, H. L. (2004). The emerging lexicon of children with
phonological delays: Phonotactic constraints and probability
in acquisition. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 47, 1194–1212.
Storkel, H. L., & Morrisette, M. L. (2002). The lexicon and
phonology: Interactions in language acquisition. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 24–37.
Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D., Chipchase, B. B.,
& Kaplan, C. A. (1998). Language-impaired preschoolers: A
follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 41, 407–418.
Swanson, H. L., & Lussier, C. M. (2001). A selective synthesis of
the experimental literature on dynamic assessment. Review of
Educational Research, 71(2), 321–363.
Trabasso, T., Stein, N. L., Rodkin, P. C., Munger, M. P., &
Baughn, C. (1991). Knowledge of goals and plans in the on-line
narration of events. Cognitive Development, 7, 133–170.
Tzuriel, D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of young children.
New York, NY: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Ukrainetz, T. A., Harpell, S., Walsh, C., & Coyle, C. (2000).
A preliminary investigation of dynamic assessment with Native
American kindergartners. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 31, 142–154.
Vitevitch, M. S., & Stamer, M. K. (2006). The curious case of
competition in Spanish speech production. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 21(6), 760–770.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of
higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Kapantzoglou et al.: Dynamic Assessment of Word Learning Skills
Vygotsky, L. S. (1986). Thought and language (Rev. ed.).
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Weismer, S. E., & Hesketh, L. J. (1993). The influence of
prosodic and gestural cues on novel word acquisition by children
with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 36(5), 1013–1025.
Weismer, S. E., & Hesketh, L. J. (1996). Lexical learning by
children with specific language impairment: Effects of linguistic
input presented at varying speaking rates. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 39(1), 177–190.
Weismer, S. E., & Hesketh, L. J. (1998). The impact of emphatic
stress on novel word learning by children with specific language
impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 41, 1444–1458.
Windsor, J., Kohnert, K., Loxtercamp, A. L., & Kan, P.
(2008). Performance on nonlinguistic visual tasks by children
with language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 29(2),
237–268.
Zimmerman, I. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond, R. E. (1993).
Preschool Language Scale—3: Spanish Edition. San Antonio,
TX: The Psychological Corporation.
95
 APPENDIX. SCRIPT

The following instructions were provided in Spanish:

“Now, we are going to play and learn some new words. Try to remember the names of the objects.
The same way you remember the names of objects you have at home. What kinds of objects do
you have at home? Do you have toys? What toys do you have? (If the child doesn’t name any items
say: “Do you have cars? Barbies?”) You know their names! (Repeat some of the toys the child
mentioned and say: “these are the names of your toys”). Now, I would like you to remember the
names of objects we are going to see here. We are going to play and I am going to help you. Do
your best. When we are done, you can pick a sticker.”

While working on the first two familiar words, the examiner emphasized to the children to remember the
names of the objects when giving feedback by saying for example “yes, pizza, like this, keep giving me
the names of objects.” Also, before assessing word identification and production the examiner said: “Now
let’s see if we remember the names of the objects.” After the assessment, the examiner said: “You are
doing very well! You are learning new words! To remember them really well, we are going to play this game
one more time. Remember, you have to pay attention to the names of the objects.”
Example of script (English translation):
(Mr. Chicken/Food - DEPA)
Knock knock. . . Who is it? It’s Mr. Chicken! The chicken brought her DEPA.
Imitation: What’s this?
Correct response: Yes, DEPA.
Incorrect response: _____________DEPA, what is it? _____________
Another incorrect response: MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP. NO FEEDBACK.
Lola wants you to look at it (use Lola). “Look at my DEPA” (puppet gives object to the child -
manipulation 5 sec). Give the DEPA to Lola.
Imitation: What is this?
Correct response: Yes, DEPA.
Incorrect response: _____________DEPA, what is it? _____________
Another incorrect response: MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP. NO FEEDBACK.
Lola liked the DEPA. The DEPA is food! Look, they are small balls. The DEPA tastes good! Lola can
cook it (gesture) with meat.
Imitation: What is this?
Correct response: Yes, DEPA.
Incorrect response: _____________DEPA, what is it? _____________
Another incorrect response: MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP. NO FEEDBACK.

96 LANGUAGE, SPEECH, AND HEARING SERVICES IN SCHOOLS • Vol. 43 • 81–96 • January 2012
Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American Speech-Language-
Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv
without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.