SPANISH ED TION

Preschool Language Scales- Fifth Edition

@ [f

lrla lee Zimmerman

Violette G. Steiner

Roberta Evati: f>ond

 ..
SPANISH EDITION

Preschool Language Scales

Fifth Edition .

Manual del.examinador

Irla Lee Zimmerman

Violette G. Steíner

Roberta Evatt Pond

- --- -- . - -· -.-

PEAR.SO N ®PsychCorp
- - --· - -· . .
 Pearson Executíve Office 5601 Green Valley Orive Bloamington, MN 55437
800.627.7271 www.PsychCorp.com

· Copyright© 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. Normative data copyright© 2012 NCS Pearson, Inc. All rights reserved. j
l
Warning: No part of thls pub!icatlon rnay be reproduced or tra.nsmftted in any form or by any means, '.<

electronlc or mechanlcal, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrleVal system, .{
without permission In writing from the copyright owner.

Pearson, the PSI iogo, PsychCorp, Preschool Language Scales, and PLS are trademarks In the u.s.
and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or lts affiliate(s).

Portions of thls work were previously published.

· Printed in the United States of America.

ISBN/ Product # 0158659112

Table of Contents

Acknowledgments ........... . ..... .... . ............... . .......................... . ..... ix

1 Overview . . . . . . . . ' .............. . ...................................................u....

. Age Range and Appropriateness ....... .. . .. . . ......................... , . . . . . . 3

Administration Time ....... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Uses . ............. .. .. , ...... , .. ... . . ... . ............... . ........... . . .... 4
Content and Organization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Standardized Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Supp1ementa1 Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
PLS-5 Spanish Language Skill.s Checklists and Worksheets . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Seores . . ..... . ......... . ............ . .... . .......... . ... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Test Components and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Manual de administración y puntuación . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Manual del examinador . . ........ .. . : . ............... . ....... , . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Manual de dib1tjos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Protocolo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Cuestionario de co1nunicación en el hogar ... . ... . .... . .. . .................. . , 7
Ñfanipulatives . . .......... . ....... , .... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Examiner Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Goals fur the Revision .... . ........ . ........... . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Updated Normative Information .. . . , ..... .. ....... . ... . . . ........... . . . .... 9
Dual Language Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Early Intervention for Children With Communication Delays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Improvement of Test Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Clinicians' Assessment Needs .... . ............................ .. .......... 11
PLS-5 Spanish User's Responsihilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

2 Collaborating With an Interpretar ...................... . .. ... . .... : ... , .... . .. . ... .. . 15

How Monolin,gual SLPs can Administer PLS-5 Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Need for Bilingual SLPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
When Should an SLP Collahorate With an Inter preter During Assessment:? . . . . . 16
Selection of th.e Interpreter .. . . . . . . .. .. .... ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Linguistic Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Personal Ski1ls .... . ... .. .................. . .... . . . ........ . . . . . . ... .. .. 19
Professional Training .. . . .. . . ........ . .. ............. . .......... . ...... , . 20

¡¡¡
- - - - -- - - - -- - ·-----

? '•
The Assessment Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ·; ~
Requirements Specific to the Assessment Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ·~
Professional Terminology .; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ;,
-~
Familiarity With the Target Age Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 .:
Colleeting and Analyzing a Language Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 ; ··
The C~~boration Process ... . ................. . ......... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 22 .i
'. '

Bnefing ....... ... ... . . ............... ., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 ~

InDetebrn~efti1:n°g11 • . . • . . . .• •• • ... ••.••..• • •••••..•.••.•••• , • • ••....•••••.• , • • . 2222 •,~
................................ , . .. . ...... . . . ..... . :........ ~

Completing the Collaboration ..... . ...... . .. . .. , ... . .................. : . . . 22 1

Specific :ips on How to Facilitate the Int~rpreting Process . ............ · ... · . · · 23 li~
Investment m SLP-Interpreter Collaboration ........ , ........................ 24 ::~
.
3 Test lnterpretat1on . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
1;:~
Using PLS-5 Spanish in the Clinical Evaluation Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 ;~
JI
Description of PLS-5 Spanish Seores . . .. . ..... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 il
Norm-Referenced Standard Seores ..... : ... . ...... . ............ , ........... 29 .:1
Confidence Intervals ...... . ...... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 \\lit
Pereentile Ranks ............. . .............. . ..... . ... . . . ......... . ....
Age Equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
32
1
·11
Growth Scale Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 .:¡
Criterion-Referenced Seores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 1fjj
Interpretation of PLS-5 Spanish Seores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
··· Evaluati~g Differences Between the AC a:1d EC Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34 1;I
34
Companng AC and EC Standard Seores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 i,I
Interpreting Growth Scale Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 !~
Interpreting Articulatíon Screener Raw Seores ...... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41 ;I
Analyzing PLS-5 Spanish Language Skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 42
The Item Analysis Checklist . . ... . ............. . . . . . ............ . ... .. .. · . 42
ll{I
The PLS-5 Spanish Profi.le . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 [~
The Clinician's Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 ~~
4 PLS-5 Spanas
. h Des1gn
. an..d Stan d. ard"izat•ion ... .. ... . . .. ....... . · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · 57 :1il'· .
Development of PLS-5 Spanish Scales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 \
Dual 1:-anguage Assessment in PLS-~ Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57i-
Rational for Dual Language Assessment ......... . .. , ...... . . . .. . ... .. ... . ... .58 :
Establislúng Item Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 :
!teros for Infants ....... : ................ . ............. .. ..... . .. , . . , . . . . 60 '
Items for 1- and 2-Year Olds ........ .. ... .. .. ... ..... ·........... . . . .. . . .. . 60 ·
Items for 3- and 4-Year Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 ··
Items for 5-, 6-, and 7-Year Olds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 :
Development of Test Items . .. .... .. .... . ..... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 ;
Llterature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 ·
Clinician Feedback . . .. . . , ... . .. . .......... , .............. .. . .. .... . .·. . . 62c:

iv ffeschoO/ Language Scales-5 Spanish

 Modifications to PLS-4 Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Development of New Test Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Bias Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Tryout Research .................... . ..... .. ............... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
. Tryout Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
Tryout Samples ........ . ............. . ... . .. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Tryout Scoring Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Standardization Research . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Standardization Data Collection ............ ~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Standardization Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Standardization Scoring Guidelines ... . ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Combined Items ...... . . . ... .. ....... .. ...... . ... . .. .. . ........... : . . . . . 79
Item Placement and Developmental Age Bands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
Determining Start Points and Discontinue Rules ....... . ..... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Development of Norms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Standard Seores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
Age Equivalents ......... . .. ...... .................. .. ... , ....... . ...... 81
Growth Scale Values .......... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
SupplementaI Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
Cuestionario de comunicac.1.ón en el hogar ....... .. .... . ... ... . . ....... . ..... 81
Language Sample Checklist .......................... . ..... . . .... . . . ..... 81
Articulation Screener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
5 Evidence of Reliabiiity and Validity . ....................... : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Evidence of Reliabüity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Evidence of Test- Retest Stability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Evidence of Interna! Consistency....... . ......... . . . ............. . . . ........ 87.
Standard Error of Measurement and Confidence Intervals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
Standard Score Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
AC and EC Standard Score Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Evidence of Validity . . .. . . . ...... . ..... ; . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Evidence Based on Test Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
PLS-5 Spanish Content and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
How A Dual Language Assessment Approach Supports Content Validity .. . ..... . 101
Evidence Based on Response Processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
Evidence Based on Internal Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Evidence Based on Relations to Tests and Score Dífferences Between
Nonchnical and Clinical Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Díagnostic Accuracy ..... . ... . .... . .... . ............ . .... . .... . ... . ... .. . llO
Evi.dence Based on Consequences of Testing .. .. ......................... ·. . . 113
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

List of Examiners .......... . ...................... . .............. . ... . ................ 115

References ....... . - ..... - ........................ . ............ . ...... . ...... . . .. ... 119

Table of Contents v
Ust of Figures
Figure 3.1 The Nonnal Curve and Its Relationship to Standard Seores and Percentile Ranks
on PLS-5 Spanish . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 3.2 Examples of Score Ranges for 90% and 95% Confidence Intervals ....... . ... . .. .
Figure 3.3 Itero Analysis Checklist: Errors Noted on Tasks Above Age Level ..... . .... .. .. . .
Figure 3.4 Iten'l Analysis Checklist: Errors Clustered at a Specific Age Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure3.5 Item Analysis Checklist: Errors Scattered Across a Broad Age Range . . . . . . . . . . .. ..
Figure 3.6 PLS-5 Spanish Profíle: Errors Across Most Language Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure .3.7 PLS-5 Spanish Profile: Errors Clustered in Specific Language Categmies .. . .. . . . . .
Figure3.8 A Completed Clinicían's Worksheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Figure 5.1 Possible Test Outcomes of Positive Predíctive Power (+) and Negative
Predictíve Power (-) ....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .. .. ..... . . ~ . . . . ~

List of Tables
Table 2.1 Skill Set for Assessment and Treatment in a Second Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
Table 2.2 Code of Ethics far SLPs Working With Interpreters . . . . .. .. ·. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Table 3.1 Distance from the Mean of Selected Standard Seores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. .
Table .3.2 Critical Values for Discrepanc.y Comparison Between Auditory Comprehension (AC)
and Expressive Communication (EC) Standard Seores ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . .
Table3.3 Cumulatíve Prevalence of Auditory Comprehension (AC) and Expressive Communic;ctioo
(EC) Standard Score Dífferences in the Normative Sample .. .... .... .. ·. . . . ... _
Table 3.4 Interpreting Change in a Child's Standard Seores and Growth Scale Values Over TllDe .••
Table 3.5 lnterpretation of Articulation Screener Raw Seores, by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. •••
Table 4.1 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Bias Review Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . _ .•
Table 4.2 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Age and Sex ....... .. ...... . .. .. . ...•
Table 4.3 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclínical Sample, by Age and Geographic Region ... ... .. . . •.
Table 4.4 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Age and Country of Origin/Descent .. ..•
Table 4.5 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sarnple, by Age and Primary Caregiver's
Education Level ... . ........... . ... . ............ '. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
Table4.6 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Length of Time Lived in the U.S .. . .. _.. •
Table 4.7 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical and Clinical Samples, by Level of Spanish and
English Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -
Table 4.8 Demographic Characteristics of the PLS-5. Spanish Nonclinical and Clinical Samples,
by Level of Spanish and English Fluency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •
Table4.9 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Age and Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
Table 4.10 PLS-5 Spanísh Normative Sample, by Age and Geographic Region .. . . . .. ....... .... •-
Table 4.11 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Age and Country of Origin/Descent . . . . . . . . . _
Table 4.12 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Age and Primary Caregiver's Education Level .. .
Table4.13 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Age and Child's Leaming Environment .. . . . . .
Table 4.14 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Educational Classification/Diagnosis ..... ... .. . . . - -
Table 4.15 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Length ofTirne Lived in the U.S .. : ...... .... .•.-
Table 4.16 PLS-5 Spanísh Nom1ative Sample, by Spanish Lexical/Regional Variation Spoken . . . ... .

vi Preschool Language ScaJes-5 Spanish

Table4.17 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Frequency and ConteA.'t of Child's Spanish
Exposure and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Table 4.18 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample Standard Score Means and Standard
Deviations for Spanish-Speaking Children at Different Levels of Language .
Comprehension, by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Table 4.19 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample Standard Score Means and Standard Deviaüons
for Spanish-Spealdng Children at Different Levels of Expressive Language, by Age . . . . 78
Table 5.1 Demographic Characteristics of the PLS-5 Spanish Test-Retest Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Table 5.2 PLS-5 Spanish Test-Retest Reliability for Auditory Comprehension, Expressive
Communication, and Total Language, by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
Table 5.3 Split-HalfReliabilily Coefficients for PLS-5 Spanish Nonnative Sample for Auditory
Comprehension, Expressive Communication and Total Language, by Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
Table5.4 Split-Half Relíability Coefficients for PLS-5 Spanish Clinical Samples for Auditory
Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language ......... ... . ... ......... 89
Table 5.5 Standard Errors of Me.asurement for PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample for Auditory
Comprehensíon, Expressive Communication, and Total Language, by Age .. .. . ............. 91
Table 5.6 Critica! Values for Discrepancy Comparison Between Auditory Comprehension (AC) and
fü:pressive Communication (EC) Standard Seores, by Age ..................... ; ... ....... 93
Table 5.7 Cumulative Prevalence of Auditory Comprehension (AC) and E>..J>ressive Communication
(EC) Standard Score Discrepancies in the Normative Sample and a Sample of Children
with Receptive Language Disorders (RLD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
Table 5.8 Cumulative Prevalence of Auditoryr Comprehension (AC) and Expressive Communication
(EC) Standard Score Discrepancies in the Nonnative Sample and a Sample of Children
with Expressive Language Disorders (ELD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . 96
Table 5.9 Cumulative Prevalence of Au<lítory Comprehension (AC) and Expressive Communication
(EC) Standard Score Discrepancies in the Normative Sample and a Sample of Children
with Receptive-Expressive Language Disorders (RLD -ELD) ....... . _..... _....... _.. 97
Table 5.10 Correlations of PLS-5 Spanish and Preschool Language Scale-Fourth Edition, Spanish
(PLS-4 Spanish) Seores ................................................. . .... 105
Tabe 5.11 Correlations of PLS-5 Spanish and Clinical Evalua.tion of Language Funda.mentals
Preschool-Second Editíon, Spanish (CELF Preschool-2 Spanish) Seores ........... .. . 106
Table 5.12 Demograplúc Characteristies of the PLS-5 Spanish Language Disorder
Clinical Samples ........................................................ _.... 108
Table 5.13 Mean Performance of the Receptive Language Disorder Group and a Nonclinical
Matched San1ple ....... . .. _........ ... .. . ................................... 109
Table 5.14 Mean Performance of the Expressive Language Disorder Group and a Noncliníeal
Matched Sample ...... . ........ . . ........... . . ......... ....... _... ..... .... .109
Table 5.15 Mean Performance of the Receptive-Expressive Language Disorder Group anda
Nonclinical Matched Sample ... ... .. .. . .. .. .. ...... ... .... .. . . .... ........ .. .. 110
Table 5.16 PPP and NPP Language Disorder Classification for Auditory Comprehension Seores
Based on Cut Seores for Five Base Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Table 5.17 PPP and NPP Language Disorder Classification for Expressive Communication Seores
Based on Cut Seores for Five Base Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
Table 5.18 PPP and NPP Language Disorder Classification for Total Language Score Based on
Cut Seores far Five Base Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Table of Co111tents vii

Acki1owledgme11ts

Authors are the well from which ideas spring, but transformation of ideas to the reality of a
finished test emerges only through the collaboration of a large group of professionals worlcing
as a team. We wouJd like to thank the following members of the Pearson family who provided
constructive input, dedicated their time and effort, and shared their enthusiastic support with
the goal of developing Preschool Langv.age Scales-Fifth Editíon Spanish.
Lawrence G. Weiss, vice president ofTest Development and Toro Cayton, director of Clinical
Development, receive our appreciation for supporting this project.
Followirig senior research directors Lois Gregory and Patricia Zureich and research director,
Maria Munoz's work on research phases, Shannon Wang, senior research director, guided the
project through standardization and final publication. Senior clinical assessment developers
Shawn Hardee and Elsa Tijerina were the linchpins providing insti.tutional memory across
research phases. All fovolved devoted tremendous talent and commitment to the completion of
the test, and their high standards are apparent in every aspect of PLS-5 Spanish.
Development was also supported by Marie Sepulveda, research director, and Stacy Bridges,
clinical assessment developer.
No project can proceed without the project managers and the product line manager.
PLS-5 Spanish has been fortunate to benefit from the support of Jan Williams, director of
project management, w:1d Lauretta Bateman, senior project manager. Nancy Castilleja, product
line manager, ensured that the project was on poi.nt and that the vision of PLS-5 Spanish was
upheld throughout publication.
The field research team, led by Victoria Locke, field research director, implemented the day-
to-day tasks of collecting the tryout and standardization samples and they contributed immea-
surably to the project. berund the scenes. Team members a.re Daniel Gomez, case reviewer;
Martha ChichiJ-Zepeda, Rose Gutierrez, John Ramirez, and Kimberley Sczech, field research
coordinators; Jo Ann Cuellar and Carlos Ramirez, senior project coordinators; Jay Overton,
research assistant; Agapito Gonzalez, research associa:te; Darrell Stiffey, research associate;
Ruth Mendez, senior supervisor; and Hector Solis, senior supervisor.
The data management team led by director Marshall Dahl provided support and expertise
during scoring, data entry and data analysis. Team members are Scott Overgaard, data man-
agement manager; Terri Davis, data spec.fal.ist l; Jeff Gunelson, statistical programmer; Carol
Hansen, data specialist Il; Mary Kay Markfelder, data specialist II; Jessica Mehle, data manage-
ment coordinator; Deanna Miller, lead data specialist; David Quintero, operations representa-
tive; Karen Sigmon, associate data specialist; and Cher Vilhitbeck, data management assistant Il.
Their contributions are greatly appreciated.
The psychometrics team, led by Jiaiajtm Zhu, director of clinical psychometrics, added their
expertise during al! phases of data analysis. Special thanks go to Andrea Olson, statistical ana-
lyst; Rencan Yan, seníor statistical analyst; and Xiaobin Zhou, manager of psychometric services.
The editorial department, led by Dawn Dunleavy, managing editor, and Weslea Miller, editor,
devoted many hours during all phases of development to ensure the accuracy of the content
Amy Gaalswyk, consultaut editor, read the Spanish portions of the assessment with a clase eye
for detail and accuracy.

ix
 ~

'
~
~
The clirúcal assessment production and planning team of Cyndi Sweet, productíon administra- é
tor; Mark Cooley, senior designer; Ariane Zamot, graphic designer; and Robin Espíritu, senior .
procurement specialist, provided skillful direction in the art production and page design, ensur- : ~
ing that this publícation would be as "user friendly" as possible. ~
We also extend our thanks to Ellen Kester for sharing her clinical expertise, educational experience, .~
and theoretical knowledge of bilingualism. Her contribution on dual language admirústration and
scoring provides insight and guidance on best practices in assessment ofbilingual children. We are é
grateful to Ellen for devoting her time, effort and expertise to the development of this project. é
Field testing is a time-consuming process and would not have been successful without the efforts f
of the speech-language pathologists, psychologists, and educators who participated as eX:aminers. -~
Examiners identified children eligible for testing, obtained consent from the children's parents,
and scheduled testing. The research editions were lengthy, and children sometimes needed to .~
attend a second session to complete testing. \Ve thank all our exarniners for their dedication in ·
staying with us for the duration of the tryout and standardization studies. Without their tenacity ·;
and perseverance in locating and testing the children before and after school, on weekends, and .
even sorne holidays, this test would not exist. In additiém, we are thankful for the review and
feedback provided by Rosie Rosas, clinical assessment developer, and Danielle L. Edwards, MS,
CCC/SLP, about the user friendliness of the final PLS-5 Spanish.
As always, we are grateful to all the children and their caregivers who gave their time and effo
. ~
to this project. We thank the children for theír patience in responding to so many test items,
and their caregivers for accommodating test schedules and transportation to testing sites. The
needs of the children both 'Nith and without communication disorders motívate us to continue
. '
to improve the PLS family of products. i

.
r ~.'

Preschoof Language Scales- 5 Spanísh

 .
~er\llew

The Preschool Langua.ge Scales-Fifth Editíon Spanish (PLS-5 Spanish) is a revision of the
Preschool Language Scale-Fou:rth Edition Spanish (PLS-4 Spanish; Zimmerman, Steiner, &
PoncL 2002). PLS-5 Spanish is an individually administered test used to identify a language
delay or disorder in children who are monolingual Spanish speakers or bilíngual Spanish-
English speakers.
PLS-5 Spanish provides a Spanish and English version of each item. For children who are
monolingual Spanish speakers, only the Spanish items are administered. For children who are
bilingual Spanish-English speakers, tbe SpaniSh items are administered first; then those items
the child missed in Spanish are administered in English. The administration and scoring pro-
cedure far bilingual Spanish-English-speaking children provides for dual language assessment,
which researchers have proposed as an assessroent approach that provides a more valíd repre-
sentation of a bilingual child's language abílities (Kester & Peña, 2002; Pearson, Fernández, &
Oller, 1993). Vlhether PLS-5 Spanish is administered to a monolingual Spanish-speaking child
ora bilingual Spanish-English-:.peaking child, standard seores for PLS-5 Spanish's two scales
(Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication) and Total Language composite are
based on the total number of correct responses, regardless of the language(s) of administration.

-.-.......·. . . . _. ~ge and Appropriaten.ess

PL.5-5 Spanish is developed far use with chikhen from birth through 7 years 11 months of age.
It can also be adrninistered to older children (e.g., 8 or 9 years old) who function developmen-
tallywithin this age range; however, normatíve seores are not provided be)1ond 7 years
11 months. PLS-5 Spanish is not appropriate for older elementary (e.g., fifth grade) or second-
ary students, or adults functioning within the PLS-5 Spanish normative age range, as the items
assessing early interactions and early vocal development are designed specifícally for young
children. In addition, PLS-5 Spanish is not appropriate for determining if a child is gifted;
however, it may provide you with information about precocious language development.

Clinician's Note: PLS-5 Spanish is not appropriate for use with rnonolingual English-
speaking children. Data were collected based on the demographic characteristics of ·
Hispanic children in the United States and Puerto Rico. The norrnative data is based
on child.ren whose p:rirnary language is Spanish includmg the bilingual Spanish-English
speakers in the sample. Examiners should administer PLS--S (the English edition) to
children whose prirnary language is English.

dministration. Thne
Administration time varies depending on the child's age and cooperation during testing as
well as bis or her degree of bilingualism. When testing very young children, you may spend
·time playing with the child in an attempt to elicit a representat:ive sample of behaviors. You
may need to present an itero more than once to these very yonng children to elicit the desired
behavior. For older children, practice items may need to be presented several times to ensure
the child understands the task. Sorne children may also fatigue easíly and require breaks during
administration. Based on standardization data, PLS-5 Spanish average test times for Spanish
administration are as follows.

3
 Age Spanish Administration Time
Birth-11 rnonths 30-40 minutes
12 months-2 years 11 months 40-45 minutes
3 years-4 years 11 months 40-50 minutes ~.

5 years-7 years 11 months 40-45 minutes f -

t;
If you administer PLS-5 Spa.D.ísh to a bilinguaYchild, you will need to allot an additional 10 E:
to 20 minutes administration time. Sorne bilingual children may understand sorne concepts in ; .- ·
their first language (i.e., Spanish) and other concepts in their second language (i.e., English). ·'. · _:
For this reason, PLS-5 Spanish provides each child with opportunity to demonstrate his or her; 1
knowledge-first presenting the items in Spanish to the child and then presenting the items · 1
missed (i.e., the items for which the pass criterion was not met) in English. Testing times will . ~
vary depending on the child's number of incorrect responses to Spanish items. The child's
English proficiency will al.so affect the length of ¡idministration. A child who seldom communi- i~
cates in English may respond co1Tectly to only a few English items. In comparison, a chíld who ~~
; ;
1
frequently communicates in English may respond correctly to many English items, and exceed
the ceilíng established for the Spanish admínistration. · :~
!I
il
Uses ·ll
PLS-5 Spanish can be used with a chíld who is either a monolingual Spanish speaker or a j,:.'
bilingual. Spanish-English speaker to help you ¡
• determine eligibílity for services;
0 detennine if a child has a language delay or dísorder; {
(
~
•
~-
•

"
determine if a child has primarily a receptive or expressive language delay/disorder or a
delay/disorder that involves both; ;~
determine a child's mastery of receptive and expressive language sldlls in the areas of atten~~
••
tion, gesture, pla):· vocal ~evelopment, social commun.ication, vocabulary, concepts, lan- ·'-
g1iage structure, rntegrative language, and ernergent literacy; 11
• identify a chíld's language strengths and wealmesses so that appropriate intervenlions can ,:·1
be provided; and ; .
• measure efficacy of speech and language treatment.
PLS-5 Spanish can also be used to identify the contexts in which a bilingual Spanish-English- i
speaking child uses one language versus the other. Far example, a child may speak Spanish ¡·
to communicate with family and friends about daily living activities, but speak English when '
performing academic tasks such as naming letters or colors.

Content and Organization

PLS-5 Spanish is composed of two standardized scales: Auditory Comprehension and Expressi~
Communication. Items for each scale are presented in Sparúsh and English. PLS-5 Spanish alsd.1
includes three supplemental roeasures: the Language Sample Checklist, the Articulation Screener
and the Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar. Administration of the supplemental measures'.
is opti.onal; however, caregivers' responses on the Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar ~
may be used to support a chíld's responses and/or credit items on the Auditory Comprehension ~
and Expressive Communication scales for ages birth through 2 years 11 months. The results ~·
obtained frorn the Language Sample Checklist and Articulati01;1 Screener provide supplemental 1·
information about the child and may reinforce or differ from the inforn:iation for administration q
~
~:
:·

4 Preschool Language Scales-5 Spanish

PLS-5 Spanish. In addition, PLS-5 Spanish includes worksheets and checklists that enable you
to analyze the child1s language skills: the PLS-5 Spanish Item Analysis Checklist, a Clinicim's
Worksheet, and the PLS-5 Spanish Profile. These supplemental Ianguage analyses enable you to
quickly review and summarize a child's language strengths and areas of wealmess in order to com-
municate with caregivers and plan intervention.

Standardized Scales
The Auditory Comprehension (AC) scale is used to evaluate the scope of a child's comprehension
of language. The test items that are designed for infants and todcllers target skills that are con-
sidered important precursors for language development (e.g., attention to speakers, appropriate
object play). The items desígned for preschool-age children are used to assess comprehension
ofbasic vocabulary, concepts, morphology, and early syntax. Items far 5-, 6-, and 7-year-old
children evaluate the ability to understand complex sentences, integrate language skills to make
comparisons and inferences, and demonstrate emergent literacy ski.lis.
Tbe Expressive Communication (EC) scale is used to determine how well a child communicates
with others. The test items that are designed for infants and todcllers address vocal develop-
ment and social communication. Preschool-age children are asked to name common objects, use
concepts that describe objects and express quantity, and use specific prepositíons, grammatical
markers,.and sentence structures. Items for 5-, 6-, and 7-year-old children are used to examine
emergent literacy skills (e.g., phonological awa.reness and ability to retell a short story in seqnence)
and integrative language skills (e.g., use of si.miles, synonyms, and category names/labels).

Supplemental Measures
The Language Sample Checklist and the Articulation Screener are both printed in the Protocolo.
The Language Sample Checklist can be used with a clúld ,.,,rho speaks in connected utterances. lt
provides an overview of the content, structure, and use of a child's spontaneous utterances. Mean
Iength of uttera.nce in words (MLU-w) can be calculated and a summary profile of spontaneous
utterances can be created. Information about a child's speech intelligibility and an estimate of
the use of Spanish versus English during the test session can also be documented.
The Articulation Screener is designed for use witb children ages 2 years 6 months through
7 years 11 months. The Articulation Screener yields research-based criterion seores that a
clinician can use to determine if further articulation testing is warrantecl
The Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar is a separate form and is provided on atear-off
pad. It is designed for children ages birth through 2 years 11 months, and provides you with the
caregiver's perspective of his or her child's communication behaviors. It includes questions that
focus on how a child's receptive and expressive lariguage skills are demonstrated at home and in
preschool or daycare settings. By sendíng the Cuestionario de comun-lcación en el hogar to the
child's caregivers and requesting they complete it prior to the testing sessíon, you obta.in infor-
mation about a child's communication strengths and areas of concern prior to assessment. You
can also use the Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar to verify and supplement PLS-5
Spanish test results and to help develop the Individual.ized Famíly Service Plan (IFSP).

Chapter 1 Overview 5
 PlS-5 Spanish Language Skills Checklists and Worksheets
The PLS-5 Spanish Item Analysis Checklist is a reproducible form that is provided in
appendix E of the Mantwl de administración y puntuación. The checklist shows ali the items í.
on the AC and EC scales by age level, and enables you to record the child's responses and ·.·
quickly sean errors to determine rf the child's skills are progressing in a sequential fashion.
The Clinician's Worksheet is also a reproducible form provided in appendix E of the Manual de{
administración y puntuación. The worksheet has three sections: Assessment Results, Follow-up~.
for the Child/Family, and Outcomes of Additional Assessment and Training. You can use it to j
summarize information about the child's language ability, prepare far his or her program plan- 1
ning meeting, and include information relevant to development of the IFSP required by Publie :.
Law 108-446 (IDEIA, 2004). !
The PLS-5 Spanish Profile, printed in the Protocolo, provides another way to review a child's
error patterns. Vi/hile the Item Analysis Checklist provides a complete líst of the test items and
a visual representation of the age levels at which a child's skills break clown, the profile pro-
t;f~1
vides a visual representation of the ehild's abilities and errors, categorized by type of language ;¡
skill, for both the Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication scales. The profile ·¡1
enables you to quickly sean the child's errors and determine specific areas of weakness.
ll
:;~
11
Seores
·¡1 •
tii·I
PLS-5 Spanish yields norm-referenced seores (standard seores, percentile ranks, and age
equivalents) for the Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication scales. A norrn~
referenced Total Language score can also be caleulated. These seores are available at three

•
month intervals far ages birth through 11 months, and at six month intervals for ages 1 year ..,,,,,
through 7 yea.rs 11 months. Norm-based critethrrion scores are reported for the Articulalatioaln :.,-,~
Screener for chíldren ages 2 years 6 mont1s oug11 7 years 11 m.onths. Growth se e v ues ,
can be calculated to monitor progress over multiple test administrations for children ages birth '~
through 7 years 11 months. l
Clinician's Note: PLS-5 Spanish seores are based upon dual language scoring. A ch.i.ld's \·I
responses to items on the Auditory Comprehensfon and Expressive Cornmunication scales
are awarded credit regard.less of the language the child uses to respond, as long as the {I
:response indicates the chlld understands the concept being assessed. ?I
ji:
Test Co1nponents and Materials . ·r.

' .iti

M anual de administración y puntuación

The Manu.al de administración y puntuación contains detailed information about test adminis-
I··;I
tration and scoring, as well as the normative score tables and other appendixes. ~
h
. ~

Clinician's Note: Colored adhesive tabs have been provided in your kit to allow you to ;.
label sections of your Manual de administración y puntuación. You can use the tabs to v=
delineat e age groups in the norms tables, or to label start points or developmental age L
groups in the administration an.d scoring section. You might also use the tabs to marlc ~.
frequently used appendixes (e.g., growth scale values tables) orto mark specífic items far ~;.·
wh.ich you often review administration procedures and scoring criteria.

6 Preschool Language Scales-5 Spanish

Manual del examinador
The Manual del examinador provides information about test interpretation, test development,
research, and technical propertíes of the test.

Manual de dibujos
The Manual de dibujos contains the visual stimuli necessary for admínistering many of the
test items.

Protocolo
The Protocolo contains abbreviated rorections for adnúnistering, recording, and scoring test
items. It also includes the Artículation Screener, Language Sample Cbecklist, and the PLS-5
Spanish Profile.

Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar

The Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar includes questious that focus on how a child's
receptive and eA.'Pressive language skills, as related to PLS-5 Spanish tasks, arn demonstrated
at home and in preschool or daycare settings. The questiqnnaire is completed by caregivers of
children ages birth througl1 2 years 11 months.

Manipulatives
Sorne PLS-5 Spanish items require the use of specifíc objects and toys (manipulatives). You can
províde the manipulatives or you may purchase PLS-5 Spanish manipulatives. The following is
a list of the toys and objects you will need.
" ball: approximately the size of a temús ball
" 8 blocks: approximately l"-2" cubes, clifferent colors, including at least 1 red block and 1
blue block
o 4 books: (2 in Spanish and 2 in English): cbtldren's books with pictures and some lines of
teA.i: throughout; the titles and authors' names should be clearly displayed on the cover; the
pages should include page nmnbers. If you administer PLS-5 Spanish to a monolingual
Spanish speaker, you will need the two Spanish books. If you administer PLS-5 Spanish to
a bilingual Spanisb-English speaker, you may also need tl1e two Enghsh books.
3 bowls: small size, plastic
box with removable lid: the box must not be tra.nsparent (objects inside the box should not
be visible unless the lid is removed)
111 bubbles: container of bubble solution with bubble wand
9 2 cars
'For 'res\: aclmi.nistration, you need two cars; however, the PLS-5 Spanish manipulatives kit
includes four cars. Two of the cars are appropriate for play with children ages 6 rnonths
and older. The other two cars are appropriate for play with chíldren ages 3 years and older.
Always use the cars that are most age appropriate for the child you are testing.
e teddy bear: 6"-12" tall, with moveable arms and legs so you can move it from a sittíng to
standing position
e cloth: a cloth diaper, small blanket, or hand towel that is large enough to cover tbe
teddybear
. comb: small size, plastic

Chapter 1 Overvíew 7
 " 8 crayons: red, yellow, blue, green, black, brown, orange, purple
0 3 cups/glasses: small size, plastic or paper
11 duele: rubber duck or stuffed toy duck
" 3 keys: standard size, on a ke:y ring
" paper: 1 sheet to crumple, 5 blank sheets for the child to write/draw on
11 pitcher: small pitcher, creamer, or teapot
ID sea.la.ble bag: small, plastic sandwich bag that has a zip-type closure
. spoon: plastic or lightweight metal
e squeaky toy: soft plastic toy that squeaks when squeezed (e.g., rubber duck)
• infant toys: colorful toys that can be dísinfected and are safe far infants to mouth
1 or 2 plastic rattles
o windup toy: colorful windup toy that is interesting to children
• watch with a second hand or stopwatch: used for timing responses

Clinician's Note: Manipulatives are for testing purposes only, and should be handled
under the strict supervision of a quaJified professional. Children should be carefully
supervised at ali times and should never be left unattended with any testing materials.
As with any small object, do not allow a young child to place objects in bis or her mouth
except if administering Auditory Comprehension Item 8, Mouths objects or Expressive
Communication Item 1, Has a sucldswallow reflex. To prevent the spread of infections,
wash or wipe down a1l nonpaper mate1ials used by the child with soap and water after each
test session. Check wi.th your state's health department for further guidelines for cleaníng
or sanitizing manipulatives.
Additionally, if you test a very young chíld, you should ask the caregiver to bring the following '.,._
items to the testing session.
• bottle with nipple and/or a pacifier (for children ages J. year and younger) ;·
• 1 or 2 of the child's personal, age-appropriate toys to play with as an icebreaker and during i
break times
• 1 or 2 of the ch.ild's personal, age-appropriate toys to use during testing
• age-approp1iate snacks or crackers
Ask the caregiver if the child has food allergies befare offering crackers or snacks to the child.

Examiner Qualifications
PLS-5 Spanish is a dual l~guage assessment. It is highly recommended that examiners who
administer PLS- 5 Spanish to monolingual Spanish speakers should be fluent or near-fluent
Spánish speakers. Examiners who administer the test to bilingual Spanish-English speak-
ers should be b.ilingual themselves. If the examiner <loes not have near-natíve proficiency in l
Spanish, the test can be administered in collaboration with a trained and qualified interpreter. 1
See chapter 2 for more informatíon on the use of interpreters. PLS-5 Spanish can be adminis'i'
tered, scored, and interpreted by Spanish-speaking speecl1-language pathologists, early child- f
hood specialists, psychologists, educational díagnosticians, and other professiona.ls who have ¡
experience worldng with children of this age and training in individual assessment. . !
Spanish-speaking paraprofessional staff can be trained to administer PLS- 5 Spanish test itero%
and record the child's responses; however, the scoring of the respons~s and the interpretation 1
of the resulting seores should only be done by a clinician who has training and experience in ,
diagnostíc assessment and knowledge in language development. ~.

8 ··· ·· ·· Prescnoó!Language Scafes-5 Spanish

 Goals for the Revision
Tue revisions reflected in PLS-5 Spauish include:
• updated nonnative information to represent changes in the population of the United States
as detennined by the 2008 U.S. Census (U.S. Census, 2008),
• dual Ianguage assessment which represents the most current research and best practices in
speech-language assessment of young children,
__;_:.
e administration procedures· designed to conform with changes in legislation far early inter-
·i;.
{
vention services for children with communication delays,
:¡ • improved test properties to address docurnented lintitatíons of preschool assessments, and
0 improved clinical utility to align with changes in the needs of the clinician. .
PLS-5 Spanish includes new items that target a child's play skills, perspective taking, and
emergent literacy skills. It also includes sorne PLS-4 Spanish items with slight changes to the
auditory or visual stimuli or in the exemplars. Many items have familiar visual and auditory
stimuli, but the scoring has changed. Sorne visual stimuli have been redesigned to reflect con-
texts and situation.s familiar to young children. Other PLS-4 Spanish items appear in PLS-5
Spanish with no changes.

Updated Normative lnformation

The PLS-5 Spanish standardization data were collected from February 2010 to September
2010. The nonnative sample was stratified to match the 2008 U.S. Census data for the primary
caregiver's education leve!, and reflects the socioeconomic shift of the population. At the time
the PLS-4 Spanish data were collected in 2001, children of parents with less than a high
school education compiised 44.5% of the Hispanic population in the U.S. According to the
2008 U.S. Census data, that population has decreased to 35.8%. Conversely. the percentage of
children whose parents have 4 or more years of college has increased from 7.1% (in 2001) of tbe
Hispanic population to 11.3% (in 2008) of the population.

Dual Language Assessment

The assessment of language slci.lls in children from bilingual enviromnents poses a challenge.
Research demonstrates that bilingual children possess different vocabulary and concepts in
each language (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003; Pearson, Femandez, & Oller, 1993; Peña,
Bedore, & Zlatic-Gíunta, 2002). That is, children who learn two languages early in life typi-
cally have different ei..'Periences in their two languages. For example, a common pattern is
for children to use Spanish in the home and English at school. These different environments
require difforent vocabulary, which leads to different use patterns in the two languages
(Grosjean, 1989). For ex:ample, a child may more comfortably talle about food and clothing in
the language of his or her home and about academic concepts in Englísh. From an assessment
perspec.üve, this pattern of different concept knowledge in each language can resu1t in an
underestírnate when only one language is considered or when each language is compared to the
language of monolingual speakers of that language.
While there are challenges to any method of testing children who are bílingual, a number of
studies have found that the use of a conceptual scoring approach puts children who are bilin-
gual on ª·similar playing field in terms of their vocabulary and concepts as children who are
monolingual. The conceptual scoring approach is the notion that it is critical to consíder both
langnages of bilingual chil<lren at the same time in order to understand their global language
abilities (Bedore, Peña, García, & Cortez. 2005; Pearson, Femández, & Oller, 1993; Peña,
Bedore, & Zlatic-Giunta, 2002; Umbel, Pearson, Fernández, & Oller, 1992).

Chapter 1 Overview 9
 PLS-5 Spanish assesses more tlian vocabulary and concepts; it also assesses vocal development,
gesture, social communication, morphology, syntax, integrative language skills, and emergent t
literacy sldils. Because PLS-5 Spanish measures a broader range of language skills, the testing
method used in PLS-5 Spanish is a dual language administration and scoring approach; this
approach is an adaptation of the conceptual scoring approach. In the dual language approach,
items are initially administered in Span:ish and then only those items the child missed in
Spanish are also adrninistered in English. The norms are then based on the total number of ',
correct responses, regardless of the language of admini.stration or child's response. The dual
language score provided by PLS-5 Spanish enables you to reporta child's language ability ~I
across his or her entire repertoire of language use in Spanish and English. .

Early lntervention for Children With Communication Defays

PLS-5 Spanish has been designed to take into account the changes in legislation and guiding
principles when working witb young children. The Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 (Public Law 108-446) ensures early intervention, special
education, and related services to children ages birth through 21 years. Infants and toddlers
(ages birth through 3 years) with disabilities and their farrrilies receive early intervention ser-
vices under IDEIA Part C. Since the 2005 implementation of Part C that mandates all states ,
have a "comprehensive child find service," there has been an expansion of services that focus on (
early identification of clúldren at risk for speech and language del.ay ar disorder and child- and '. ~
family-friendly assessment. Many years ago, the term "early intervention" meant Head Start ser- i
vices for children ages .3 and 4 years old. Today, due to IDEIA legislation, referrals for children '.
at risk may begin as early as birth. The legislation stipulates that services should be provided
in natural environments (such as the home) "to the maxímum extent'' and that parents be an
integral part of the assessment team.
Since the Federal Program for Infants and Toddlers with Handicaps was established in 1986
(EHA, 1986), there has been much focus on establishing guiding principles or concepts under-
lying best practíce for early assessment and intervention. Current data indicate that practices
aligned with farnily-centered models are viewed more positively by consumers than more
traditional, professionally-directed practices (Dunst, 2000; Trivette & Dunst, 2005) . Moreover, '
practices that feature family-centered, culturally sensitive, developmentally appropriate, and :
collaborative components are favored (Sandall, Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean, 2005). Tak:ing ;
into account the llterature spanníng the past two decades, consumer input and preferences, pr~
vider experiences and observations, recognition of evolving societal values, and state and fede~
policies as set forth in IDEIA 2004, the Ameiican Speech-Language-Hearing Association ~
(ASHA) presents the following four guiding principles that should be considered in the design ;
and delivery of services to infants and toddlers with disabilities (ASHA, 2008).
l. Services are family centered and culturally and linguistically responsive.
2. Serví.ces are developmentally supportive and promete children's participation in their
natural environments.
3. Services are compr.ehensive, coordinated, and team based.
1

4. Services are based on the highest quality evidence that is available.

~ .
,.,!.
'

10--···- -Preschool Language Scates-5 Span;sh

,.:·.
 lmprovement of Test Properties
A goal of the cnnent PLS revision was to improve the assessment's psychometric properties.
The .limitations of preschool assessments have been well documented including concerns
regarding the size of research samples, as well as their composition, sensitivity/specificity, and
tbe reliability and vaüdity information reported (Bagnato, Macy, Salaway, & Lehman, 2007;
.. ..B._r.i1._~swd _&J3oehm, 2007; Kaderavek, 2011; McCauley, 2001).
New items have been developed to ensure that the Auditory Comprehension aud Expressive
Communicatíon scales have adequate floors, ceilings, and difficulty leve! gradients. All items in
this revised version of PLS have been reviewed for. ethnic/cultural, gender, regional, and socio-
·~ economic bias, both by statistical analysis and by expert review. Scoring studies were conducted
i
l to develop and refine the scoring criteria of Expressive Communication items to reflect the
' wi<le variel-y of responses that are expressed by children from diverse Hispanic backgrounds.
Details about the research design and development of the test can be found in chapter 4.

Clinicians' Assessment Needs

IDEIA legislation mandates that a child be reevaluated at least once every three years unless
the parent and the lead agency or local education agency agree it is unnecessary. Aécorrung
to the 2004 guidelines, evaluation does not have to be conducted using a nonn-referenced
assessment. It can be made in a number of ways, including criterion-referenced assessment
(McCauley, 1996), portfolio assessment (Jarrett, Browne, & Wallin, 2006; Meisels & Steele,
1991), observation of the chikl in natural settings (Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004), dynarnic
assessment (Austin, 2010; Gutiérrez-Clellan & Peña, 2001; Peña, Bensimon, & Colyar, 2006),
and/or wi.th parent collaboration and interview (Crais, Roy, & Free, 2006) or parent report
(Dale, 1991; O'Neill, 2007). Although IDEIA legislation does not requíre norm-referenced
1 seores to quali~y a child for services, many governrnent agencies (e.g., Medicaid), prívate health
insurance coi:npauies, and school districts requíre that standardized, norm-referenced seores be
reported as part of the evaluation process, based on their interpretation of IDEIA guidelines.
For cliuicians who are required to provide norm-referenced seores, PLS-5 Spanish provides
standard seores, percentile ranks, growth scale values, and age equivalents for children from
-¡ birth through age 7 years 11 months for both scales (AC and EC) as well as the Total Language
score. Information obtained from parents and caregivers can be integrated into the child's
seores for many test items. PLS-5 Spanish results can further be used to compile inform_ation
for a portfolio assessment PLS-5 Spanish can be used also as a criterion-referenced measure
to assess receptive and expressive Ianguage strengths and areas of concern far children older
than age 7 years 11 months, or children wbose backgrounds are significantly different from the
chíldren in the normalive sarnple.
In addítion to the changes made to PLS due to current legislation, changes were made based
on clinician feedback. In multiple surveys conducted before the initial development of PLS-5
and PLS-5 Spanish, over 500 clinicians who used PLS-4 and/or PLS-4 Spanish described
improvements that they would like to see made to the test(s), suggested changes to specific
items, and described additions that would make the instrument(s) more useful for use with
children who have severe disabilílies. In a<ldition, examiners who collected PLS-5 Spanish
tryout ancl/or standardization data completed a survey to provide feedback about clarily of
administration, recording and scoring directions, preference of examiner's manual, picture
manual, and record form formats, and specific test items. Items that examiners agreed were
dífficnlt to administer and/or score were deleted from the final product.

Chapter 1 Overview 11
 lmprovement of Test Properties
A goal of the cnnent PLS revision was to improve the assessment's psychometric properties.
The .limitations of preschool assessments have been well documented including concerns
regarding the size of research samples, as well as their composition, sensitivity/specificity, and
tbe reliability and vaüdity information reported (Bagnato, Macy, Salaway, & Lehman, 2007;
.. ..B._r.i1._~swd _&J3oehm, 2007; Kaderavek, 2011; McCauley, 2001).
New items have been developed to ensure that the Auditory Comprehension aud Expressive
Communicatíon scales have adequate floors, ceilings, and difficulty leve! gradients. All items in
this revised version of PLS have been reviewed for. ethnic/cultural, gender, regional, and socio-
·~ economic bias, both by statistical analysis and by expert review. Scoring studies were conducted
i
l to develop and refine the scoring criteria of Expressive Communication items to reflect the
' wi<le variel-y of responses that are expressed by children from diverse Hispanic backgrounds.
Details about the research design and development of the test can be found in chapter 4.

Clinicians' Assessment Needs

IDEIA legislation mandates that a child be reevaluated at least once every three years unless
the parent and the lead agency or local education agency agree it is unnecessary. Aécorrung
to the 2004 guidelines, evaluation does not have to be conducted using a nonn-referenced
assessment. It can be made in a number of ways, including criterion-referenced assessment
(McCauley, 1996), portfolio assessment (Jarrett, Browne, & Wallin, 2006; Meisels & Steele,
1991), observation of the chikl in natural settings (Neisworth & Bagnato, 2004), dynarnic
assessment (Austin, 2010; Gutiérrez-Clellan & Peña, 2001; Peña, Bensimon, & Colyar, 2006),
and/or wi.th parent collaboration and interview (Crais, Roy, & Free, 2006) or parent report
(Dale, 1991; O'Neill, 2007). Although IDEIA legislation does not requíre norm-referenced
1 seores to quali~y a child for services, many governrnent agencies (e.g., Medicaid), prívate health
insurance coi:npauies, and school districts requíre that standardized, norm-referenced seores be
reported as part of the evaluation process, based on their interpretation of IDEIA guidelines.
For cliuicians who are required to provide norm-referenced seores, PLS-5 Spanish provides
standard seores, percentile ranks, growth scale values, and age equivalents for children from
-¡ birth through age 7 years 11 months for both scales (AC and EC) as well as the Total Language
score. Information obtained from parents and caregivers can be integrated into the child's
seores for many test items. PLS-5 Spanish results can further be used to compile inform_ation
for a portfolio assessment PLS-5 Spanish can be used also as a criterion-referenced measure
to assess receptive and expressive Ianguage strengths and areas of concern far children older
than age 7 years 11 months, or children wbose backgrounds are significantly different from the
chíldren in the normalive sarnple.
In addítion to the changes made to PLS due to current legislation, changes were made based
on clinician feedback. In multiple surveys conducted before the initial development of PLS-5
and PLS-5 Spanish, over 500 clinicians who used PLS-4 and/or PLS-4 Spanish described
improvements that they would like to see made to the test(s), suggested changes to specific
items, and described additions that would make the instrument(s) more useful for use with
children who have severe disabilílies. In a<ldition, examiners who collected PLS-5 Spanish
tryout ancl/or standardization data completed a survey to provide feedback about clarily of
administration, recording and scoring directions, preference of examiner's manual, picture
manual, and record form formats, and specific test items. Items that examiners agreed were
dífficnlt to administer and/or score were deleted from the final product.

Chapter 1 Overview 11
 ollaborating With an Interpreter

Monolingual SLPs can Administer PLS-5 Spanish

The population receiving services from speech-language pathologists {SLPs) contínues to
expand, increasing the roles and responsibilities of SLPs. For a growing number of SLPs, pro-
viding services to children whose p1imary language is not English has become rontine. This
new role presents professional challenges, such as how does an SLP who speaks only English
effectively provide services to a child who speaJcs another language (e.g., Spanish). When an
SLP cannot communicate directly with the child he or she ís serving, one solution is to collabo-
rate with an interpreter.
This chapter provides monolingual SLPs with guídelines on how best to select, traín, and col-
Iaborate with an interpreter to facilitate successful administration of PLS-5 Spanish specifically
and speech and language tests in general.

or Bilingual SLPs
As reported by the National Clearinghouse far English Language Acquisition and Instruclion
(NCELA; 2011), the number and proportion of young children attending public education pro-
grams in the United States who speak a language other than English as their first language is
rising. These Englísh language learners (ELLs) have not yet mastered the English language and
need curricular support. In 2001, 25% of children enrolled in Head Start programs were ELLs;
in 2009, the proportion increased to 30%. For students enrolled in grades K-2, states reported
approxi.mately 1.9 million ELLs for the 2006-2007 school year. Nationwide, approximately 80%
of ELL children speak Spanish as their first language (NCELA, 2011).
While the number of SLPs who report being able to deliver services in a language other than
Englísh is increasing, the demand for t11ese bilingual SLPs still outweighs their availability.
The American Speech-Language-Hearing Associatíon (ASHA) conducted a survey of members
working in a variety of settings and found that only 5% of SLPs (approximately 6200) pro-
vide services in a language other than. Englisb. Of those bílingual SLPs, approxi.mately 2700
reported providing clínica! services in Spanish (ASHA, 2009).
These ASHA stafütics are based on self-rnport of the membership and there is no externa!
validation of the SLP's command of a language or of the SLP's ability to treat all aspects of a
child's speech, language, and cornmunícation abilities (ASHA, 2009). Therefore, an SLP who
reports knowing a language other than English (in the United States) must be honest about his
or her own capabiliti.es when reporting competence in providing services to a child who speaks
that language. Demonstrating proficiency in spoken and written skílls in another language is
not sufficient to ensure adequate provision of clinical speech and language senrices in that
language. An SLP may be very proficient or even a native speaker of a given language, yet lack
practice in using the Ianguage in the context of clinical service delivery.
In addition, clinical serv:ice delivery can be challenging if a clinician <loes not have complete
knowledge of language developrnent, either in monoliugual or bilingual children. To be effec-
tive, the SLP should have the vocabulary and communication skill<; necessary to assess and treat
a variety of children who present veiy complex Ianguage processing and expressive language díf-
ficulties in their first language. The SLP must have lmowledge about the articulation/phonology,

15

~----- - -·-
 morphology, S)'ntax, and vocabulary of that language. Furthermore, the SLP must be familiar
with lexical and regional variations and understand the cultural background of the child,
<
and the implications for culturally appropriate interaction styles. For more information about
the complexities ofbilingual assessment and intervention, see Langdon (2008), Assessment :;{~.~\~~'
and Interoention for Communication Disorders in Cult.urally and Linguistioally Diverse
Populations and Langdon and Cheng (2002), Collahorating With foterpreters and Translators: :)
,,
•
f
A Cuide for Communioation Disorders Professionals. ,.
4
1
f
When Should an SLP Collaborate With an Interpreter "~1
During Assessment? ; '
f
According to IDEIA regulations, speech and language assessment must be conducted in a f
child's first language. Best practice advocates that when it is possible, the SLP who is conduct-
ing the assessment should have native or near-native proficiency in the child's first language. •
· 't
Examiners who are uot fluent in the child's first language may malee errors in reading the .!
administration directions and/or the test stimuli, resulting in erroneously low seores for the ~
t
child taking the test. However, with the tremendous increase in the ELL child population and
the scarcity of bilingual SLPs, the likelihood that an SLP wil1 be unable to administer tests in a 4i.
child's first language is high. In such circumstances, both IDEIA and ASHA advocate that the
SLP coUaborate with a trained interpreter and/or translator (IDEIA, 2004; ASHA, 2004). ti;l
• f

lnterpreter is defined as someone who can deliver information orally from the füst language ;~
'•
••
(Ll) to the second language (L2) and vice versa. Translator is defined as someone who can ;1- ·
transmit information in writing from Ll to L2 and vice versa. Ideally, an interpreter should alsoJ
be able to do translations; that is, the interpreter should he able to read a document in one lan- ~ - -
guage and interpret (orally) or translate' (in writing) that document into another language. For f
i·
more discussion on thís topic, refer to Langdon (2002) and Langdori and Cheng (2002).
.; '.'

For the purpose of brevity in this discussion, the term interpreter refers to both interpreter and;' . '
translator. While Spanish is used for illustrative purposes, information on how to select and col- ;, - .
laborate with an interpreter is applicable to an interpreter who speaks any language. ~
1
•
t·
Selection of the Interpreter .¡
::
The literature on preferred strategies for collaboratiou between SLPs and ínterpreters is {
limited. There are researchers, however, who are interested in this subject and are adding to . .
1
our ki10wledge base. Researchers wbo have exam.ined this subject include Hwa-Froelich and <
Westby (2003), Langdon (2002), Langdon and Cheng (2002), and Manuel-Dupont and Yoakumt
(1997). In addition, the California Speech-Language-Hearing Association (CSHA) Diversity _ji
Committee (De Curtís, Lamberth, Langdon, Larroudé, & Shriver-Stahley, 2002) has designed ~­
a matrix deli~eating ~ive levels of language p~ofi~iency (L~vel 1 OowestJ to Leve1 5 [highest]) il
and the associated skills needed to perform spec1fic tasks m the assessment and treatment il -·
process in a second language. Although best practice suggests interpreters have Level 4 (Near ( ~
Fluent) or Level 5 (Flueut) language skills, the comrnittee references the Foreign Service f.
Institute (FSI) recommendation that Level 3 defines the minimum requirement of proficiency (·:" · .
to adequately conduct professional responsibilities in a certain career, such as providing assess-f : ·
ment and intervention in the field of speech-language pathology. Table 2.1 provides the skill seti'1·~
levels required for an SLP to conduct assessment and treatment in a second language as defineq .
by the CSFIA Diversity Comnrittee. f.
f .

16 Preschool Languag-e Scaies-5 Spanish

Table 2.1 Sláll Set for Assessment and Treabnent in a Second Language

LEVEL 1-MONOLINGUAL
Minimal to no verbal skills in second language (L2)
Can understand reading in L2
LEVEL 2-MONOLINGUAL+
Rudimentary knowledge of basic terms/phrases which are generally situationally specific in L2
Can read and write in L2 ata very minimal leve!
LEVEL 3-BASIC SKILLS
More advanced second language proficiency
Can gather basic information from the primary caregiver or client, but at t imes needs interpretar for
assessments, translations and conferences with the primary caregiver and familias
Variable literacy skills
LEVEL 4-NEAR FLUENT
Ability to commun icate in L2 although may make sorne grammatical errors
Able to write but may need editing
Can hold conferences and províde assessments although may need interpretar for more complex
cases where more disordered language is involved
Knowledge of multicultural issues and second language acquisitlon
LEVEL 5-FlUENT
Fluent in the oral and written language in L2
Can conduct interviews, assessment with no need for assistance from an interpreter
Does not need to be native in L2, but have near-native language proficiency
Note. From Establishing Language and Cultural Proflciency in Working with CLD Populations by L. De Curtis, E Lam berth, H. W.
Langdon, B. Larroude, and K. Shriver-Stahley, 2002. Sacramento, CA: CSHA Díversity Committee. Copyright 2002 by California
Speech-Language-Hearing Associati on. Reprinted with permission.

In addition to Ianguage proficiency, the recommended linguistic and cultural competencies

listed herein may be applied to determine the interpreter's ski.U set level and to determine
jf he or she can successfully collaborate with speech-language pathologists and audiologists.
Interpreters should possess and/or acquire skills in three different categories: linguistíc,
personal, and professional (Langdon, 2002; Langdon & Cheng, 2002).

linguistic Skills
Interpreters should demonstrate understanding in three linguistic areas:
l. oral and wTitten language proficiency in the ch.ild 's fust language (i.e., Spanish)
and the language of instruction (i.e., English),
2. knowledge of cultural beliefs and practices, a.nd
3. the ability to convey the same meaning in two Ianguages.

Oral and/or Written. Language Profi.cien.cy

The interpreter needs to be familiar with the structures of both the child's primary language
(e.g., Spanish) and the curricular la11guage (i.e., English ), as well as the contrasts between the
two languages in the areas of phonology, morphology, and syntax. For exarnple, in Spanish
phonology there are no occun-ences of final !pi as in soup or final /t/ as in nest, nor are there
inítial Is/ clusters such as in school or spill (Goldstein, 2007).

Chapter 2 Collaborating With an lnterpreter 17

 .,..,

Morphological contrasts can be seen between Spanish and English. For exarnple, there are
• ' 1
Spanish rules regarding agreement between articles and nouns (e.g., la rosa, un palo) and
nouns and adjectives (e.g., libro bonito, bicicleta nueva) that do not exist in English. Syntactic ¡·
differences betvveen Spanish and English are numerous. For example, Spanish generally follows f
a noun-adjective word order (e.g.,,,la casa grande), whereas English follows an adjective-noun
word order (e.g., the bíg house). Formulation of questions in Spanish is also different than in
English. In Spanish, it is common to use the affinnative + question intonation to ask a question ·;
(e.g., ¿El papá se fue al trahajo?). In English, it is more common to ask a question which begins i
with an auxiliary or do verb (e.g., Did Dad go to work?). Anotber example is the use of double }
negatives in Spanish, as in Ella no le ayuda nu.nca. In English, it is incorrect to say She does not ~
help hirn never: For a review of morphological and grammatical contrasts between Spanish and f
English, refer to Swan and Smith (2004).
In addition to understauding the linguistic differences between Spanish and English, an
interpreter should also b e sensitive to lexical and regional variations within a language. Spanish ;
spealcers are a diverse group, and pronunciation and vocabulary can vary significantly depend-
ing on the background of the child. For exarnple, Puerto Ricans pronounce the tapped /r/ and -j
trilled /rr/ differently than Mexicans, and the Spanish word for car may be coche, auto, or carro, [
depending on the Latin American country considered. Goldstein (2007) is a helpful resource to ,)
understand differences in various Spanish lexical and regional varíations. ;

Cultural Knowle dge ·

Hispanics include a variety of subgroups (e.g., Mexicans, Puerto Ricans, Central Americans,
South Americans) who share the coromon language of Spanish. Each group has its own histor;~
JIi~
culture, and beliefs. In addition, individual differences in immi.gration history, legal status, and i~
degree of acculturation to the American way of life can be vast. It is in1portant both to use Ji
caution whe~ making gen~ralizations about Hispanic groups and individuals and to be aware of ;¡
common beli~fs and practic~s. . · . . _ . , )1
Generally, chddren frorn Hisparuc backgrounds are not expected to m1tiate conversatiOns w1th il
adults they do not know Therefore, the SLP and interpreter may need to incorporate strategies ;~
that will engage the child and encourage him or her to pa.rticipate. Prtmary care gi.ver participa- ji
tion is a strategy often used in building initial rapport. . ;I
It is also common for Hispanic families to hold teachers and specialists who are helping their J. I
children in high regard. Caregi.vers often will agree to what is said in a meeting simply because ·' 1
they believe that teachers want ~he best for theír chíl~en. Statements to the effect af "I am tJ::e
parent at home and the teacher is the parent at school are not unusual. As a result, take spec1al
Ji
~~
them-'I I
care to ensure that the caregivers understand and agree with what is being communicated to
This tendency to defer or acquiesce to the recommendations of school professionals may be
compounded by the fact that some famílies shy away from vi.siting their children's scbool
¡,,.:.
~·
•t
because they feel inadequate or uneducated. This behavior may be misinterpreted as a lack of ): ·
interest in education when, in fact, many families emigrate to the U.S . specifically because theyil'
wish to have a better future for their clúldren (Zuniga, 2004). Resources on Hispanic culture :i'
••
and how professionals can work more successfully v.rith Hispanic families include Brice and
Brice (2008); Langdon (2008); Negroni-Rodriquez and Morales (2001); Roseberry-McKibbin ¡:._.:
(2008); Shipley and Rosebeny-McKibbin (2005); and Zuniga (2004).
J~

}~ ·
•
t
'
.:;: .

'

18 Preschoof Lang·uage Scales-5 Spanish

 Ability to Convey tbe Sam.e Meaning in Two Langnages
It is rare that a message in one language can be rende red using the same words a.nd the same
word order in another language. For example, the Spanish sentence Me hace favor de firmar
aquí para darme su permiso para que su hijo/a pueda asistir a este progmm.a literally trans-
lates to Make me the favor of signirig here to give me your penni.ssion for you.r son/da.ughter
ca.n ~ttend this progra.m. This literal translation is ungrammatical and difficultto understanci
An interpreter needs to b e able to convey meaning using wording appropriate to the language
being used. Please sign here to give your permission for your child to attend this program bet-
ter communicates the intent of this Spanish sentence.

Personal Skills
While it is important that an interpreter demonstrates proficient linguistic sld.lls, it is equally
important that an interpreter understands his or her role and function, possesses flexibility, and
has a strong work ethic.

Understanding t:h.e Interpret:er's Role and Funcaon

Part of the interpreter's role is to facilitate communication between clinicians and families to
ensure understanding. It is the SLP's responsihiüty to define terminology and clearly describe
any unfamiliar content. For example, if the SLP sta.tes that a child's communícation has the
characteristics of a child who has autism, it is the SLP's responsibility to explain what autism is
and the associated communication characteristics. In turn, it is the interpreter's responsibility to
remain neutral and translate the SLP's message accurately.
····During testing; tlnnnterptetér·V:->illbe·díied1y involved ·v.~th· the child, communicatirig ~itli.
him or her in. Spanish. However, the SLP must always be present, no matter how '\.vell-trained
and knowledgeable in working with children the interpreter may be. The SLP observes the
interaction betvleen the interpreter and child and records the child's behaviors such as per-
severalion, short attention span, distractibility, requests for repetition, a:nd use of gestures in
proportion to use of words (taking into account cultural differences) . The SLP will also observe
and record the interpreter's behaviors and reclirect him or her when appropriate. For example,
the SLP may note if the interpreter gives the child too many cues, provides adequate reinforce-
ment, and takes notes about what he or she observes. In addition, the SLP should be present
so that the interpreter can ask questions as issues arise regarding administration, engaging the
child, and/or scoring.

Flexihllity
An interpreter must be able to work with people who h ave cliffe1ing personalities, education
levels, and social backgrounds. For example, an interpreter may spend two hours collaborating
with an SLP assessing the skills of a high school student who is able to sit patiently at the table
and attend to questions that are asked, and also may p aiticipate in a play assessment with an
active 4-year-old child who attends for five minutes at a time. D epending on the assessment
situation, an interpreter may need to modify his or her interaction style (e.g., professíonal with
adults, playful with preschoolers) and expectations.

WorkEthlc
The ínterpreter, like an SLP, shou1d adhere to a Code of Ethics. Langdon (2002) proposes
many points in the Code· of Ethics for SLPs working with interpreters (see Table 2.2). These
points are applicable for interpreters as well. For example, it is important that interpreters are
knowledgeable about bilingual language development, understand the issues related to assess-
ment and intervention, and take an active role in improving the processes for successful collabo-
ration between SLPs and interpreters.

Ghapter 2 Col/aborating With an lnterpreter 19

 Table 2.2 Code of Ethics for SLPs Working With Interpreters
~~~~----~------------.-..----------~~~~~~~~~~~-----------~_ ¡
You may find it helpful to know the contents of the code of ethics" for speech-language patholo- '
gists and audiologists with regard to the use of interprete rs and translators.
1. Have knowledge of bilinguai l~nguage development and assessment and lntervention issues.
2. Work with a trained interpretar or translator only.
3. Continua to update knowledge through continuing education in the field of bilingualism,
íncluding assessment of and intervention with bilingual speakers.
4. Adequately prepare the interpretar or translator for a given conference, assessment,
or intervention.
5. Participate in improving the process of working with the interpretar or translator:
6. Document successful strategies in working with the interpreter or translator to serve bilingual

------------------------------------::
~A
clients more equitably.
complete coda of ethir;s forthe entire scope of practica can be found on the American Speech-Languege·Hearing Association
{ASHA) website http://professional.asha.org.
Note. From Col/11borating with lnterpreters andTrans/atars: A Guide for Communicatian Disorders Professionals (p. 110),
'

by H. W. Langdon and L. R. Cheng, 2002, Austin: PRO-ED. Copyright 2002 by PRO-ED, lnc. Reprinted with permission.

Professional Training
Both the SLP and interpreter should receive training on best strategies for collaborating to
enhance the success of the assessment process. A person with no previous exposure to testing ,
should never be asked to serve as an interpreter. Often, it is erroneously assumed that the need :
for bilingualism supersedes the need for an understanding of the complexity of testing, particu- t ..
larly in another language. It is therefore preferable to select a person who has training in a field ¡
related to speech and language (e.g., a teacher, educator, or health professional). It is not recom- ¡
mended that you ask a family member or another chíld fluent in both languages to ínterpret; \
such persons have not been specifically trained and, moreover, may inadvertently assist the
child with the test.
In addition to the linguistic lmowledge and skills necessary for an interpreter to successfully
collaborate in working with young ELL chiidren, professional training in the assessment pro- ;
cess is essential. Training can be conducted individually or in a group with other interpreters, j
and should inelude coverage of the following five topics; the assessment ·process in general, (.
setting requirements, professional terminology, familiarity with an age group, and collection .
and analysis of language samples. To promete understanding, it is important that the interpreter j
feels comfortable asking guestions. ,¡
¡

·l

~.

. . .. ... - --20 ·-- · .Preschool Language Scafes-5.Spanisb

The Assessment Process
The assessment process includes the interview, the assessment, results report, and inten1ention.
The needs of the child and his or her family will dictate whether the collaboration between
interpreter and SLP encompasses the entire assessment process or only one part. For example,
the interpreter's services may be 'needed for an interview only or the ?SS~sment only.

Requirements Specific to t he Assessment Setting

The interpreter·s role may vary depending on the assessment setting; for example, procedures
followed in a public school setting differ from those of a clinic. It is the SLP's responsibi.lity to
ensure that the interpreter understands the procedures followed in each specific setting.

Professional Terminology
The professional terminoiogy of the speech-language pathology field (e.g., semantics, syntax,
morphology, utterances) may be unfamiliar to an interpreter. Additionally, the terminology
for test protocols (e.g., basal, ceiling, prompt) are likely to be unfamiliar toan interpreter wíth
limited orno experience with speech-language assessments. It is important that the SLP and
interpreter discuss and clarif)1 the test content and terminology befare administration, as well as
discussing the test results a.nd interpretation befare meeting wíth the child's primary caregjver.
A salid understanding of the terminology is essential to tbe ínterpreter's ability to function suc-
cessfully druing the assessment; the ínterpreter may also need to translate a professioaal word
or phrase to the primary caregiver dming a conference.

Familiarity With t he Target Age Group

Prior to testi.ng, a.n interpreter must have experience worlcing with ch.ildren of the age intended
for assessment. Observation is a key part of building that experience. The interpreter can
observe the SLP and other interpreters assessing and working with chtldren of a specified age
group. Observation sessions should always be followe d by discussion to amwer any questions
the interpreter may have. It is important that the interpreter also practice administering tbe test
to typícally-developing children of the specified age in order to become comfortable with what
the test items are, how to present them, and what typical responses may be.

Collecting and Analyzing a l anguage Sample

Often, young children's greatest difficulty is an inability to demonstrate to others their authentic
expressive language sldlls. Therefore, it is important to include a language sample as part of
the assessment battery when possible. Collecting a language sample requires specífic training
and practice; the SLP should train the interpreter to implement techniques such as following
the child's lead, engaging in parallel play, asking open-ended questions, and tolerating silence.
Befare attempting to collect a language sarnple , the interpreter should practice each technique
with children he or she is familiar with until using the techniques feel natural.
Once the language sample is collected, the interpreter should assist the SLP in transcribíng the
sample to evaluate the quality (e.g., grammatical or ungrammatical sentences, ~imple versus
complex sentences) and quantity (e.g., the number of different words divided by the number
of total words) of the language used, vocabulary, articulation, and overall pragmatic skills.
Therefore, the interpreter should ideally be someone whose literacy skills in both languages are
suffíciently developed to make judgments about the variom li.nguistic areas mentioned above.

Chapter 2 Co lfaboratíng With an lnterpreter 21

 The Collaboration. Process
Collaborating with an interpreter requires additional preparation time and training on the part ~
of both the SLP and the interpreter. It is difficult to estímate the time needed to prepare and \
interact with the interpreter, but ~cheduling should include time before, during, and after an '
assessment session or a conference. It is important to schedule an interpreter for services well
in advance of a conference or an assessment. The process of collaborating with an interpreter ,
should consist of three parts: briefing, interaction, and debriefing (Langdon & Cheng, 2002). i'
~
Briefing
The first phase of the collaboration process is refen-ed to as the briefing. During this phase, the ·•
SLP meets with the interpreter prior to a primary caregiver conference, the assessment session, ¡
or therapy sessions in order to plan the content and format of the interaction.
After the SLP and interpreter meet, it is suggested tbat, if possible, the SLP and interpreter
meet the child before the testing date so that the child can become accustomed to having both (
the clinician and the interpreter in the same room. Such a session is particularly helpful if the
child is shy, but it may be impractical because of time constraints.

lnteraction
·
-• f

. .;

The second phase is referred to as the interaction phase. This phase is the actual assessment,
which includes conference and testing sessions in. which the SLP, interpreter, and child are
present. Although the interpreter may have the direct role in conducting the assessment, the
SLP should be supervising the interaction between the interpreter and child. Tl:i.e interpreter
sbould never be left alone or put in a vulnerable position. That is, the SLP should be present
during the testing in order to answer the interpreter's questions, observe the child's behaviors
and the interpreter's reactions, and intervene when necessary.
There may be occasions in which decisions need to be made about accepting ar not accepting
a child's response as correct (which ,'Vi]J modi.fy reaching the ceiling on a particular test), or ~
switching tasks (i.e., arder of PLS-5 item administration) because the child's attention is waning..
~

De briefing
Following the assessment session, the SLP and the interpreter should discuss what occurred
'•
-.•
during the interaction. This third and last phase of the process is referred to as debriefmg. l
During the debriefing, the SLP should review thc child's responses and communication behav-· .:,
íor witb the interpreter. Rowever, in no instance should the SLP be biased by the interpreter's
comments. Instead, the SLP should consider the interpreter's comments as a piece of data in •
interpreting results and observations.
•
4
Completing the Collaboration
The SLP will then present the results, diagnosis, and intervention plan to the clúld's primary
caregiver(s), possibly with the assistance of the interpreter. If it is decided that tb.e child should
'
4
receive therapy in Spanish, the SLP and interpreter will need to plan a program where the
f
interpreter <loes most of the intervention with direct supervision from the SLP. The process is f
not an easy one, and necessitates a great deal of preparation, practice, and commítment on the t
part of the SLP and interpreter, whose role will become more like that of an SLP assistant.
f
f
f
..... 22 · Preschool Langaage Scales-5 Spanish
f
 Although the SLP and interpreter should have an ongo:i.ng dialogue on how best to facilitate
contact with children whose language proficiency is to be assessed and how best to communi-
cate ·witb the children's families, it is important to remember that the SLP rema:i.ns the person
responsible for the process and outcome of the assessment. The SLP should lead discussions,
summarize assessment results, and propase :i.ntervention strategies.
'
Everyone on the child 's educati011: team, including tl:ie pru~ary caregiver, needs.to understand
· thaf llie interpreter iS actiñg as a bridge of communication between the SLP, the child, and the
child's family. Tbroughout this process, the interpreter must remain neutral.
Interpreting and translaling are not easy tasks. Specialized training is necessary before one can
become an international conference interpreter for the United Nations, an interpreter for the
deaf, or, in some states, a medical or court interpreter. The interpreting/translating process in
the educational and clinical fíelds, such as speech,-language pathology and audiology, has not
yet received the same recognition and is not yet considered a professional occupation. With the
ever-increasing multicultural and multilingual populations however, more trained interpreters
will be needed in these fields.

Specific Tips on How to facilitate the lnterpreting Process

i
Successful interpretatíon is greatly facilitated by ongoing collaboration be~een the SLP and
l
l
1
'i interpreter. Much of this collaboration process remains in the hands of the SLP. Langdon
(2002) suggests four basic tips for SLPs working with an interpreter.
{
l. Adjust both the type and rate of speech to that mod readily and
eamy translated.
Many interpreters find it difficult to interpret long, complex sentences, especially when th~
SLP is speaking at a rapid rate. To facílitate accurate interpretation of messages, an SLP should
speak at a moderate rate and use short, simple sentences whenever possible. It is suggested
that the primary caregiver(s) and/or relative(s) participating in the conference be asked to use
shorter sentences and/or speak more slowly as well.

2. A·void jargon•
.'
The SLP should avoid jargon. If professional terminology is u.sed, the SLP should provide a
definition to explain the word or phrase. Far example, the SLP should not use the term autístic
and ex:plain that it is a neurological disorder that affects a person's language and social ínterac-
tíon skills. Rather, the SLP should explain that autísm is a brain disorder that affects the way
a person speal<s, plays, and/or relates to others. Another example is that when an SLP uses the
tenn percentíle, he or she should not ex:plain that percentiles, which are commonly referred to
as percentile ranks, índicate a child's standing relative to others of the same age in the norma-
j tive group. Rather, the SLP should explain that a child who achieves a percentile rank of 25
f performs as well as or better than 25% of other children of the same age. In no instance should
i
i the interpreter be e>..-pected to provide a definition independently in Spanish. Defining terms is
¡ not the role of the interpreter, but that of the SLP. 1
.{
•I

~ 3. Monitor the discussion for interp:retation difficulties.

~¡., It is both the SLP's and the interpreter's responsibility to monitor the disc:ussion for any
·¡ indications that someone is confused by the interpreted discussion. For example, if the child's
:l caregiver appears confused, the SLP should stop the conversation and ask the parent, with the
assistance of the .interpreter, what questions the S.L P can answer to clarify a term or concept.
It is also important to note if the caregiver and interpreter begin to converse exclusively, leaving
others out of the dialogue. If the situation occurs, the SLP needs to intervene and ask for feed-
back about what is being discussed.

Chapter 2 Coflaborating With an lnterpreter 23

 4. Address the parent directly and m aintain eye contact.
It is professional and respectful far the SLP to add ress the caregiver directly. maintaining eye
contact with him or her. The SLP should avoid saying, ..tell Ms ... .n Likewise, the interpreter
sbould avoid saying, "the SLP says that. . . ," but instead say "! note that. . . ." :.
.,
·~.

Investment in SLP-Inte rpreter Collaboration .,'

;

Conducting assessment in a child's preferred language is essential to the authentic and accurate ~
evaluation of a child's language skills. However, the obstacles presented by the significant time !
inveshnent required for the SLP-interpreter relationship to function appropriately and the Iack ·'.
of approved funding for building this relationship are considerable. A concerted effort on the .¡.
part of school administrators is necessary far the success of SLP-interpreter collaborations. ;
SLPs must counsel the administrators in their school dístiicts and cli.nics to advocate that tb.ey i
make sufficient investrnent and provide appropriate budget and time to hire trained personnel
as interpreters and to prepare SLPs to work effectively with them.
The law requires tbat a bilingual child be assessed in his or her primary language wben needed. ~
Too often this process is bypassed, and a child is erroneously identified as baving or not having ;
a language-learning disability because the p1imary language was either not assessed correctly or)
assessed not at ali. The collaboration of SLPs and interpreters is one solution to the ueeds posed~ ·
by tbis country's growing EL L population. :\

-- ·24 Preschool Language Sca/es-5 Spanísh

Test Interpretatior1

This chapter provides infonnation needed to interpret PLS-5 Spanish results, including the
Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language seores. Guidance
on how to i:nterpret the Articulation Screener results, PLS-5 Spanish Profile, Item Analysis
Checklist, and growi:h scale values are also presented in this chapter.

Using PLS-5 Spanish in the Clinical Evaluation Process

Norm-referenced tests are generally considered appropriate and necessary to the identification
of speech and Ianguage disorders. When properly interpreted, such tests serve an important
function in assessing preschool-age children with special needs (McLean, Wolery, & Bailey,
2004). Consider the advantages and limitations of norm-referenced tests when you interpret
PLS-5 Spanish seores, recommend additional assessment, or recommend enrollment in an
íntervenlion prograrn based on those seores.
Because standardized tests are administered and scored usíng defined procedures, they tend
to be more objective than informal observations. The estimates of reliability and evidence of
validity desciibed in chapter 5 provide you with a degree of confidence that PLS-5 Spanish can
be used to make reliable and vaüd inferences about a child's language ability. Because PLS-5
Spanish is norm referenced, you can compare a child's language sldlls to the skills of his or her
age-level peers. In addition, PLS-5 Spanish offers growth scale values so you can track a child's
progress and pinpoint areas of strength or weakness vvithin a relatively short time.
Young children may perform poorly at times in a structured test sítuation (de Villiers &
de Villiers, 2010), so PLS- 5 Spanish offers the advantage of allowing you to accommodate
for a clúld's needs. PLS-5 Span:ish allows you to vary the sequence of ítem presentation and
allows the child to sít on the caregiver's lap during the test session, and/or take short breaks.
With children younger than age 3, the majority of the items can be scored based on your
observations of spontaneously occurring communication behaviors during play with caregivers
andlor siblings. These accommodations increase the likelihood of a child following dírections
and attending to and responding to the test tasks.
Although PLS-5 Spanish allows for testing accommodations, it is important to adhere to
standardized testing procedures and stimulí. If you deviate from the standardized testing pro-
ccdures and stimuli (e.g., change the item or directions, add or omit cues, omit practice items),
· you may change the difficulty of the test items and invalidate tl1e use of the norrnative seores.
In addition, you can only compare the seores of a child you have tested to the normative sample
of age peers if the characteristics of the sample are comparable to the child you are testing. The
standardization research was designed so the normative sample likely represents the population
of the children you test. However, be aware that the interaction between you and the child
can be a source of variance. For example, the child rnay be hesitant to respond to people with
whom he or she is unfamiliar. Therefore, this child's test seores may not be an accurate indica-
tor of his or her true communication ability. Under these conditions, it is important to record
your observations of the chíld during testing in the notes section of the Pmtocol.o and to report
these observations ín your written evaluation.

27
 There are additiou.al concerns with the use of standardized measures with children from diverse
cultural/linguistic backgrounds. In addition to the possibility that test items may be biased, there
are concems that basic aspects of a standardized assessment, such as the format of the test ques-
tions and the structure of the test situation, can be unfamiliar to children from a nonmainstream
culture and can result in erroneously low test seores (Chamberlain & Medinos-Landurand, 1991;
Mattes & Omark, 1991; Padilla & Borsato, 2007).
Langdon (2002) emphasizes that specifíc learning and experience affect how well a clúld
responds to test items. If a chtld does not respond to test items successfully, examiners must
consider that lack of e».-posure or practice may be a factor. The research conducted with PLS-5
Spanish indicates that Spanish-speaking children in the United States and Puerto Rico were able
to perforrn the test tasks. Hmvever, when you test a child who does not live in the same environ-
ments as Spanish-speaking children living in the U.S. or Puerto Rico (e.g., if you test a child who
has grown up in a remete or rural area in a Spanish-speaking country), you may need to consider
sorne alternative test procedures (e.g., questionnaires and checklists, dynamic assessment, behav-
ioral observations).
Anderson (1996) noted that "any attempt to reduce linguistic and cultural bias requires an
informed clinician" (p. 117). Young children's behavior and the resulting test seores can be mis-
interpreted or over interpreted by an inexperienced clinician or a clínici.an who is not familiar
with assessment and measurement issues. Thus, clinicians should select tests appropriate for the
target population and read tbe materials describing the administration and scoring procedures
and the interpretation of test results. Test developers should define the test measures and provide ...
clinicians with information desc1ibing test development, reliability, and validity (AERA, AJ?A,
& NCME, in press; Joint Committee on Testing Practices, 2004). It is imp01tant to keep in
mind that the administrntion of PLS-5 Spanish should be only one part of the total diagnostic
evaluation. The PLS-5 Spanish provides supplemental measures (the Articulation Screener, the
Language Samp1e Checklist, and the Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar) for this pur-
pose. In addition, research indica.tes numerous altemate procedures for assessing children from
Spanish-speaking households (Anderson, 2002; Battle, 2002; Brice, 2002; Goldstein, 2001). These
assessment proced~1res includes questionnaires and checklists (Boudreau, 2005), dynamic assess-
ments (Austin, 2010; Gutiérrez-Ciellan & Peña, 2001), performance assessments (de Villiers &
de Villiers, 2010), ecological assessments (Brassard & Boehm, 2007), and behavioral observations
(Centeno & Eng, 2005).
Other studies (Figueroa & Newsome, 2006; Kraemer, 2010) have found that inappropriate lan- J-
guage and educational assessment procedures have often been attributed to the disproportionate ;
number of Spanish speakers who are erroneously referred for special education services. Evidence í
indica.tes that language development in bilingual children, who typically use Spani.sh in!the home ;
and English at school, leads to different use patterns in the two languages (Grosjean, 1989).
Umbel et al. (1992) found that when only a single language was considered on a receptive vocabu- :.J.
lary task for school-age bilingual children, total receptive vocabulary •vas underestimated. When ·(
both languages were considered without duplicated concepts in both languages, receptive vocabu-
lary skills were similar to .ri1onolinguals. It is i.mportant to note that even far the first la.nguage,
vocabulary knowledge would have been underestimated íf only that language was e>.-plored.
The PLS-5 Spanish is based on a bilingual testing method that includes ítem administration
in both languages when necessary and allow·s chíldren to respond in either language in arder
to accommodate dual langua.ge scoring. The norms are based on the total number of correct
responses, regardless of the language of administration. Bedore and colleagues (2005) found that ¡:
with a dual language assessment approach, the classification accuracy of children with and without t
language impairment increased from 50% to 80% far bilingual children who had stronger English :!
skills and from 70% to 80% for bilingual children who had stronger Spanish sldlls. This suggests :·
that a dual language assessment approach is useful regardless of proficíency level or relative domi- .
nance in one language or the other. The dual Jangua.ge assessment approach utilized in PLS-5
Spanish, will allow clinicians to observe the language abilities of bílinguals as a whole language
system, rather than two separate systems, as has been the approach of past assessment tools. '.s

28 Preschool Language Scales-5 Spanísh

Des~riplion of PLS--5 Spanish Seores
PLS- 5 Spanísh provides norrn-referenced information (i.e., standard seores, percentile ranks,
and age equivalents) that enables you to determine if a chíld has a receptive, expressíve, or
receptive-e>..-pressive language delay or disorder and the severity of the delay or disorder. PLS-5
Spanish also provides criterion-referenced seores to assist you in. idenf1f».ng area,s in whi_ch .the
chila rieeds in-depth testing. Fór exainplé, comparison of a chíld's Articulation Screener raw
score to crite1ion score ranges indicates if the child's performance is typical of age peers or
if further evaluation is warranted. By using the PLS- 5 Spanish snpplemeutal language skills
analyses (Item Analysis Chedclist in appendix E of the Manual de administración y puntuacíón
ari.d the PLS-5 Spanish Profile in the Protocolo), you. can evaluate the ehild's strengths, emerg-
ing skills, and deficits. lo addition, PLS-5 Spanish includes growth scale values for receptive
and e.>1-pressive language skills from ages birth to 7 years 11 months. If you administer PLS- 5
Spanish to a child multiple times over the course of providing speech-language services, you
can compare the child's PLS-5 Spanish growth scale values to measure progress against his or
her previous performani::e and determine the efficacy of an intervention protocol that has been
implemented for the child.

Norm-Referenced Standard Seores

Norm-referenced standard seores can be used to compare a chíld's performance to the
performance of other cbtldren the same age. The nonnative sample serves as the reference
population to which a clüld's performance is compared. PLS-5 Spanish provides three norm-
referenced standard sco:res with a mean of 100 anda standard deviation (SD) of 15. These are
an Auditory Comprehension (AC) standard score, an Expressive Communication (EC) standard
score, and a Total Langnage (TL) composite score. The standard score unit is commonly used
in language, psychological, and educational batteries. McCauley ancl Swisher (1984) point out
that standardized seores are useful in comparil1g a child 's seores on a single test over time, to
those of children in a normative sample and with those of another child. Figure 3.1 shows the
distribution of standard seores on P.LS-5 Spanish and Table 3.1 shows distances from the mean
of selected standard seores.

Percent of cases 34.13%

under portions of 0.13% 2.14'Yc 0.13%
~ ~
the normal curve
"
Percenti le rank
1 99
Standard Score
(Mean of 100 and
an SD of 15) 55 70 85 100 115 130 145

Figure 3.1 The Normal Curve aml Us Relationship to Standard Seores and Percentile Rauks
on PLS-5 Spanish ·

Chapter 3 Test lnterpretatíon 29

 Table 3.1 Distance from the Mean of Selected Standard Seores

Standard Score Distance From Mean Percentile Rank

145 +3 SD 99.9
130 +2 SD 98
115 +1 SD 84
100 Mean 50
85 -1 SD 16
70 -2 SD 2

------------------------------------·!
55 -3 SD 0.1

A standard score of 100 on this scale represents the performance of the typical child of a given
!

age. Standard seores between 85 and 115 correspond to one standard deviation below and
above the mean, respectively; seores within this range are considered to be within normal lim-
its. About two-thirds of all ch:i.ldren with typícal language development obtain PLS-5 Spanish
seores in thís range.
.'.1
'I
Clinician's Note: Gritería for identi:fying a child as having a language disorder vary among
school districts aIJd treatment prograrns. For sorne agencies, 1 standard deviation below ;;·-!
~-1-.
the mean is used a.S the criterion to qualify a child for enrollment in their programs, wbile
others may use 1.5 or 2 standard deviati.ons below the mean as the criterion. For example, ~

~,~
a child age 5 years 5 months obtains a TL composite score of 79. If the criterion for
enrollment in tb.e school district's speech-language therapy program is a standard score of ; . >.

77 or below (1.5 standard deviations below the mean), a clinician could not use a PLS-5
Spanish standard score of 79 as evidence of a language dísorder to qualify the child for r;
.1:

therapy in that school district. Even if the child had scored 77 or below, it would still be ~¡
inappropriate to refer hirn or her for services based solely on the obtained PLS-5 Spanish
results. Instead, the clinician should refer to the con.fidence intervals around the obtained
score (e.g., confidence inteival at 90% is 75--86) and further evaluate the chüd using other
assessment protocols.
i.~
':~
'.I
,1 ••
Confidence lntervals
Sorne degree of error is reflected in the score a child obta.ins on any test. If a test were per- ·~
;1I •
fectly relíable (and ·without any measur~ment error), a child would always obtai11 the same score il
if given the test repeatedly, and if no improvements to language have occurred. This score is a ·.; -~
hypothetical true score. Because no test is perfectly reliable, the true score is expected to lie .1
within a range of seores that reflects the expected amount of measurement error. · I
One of the strengths of a nonn-referenced test is that it specifies the size of the estimated
measurement error. The standard error of measurement (SEM) is the amount of error (in
-1
standard score units) you should consider when you interpret a child's seores. The smaller the .; ,
SEM, the more reilable the test, and consequently, the more confidence you can have in the :-
test score. The SEM is used to calcula.te the con.fidence intervals for the standard seores a child .:
has obtained on the PLS-5 Spanish sea.les. The confidence intervals for the Total Language f:
score were derived by a slightly dífferent method using the child's estimated true score and the
standard error of estimation, which centers the confidence interval around the estimated true
score rather than the observed score. Using confidence intervals, rather than a ~pecifi.c single
score, enables you to state the degree of confi.dence you have in a classification, eligibility, or
placement decision based on PLS-5 Spanish results. Therefore, reporting a confidence interval
around a clrild's score is particul.arl)' important in cases for which the score will be used to
make those types of decisions.

·-- 30 · Preschoof!::.anguage Scafes-5 Spanish

 Each scale or composite score is subject to a greater or lesser degree of measurement error,
depending on the precision of the particular scale or composite score for a given age. Because
the SEM may be different for each scale or composite score ata given age, the confidence ú1ter-
val (or range) will also be dífferent at that age. Standard score con.fidence intervals required for
90% and 95% levels of confidence for the AC and EC seores and the TL composite score, as
well as the corresponding percehtile ranks, have been ?omputed far you and are presented in
appendix A in the Manual de iJ.dministraCión y puntuación.
Figure 3.2 shows an e:mrnple of score ranges for 90% and 95% confidence intervals. The 90%
confidence interval for a standard score of 64 on the AC scale for a child 3 years 4 months is
61 to 72. This means that you can be 90% confident that the child's true score is between 61
and 72. With a 95% conndence interval, the range of seores is 59 to 73; thus, you can be 95%
confident that the child's true score is between 59 and 73.

Child's Name: Niña A· __!?--'-'d_. ___

Address: _/_2_.3_~_e_a_r_s_o
_11
Age: 8.4 Sex: _E_ Grade:------ School: _N_l__A ___________
Examiner: Exal'!Jinador A. Teacher: _N_l__,_A
___________

PRsforSS ,,, ;:_ . ., '·

Percentile C:onfidem::e ,;.'· . -~g·e
Rank(PR) lnterval Values ':':i::j¡ul.viilen_t::..

J ¡ to .:3 #~: ·. 1 ~'" ,.' • • ~·: .

.... ~~~.: .! .• . ;'! .

90% Confidence lnterval Leve!

3_7_-11. · ~~~~~~~>~:::_~,;~\:té!~~: r PRsforSS "' ·-· .

Com~°!::~~ion
1-L_a_st_A_C_ita_m_a_d_m_in_is_te_re_d_ _ , _

Minus (-) number ofO seores j-

_

CJ ¡ sj;orii.t.S~j ..~~Jí~r~)(
Percentile
Ranlc (PR} lnfeºr~~~~:f:es ..-.:"t~~~:.~~~t_
....
·;
2 s 1.: {é;_4.._: ... Y:i:ia-.:r-~·
~- ~~:·.

ACRawScnre
I / to4 ..
95% Confidence lnterval Leve!

Figure 3.2 Examples of Score Ranges for 90% an.d 95% Con.6dence Intervals

Percentile Ranks
PLS-5 Spanish provides age-based percentile ranks for the Auditory Comprehension and
Expressive Communication standard seores and the Total Language composite score. Percentile
ranks should not be confosed with the percentage of correct answers on a test. Figure 3.1
shows percentile rank~ in a normal distribution. Percentile ranl<s indicate a child's standing in
relation to others of the sume age in the normative group. They reflect percentiles on a scale at
or below a given score, based on the normative sample. The mean standard score of 100 is at
the 50th percentile rank for ali ages. A child who achieves a percentile rank of 25 performs as
well or better tban 2.5% of the cbildren mthe same age group while 75% of the children in this
group obtaíned higher seores.
Percentile ranks are easy for caregivers to understand and useful for e1.-plaining a child's perfor-
mance on PLS-5 Spanish relative to the perfonnances of others. Percentile ranks do not have
equaJ intervals, like standard seores, and they cluster near the 50th percentile (i.e., the mean).
Consequently, for a child who seores within the average range, a change of 1 or 2 total raw score

Chapter 3 Test lnterpretation 31

 points may produce a large change in his or her percent:ile rank. Conversely, for a child who
-seores very low or very high, a change of 1 or 2 raw score points is not likely to produce a large ·1
change in his or her percentile rank. Table 3.1 shows percentile ranks that correspond to selected:)
standard seores and their distances from the mean, expressed in standard deviation urrits. ·:.

Age Equivalents
PLS-5 Spanish provides age equivalents that indicate the specific age at which a gíven raw
score is typically obtained by an individual. Although age equivalents have been widely used
. -~
and appear to be useful for describing a child's langua:ge skills in comparison to language
functioning far children of various ages, they are easily misinterpreted and have a number of
psychometric limitatíons.

Limitation l
Age equivalents do not reflecta child's relative rank ar standing within a group of age peers,
and therefore lack the precise informatíon that \\>i.thin-group norms provide about rank within
an age range. You can make judgments about a child's relative standing only by using standard
seores or percentile ranks (Lawrence, 1992.; McCauley & Swisher, 1984; Wiig, Secord, &
Semel, 2004).

Limitatíon 2
Small raw score changes may result in large changes in age equivalents. Large differences
between age equivalents and a child's chronological age may be obtained, but interpreting
the child's language skills as being far belO\v or far above average for his or her age may be l
unwarranted because the range of average seores overlaps at adjacent age groups. For example,
Niño A, age 5 years 4 months obtains an Expressive Communication raw score of 46 tl1at cor-
responds toan age equívalent of 5 years 4 months. Niñ.o B, also age 5 years 4 months, obtains
an E:i....-pressive Communication raw score of 41 that corresponds to an age equivalent of 4 years
7 months. Examining age equivalents alone might lead to the conclusion that Niño !\.s skills are .
9 months more advanced than Niño B's. In fact, Niño Xs and Niño B's scaled seores are 101 and ;
89 respectively, both in the average range compared with their age peers. ;¡
'1'
:¡
Clinician's Note: An age equivalent may suggest that a child is functioníng below his or
her chronological age wben in reality his or her score is within normal limits for a child
that age. · ;.'I •
i.;.~·-~
Limitation 3
Age equivalents may not be comparable across scales (i.e., a child's percentile ranks for the AC .: .1
and EC scales with the same age equivalents may differ substantíally). For example, a child age .; 1·. :
3 years 2 months obtains an age equivalent of 2 years 10 months on both AC and EC scales;
however, the respective percentile ranks for the scales are 21and30.

T!~!
.l.A.lllltation 4
0
:1
·¡ .~
; ~

An extreme age equivalent (rnuch lower or much higher than chronological age) does not signifyi·I
that the child's language functioning resembles that of the extreme age group in every way. In 1 i
additiori, age equivalents at the most extreme ends of the age range are particularly difficult to \!fJ,
interpret because they may only be reported as being less than O years 1 month or greater than ¡l!l.
7 years 11 roonths. j :
'
~

' -
32 · ·· Pres6fiooltangaage-Scales-5 Spanish
 Because of these limita.tions, it is not recommended that you use age equivalents as the primary
seores for diagnosis. Standard seores or percentile ranks must be u.sed to compare a child's per-
fonnance to others of the sarne age. Diagnostic decisions should be made frorn a review of the
child's standard seores :in conjunction with background and qualitative inforrnation such as lan-
guage samples, primary caregiver/teacher ínterviews, and observations of the child in dífferent
language contexts. Placement decisions or cliagnoses should never be based on age equivale_Ilts
·· ··· only-or on any one type of score.

Clinicían's Note: The age equivaients for Total Language are based on tbe sum of raw
seores of the AC and EC scales. You can only make judgments about a child's standing
relative to peers by using standard seores or percentile ranks.

Calcu.lating Percen.t Delay From an Age Equivalent

Sorne states and agencie:s t hat require quantitative criteria for placíng preschool children in spe-
cial services provide cliníci.ans with tbe option of expressing delay as a percent of cbronologícal
age (Bleile, 2004) . Calculating percent delay is most often done by divid.ing the age at which an
obtained raw score is the median (the age equivalent) by the child's chronological age and then
subtracting the percenta.ge from 100. Thus, a child who is 53 months old, wíth an age equíva-
lent of 42 months would either be performing at 79% ability orbe considered to have a 21%
delay. If the child's school district required a 25% delay as tbe criterion for receiving special
servíces, a child. with a 2.1 % delay would not be recomrnended for services on the basis of the
calculated percent delay, even if the child had signíficant deficits in one area of language. Due
to the problems inhe.r ent in using age equivalents, it is recommended that you avoid using per-
cent delay to qualif)r children far services, and instead use standard seores or percentile ranks.

Growth Sea le Va lues

Growth scale values provide an equal interval scale from which you can quantify small
improvements in the language sldlls of a child with a moderate to severe language impainnent.
PLS-5 Spanísh provides growth scale values for the AC and EC scales. You can use gmwth
scale values to
'" track a child's language skills development as rneasured by PLS-5 Spanish from age birth
through 1years11 months;
11 determine if the child has gained additional language skills since a previous administratíon
of PLS-5 Spanish; and
., measure the efficacy of an intervention protocol that has been implemented for the child.
The advantage of using g:~owtb scale values rather than scaled seores to assess improvement
in a child's language ability is that the grm.vth sea.le values provi.de a quanlifiable measure of
a child's changes in language ability, even if the arnount of change is not sufficient to narrow
the gap between the chilcl's language skills and those of same-age peers. That is, growth scale
values provide an estiro.ate of language ability independent of a child's peer group. The seores
increase as the child demom"trates new abílities. Growth scale values have a theoretical range of
100-900, váth a mean of 500 and a SD of 100.

Clinician's Note: PLS-5 Spanish growtb scale values were developed based on the
PLS-5 Spanish normative sample only. PLS-5 Spanish growth scale values cannot be used
to compare PLS-4 Spanish assessment results with PLS-5 Spanish assessment results.

Chapter 3 Test lnterpretation 33

 Criterion-Referenced Seores
Criterion-referenced sc.'Ores provide a way to compare a child's performance to a standard
(crlterion) of performance. Criterion-referenced seores are not dependent on an approximately
normal distr~bution of raw seores._ The raw seores may be skewed, with the curve deviating
_,
greatly from the normal distribution. In practice, this tend.s to be the case when measuring
skills that are not dependent upon learning but reflect maturity, based on developmental behav-
ior relationships. Although standard seores may reflect learning and acquisiti.on, and therefore
measure the accuracy of performance, criterion-referenced seores may reflect different criteria
established for performance. The PLS-5 Spanish Articulation Screener, for example, provides
three descriptions of performance: Typical of Age-Level Peers, Further Evaluation Indicated,
and Further Evaluation Strongly Indicated. 1
f
Interpretation of PLS-5 Spanish Seores •
.
.;~
~ ~

'~
Standard seores and percentile ranks are reported for the Auditory Comprehension and !if
Expressive Communication scales as well .as for Total Language ability. Each of these seores can ;~ 1
•
be used by a clinician to determine if a child meets eligibility criteria under IDEIA for speech- • :\ ·1 4
language developmental delay or disorder. AC, EC, or Total Language seores, in conjunction ~·j
with other test results, can assist a clinician in determ:illing if a child has primarily a receptive ·1 ~· 4
1anguage delay/disorder, expressive language delay/disorder, ora delay/disorder that involves : ij f
both modalities. Low standard seores ar percentile ranks far eíther Auditory Comprehension, ', !: f
Expressive Communication, or Total Language ability can be used to diagnose a disorder and '.i
qualify a chíld for services. i~ f
:.~
;itl
j:~
f
?'Ei
Evaluating Differences Between th1e AC and EC Scales
·f;~15 f
•
I
As recently as a decade ago, it was considered a giv·en that children learn to understand ::a::
~ :.%
language concepts befare they learn to express them. However, Owens (2008) cites research
1.1
that indica.tes
:f.
.' ~ '•
••
The comprehension-production relationship is a dynamic one that changes with
a child's developroental leve! and with each aspect of language. Far example, .; ~
it's different for syntax and phonology. In other words, the relationship between 1
1
f
comprehension and production changes because of different tates of development ·-

and different linguistic demands. (p. 154) '1 í

PLS-5 Spanish is .designed to help you analyze a child's performance, interpret the test results, '
and detemúne if the ch.ild's development of auditory c0111prehension ski.lis is commensurate with ·: ¡ ·
~1 •
his or her development of expressive communication slctlls. A Discrepancy Comparíson table is ·¡~
included to assist in the evaluation of score differences between AC and EC standard seores. ! j.
~i
In the PLS-5 Spanish normative sample, the patterns of score differences were fairly consis-
tent; 2.8% of the sample showed no difference between the AC standard scme and the EC i'
standard score, 48.2% obtained a higher AC score, and 49.0% obtained a higher EC standard
score. Approximately 48% of the normative sample had a difference of at least one standard
score point between the AC and the EC standard seores, and approximately 34% had a dif-
ference of at least five points between the two seores. You can e>..pect most of the children to
whom you administer PLS-5 Spanish to exhibit sorne difference between these hvo seores. For :
more detailed description of score comparisons vvithin t:he normative sample, see chapter 5. ·

34 Preschoof Language Scales-5 Spanish

 To determine if a child 's language disorder is generalized across receptive ·and expressive skills
or if it is primarily a receptive or expressive defícit, you need to evaluate the difference between
the AC and EC standard seores to determine if the difference is signíficant. It is important that
you compare the child's relative performance on the AC and EC scales before making díagnos-
tic and educational decisions about the overall nature of the language deficit.
'
Detl:lrmining if the difforence between the AC and EC standard seores is atrue difference, ·
rather than a difforence due to measurement error or random fluctuations, requires that you
analyze the standard seores far differences using the followíng procedure.

Comparing AC and EC Standard Seores

Comparing the AC and EC standard seores is a two-step process. The first step in compar-
ing AC and EC standard seores is to determine if the difference between them is statistically
significant. Table 3.2 shows the mínimum differences between standard seores (critica} values)
required for statistical signíficance at the .05 and .15 levels by age. You can ehoose the level of
sígnili.canee you wísh to use in comparing the standard seores. When choosing a significance
level, it is important to recognize that the .05 level of signifícance is a broader indicator of dif-
ferences between standard seores while the .15 leve} of significance gives a narrower indication.
When completing the Discrepancy Comparison section on the Protocolo, use the absolute value
of the standard score difference (i.e., the number without regard to the + or - sign) to compare
to tbe appropriate criticEJ value. If the absolute value is equal to or greater than the critica!
value, the difference is consídered sígnificant. For example, an AC standard score of 78 and an
EC standard score of 92 vields a dífference of-14 (78 -92 = -14). The absolute value of -14 is
14. If the critícal value is·' 12, the difference is statistically significant because the absolute value
of the score diffoi1ence (14) is greater than 12.
When the absolute value difference between two standard seores is statistically sígnificant,
the difference is considered to be a true difference rather than due to measurement error or
random fluctuation. If the lwo seores are not signíficantly different, you cannot rule out the
possibility that the diffor.ences observed are simply due to measurement error. To evaluate stan-
dard score differences, complete the Discrepancy Comparison table on page 1 of the Protocolo.
If there is a statistically significant difference between the AC and EC standard seores, the
second step is to evaluate if the statistical difference bears any clinical meaning. \Ve do so by
checking how prevalent the score difference was in the normative sample. Table 3.3 reports
the prevalence of standard score differences in the PLS-5 Spanish normative sample. The less
often a score difference occurs, the greater the chance that tbe difference may have more
clinical significance.
Sattler (2008) suggests that differences between standard seores that occur in less than 10% to
... 15% of the norn1ative sample should be considered unusual. For example, if a child obtains a
¡
standard score of 79 on the AC scale and a standard score of 54 on the EC scale, the difference
• between seores is 25 points (79 - ,54 = 25). As shown in Table 3.3, an AC standard score that
is 25 or more points greater than the EC standard score occurred in 2.1% of the nonnative
sample. Therefore, the difference between the AC and EC standard seores for this child can be
consídered unusual because of its infrequent occurrence in the normative population.

Chapter 3 Test interpretatíon 35

 ••
Table 3.2 Critica! Values for Discrepancy Comparison Betvveen Auditory Comprehension (AC)
and Expressive Communication (EC) Standard Seores
•
••
r:'.~_;O- O~i~0-~-~ ~ ~t_f_·~~~-:~_:~~~~~~~~~-:~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ••
.º·~~:~,:.:'.~:/:~;..
:..
.05
.15
l i7
13

•
0:6--0:8 ._' ' .. .05 16
~5 12
t--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 7_ ~
..
O:S-0:11 ~5 18

~,-:~-~-·~:-~_"'-,~~~~-·~-:~~--------~~~:~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~---1 ~1
. .. . ..: ~ '~ . JI •
.. :
f--~~~--~~~-·_15~~~~~~~~~ª~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ :~
;: 11
2:0-2:5
;.-._.
.05 11
·;~
&!;
•
~·2_.:6-;_:~_!_:1_~-~;:_:::~~~~-·:_:~~~--~~~~~-2~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JI
3:0-3:5 '- ., ... .05 11 ,, ~

r,3-:6--~:-~1_... _.~~~~-::-:~~~--~~~~~~~~--~~~~~--~--~--~~~~--J1i
4:0-4~5
.15
.05
10
10
:¡
.. ª1

=.;
•
4:6-4:11
.15
.05
7
1i
:
· ~
!
, '<!!
.15 8 ~ it
!_i
5:0-5:5 .05 10 '"*"
··... ·· ~1
. S:fr-5:11
:.:..
~ ~ ~I
.15 9 l•!
6:0-6:5 .05 13 ~,¡
.1s 9 ;I
6:6-6:11
.:: :
.05 11 i·1·
.15 8 '=

:~:;0-/:'.\;L)... .os
1---~~~~~~~-·_15~~~~~~~~~s~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~L~
12 :J
r:tmN,;'.'.J.. .05 18 ; 1
t--.-,~..~..~~~~~~:~-:~~~~~~~~~-:~~--~~~~--~~~~~~--~~~--;ti
: Tot<¡f·Sample
.._______________.1_s________________1º~--~·~-------------------------,-----_.i
+ to
,
~.
Note. When completing the Olscrepancy Comparlson, use tha absolute value (!.e., the "umber without regard 10 1he or -) of the standatd score dttterence
1
compare to the cr!Ucal vatue. · "'

·--36 .. Preschool Language Scales-5 $panish

Table 3.3 Cumulative Prevalence of Auditory Comprehension (AC) and Expressive
Communication (EC) Stamlard Score Dilferences in the Normative Sample

·=,.:y:_-~o·_:':'.·t:·

:Y~'iEJ't'~
0.2 0.3

. :>!~·..\:~~-:. 0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
37 0.4 0.3 .:. 37 ..
36 0.5 0.3 ~36 . ·.
: 35 0.6 0.3 .:·. '·:.'·3?.:·,'>.'
;\34 0.6 0.4 .::·:.:..':.<3(.:.:.:;
0.6 0.4 <·_33 ..
; : ·;·32 0.7 0.5 ·32
·.· 31 0.8 0.7 '·31 ..
; _30 0.9 1.0 ··.30:
·29 1.0 1.0 : 29 .:· ·,
·.· .28 .. 1.1 1.3 -·~
·. 27 1.9 1.3 ; ._;:41 :! ·.. :· .
26 . 2.2 1.6 26
; ... :25 2.3 2.1
24 . 2.3 2.6 24
. · ··23 2.8 3.1 23
22 3.7 3.6 22
21 4.1 4.0 21
20 5.1 4.5 20
19 5.7 5.6 19
1B 6.6 6.3 18
17 7.4 7.7 17
16 9.1 8.9 16
15 10.5 9.6 15
14 12.0 11 .4 14
13 13.3 12.4 13
12 15.2 15.6 12
11 17.6 18.0 11
lO 20.0 19.B 10
9 22.1 22.7 9
8 24.7 25.1 B
27.7 28.3 7
30.7 31.7 ·5·
33.7 34.6 ·.:_-.:.5 .:·:

39.0 37.0
42.2 40.B ':~::.:y;,::;.3\··.·i
·44.6 44.7 · :::<>>'.'.'2.':_·,.~>':
49.0 48.2 ·..:. ': 1 ··:·:··.•:
.:·Mean 9.5 9.5 :::.:Mean'
:.:.......
:·.-.:·.SO:.:....,·, 7.4 7.2 :,:. ~D·,;·
··:Mec!tan 6 B M\ldian,

Chapter 3 Test lnterpretation 37

 ~·

lnterpreting Growth Scale Values

As periodic assessments with PLS-5 Spanish are conducted, the AC and EC growth scale val- ·~; !fr.
ues can be recorded (refer to appendix C in the Manu-.al de administración y puntuaci6n), and J: ~'-~
-!
changes in the child's performance from one assessment pe1iod to the next can be compared. i~
When comparing the seores from,two PLS- 5 Spanish administrations, three patterns are possi- ii.·
ble: the growth scale value from the most recent test .administration increases, is approximately -~ : .
the same, or decreases. ·1 :
¡ :-.

~~~~
In sorne cases, you will find that the growth scale values increase across repeated testing sessions.
i.;.1
·. -
.
Growth scale values increase when the child earns ad.ditional raw score points on the AC and ;'11
EC scales. Score increases, even small increases, can usually be attributed to refinement or ·~
mastery of additional developmental language skills that the child <lid not demonstrate during ~ 1 :.

the previous test administration.

\i\lhen interpreting the results of testing, keep in mind that there may be reasons other than
mastery of additional language skills for growth scale values to have increased.
,:
-;:.

; ":
1
• The child could have been shy, sick, tired, distrae:ted, or frustrated during the f.irst test i~
administration, and didn't perform at his or her best. When this is the case, it is possible ¡; ~ ·
that the previous PLS-5 Spanish test score was depressed and <lid not reflect the child's ·; ~-
true language skills. i 1
'" The child may have guessed the correct response to one or more test items. On sorne ,~
standardized tests, a child may receive a higher raw score by guessing correctly on a mul- '. j
tiple choice test ítem. The possibility of a chíld aehieving a higher raw score due to guess- ; 1
ing on PLS-5 Spanish i,s minímized by the fact that there are few test items in which ·'. ~
there are opportunities for guessing the correct answer, particularly on the fa.-pressive . 1
Communication scale. The items in which a child can guess the correct answer on the ~ ~-
Auditory Comprehension scale tend to cluster at the higher ages. However, those items ; 1
require that the child demonstrate the target beha-vior two or more times to meet the pass ;
;¡~
1
criteria and obtain a raw score point, so it is unlikely that "a lucky guess" is a major factor in ;~
a growth scale value increase. '¡ 1
Seores Stay About the Same ·' 1
fB
Sometimes a child's growth scale value changes very little. Possible reasons include: > 1
e The ~íld may have been tested before additional developmental changes have occurred. ,:~ j
A child younger than 1 year of age can reasonably be tested every three months because .'i .•
developmental change occurs so quickly at this age. A child older than l year of age may or j_;¡_;l!
may not be expected to show a difference in sldlls in three months time. ÍI~
• At sorne points along the developmental continuum, typically-developing children may pla- .-¡ ~ .
teau for certain types of language skills. When this is the case, you may not see progress for j
certain types of skills. Acquisition of morphological markers, for example, does not neces-
sarily proceed at a continuous pace. You may see no increase in growth scale values if the :j
-il
~hild's difficulties are pri~arily related to acqni?ng m.orp~ological markers, and he o: she } ·
is tested at an age for wlnch there are no PLS-b Spamsh items to capture morphological .¡
development. You will need to review the PLS-5 Spanish Profile (in the Protocolo) to iden- -~
tify the ages at which specifíc language skills ar,;; tested. ·i
., The child may not have been in therapy for a sufficient length of time for change to occur ?

as a result of intervention (e.g., the child is only in.the fourth week of an eight-week inten-
sive speech therapy program) .

.. . .. -38 . -· Preschool Language Sca/es-5 Spanish

Seores Decrease
In sorne cases, growth ~:cale values may decrease from prevíous testing.
ª Declining growtb scale values may reflect the characteristics of the disorder exlribited by
the child. For example, some children identified with autism spectrum disorder may mas-
ter ear.ly language milestones (e.g., learn to say their first words at 12-15 months), but then
. r~gress (e.g.,. they may stop talking) . Children ·w ith a severe hearing impainnent may babble
and vocaJize initially for the motor feedback, and then stop vocalizing because they don't
experience the auditory feedback.
e Growth scale values may decrease for a child who is sick, tired, fussy, or distracted during
the subsequent test session. In this situation, the child fa not demonstrating a "best perfor-
mance," and it would be erroneous to interpret a lower score as evidence that the child is
losing language sldUs.
o In sorne cases, a child may have a progressive or degenerative condition in which the
child loses prevíously acquired language sldlls. A child who has suffered a traumatic
event (e.g., head injury) or illness (e.g., meningitis or sudden onset of a seizure·disorder)
may also lose previously acquired language skills.

Clinical Signiíicanc e of Score D:ifferen.ees

Keep in mind that a chi.Jd may obtain a growth scale value that increases very little f:rom the
earlier test administration, but ha5 learned sldlls that are clinically significant (i.e., the language
s1dlls learned represent t he acquisilion of an important language milestone that is used in com-
munication interactions in functional contexts). Far example, a young cbild who vocalized and
babbled dming an earlier administration of PLS-5 Spanish, but then used three words consis-
tently in a more recently administered test would earn one additional raw seore point (on EC19
Uses at least one word) resultíng in a difference of only 5 growth scale value points (rn.w score
of 18 with GSV of 305; raw score of 19 with GSV of 310). However, a child who previously only
babbled and now uses the word mamá. to identify his mother, galleta to request a snack, and
arriba to request to be pieked up, has made clinically meaningful progress.

Interpreting Growth Scale Values Relatlve to Standard § c o res

Both standard seores and growth scale values should be examined to obtain a complete picture
of the child's performance sinee his or her last assessment with PLS-5 Spanish. Cha:nges in
standard seores will gíve you information about how the child is performi:ng compared to other
children the same age. Changes in growth scale values will give you informat.ion about the gains
the child has made since his or her last assessment.
You can record on the Pmtocow the PLS-5 Spanish standard seores to compare the child's lan-
guage skills to other children the same age and the growth scale values to compare to his or her
previous performance. Table 3.4 describes the d ifferent patterns of performance that you may
observe based on the changes in the child's standard seores and growth scale values over time.
Keep in mind that i.f a child has a moderate or severe disability, PLS-5 Spanish standard seores
may show little change over time even though the child is leaming new Ianguage skills. Growth
seale values are more likely to reflect the changes the child has made as a result of intervention.

Chapter 3 Te st lnterpretation 39

Table 3.4 Interpreting Change in a Child's Standard Seores and Growth Scale Values Over Tnne
Score Pattem
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~--~~~~~~~.:;_~~~~~~~~-·¡
Both standard score and
growth scale value increase
Standard score does not change;
growth scale value increases
Standard score does not change;
growth scale value increases
very little
Standard score decreases;
growth scale value increases
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s-am~e_a_g_e~h-as~w_i_d_e_ne_d_.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~-·._ _·,·a
Both standard score and
growth scale value decrease
. . - - .40 -·- __ Pr.eschoo/_Language Spa/e.s:--.5 $pqn_[~h
4
t
2
-~
••
Standard Score Growth Score ' ~
lnterpretation lnterpretation
lfthe child's standard score at The child is learning new ·•
.. t
'the first test was below average
{84 or below), the gap between
language skills or improving
current language skílls.
.~
;. ••
••
the child's performanice and
the performance of typically-
developing children who are the
same age has narrowed.
The child's ranking rnlative to
children who are the same age
The child is learning new
language skills or improving ••
•
has not changed. current language skills.
·••
The child's ranking mlative to The child may or may not be
children who are the same age gaining new language skitls
has not changed. or improving current lan-
guage ski!ls.
The child's skills are lagging
further behind children who are
The cliild is learning new
language skills or improving
•
the same age. The gap between
the child's performance and
the performance of 1ypically-
developing children who are the
current language skills.
•
The child's performance is lagglng The chíld did not demonstrate ~
~.:·::1
1
further behind childrnn who are his ar her best performance :~:
the sama age. The gap betvveen during testing (e.g., dueto ~
the child and other children his or illness, inattention, or behav-
••
her age is widening ior issues); or the child is .: ~
regressing, losing previously ;~
mastered language skills ; i
(e.g., dueto a progressíve :~
condition or late onset of a ¡~
condition, such as autism or
seizure disorder), oran acci-
dent or injury (e.-g., traumatic
brafn injury).
.·,.!'. ¡
, .
._-. ·
-
•e
., (ti
-? -=
~-:i :
•
 lnterpreting Articulation Screener Raw Seores
Once you havc a raw score on the Arüculation Screener, you can determine if the child's
performance is consistent vlith the performance of age-level peers or if further evaluation is
indicated or strongly ind~cated. Table 3.5 shows the interpretation assigned to raw seores based
on the child's age.

Table 3.5 Interpre~ti'oD. or"Arlic:ulation S~eener Raw .Sc~res, by Age

2:~2:11 14 or more 4-13 3 or!ess

. 3:0-3:5 18 or more 10-17 9 or!ess
3:6-3:11 26 or more 24-25 23 or!ess
4:0-4:5 29m more 26--28 25 or less
4:6-4:11 31 or more 26-30 25 or less
.. · -·
5:0-5:5 35 or more 32-34 31 or less

. . . .. .
5:6-5:11·._. '• 35 or more 32-34 31 or less
: 6:o-6:.5 35 or more 32-34 31 or less
6:6-6:11 37 or more 35-36 34 or less
7:0-7:5 37 ormore 35-36 34or less
7:6-7:11- 39 or more 37-38 36 or less

Clinician's Note: The Articulatíon Screener presents 41 speech sounds ín the initial,
medial, or final position of words. The child produces the target sounds by naming pictures
or repeating the words you say. Chíldren who speak a regional language variation should
be given credit based on a.p propriate regional usage. You should be aware ofhow sounds
are pronounced in the child's country of orígin or community befare evaluating his or her
production of each sound. E xarnples of language variations are footnoted on the Protocolo
and described in the Manual de administración y puntuación.

Interpretin.g Seorc Man.ges

Performance Typical of t~ge-Level Peers
In the "Peiformance Typical of Age-Level Peers'' range, the child's score is within 1.5 standard
deviations of the mean, and he or she has pa.ssed the Articulation Screener. No further articula-
tion or phonological testing is warranted.

Clinician's Note: Be aware of the followíng exception: a child may pass the
Articulation Screener (a siugle-word produ.ction task) but earn a rating of poor
on the Speech Intelligibility section of the Language Sample Checklist
(a connected-speech task) . In such a case, the child may he a candidate for
further testing.

Further Evaluation lndicat ed

In the "Further Evaluation Indícated" range, the child's score is between the 2nd and 6th per-
centile, which is below average for the child's age group. You may want to follow up with more
ín-depth articulation or phonological assessment.

Chapter 3 Test lnterpretation 41

 Further Evaluation Strongly lndicated
In the "Further Evaluation Strongly Indicated" range, the child's seores are at or below the
2nd percentile, and his or her performance is significantly below the ability of age-level peers.
An in-depth assessment of oral-motor function, articnlation, and phonological development is
recommended if the child's score is within this range.

Analyzing PLS-5 Spanish Langua~~e Skills

You can analyze a child's performance on PLS-5 Spanish with the Item Analysis Checklist
and the PLS-5 Spanisb Profile. The checklist groups PLS-5 Spanish items by age; the profile
groups items by the type of language skill assessed. These two forros are used to help identify
those skills that a child has mastered and those in need of further development.

The ltem Analysis Checklist

The Item Analysis Checklist is a reproducible forro provided in appendix E in the Manual de
administración y puntuación. The checklist shows all the items on the AC and EC scales by
••
age level, and enables you to sean the errors quickly to determine if there is a pattern of errors
across an age level. By examining the pattem of errnrs across age levels, you can determine if
the child's skills are progressing in a sequential fashion. The checklist also provides you with a
summary of the child's skills and can be useful when you explain test results to parents.
•
Figures 3.3-3.5 show pattems of errors that you are likely to see. Figure 3.3 shows an item
checklist in which a child's errors occurred above that child's age level, Figure 3.4 shows an
example of errors clustered ata specific age level, a:nd Figure 3.5 shows an example of errors
scattered across multiple age ranges.
In Figure 3.3, Niña B, age 1 year 8 months, obtained a standard score of 92 on the Auditory •
Comprehension scale and a standard score of 101 on the Expressive Communication scale,
indicating that her receptive and expressive language development is typical of children her age.
The checklist in Figure 3.3 shows that Niña B made errors on tasks that were a level above her .Lll.l
'
•
!§
1 t
chronological age. :

~¡é~
<'
¡:
••
ii!
. •
:!ª
:~
~1

.1 '
1
ii '
li
¡

'

,.
,-.
; .
{

· --42 ·--·-Preschoof-1.:anguage -Scales-5 Spanish

 )e' ),-;
T ·····-··---·-·--··-~
. ·) ·) · l } ) )
- )-· ............
) ---··r--·-

i~· Item Analysis Checklist

;¡*,,:~á'íflfil<'tRlffi!íl~llQif!i.7!#\(i;~!Jlrlf&J,~~1%i;:i\iif~~J~~~
p
"'"
Birtlt-2month$ O l Glances mo1nentarily ata person who talks to him or her llirl:h-2 montbs O 1 Has a suc.k/swallow reflex:
~ o 1 Enjoys caregiver's atlcntion O 2 Varíes pitch, k'l1gtb, or volume of cries
s o o
¡....
3 Reacts to so1111ds olber than voices in thc environment 3 Vocalizes soft, throaty sounds
o 4 Looks at a speaker for two sccoods 3-S months O 4 Responds to speaker by smil ing
3-Smonths D s Turns hcad to locate the source of sound O 5 Voca!i:r.es pleasurc and di5pleasuresounds
"' o 6 Re.sponds to a new sound 0 6 Vocalizes whcn talked to~ moving arms nnd legs during vocalizatian·s
"' 6-8 months O 7 Protest~ by gesturing orvocalizing
~
O 7 Activcly searchcs to find a person wbo is talking .
O 8 Mouths objccts O 8 Attcmpts to imitate facial e.xpressions and movements
~
6-8 months O 9 Shakes or bangs objects in play- O 9 Vocalizes two differeot vowel oounds
§;
ill 1_0 Antjcjp'ªf.~s what wH! h2ppen !!e:':t w Vucali¡¿cs iwo cliffereni t:ousonant sol1nás
~
r-i "
iu"

l'1 lJJ U Interrttpts activity when yau coll h.is ar her name 9-11 months O ll Combinessouods
::t 9-11 months [I] J 2 Un<lerstands what you wantwhen you extend your hands ond say, \len acá o 12 Seeks attcnti011 from others
~
"'
(Comchere)
[l 13 Looks for objectthathas fullen out of sight
.
m13 Plays simple games with another while maintai.11i11g app~opriate cye contaet
~
.... lTI 14 Responds toan inhibitoryword (e.g.,Nn) without tlie ust of gcstures l:o-1:s m14 Uses a represc11 tational (symbolk) gesturc .
(l)
Q..
1:0-1:5 rn 15 Looks at objects or people tbe ca regí.ver points to and 113mes [Il 15 Babblcs two syllable.• together

g 0J 16 Dcmonstrates functional play CD 16 Tnkesmultipleturnsvocalizing

~ OJ 17 Demonslratcs relational play ID 17 Produces different consonant-vowcl (C-V) combination~
~ ~[I] 18 Dcmomtra les sdf-directed play m ls Produces a varietJ of consonant sou.nds
"'~ ID 19 FoUow~ routine, fa.miliardirectiouswithgestural cues ~ITJ19 Uses at least one word
~ [fl 20 Looks at objects or people the caregiver or another person looks at and
points to without naming them
~!lJ 20 Uses gestures and vocalizatioos to request objects

(") ~~ 2:0-2:5 @ 11 ldentifies fo1niliar objects from a group ofobjects without gcstural cucs tlJ 21 Participates in a play routine with another person f.or at least 1 minute whHc
::r
DI using approprialc eye contact '.
'C
S'
~ (] 22 Follows commands with gestural cucs [I] 22 Extends Lay or points to object to show others
... ~

ri [Jl 23 Undcrstands inhibitory we>rds (other thao No) 1Q1 23 Uses at least five words
w
(b1
....
{/)
i jg 24 Identifies photographs of familiar objects
2:6-2:11 IQ] 25 Engages in prctend play (other-di.rected play)
2:0-2:5 [] 24 lnitiates a turn·takinggame ar socialroutine
IQI 25 Uses words for a variety of pcagmatic functions

5"' jg 26 Undcrstands the verbs comer, tomar/beber, and rlormir(eat, drink, sleep) 2:6-2:11 !Q.l 26 Uses words more often th.an gcsture.s to communicate
(ii" in contcxt
-8 lQ] 27 Understands pronouns (·me, tu; me, your) lQI 27 Nnmes objects in photographs
¡¡¡ @ 28 Understands pronouns (mi, tuya; my, yaurs)
O! lQI 29 ldenti6es basic body parts
::!"
C>.
:::i O 30 Tdentifies thíngs you wcar
O 3.l Recognizes action in pictw~s

.¡:..
w
 In Figure 3.4, Niña C obtained a standard score of sa on the Auditory Comprehension scale
and a standard score of 50 on the E>.."Pressive Communication scale. These standard seores are
3 standard deviations or more below the mean, indicating a profound language delay.
The checklist in Figure 3.4 indicates that Niña C, age 6 months, has acquired skills up to the
2-montb age level and has missf:ld all of the items beyond that age level. With tbis in mind, you
may want to recommend that additional assessment and therapy objectives tentatively focus on 1f
fostering language behaviors that emerge at the 3- to 6-month age level. ":":· ,,.

.
:· ~
..
~ ~:

44 Preschoo/ Language Scafes- 5 Spanish

 ~ (t)
(J.)
;¡..

::;<
(b 2
E 3
¡;;..
lis IQI 4
f=fil
3-5 months IQI 5 1hms head lo locate tlie sourcc of sound
[QI 6 Respon<ls to a new sound
'º1 5 Vocalizcs pleasure and displeasure sounds
IQJ 6 Vocnlizes wlll!n talked to, moving nrms and legs duringvocalizations
t;;·
C') IQJ í Activdy searchcs to find a person who is talking ~í Pro tests by gcstur.ing or vocalizing
;-
n
IQ] 8 !lfouths objects mi 8 Attcmpts lo imítate facial eitprcssiom and movemcnts
~IQJ Ir!
~
9 Shakes or bangs objects in play 9 Vocafü:e.~ two diffcrent vowel sounds

ft ~ 10 Antidpates what wili happen next o 10 Voca\lzcs hvo different coruon~ut sounds
trl o lJ lntcrru pts activil )' when yo u ca Uh is or her name 9-11 manths O ll Combinessounds
9- 11 months O 12 Understaucls what you wnnt whea rou extend your hruids and say, Ve¡¡ acá o 12 Seeks attention from others

ª
~
(Come /1erc)
O l3 Looks forobjecl that has fallen out of sight O 13 Plays simple games with another while maintaining apptopriate eye contact

r
(j
O 1'l Responds toan inhibitoryword (e.g., No) without tite use of gestures 1:0-1:5 O 14 Usesarepresentational (symbolic) gesture
1:0-l!S O 15 Looks nt objccLrnr people the caregiverpoints toand names O 15 Babbles two syllablcs together
(il O 16 Demonstrates functional play O 16 Takes 1mútiple turns vocali:ti11,g
i::i... O 17 Demon~trates relational play O 17 !?reduces different consonant-vowcl (C-V) combinatious
,.,.
~
1:6- I :11 O 18 Demonstrates sclf-clirected play O 18 Produces a vaciety of consonant sounds
lll
CIJ O 19 Follows routine, familiar dircctions with gesturo.I cues O 19 Uses at least one word
"",...n
(b O
20 Looks at objects or people the caregiver or another pc.rson looks at and
points to without naming thern
1:6-1:11 O 20 Uses gestures and vocalizatiotrn to reques Lobjects

(")
::r
~
~
2:0-2:5 O 21 ldentifies familiar objects from a group of objects withoutgestural cues O 21 Participates in a play rouline withanother per~on for lit J~ast l míuule while
lll using approp1iate eye coutact ·
~
.,
C1l ~ O 22 Pollows conunands with gestural cues
O 23 Unders lands in11ibitoq• words (other than No)
O 22 Extends toy or poínts to objcct lo show others
O 23 Uses at lenst fivc words
w ~
~ O 24 Identifics photographs offainiliar objccts 2 :0-2:5 O 2'l lnitiatcs a tum-taking game or social routine
(ñl ,.....
(t)
2:6-2:11 O 25 Engagc.s in pretcnd play (ot11er-directed play)
(/} O 25 Uses words for a variet}' of pragmatic. functions
.....
:;¡- O 26 Undcrstands tbeverbs comer, l'omar/1nber, and donnir(cac; dri11k, sfoep) 2:6-2: 11 O 26 Uses words more oflcn than gestares to communicate
in conlext
et
i3 O 2í Undcrstands pronouns (-me, tu; me, your) O 27 Names objects in photographs
(ti O 28 Understands pronouns (m~ rnya; 111}> yours)
¡¡¡- O 29 Idcntifles bn.sic body ps.rts
a·......
::, O 30 Identifles lh ings you wear
O 31 Rccognizes action in pictures

.¡:..
01
 In Figure 3.5, Niña D, age 2 years, obtained a standard score of 65 on the Auditory ·1
Comprehension scale and a standard score of 67 on t he fü..-pressive Commwúcation scale.
The standard seores are more than 2 standard deviations below the mean, indicating a severe
la.nguage delay.
As indicated in the checklist in E:igure 3.5, Niña D's errors are scattered across multiple age
ranges. With this error pattern, consider additional t ask analysis by plotting the errors on the
PLS-5 Spanish Profile to see if the errors cluster in particular categories (e.g., semantics and
language structure).

_;-
1

¡
t

46 Preschool Language Sca/es-5 Sp~nish

 t.. J.-. .. ) l
r.*'''·1·:..:,.,.....__:""'"
)
,,_~
) ) .l ) ) ) ) i ) ) )
.... _,.....,.,.,....,__,__ ____.__., __ . , _____ . . ,. . _ _
~ ----- --------.......________ ..........- .......... . ._ .,_, ~-· --- ~·- ---· '··---···---- _ 1_
. .. -·~. l.. ·~:1 )
~
()'q'
~ Ite1n Analysis Checklist
~
~
Na.me: Ni'fía D. Date: 2-22-12 Age: 2:0 ·
'i?.·'f:<1Wli¡~1v,¡W'!'<ii~~'.!\'8~~~i~l!;;w1,t§¡fl!i)lf~ll·~¡-;,¡·¡~t'o
'n.i>f¡~~':i"i~\(l>'Wii;iitZ~¡;p;]·'i'i'w¡1.:,ii~1~\~fi·!J'•f-'<·:;,;,;>:';·;,;;;.;"'''1•. ~·1;,;·;~¡1;.¡y. f;;1·,;yi1,~;~l'i1~f~1t\)Qli~l\i1~"~'1!\li!t.Jlitt~i~f.H"'l~~r«s.t~f!1s· ~J~Mj;¡¡W.lJ!ll'fi'i'~",·¡i¡>11r¡'ili'¡;
~'\í)}lll~~ff(•1)$~~'\lf¡,~lllll!')ii•l"'i!W1i'Q.1;¡¡:~
!·J~::a~.~~::~~~:NaVtl'!~~!.~tti!~~~~~~~~~:~\~~?~:fü.~~,Y:~~ ..~·;....Jl·i~M,~.f.!l.llf.~!d>~::t-~H~ . ,.;!,~,t~:::in·~·~:l1i~~2~; ~~-¡;:{;~;?;~~·$r¡~:;.~~·¡jl~:~~~:\'.~~~i(f¡ ·~~1~;~~l~~\lll,f:\1~tW1!;¡{i}~~r.~~M1~\\1J.~.M.füf.:¡f1~f.\tf: 1, .~\l.~,·t--~~'?.·~!f\1 ~:-'~~.~,¡ ·~8.)r ~ )~tJ.~~:w~~t~~!~~!1.{.Vf~~:;>¡~{~~·~·~i¡-!'}j¡·f.:C·~
. .. ..
Birth-2 months O 1 Glancesmome.ntarily ata pcrson who talks to him or her Birth-2months O 1 Has a suck/swallow refll!.'t
¡:;:i
O 2 Enjoy.• caregiver's attention D 2 Varies pitch, length, or volumc of cries
m O 3 Rcacts to sounds other than voiccs in the envíronment o
3 Vocalizes soft, throaty sounds
~ O 4 Looks at a speaker far two seconds 3-5 months O 4 Responds to speaker by smiling

~ 3-5 months O 5 Turns head to Jocale the source of sound o Vocalizes ple asure and displcasure sounds
<il
~· O 6 Responds to a new smmd o 6 Vocalizes when talked to, .moving arms and legs during ~oca lization.s
O 7 Actively se.arches to find a person who is talking 6-8.months O 7 Protests by gesturing or vocalizíng
~
(')
O B !vfouths objccts o 8 Altempts to imitate facial cxpressions and movcments
6-8 months O 9 Shakes or bangs objects in play o 9 Vo calizes two difkrentvowelsounds
f.
11"
[{] 10 Anticipateswhatwiilhappcn nex.t o 10 Voca l b:e~ tw0 di_Ff~renti:<.~m~0!!.!!!1! saunds

[1] 11 lnterrupts activitywhe.n you call bis or her name 9-11 montlts O .U Combines sounds
~ 9-11 months [] 11 Un<lerstands whnt you want when you extend your hands ru1dsay, Ve11 acá O 12 Seeks attenlíon from others
~
(Comeli ere)
[O 13 Looks fo r object thathas fallen out ofsight [[] 13 Plays simple games with anolhcr while ~alnlaining app~op.rtate eye contnct
i;I)
1: 0-1:5 lII 14 Uses a rcpresenlational (symbolíc) gcsture
~ [] 14 Responds toan inhibitoqword (c.g., No) wrthout the use of gesturcs
""
@' 1:0-1:5@ 15 Looks at objtcls or people the carcgtver poil)ts to and na mes []] 15Bnbbles two syllnbles togethe.r
~ m 16 Demonstrates funclional play rn 16 Takcs multiple tumsvocnlizing
i:i... m17 Demonstratcs relational play IQl 17 Produces different consonant-vowel (C-V) combinations

a~
1: 6-1:1 I EJ] 18 DeJTionstratesself-directed play IQl 16 Produces a varlety of consonaut sounds
1Q] 19 Follows routine, familiar directions with gestura! cues lQl 19 Uses at least one word
"'"'~ [[] 20 Looks at objects o.r people the caregiver or another person Jooks at and 1:6-1:11 m20 Uses gestures and vocalizations lo requesfobjects

n
:r
m
O:j
ó
~
8im points to without naming them
21 Tdentifies familiar objects from a group o( objects without gestural cues [QJ 21 Participates in a plny routine with another perscin for at least 1 minute while
using appropriate eye contact
"C
r+ i:i... [QI 22 Follows conunaods with gestural cues rn 22 Extcnds to)' or points to object to show olhers
.,co > [p 23 Understands inbíbitory words (other than No) C:>, [J 23 Us~s at leasl five wor<ls
t,.,) ~
~
¡g 24 ldentifies photographs offomilíar objccts ~(Ql 2•1 lnitiates a turn-taking game or social routine
(bl
§ 2:6-2:H 1º! 25 Engngesin pretend play (other-directed play) l!l 25 Uses words for a variet¡• of pragmatic fwictions

--a
(/)
.....
::;¡
(ij
~ [D 26 Understands the verbs comer, tQmar/bcb~r, and dnr111ir (ct1t, dri11k, sleep)
in contcxt
IQl 27 Undcrslands pronouns (·me, tu; mr, your)
2:6-2:11 fQl 26 · Uses words more oftcn than gestures to communicate

IQJ 27 Namcs objcct.. in photogrnpl1s

¡¡¡ !Ql 28 Underslauds pronouns (mi, tuya; my, yours)
Qi lQl 29 ldeutifies bask body parts
~
o· !Ql 30 ldentifies thingsyou wear
::;¡
l§.1 31 Rce<igni:tes action in pictures

,¡:,.
~
 ~·
¡

The PLS-5 Spanish Profile l

The PLS-5 Spanish Profile, provided in the Protocolo, provides another way to review and
summarize a ch.ild's error patterns. V\Thile the Item A11alysis Checklist provides a complete list
of the test items anda visual represeutation of the age levels at which the child's skills break ;<

clown, the profi.le provides a visual representation of the child's abilities and errors, categorized ;~
by type of language ski.U, for both the AC and EC scales. The profile enables you to quickly \:; ~ '!
sean the child's pattem of errors to determine specific problem areas. ,;.
Both scales include items that address gesture, semantics, Janguage structure, integrative lan- ;~ .. f
guage skills, and emergent literacy. The AC scale also includes items in the areas of attention to A f
people and the environment and play. The EC scale also includes the categories of vocal devel- ~
opment and social communication. Figures 3.6 and ~1.7 show examples of error pattems. :·i •
In Figure 3.6, the PLS-5 Spanish Profile illustrates that Niño E, age 6 years 6 months, has -~
difficulty across all l~g}JE-ge areas. Additional assessment and tberapy for Niño E may focus on ._.-.~
a variety oflanguage activities to sti.mulate development of semantic skills (vocabulary, concept :Í
'
é
f
development), language structure, and integrative language skills. ..;)
f
PLS-5 Spanish Profile
·.i
f
Dlrectlons: Circlethe chlld's chronologicol age. Oraw linoucross tite prolile ID mar!< th• child's ba•el end celUng. Circl• all lh·• items fallad. :f ~
1¡
~

rtn• hu al i~
,!! .!!
JiE !i ! n ~
s
t
~ •
•'
f n
l .
~
~
!'j"'
;¡¡
..s
r; .~ -;,j! ;
" ;¡
ii .,¡•
i'~
"~ ~
l;!:. ·/¡:o-"
¡¡ i';
" -~
li'
:f:./J !-~ ~~
"' ! ti H
3.:! A§•
¡ .
,::
~
! l u
-$.CJ Hj jf ~ ~
h
55 H .~~
1,2,4
" .~if~'2 1,2,3
DD

>

--'Íl:3-0:5 5,6 '.0:3-0-S 5,6 4.5.6

.)
:.:0:64.8 l
:.· 0'&--0 :B 7.9. 10 ),6
::f
.,
12 12,14 'o:s-0:11.! 11 12. 13
:~~

: ~11-1:s·,
15 15 15,171 15 ~f-6 ¡15,16, 14 14, 16 19
. ." ' 17, IS
u --1
20 19,ZD 16 19
1
'
1'1>-1:n

.
21l, 21,
21),
2l
23
•. e
122. Z3 21,22. 24.25 25 ."~
23,24
¡- 21J-.;l:5'
.:~ f
1
25 26,27.
28,25, (28 .-i~:~1ij
:u; 28,27 ·:
-~ . e
30.31
'
35 32,33, 36 34 34.J6 . J:(a-1"5 28,29 30 2! ·~
-~
f
:rus. 38 37,4{) 31. 38,
.J:&-3:11)
32,33 31,32 D
~
35,«J 39,40 ;
41,'13 42 '3 1 41 . 4:0-...:5 . 34 :15,3& 34 ;'
44.4ij 45 ".4:5-.{:H 37 39 37 36 :lll
® ~J @ 5:0-5:5
¡;¡:¡:; @41, @)41,
42 42 f
®> © 1 .S:IH:1t·j @)
56 ® 54.@ 48 f
1 4
7:8-J;l 1 ! 6t,67 I96 66 16'6:4¡ 63 6(,96 ~.65.
67
65 56
@:·¡ 60 ® 5S
@ss.
56
58,59

Natt.. Sorne ltemnamhers are i.odude.d in more: thon one Qtegor¡·.

Figure 3.6 PLS-5 Spanish Profile: Errors Across Most J,anguage Categories

48 Priischool Lan·guage Scales-5 Spanish

 In Figure 3.7, the PLS·-5 Spanish Profile indicates that Niña F. age 6 years 2 months, does not
have significant prob1ems in the areas of semantícs and syntax.; however, errors appear in the
integrative language skills and emergent literary skills a.reas. Additional tesí:ing is needed to
determine the nature and extent of Niña F's weaknesses in these areas.

PLS-5 Spanish Profile

..ii
D.h1!ctio~~; t;i!.~ ~·ª'-e· ~l!illf~ ~~rpnafogico( eoo. Oraw linc.s ecross.Uio.¡irofilc to merk Uu: chlkl':;.buSlll and cuUing,.<;ircle aUlhe ltems taUed.

~~ ~.~i ¡

t ~ ~ ~

~·
u ~• •
~l i! ! I
~B~l h ~!
::5 ~.§ ~~
h h l
a8 ~~ z
A 1
!- i!
~~
i~ ~
1l J

¡
~
~e
.n
H
{j/j
~ja h
...
~~ i! ,,:
e•
.,i;
".
./!
! 1u
•'!
1 ~-
~!
i,'t-
~~
:iJ:D..ll:2i31.2.4 ll:lH2i1.2.J
DCU
" ~=

O.l--0:5 j S,ti 1 4,5,&

lt6--0:8 ID 10.11 !);S-11:8 7,S,10 7 7,U
.O:S-'l:ll 13 12 12, 14 0:9"-0:1 1 ~ n 12, 13
.
1:11-1:5 ¡1 15 15 16.17 15 1~1:5
....
! 15.1~.
• ; 17. 19
14 14, 16 IS

20 18.20 18 18 20.22 20,21. Z3

i:G-t:ll
2Z

t 22,23 21 , 22.
¡ 23,24
24,25 25

i 25 26. 77, 21. 2J 26 26,27

l1 35
lB.29,
30.31
32,Jl,
37.38, 38
lB 34,36
31,'"1 31.~
J:ll-3:5
32,33
30
31, 32
2B
33
\·, : 3:>-;l:ll
Jll.411 39,40 .z:G-3:11 1
. 4:1H5 ! 41.43 42 43 41 3i 35, 36
4~.46 45 44 J 44 45 39 37 3H

5:0-5:5 1Pa:;, I 48 47 49 47. 48 48

5,n-ii:s: ¡,,,,,,, / 4o. 41,
• 1 . 1 42
5:&-:í:l l í 50 5¡ 50 51 S'li-5:11 @
55 SS H, 56

'i i ®•ª¡¡u·
®4
1
1

. 51
@ss.
1;iJ...Úr' 6'.@ '1JQ'.,'11Íf 57
, i -~f No ( ,,;¡¡,,
GS
.<':. ; No ' ,,,-¡,¡,~ 55 60

Note. Sorne ltcm numbcrs are included in more th:w. one CJ.tcgory.

Figure 3.7 PLS-5 Spanish Profile: Errors Cluste1·ed in Speci.fic Language Categories

The Ciinician's VVorltsheet

The Clinician's Worlcsheet is a reproducible page provided ín appendix E in the Manual de
administración y puntwzción. You can use it to surnmarize informalion about the child's lan-
guage ability and prepare for his or her program-planning meeting. The Clinician's Worksheet
has three sections: Assessment Results, Follow-up for the Child/Family, and Outcomes of
Additional Assessment and Training. This worksheet was designed to include information rel-
evant to development of the Individualized Family Service Plan (IFSP) according to Public Law
108-446 (IDEIA, 2004). The IFSP should include:
l. a statement of the child's present levels of physical, cognitive, speech and language, and
psychosocial devel.opment, as well as the child's self-help skills, based on acceptable
objective criteria;
2. a statement of the famíly's strengths and needs as they relate to enhancing development
of their child who has a disability;
3. a statement of the outcomes expected for the child and the family, including criteria,
procedmes, and tirnelines used to determine how the outcomes will be measured;

Chapter 3 Test lnterpretation 49

 4. a statement of specific early interventiori services necessary to meet the unique needs of the
child and the family, including the frequency, intensity, and method of delivering services;
5. the projected dates for initiation of serv:ices a:; well as their anticipated duration; 1
6. the name of the case manager from the profession rnost relevant to the child's or the f
=il~~:c::~::~;s ~ ~ee~~~~=~le for implementation of the plan and coordinatíon ~. f
7. the steps to take to support transition of the ehild with a disability to services provided ,~¡
under part B, to the extent that such services are considered appropriate. ~f 4
-t
.;
~
Clinician's Note! The Clinician's Worksheet was designed to include only the information 4
you need to prepare for the child's program-planning meeting. Details of the frequency,
intensity of services, and projected dates of initiation of services should be discussed with •
the child's family during the interdisciplinary team meeting.
.,
' '
4
Assessment Results '
~ f
In the Assessment Results section of the worksbeet, you can record AC, EC, and Total
- ~
Language standard seores (SS ), percentile ranks (J>R). age equivalents (AE), and/or growth
scale values (GSV). Results of the PLS-5 Spanish supplemental measures (Articulation ~
· Screener, Language Sample Checklist, and the Cu.estionarío.de comunicaci6n en el hogar) are j
also recorded here, f
...

.,''
When evaluating a chíld's skills, it is ímportant that you identify the communication needs of the ,¡.
child (those skills that seem to require remediati.on), as well as his or her communication strengths ·;
(those sldils the clúld appears to be developing or have mastered). For bilingua1 Spanish-English- l
speakers, the interdependent use of both languages should also be evaluated, When recommend- :
ar
ing placement considering intervention objectives, it is important that you maximize a child's '"'i f
strengths. For example, if a child's vocabulary and concept development are intact, semantics ., f
would be considered an area of relative strength, Plan treatment so that strengths provide the
scaffolding for teaching new language skills and for expanding the child's repertoíre. You should
plan additional criterion-referenced assessment or baseline assessment in language areas that are
listed as communication needs before you identify objectives for remediation.
•f
PLS-5 Spanish is not an in-depth assessment of any specific language area; it ís a survey of a
wide range of language behaviors. You will need more information on the nature and extent of
'
t
the child's deficits before you write therapy objeetives that target specific language skills. '
It is important that you clíscuss the language skills that the family identifies as communicatian !~I ~
needs. You must also pay close attention to the family's preference of one language over the J~~ t
other (e.g., ~nglish over ~panish o~ vice-versa) ~s langu~ge dev~lop1?ent from p:~arily ~~a~ish
versus Spamsh- and English-speaking househola.s can differentially impact a ch1ld s acqumtion '."f
)l
ti
of language skills. Whatever the family consider.s important for training the child should be · 4
considered a high priority when planning therapy. This iS especially important because typically"}'. - '
:r
the family will be e;i..i:ensively involved in the child's training, :.f
_;_f/'!
You should also note the strengths and needs of the family on the Clinídan's Worksheet. This _)f
will help you plan the major outcomes to be achieved through trainíng, as well as the extent of 1fi f
the family's participation in therapy. If the family needs help providing basic care for the child '
(e.g., medical attention, aclequate nutrition), they are generally less able to participate exten- ;: ,.
sively in a ~herapy progran1.- ' .· "'
~~
.'
: .:

50 Preschoól Language Scales-5 Spanish

Plan Follow-Up A.ssessme:nt a.nd Treatment
You can use the Cliniciaiú Wor.!r.sl1eet to plan and schedule follow-up assessment and treatment
far the child and the family. You can identify a contact person or case manager, recommend
additional assessment, and respond to requests for information from the family. Keep in mind
that the contact person must be proficient in both languages and may require an interpreter
(see chapter 2). Key to increasíng the likelihood of family participation j.n an inte:rvention pro- ·
gram is language accessibil.ity.

ldentify a Contact Person or Case Manager

You should identify the contact person/case manager who will. manage and coordinate follow-up
assessment and treatment. Families need someone they can contact for additional information
or clarification of treatment plans or services. For example, a child may have significant medical
problems and require treatment from multiple service providers. In such cases, it is essential to
have a case manager who can monitor treahnent plans, disseminate information to the appro-
priate people, and troubleshoot for the family as problems arise.
If you refer the child to another agency, provide the family with the name and contact informa-
tion of a person who can guide them through the next level of services. Offer to serve as the
liaison between service províders. This will facilitate the transition between services until the
child is placed in an appropriate program.
Recommendation for .l\ddítional Assessment
As part of your follow-up plan, you may include recommendations for additional assessment
such as additional speech-language assessment or referral for motor, cognitive, and/or edu-
cational assessment. Before you develop objectíves for therapy, use the infonnation from the
diagnostic evalualion to plan further assessments in the areas identified as possibly defícient.
An in-depth assessment will enable you to pinpoint skills in need of remediation. Your in-depth
assessment can include
.. an assessment of the cbild in different environments with b.is or her famil}~ with other
children, duxing home routines, or during play;
'" standardized tests that provide an in-depth look ata specific language area (e.g., tests that
address only receptive vocabulary or expressive syntax); or
., criterion-referenced testing (e.g., using picture card sets that depict spatial relationships to
test a variety of prepositions).
When you determine that the child has not developed skills in a specific area, you can target
those ski.lis for intervention.
Respond to Family Requests for Additional lnformation
Part of your follow-up plm should involve sharing information v:rith the child's parents or care-
givers that can help them make informed decisions about issues that affect the welfare of their
child. Different families :o.eed d.ifferent types of information; for example, the farnily of a child
who has serious medica! problerns may primarily be interested in how to care for their child
In comparison, the family of a child with multiple developmental disabílities may be interested
in the sequence of developmental skills that their child will have to work on in the next year
and in the methods for siimulating language development. You can provide families with the
ínformation they need through reference lists, articles, brochures, and contacts (names of
individuals who can answer questions; support groups; local organizations or agencies; helpline
informatíon). Sorne clinici.ans may want to develop an information sheet that provides basic
information about different stages of l.anguage development or ways that parents can facilitate
language development. For all recommended resources, the assisümce of an interpreter may be
warranted to make tbese resources more accessíble to Hispanic farnilies.

Chapter 3 Test lnterpretation 51

 Develop a Follow-Up Schedule
The best way to ensure that your recommendations are followed is to establish a timeline for
--------+rrn-.lemenf:at:ioir.-!fhe-sehOOW.e-ean--0~-dw:ing meetin . This
wáy, if multiple services are involved in treatment they can be prioritized and scheduled in a )
logical sequence. Setting a schedtile also lets.the family know what to expect within a specified ·t
time frame. -
i
~
Plan Additional Assessment and Trainiing Ontcom.es ~
; ·:

ldentify Outcomes for the Child and the Family '·l

"J
.;.·
IDEIA requires a "statement of major outcomes ex.-peeted to be achieved for the infant and
toddler and the family..." (IDEIA, 2004). Use of the word "outcomes" instead of"objectives"
suggests that program planning should not focus on targeting isolated skills, but should identify
the results of treatment. Consider the following questions when identifying outcomes.
• How can we prepare the child to function independently?
., What skills does the child need to accomplish this goal?
" How can we help the child learn to communicate effectively with others to control his or
her environment?
Space is provided on the Clinician's Worksheet to list targeted outcomes for the child and family.
Tbese targets should be described within the contei..'t of communication outcomes (e.g., "the child
wi1l ask for assistance," "the cbtld wi.ll cornmunicate basic needs to family members"). Planning
outcomes for the IFSP should be a collaborative venture involving you, the child's parents or care- .
givers, and other sérvice providers involved in the clúld's treatment. The language objectives you _ ':.
design to achieve the outcome should describe the skllls the child will learn and show how those ·
skills wi1l improve bis or her ability to communicate. To illustrate, an objective tbat describes what
a child will leam sbould be stated generally, such as "the child will ask far help." The objective
also should include specific goals, such as "the child will ask questíons when he doesn't lmow
what to do next" or "the clúld will tell someone about an event that has just occurred." Examples
of objectives tb.at do not address how the skill will be used in communication situations include
"learning fi.ve adjectives," "naming 25 pictures," or "counting to ten."
If the caregivers have different goals from those you have proposed far the child, consider how
their goals could be integrated with the outcomes you have planned. It may be as símple as
adding the caregivers' goals to the child's list of outcomes. If the outcomes you have planned
di.ffer significantly from their suggestions, determine how you can integrate their ideas with
your plan. You and the caregivers have to agree on a treatment protocol that has appropriate
and attainable goals.
There should be a timetable within the IFSP for evaluating the child's progress for each stated
objective (IDEIA, 2004). 111e IFSP could also include objectives that focus on the family's
involvement in teachíng targeted language skills and objectives that address any family needs
(e.g., family counseling, social services) that are integral to enhancing the child's development.
Objectives that address the family's needs could ind ude providing them with access toan inter- '
preter, assisting the family in completing an appHcafion for Social Secmity benefits or finding a
resource for occasional respite care of the child.

~ . . ...

il
: i!
.
?!!.
. l
.

· ·· 52 · · -pres"Chool tanguage Scales~5 Spanish

 Suggest Therapy Options
Therapy Options on the worksheet refers to the different approaches availab!e to teach the child
the skills that have been targeted for remediation. Two reasons that you should provide the
caregivers with options are:
l. Information about treatmer;it options empowers them to make informed decisions about
thcir.child's_ treatment;.and_
2. 'I11e best treatment is one that you have custornized for the child. Caregivers should
be informed at the interdisciplínary team meeting of any treatment options that exist,
including services that are provided by the community (e.g., Head Start), as well as
options that may be available v»ithin your work setting- These may include a home-based
program in which a speech-language pathologist visits the family once a week to teach
communícation activities they can do with their child every day, or a speech and lan-
guage-oriented preschool class that is held every moming.
Within your therapy program, you can offer options that integrate famíly members to vary-
ing degrees, in a combination of clinical versus home-based activities. You can suggest that
farnily members observe or participate in therapy activities and supplement therapy activities
with language-stimulatio:o. activities at home. Another option you could suggest is a completely
home-based program in lieu of clinic-based treatment, with the clinician meeting with family
members on a regular basis to plan and try out activities. See Figure 3.8 for an example of a
completed worksheet.

1
1

1
- ¡
í
¡
i
(

1
i
1
1
,,
1

......
~·
··1·

........ ·.' i'

-l
Chapter 3 Test lnterpretation 53
 Clinician's Worksheet Name Niña C:.7 • Date /2//S/ /2
Age 2.'/0

- _ - - Ass~ss~ent l:l~_su~t

PLS-5 Spanish Seores

Auditory Comprehension
SS J_§_ PR __!2__ GSV -=-AE I .' 11
Articulation Screener
O performance typical of age peers
grurther cvaluatioo indicat<:d
O farthcr evaluation strongly lndkated
Expressive Communication Total Language
SS G8 PR_I_ GSV-=-AE~ SS <&.7 PR_/_ AE /:13
LanguageSample Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar
¡g'rcinforces informotion obtained on PLS-5 Spanish iQ{cinforces íuformation obtaintd on PLS-5 Spanlsh
O diffcrs greatly from information obtaincd on PLS-5 O differs grutly from information obtnined on PLS-5
Spanisb (note in Comments below) Spuni$11 (note in Commcnts b'1ow)

h&-ari119 and vision sc-reent~'19 wif-hi11 11orJT1.tZ/ limlrs;

Comments/othertestresults:
c-Aild is c;ooper4f"iye
Child's strengths: soc:ia/ lan9ua9e: Family's str•~ngthsfam//y willi119 fo p.arfit~ipa/-e
affenfion span in f-ra/nin9
Child's needs:¿;ont::e-pf deve/optnenf, 111orpl10!09y Faroily's nei!dsfiru:znc.ia/ assisfanc;e; in/onntzrion
synfax dere/opmenf, arfic;v/afion f'"&: non~a/ la119tu29e d§veloptnenf

Caregivers' priorities fortherapy: t::.11ild n(teds f-o use wor¿t,5 raf-Jzer fhatt 9e-sf-ure-s

-
-
- - - - f.oliow-Üpfor-(tfjildff-
. . ..
. üv -- - -. -_
0Contact person/case manager (name) Conh:zc.r A, Muñoz. (phone) SSS-55!3.!3

B'Refer to another agency (name) _S_._p~li-""&""'c:.-'11____C"--"-e-~11~f.~&--'Y------------ (phone) 58S-5555

O Recommend additional assessment: O PT O OT O Educational [] Psychological 1'9'Speech1Language (arfic;)
E?'Other: Ye?O/'lltnena G monr/1 fo//ow vp fo do?uhl6d 9rowf/,,
osi119 ?,LS-s Spa,11/s/,, t5SV
[9"Inforrnation requested byfamily
O inforrnation about IDEIA 2004 (PL 108-446) Bresources for financia[ assistance
O articles about child development or language disorders (i.e., insurance, SS! benefits, Medicaid)
IS2rresources for support groups or rcspite care O alternate trearment options
!S!]interpreter se.rvices O other _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _
0'Ádditional concerns: eare-nf wanf-s bilin9vt2/ Jietzasrarr pro9ram for c=i'lild fo inreracf in
Ei'(Pollow-up schedule: Dec.em/;ey 21-áayc;are oplions fo ptflrenrs, pre-/imint2ry fye-afmenr p/ans

Outcomes for child and family: fa.111/ly wi/I use- la119ua9e fa,;ilif,:;:fion fec:.hniqves e-mÍJe-dded in daily
rovfines af hotne; c:Jiild wil/ Jeart1 ne-w voc;a.6v/arv c:onc;,11--prs and /Jask tnorphosynf¡;z¿;fic. rules
Family Supports Needed: f"ya/nin9 ro fac-ilirafe- lan9va9e¡ afforáahe a.ayc;are (/?ili11111.1dl weferred-J

Therapy Options: Glin/c; pre-sc:i100/ sxlwe-e-k ,¡ home proqram; c;onsv/fafion wif/,i re-qvlar pres¿;hool

ho/71e peo9ram: c.o(létJ/faTion wirA re-9ular pre-sc.hool ,¡ hom.~ tisir txlwe-e-k to l!,Pddfe hohle pro9ram
How the proposed outcomes listed above mterface wirh the caregivers' prior'.~ties: parenfs pt'"ef!er P s,;.hoo/ p/a¿;,g,.171eef
w/Nr .6ili119va/ svppqrf sen-le.es; tnf-e-yesfea in d home pro9ra111

Figure 3.8 A Completed Clinician's Worksbeet

54 Preschooí LanguageScaíes-5 Spanish

 . :I'
·~

1 PLS-5 Spanisl1 Design and

~ :~

-~
!
j·Sta.ndardiz.atiori
ºi'
i
!
ll
;
i
!
¡
Development of PLS-5 Spanish Scales
1 The Preschool Languag1'3 Scale-Fourth Edition (PLS-4) and Preschool Language Scale-Fourth
¡
¡ Edition, Spanish (PLS-4 Spanish) served as the templates far PLS-5 Spanish test content. Like
PLS-4 and PLS-4 Spa:nish, PLS-5 Spanish has receptive and expressive language scales, and
1 assesses prelinguistic communication, semantics, morphology, syntax, pragmatics, and integra-
i tive language sldlls. However, PLS-5 Spanish is different in several ways.
!
• The test format has been redesigned to allow for either Spanish administration or dual
language (Spanish-English) administration.
- 1
.. Items have been refiued or added to reflect current research on language development,
most notably, in gestural communication, theory of mind, and emergent literacy.
i
,. Skills specific to Spanish vocabulary, mo:rphology, and syntax bave been incorporated.
" Content has been expanded to include language skills import:ant at the older ages, extending
the age-appropriateness of the scale for children through age 7 years 11 months.
1 " Where appropriate, procedures for two or more items have beeu combined into a single
i procedure for a smoother, more natural administration.
l
Dual Language Assessment in PLS-5 Spanish
PLS-5 Spanísh uses a dual language assessment method. That is, PL-5 Spanish provides a
Spanish and English ver:iion of eacb itero whenever appropriate for the child. Far mono]ingual
Spanish speakers, the items are adminístered in Spanish. For biüngual Spanish-English speak-
ers, dual language administration is used; the items are initially administered in Spanish and
then only those items that the child misses in Spanish are also administered in English. For
younger children, the play/nonverbal items (e.g., AC12 Understands what you want when
you extend your hands and say, Ven acá (Come here), AC14 Responds toan inhibítory word
(e.g., No) without the usB of gestures, and EC20 Uses gesíures and vocalizatíons to request
objects) may be administered in Spanish and Englísh simultaneously to facilitate a smooth flow
of administration and to avoid disruption of rapport. This is, you may play with the child and
prompt hini or her in Spanish (e.g., Ven acá) and then follow with the English prompt (e.g.,
Come here) within tbe same play activity without waiting to complete Spanish ítem adminístra-
tion befare following with English administration.

57
Rationale for Dual Language Assessment 1
The need for a testing approach that provídes a full and accurate assessment of bilinguaI children .~
stems from years of misidentification of children for special education semces. The problem of ~
Hispanic children being disproportionately referred for special educaban services has persisted !1 ~
for aver 40 years (Dunn, 1968; S~llivan, 2011) and is often attributed to inappropriate language ~ ·
and educatianaI assessment procedures (Figueroa & Newsame, 2006; Kraemer, 2010). Studies :i
an receptive vocabulary testing procedures with monolinguals and bilinguals have indicated that -~
bilinguaI children, even thase wha are dominant in one of the languages, obtain seores that are ,.~ ·
lower than ex:pected when compared to monolingual norms (Umbel et al., 1992). This pattem ;f .
contributes to the over-representation of Hispanic children in special education. .:
A number of studies indicate that bilingual children produce a relatively small m~m.ber of wards
1
that have the same meaning in both languages: most af the words bilingual children use are ~ ·~
unique to one language or the other. Jackson-Maldonado et al. (2003) stud.ied the vocabulary :~_;'_.'f.l
acquisition of children who are learning two languages simultaneously. She found that approxi- ·" · t
mately 30% of young simultaneous bilingual childrert's vocabulary was represented on both the ··i:' , t
~.·_;'._:·¡
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventaries (Fenson et al., 1989) and the Spanish
counterpart, the MacArthur Inventario de Desarollo de Habilidades Comunicativas (Jackson- , 1 4
Maldanado et al., 2003) while 10% of their vocabula:ry was muque to Spanisb or English.
Similarly, Peña et al. (2002) found that approximately 30% of the concepts children ages 4 to 7
produced in a category generation task were represented in both languages, while approximately ·~ ¡
' .l ,
·1l .,,.4
70% of the concepts were only represented in one of their languages. '~ l
;i
-¡ 1
One reason why bilingual ch.ildren score more poorly on language assessments, when compared ; 1
to their monolingual peers, is that measurement in anly one language generally results in an
underestimate of language ab:ilities, and measurement in two languages separately is dllficult to n.· ¡
:!
interpret (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003); Pearsan, Fernández, & Oller, 1993; Peña, Bedore &
.1
.;
Zlatic-Giuta, 2002). Cumroins' (1981, 1984) research demonstrates that bilingual children pos-
~ l
sess different vocabulary and concepts in each language.
. ·¡~ 11

Cummins describes a chilcl's language proficiency by considering the contex:t in which commu-
nícation takes place. Basic interpersonal cornmunication skills (BICS) refers to a child's ability
to cammunicate about familiar routines and experiences in context-loaded and af:foctive interac- .!
tions, such as discussing family members, and familiar and frequent leisure activities.
The term cognitive-academic language proficiency (CALP), also described by Cummins, refers .,• 1¡
to the child's abílity to communicate complex/abstract concepfa in fonnal learning settings
(e.g., classroorns). The concept of CALP encompasse.s cantextiJally reduced situations such as
classroom instruction, the language used in textbook:;, and teacher-made and standardized
assessments. From an assessment perspective, this pattern of different concept lmowledge in
each language can result in an underestimate when only one language is consi.dered or when
each language is compa.red to monolinguals of that language.
Research by Jackson-Mardonado et al., 2003; Pearson, Femández, & Oller, 1993, and Peña,
Bedore & Zlatic-Gíuta, 2002, provides strong support for the conceptual rnodel, the noti.on that
it is critícal to consider both languages of bilinguaI c:h.ildren at the sarne time in arder to under-
stand their global language abilities. In contrast to tl1e evaluation of onJy ane language that may
likely underestimate overall language abilities, the fact that sorne concepts a.re represented in
both languages suggests that adding the two languages together V1r:ill overestimate knowledge.
Thus, in arder to more accurately assess the language slá.lls of a bilingual child, it is important
to give credit for ski.lis exhibited in either language \•.dthout giving credit for the same slálls
exhibited in both languages, an approach referred to as dual language assessment.

58 Preschool Language Scales~5 Spanish

 -~,._,..
i.~· : l;':l''• '
--.;,, \

.-..":'! There have been several different methods to dual language assessment One method is to
.! administer a test in each language and then evaluate the child's responses for overlapping and

.: t
~ I
i
unique concepts represented in their languages. As Bedore and colleagues (2005) noted, this
is time consuming and does not necessarily yield more accurate assessment results if clinicians
do not have normative i:aformation to interpret separate test administrations. Another potential
l problem with th.is method is that 'when a bilingual child is administered separate SP-ani.sh an~
English tests, tbere is no assu:rance that the nói:mative comparison is appropriate; the Spanish
test may be normed on bilíngual Spanish-English speakers, but the English test is normed on
monolingual English speakers.
Another method is to administer a test in a single language and accept correct responses
in either language. This is consistent with the definition of conceptual scoring proposed by
Pearson et al. (1993), wbich entails scoring the meaning of a response regardless of the lan-
guage in which it is produced. This is the method taken by Bedore and colleagués (2005) in
1 their study of conceptua:t seores versus monolíngual seores. In the study, Bedore and her col-
~ !
\ leagues admi.nistered tw::i sepru:ate tests but proposed that the advantages of bílingual testing
....._ l
could potentially be incorporated into a single test if children knew they could code switch
1 and examiners had sufficíent information to know when a response could be credited. One
~ ¡
shortcoming of this method is that i.f each ítem needs to be represented in two languages, the
,_ li content of the item must b e appropriate to the structure of each language. In arder to do this,
sorne important language structures might need to be left out, or the item could include díffer-

=I
·1..-..
1
r
'
ent structural infom1ation. An example of this is the article system in Spanish, which is more
complex than that of English because it includes gender in the articles. If the item is d.ifferent
across languages it wi.ll have a different level of di.fficulty, and basal and ceiling rules might
-- i be misapplied.
While there are challenges to any method of testing bilinguals, a number of studies have found
that the use of assessments based on the conceptual model and dual language assessment
approaches puts bilingulli1s on a similar playing field as monolinguals. The use of the conceptual
model and dual language assessment, wlúch gives billngual clúldren an opportunity to display
knowledge and language skílls in either of their two languages, gíves clinicians a more valid
approach for the assessment of a bilingual clúld's language abilities (Kester & Peña, 2002;
Pearson et al., 1993). Studi.es evaluating the use of dual language assessment approaches have
found that they reduce uuderestimation of abilities ancl improve classiHcation accuracy (Bedore
et al., 2005; Umbel et al., 1992). These research find.ings caution examiners to avoid the
approach of determining the first language and only testing in that language.
The goal of PLS-5 Spani~;h is to determine whether or not a child has an adequate level of lan-
guage skills for bis or her age. PLS- 5 Spanish does not attempt to determine a chil.d's language
dominance or apprnpriate classroom placement. Rather, using the dual language assessrnent
approach, if a child can dernonstrate the communication ski.lls appropriate far his ar her age and
an understanding of age-appropriate concepts, this is ind icative of typical language development
regardless of the language u sed.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanish Desígn and Stand ardization 59

 Establishing Item Criteria
Evaluating infants and toddlers requires examiners to use skills and procedures dtlferent from
those used to test prescboolers and early school-age children. Taking these differences into j
account, the test developers established criteria for designing items appropriate far age groups ~
including infants, 1- and 2-year olds, 3- and 4-year olds, and 5- to 7-year olds. {
i
.,
-~
ltems for lnfants
In constructing new items for infants from birth through 11 months of age, test developers J.
applied the following criteria.
l. Itero objectives and target behavio'rs are clearly defined to facilitate scoríng and mini-
mize misinterpretation by the examiner.
2. Iteras represent infant behaviors that are precu.rsors to receptive and expressive language ..,
d~velopment, such as attention to sounds, people, and objects in the environment; social/
interactive comm.unication skills; and speech sound production.
3. Items involve behaviors that can be observed or elicited in interactive play situations with
the caregiver or the examiner in the home environment.
4. The caregiver is included in the test si.tuation to maxinúze the child·s responsiveness and
achieve the most representative sample of beha.viors. In addition, caregiver input is solicited.
If the caregiver is able to describe the clllid's behavior and give examples of the behaviors
that occur at home and meet the pass criteria, the child can receive credit far specific items
as if the examiner had observed the target behavior using the elicitation procedure.
5. The Cuestionara de comunicación en el hogar may be used to obtain ínformation about
the child befare the testing session and to question the family further during testing,
if needed.

ltems for 1- and 2-Year Ofds

In constructíng new items far very young children ·ages J. year through 2 years 11 months, test
developers applied the following criteria.
l. Items incorporate interactive play-based routines and use manípulatives rather than t1
picture stimuli when possible, allowing a more authentic assessment.
2. The majority of picture stimuli are photographs of common objects and animals recog-
nizable to children of various ·cultural backgrounds. t'
3. The actions depicted in picture stímuli represent familiar daily living routines

4.
(e.g., playing, bathing, eating).
Audítory Comprehension items include foils (distractors) to minimize the chance of the
••
child guessing the correct answer.
5. Items can be scored as correct if the examiner observes the target behavior in spontane-
ous interactions Yvith the examiner or caregiver.

ltems for 3- and 4-Year Olds

In constructing new items for children ages 3 years through 4 years 11 months, test developers
applied the following criteria.
l. Items engage the child in a variety of interactive behaviors (e.g., responding to questions,
manipulating objects, pointing to pictures).
2. Items reflecta variety of linguistic parameters (e.g., for age level 4 years 6 months to
4 years 11 months, items include tasks that assess vocabulary/connected speech,
qualitative concepts, morphology, and integra,ted language skills).

___60 . . __ /?resch.o.ol.Language Scales-5. Spanish ..

·r·
'
:. -

·.,1
~-
.··
.
'

3. On the Auditory Comprehension scale, items include multiple foils. Although the target
response is easily distinguishable from the foils , the picture foils have elements of the
H target response. Moreover, the colors and sizes of the pictures are balanced so that no
1i
single illustration. is signifícantly more salíent than others on the stimulus page.
4. The items and the stimul~s pictures show diversity in cultural groups, lifestyles, age
l· groups, and physi<?.'11 attributes, white <:ieptc.!:in.g every.day .c ontexts and routines that are

l 1
~
i
i
' familiar-to adiverse population of children.
5. When appropriate, practice items accompany items in which the format may be unfamiliar
to children who lack school e>..-perience (i.e., children who have not attended preschool pro-
grams, kindergarten, or first grade) or who lack formal testing e>..-perience (e.g., selecting a
picture from a multiple choice presentation, providing a re!.-ponse to a cloze sentence).

1 fitems for 5-, 6-, and 7-Year Olds

¡
1 In constructing new ítems for children ages 5 years through 7 years 11 months, test developers
j
appüed the following cr:itelia.
1
1 l. Many items target acadernic skills that children need to acquire to be successful in school
1
(e.g., identification of colors and letters).
j 2. The items allow drildren to dernonstrate their ability to integrate their lmowledge and
use of discrete language skills (e.g., grammar, vocabulary) holistically.
3. Emergent literacy items align with the instruclional components of Early Reading First
and Reading First, including pbonological awareness, print awareness, alphabetic knowl-
edge, and story comprehension.
4. The items and picture stimuli represent familiar daily living and school routines
(e.g., getting ready in the monú.ng, asking permission to play with friends, aniving
at scbool).
1

Develop1nent of Test Iteins

1
The PLS-5 and PLS-5 .Spanish items were developed concuúently, with each language
1 informing the other. Lik.e PLS-5, the PLS - 5 Spanish test and ítem formats have been designed
to reflect current trends in the assessmeut of young children (e.g., use of caregiver report,
1
l behavioral observation). To obtain information ahout developmental miJ.estones and!or elicíta-
1 tion procedures described in recent research investígating the behaviors of infants, toddlers,
and young children, the test developers conducted an extensive Literature review, considered
cünician feedback, and consulted experts in child language development.
11
1
¡
Uterature Revievv
The PLS-5 Spanish ítem development was driven by the results of a comprehensive
Üterature review on current trends in the assessment of young children (i.e., use of caregiver
report, behavi.oral observation). Much of the current research is summarized in ASHA'.s Roles
and Responsíbilities of Speech-La.nguage Pathologísts in Early Internention (ASHA, 2008).
111e technical report provides a review of evidence-based research on language skills in pre-
schoolers, and language E:rts curricula for kindergarten, first grade, and secoud grade. It also
provides information regarding skill sets required of infants and toddlers, preschoolers, and
5- through 7-year-old school-age children. In addition, a review of current research pertaining
1 to skills and abilities that distinguish children with language disorders from typically developing
1
·1
--1
children was conducted to ensure PLS- 5 Spanish items addressed the most up-to-date
research trends.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanísh Desígn and Standardízation 61

 Clinician feedback
A survey of clinicians who purchased PLS-4 and/or PLS-4 Spanish and other preschool assess- :\
ment products was conducted from December 2007 th:rough January 2008. Cünicians provided %
feedback about seores, administration directions, content areas, test iterns, and picture stimuli. 1, >. ,; ·
Based on the literature review aoddinician feedback, development staff determined that PLS-5 ~
Spanish needed to include existing PLS-4 Spanish items and incorporate new items, most ·,t·.¿
notably in the areas of joint attention, gestural communication, theory of mind, and emergent l.
literacy. In addition, consultants with expertise in bilingual language acquisition advised the test ~.·_:
developers on how best to address items that rnay elicit responses v1rith lexical and!or regional
variations, avoid culturally and/or linguistically biased items, and incorporate dual language
administration and scoring into the PLS-5 Spanish assessment.

Modifications to PLS-4 Spanish

-;
~-
• ,

•
-~~
~
,,.
While approximately 40% of PLS-5 Spanish items are unchanged from PLS-4 Spanish,
•
-~ o """
,
approximately 35% of PLS-5 Spanish test items are modifications of PLS-4 Spanish items. One

11 •4
general modification is a reduction in the number of su.bitems within aIJ item if research results ,

indicated that children could reliably demonstrate a behavior with fewer subitems. Another gen-
eral modification is a reduction in the number of practlce items per item if it was detennined
"!Li
•
.:,,·..
that a single practice item was sufficient to teach the task. Conversely, one (or more) practice
items has been added to items that ha.ve complex administration to ensure that children have
sufficient training to perform a given task. .:,1 4 ~
:1
Development of N ew Test Items ·-~

'I
.•

PLS-5 Spanish includes approximately 25% new items. Witb the intent to introduce new test
iterns for each age range, a preliminary list of potential test items, correlating to PLS-5 Englísh
;:

·' -:i..
•
-~
edition pilot and tryout items, was developed. Based on current research and expert input, the
:i t
new items were written by test development staff and reviewed by an expert panel to ensure that
ª each item addressed the targeted skill; .<I_.
:¡
-•
• the ítem was child-friendly and consistent in fonnat with other items;
'" the content would be familiar to a diverse population of children; and :1 ••
.. the items incorporated a variety of themes and topics.
A bilingual Spa.nish-English consultant translated the items from English to Spanish. A second
bilingual consultant translated the Spanish items back into English. Discrepancies in wording
and grammar were resolved by a bilingual test developer. Upon review, tlle initial list of items
,,
:i

..
-~

•
was pared clown, anda more refined list was selected. New art was dravvn in a style that was
visually appealing to young children, and existing art was updated to reflect contemporary
images of objects that are familiar to most children (e.g., flat-screen TV, clothing, hairstyles). 'I
.:?-

Because PLS-5 Spanish is a test for young children, the art was designed to include images of
young children in various scenes and engaged in a variety of activities. Special effort was made
to present a distribution of males and females in bot h familiar and nonstereotypical roles and
to balance stimuli showing children interacting with a variety of people (e.g., mother, father,
''I:I
sibling, grandparents, teachers).
Additionally, visual stimuli were developed to ensure that a suffícient nurnber of foils were
1
~
presented so as not to lead the child to the correct picture or to have the chtld automaticaDy
discount a particular foil (e.g.• the ítem is about a dog and one of the foils features a cat).

§2 ..f'rr;i_s._q_b_o_oJ.L?n.gf.fa.g~ $.c;ales-5 Spanlsh

 Upon completion of the visual stimuli, further expert review was solicited from a panel of
speech-language pathologists. Their feedback was considered, and item selection was B.nalized.
Play-based items for the younger ages were arranged in consecutive order within and across
age groups to minimize the exarrúner's need to alternate between using manipulatives and the
Manual de dib1qos. The majority,of the visual stirnuli were placed in the Manual de dibujos;
however, for the tryout phase, sorne visual stimuli (photographs) were included in a smaller
picture book, a format more appropriate for toddlers.

Clinician's Note: Based on examiner feedback, most notably their concem about losing
the smaller picture book, photographs included in the picture book were incorporated into
the final edition of the Manual d.e dibujos.

Bias Review
A fair test presents test i::ems that are equally recognizable to children from varied back-
grounds. Before the b:yout phase, a panel of speecb-language patbologists with expertise in
bilingual language assesnnent reviewed the modified and new test items to determine if tbey
were appropriate and fair for chíldren from different countries of origin (e.g., Puerto Rico,
Colombia), socioeconom': c status, and regions of the United States. Panel members were
selected based on tbeir expertise in assessment issues, culturaVlinguistic diversity, and/or
regional issues. Panel members' feedback was considered as items and visual sti.muli develop-
ment decisions were finalized. Table 4.1 lists the bias review panel members and the panel
members who consulted on dual language a,ssessment.

e 4.1 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Bias Review Panel Members

Mary Ann Acevedo, Ph.D, CCC-SLP A lejandro Brice, Ph.D., CCC-SLP

Our Lady of the Lake University Universlty of South Florida St. Petersburg
San Antonio, Texas St. Petersburg, Florida

Maria Bustillo-Formosa, MS, CCC-SLP Afina de la Paz, MS, CCC-BSLP

Carlos Albizu University The Center for Bi!ingual Speech and
San Juan, Puerto Rico Language Disorders, lnc.
Miami, Florida

Donna Jackson-Maldonado, CCC-SLP Hortencia Kayser, Ph.D., CCC-SLP*

Universidad Autonoma de Queretaro Saint Louis University
Jurica, Queretaro, Mexico St. Louis, Missourí

Ellen Kester, Ph.D., CCC·SLP* Henriette Langdon, Ed.D., CCC-SLP*

Bilínguistics Speech ancl Language Services San Jose State University
Austín, Texas San Jose, California

Elízabeth Peña, Ph.D., CCC-SLP* Adelaida Restrepo, Ph.D., CCC-SLP

University of Texas University of Arizona
Austin, Texas Tempe, Arizona

Albert Villa nueva-Reyes, EdD, MSc, CCC-SLP

University of Puerto Rico
San Juan, Puerto Hico
*Dual tanguage consultant

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanísh Design and Standardization 63

Tryout Research
Tryout Data Coilection
The tryout edition contained 188 items that included retained and modified PLS-4 Spanish
items, modified PLS-4 Spanish'items, and new item:; developed far each age group.
The tryout objectives were as follows.
l. Evaluate children's performance on new items that assess social interaction, gestural com- ·1 .f
munication, joint attention, theory of mind, and emergent literacy skills. '·
•f
2. Further evaluate the appropriateness of new items for a target age group with regaJ:d to ~
children's ínterest in the items and the ease of eliciting their responses.
1 i 'f
3. Determine if modifying PLS-4 Spanish items improved the viability of the items with 'f
regard to clarity of adminisb:ation and scoring directions. ' ~
4. Assess the performance differences between age groups and the performance differences . f
between the nonclinical and clinical groups (i.e., children with normal language skills
versus cbildren wíth language disorder). ' f
5. Assess the performance differences between rnonolingual Spanish speakers and bilingual ' f
Spanish-English speakers (with and without the application of dual language seores). ' 1

6. Determine item arder by item difficulty within each age group.

7. Evaluate if each scale {Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication) had an
adequate floor and ceiüng.
8. Evaluate if the pass criter:ia set for items that included multiple subitems were appropriate. j: .i
9. Evaluate how well caregivers' reports of their childxen's behaviors corresponded to ,,
examiners' observations of the children's spontaneous and elicited target behaviors.
10. Obtain feedback from a national sample of exmniners on the new items and modified
PLS-4 Spanish items.
11. Obtain feedback from a national sample of examiners on the clarity of administration
directions and scoring guidelines far ali tryout items.
The 67 bilingual examiners who participated in the J?LS-5 Spanish tryout included
speech-language pathologists, psychologists, and early chilclhood specialists ~T:ith experience in
test administration. A bilingual staff member conduc:ted a brief telephone interview with each
examiner to verify his or her spoken Spanish skills. In addition, to ensure that the examiners
were able to administer the test following standardized procedures, each prospective examiner
completed a practice case before being approved to test for the tryout research study. Practice
cases were reviewed for accuracy of administration , recording of responses, and scoring.
Throughout tryout testing, e.xaminers received written and telephone support to clarify adminis-
b:ation and scoring issues. Newsletters that included information about potential testing problems
and progress of the testing were sent to all examiners. After testing, examiners completed a
questionnaire evaluating the appropriateness of content revisions and additions, the effectiveness ·]
of practice items, the ease of adminisl:ration, and thE~ clarity of visual stimuli and instructions. · .i

64 frn§..c.hpof Languag_e Scales-5 Spanish

 Tryout Samples
Tryout testing of PLS-S Spanish took place from February 2009 through July 2009. Two
samples were coUected: a noncllnical sample of 341 children ages birth through 7 years
11 months and a clínica! sample of 69 children ages 2 years through 7 years 11 months who
were diagnosed Wíth a Ianguage tlisorder. The samples consisted of children whose primary
\ · -·caregivers report~d their place of origin lo he Mexico~ · Cáriibéari. (Puerto Rifo, Cuba,
·1.
i Dominican Republic), or Otber (Central America, South America, other). Ail children in the
tryout samples lived in a Spanish-speaking home. Children who were verbal spoke Spanish
1
j fluently enough to take the PLS-5 Spanish tryout edition in a standard manner.
!
Children who had a history of hearing difficulties were not included in the nonclinical sample
because of the possíbility that their early language development had been negatively affected.
Children with hearing d ifficulties included those who had a diagnosis of hearing ímpairment,
wore hearing aides, hada history of recurrent middle ear infections (otitis media), or had pres-
sure equalization tubes.
The clinical sarnple included children who had been identified as having a receptive, expressive,
. or receptive-eiqiressive language disorder using a criterion score of 77 (or 1.5 SD below the
mean) in the areas(s) of ímpairment on a standardized test oflanguage, and must have been
receiving language servi:~es at the time of testing.
Tables 4.2-4.6 present demographic information about the children in the nonclinical sample.

Table 4.2 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Age and Sex

.O:cyl;2:::'·' .. 55.6 44.4 18

0:~:8'.\'.'.'.·.:
..
42.9 57.1 21
1,:0:-1:.5 52.9 47.1 17

~:~~:().:.<" 51.6 48.4 31

2:6-2:11 60.6 39.4 33
.3:0-3:5 62.1 37.9 29
3:6-3:11 56.3 43.B 32
4:0-4:5 35.5 64.5 31
4:6-4:11 40.6 59.4 32
S:IJ--5:5 47.1 52.9 17
5:6-5:11 50.0 50.0 18
' 6:0-6;5
.. ·. <· 35.3 64.7 17
6:6:'-iJ:;ll 43.8 56.3 16
7:0-l:S . ", 61.5 38.5 13
.~ . ~ \. : .: .: : :
7:&-7:11 •.. 56.3 43.8 16
:1:\ltal Sample 50.1 49.9 341
Note. Row percentages may not sum to 1C)Q due to roundlng.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanish Design and S tandardization 65

 ••
••
Table 4.3 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Age and Geographic Region
• •
• ..·1
38.1 47.6 9.5 21
••
4.8
t
••
. .f ~
41.2 52.9 5.9 17 ·~

74.2 19.4 6.5 31

72.7 24.2 3.0 33

6.3
51.7
53.1
34.5
25.0
13.8
15.6
29
32 •
••
6.5 58.1 25.8 9.7 31
56.3

!~~~¡tj~',
3.1 31.3 9.4 32
70.6 23.5 5.9 17

6:1Hl:11 ·.· ·. : 6.3

66.7
52.9
50.0
27.8
35.3
25.0
5.6
11 .8
18.8
18
17
16
••
,;;~;;~~-;~,Yú:;
Tqtál 'samP,1e· .. ..
23.1
18.8
4.1
7.7

0.6
30.B
37.5
55.1
23.1
25.0
29.9
15.4
18.8
10.3
13
16
341
•
f
Note. Row porc<1ntages may not sum lo 100 due to rounding.

Table 4.4 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Age and Conntry of
Origin!Descent
••
f
f

14.3 4.8
5.6
4.8
55.6
52.4
27.8
19.0
11.1
4.8
18
21
••
..
. 2:6-2:~ t ; ': ·'· ;
5.9
16.1
15.2
3.2
5.9

12.1
58.8
51.6
54.5
17.6
16.1
6.1
11.8
12.9
12.1
17
31
33
•
f
10.3 6.9 51.7 24.1 6.9 29
•
6.3
3.2
6.3
9.7
53.1
48.4
18.8
19.4
15.6
19.4
32
31 •
9.4
11.8
6.3
11.8
3.1 50.0
58.8
18.8
11.8
12.5
5.9
32
17
•f
11 .1 11.1 61.1 11.1 5.6 18
f
5.9 5.9 64.7 11.8 11.8 17
6.3 68.8 18.8 6.3 16

•'
7.7 61.5 23.1 7.7 13
56.3 18.8 12.5 16
55.1 17.3 11.1 341

•
--· 66 ··· ·· ·p¡:eschcicil Lahgú8ge-Scales:.:..5·Spanish · ·-----· · - ·
Table 4.5 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Age and Primary Caregiver"s
Education Leve!

.~~¡!~ys·:~j'.: 22.2
23.8
27.8
23.8
16.7
19.0
33.3
33.3
18
21
1:0-1:5. 35.3 17.6 29.4 17.6 17
2:0-2:5 25.8 25.8 19.4 29.0 31
2:6-2:;!1 ..., . : .. 36.4 27.3 15.2 21.2 33

~;~l~6{· 31.0
31.3
37.9
31.3
10.3
18.8
20.7
18.8
29
32
4:0-4:5 ... '." 29.0 22.6 25.8 22.6 31

~li]JJ~!)·
31.3 31.3 21.9 15.6 32
35.3 29.4 23.5 11.8 17
5:6:..5:11 .. 22.2 33.3 16.7 27.8 18
6:0-6:5 . :: 29.4 35.3 17.6 17.6 17
: . .. . .. .
~ ~ . ..
6:6-6:1) 25.0 25.0 12.5 37.5 16
. 7:0-7:5 ... . ... 38.5 23.1 15.4 23.1 13
./~7;;-1':.: 18.8 43.8 18.8 18.8 16
Total Sai:nple 29.3 29.0 18.8 22.9 341
Nole. Row percentages may not sum 1o 1 JO dua to rou11dfng.
a¡¡ primaiy !amale caregiver's educaUan Jevel was nat reparted, primary malo caregiver's educatton leve! was usad. Primary Caregiver Is defined 2s !he paren!/
guan:fien who spends the most time with tho chlld on a da!iy basis.

le 4.6 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical Sample, by Length of Time Lived in the U .S.

Less than or equal to 1 year 2 0.6

More than 1 year, up to 2 years 4 1.2
More fua¡:¡ 2 ~ears, up to 3 years 5 1.5
Mare than 3 year.i, up to 4 years 3 0.9
More 'llian 4 years, Úp to 5 years 0.3
More than 5 years ··:'<.-.. " o.3
Born in the·iJnit~d sti.iés . . : . . 211 61.9
uv~ lo 'pJerto.Rico .. .. · ' 35 10.3
Not Report~d '. • · " .· 79 23.2
Tutai · · ,: : ._, · ....· .. ·· 341 100.0

Chapter 4 PLS- 5 Spanish Oesign and Standardization 67

 C linician's Note: Children who were verbal were eíther monolingual Spanish speakers
or bi.lingual Spanish-English speakers. Bilingual children were reported to speak Spanish
more often than English, or Spanish and English equally often. During tryout and
standardization, children were identified as requíring English administration of items
missed in Spanish based on the exarniner's observation of English usage (including code
switchíng) at any point during the test session, or based on the results of an English
language screener that required the child to respond to three open-ended questions in
English (e.g., What kind,s offood do you like to eat?). Table 4.7 presents information
about the level of Spanish and English fluency for the children in both the nonclinical and
clinical samples.

Table 4.7 PLS-5 Spanish Tryout Nonclinical and C~cal Samples, by Leve! of Spanish and
EngJish Fluency

Moiionn9u~i:si>anls1Jsiiíia1cer \_::;_<-.: ·,>,..,

r!J¡:~:¿;t ·s¡;~~~h;:~?~i;k~;w1!h ·s~~·i ÉngÍish Abmttes
siii~¡¡~~i'~~~rii~h"ilrici'8;¡;1~h·speak~~i "
<·- ;· '.-. . : ·
·.: ·:. ·-·
68
123
18
27
11'
~1
. -~
•
103 16
ro~c·= ·..-;.:·;:,:-;.:':;'.'.-:- · ·.,_- . . ·. · ·. ,- ''.·· ·· 294 61
'Ei
Hl
Note. Children under lhe age of 1 year am not reported (N = 39). Generally, chlldren betweeo the ages of birth and 11 monlhs did nol produce enough language to ~ jj
avaluata leve! of lluency. For1he remalnlng age groups (1:0-7:1 1). there were 8 nonclinlcr~ and 8 cllnlcal cases for vlhlch fluency vr.:is not repor\ed.

Tryout Scoring Guidelines

'I
;·i
Studies were conduc<ted to develop scoríng guidelines for the new open-ended items and to
refine the scoring guidelines prevíously developed for PLS- 4 Spanisb test items. Children's ver- ~1 t
batim responses from the tryout sample were scored O or l. Responses scored O were identified i
;~
as either incorrect or imrnature responses. From the responses scored 1, commonalities of the
responses were examined, and scoring guidelines were developed. ;¡....
• ~

Statistical Analysis . ~

After all the cases were collected and scored, the item seores underwent statistical analyses.
;Ii ••
..

•
'ni.e per centage of children who passed each ítem (p values), as well as the item-total cor-
relations, were calculated for each age group for both the nonclinical sample and the clínical
sample. 111e p values for each ítem were examined based on the follovving: :1 •
'·

-~ : ...
" caregiver report (behaviors the caregiver reporb: the child demonstrates at home);
" observed responses (behaviors spontaneously oo::urring during testing that were nota result

e
of a specifíc administration procedure); and
elicited responses (responses obtained as a result of the administration procedure). 'I
~ ;.;
ºf•
: ::

·'1
•
<

The p values for the nonclinical sample were compared with the p values for the clinical sample
to identify those items and subitems that best differentiated children in the nonclii+ical sample 'I
'i
from those with an identified language disorder. Ite:ns were revised or deleted if they <lid not
meet requirements for fairness, scoring ease, and item-level difficulty. Iterns were also deleted íf
they did not differentiate between children with typically developing slills and children identi-
...

. . ;I
fied as having a language disorder. With the remaining test items, refü1ements were made to
ítem arder based on estimates of relati.ve difficulty for each age range. After a complete review
of the tryout data, the standardization edition of PLS-5 Spanish was developed.

-... 68 f'reschool Language Scales..,-5 Spanish .

Standard.ization Research
The standa.rdization research focused on the derivation of norms and provision of reliability,
validity, and clinical utility evidence for the final scale, PLS-5 Spanish norms presented in
the Manual d.e administra.ci6n y 'J?Untuación were derived from ~ normative sample that is
~~pr~s~n~alive of the U: 5-: J>ºp1,llt3.t.i°-I1{TJ.S .J3µ.re.aTJoftbe Census,.20.08) ofchtldrenages birth
through 7 years 11 months. The sample was stratified on tlm basis of age, sex, geographic
region, counlry of origin/descent and primary caregiver's education level.

Standardization Data Collection

Standardization data collection occurred from May 2010 through Marc11 2011. The stan-
dard.ization edition of PLS-5 Spanish was administered by 111 examiners (speech-language
pathologists, psychologists, educational diagnosticians, and bilingual education teachers) in 18
states, and Puerto Rico. To ensure that examiners were experienced in individual, standardízed
test administration, each examiner completed a detailed background questionnaire. To verify
competency of potential examiners in spoken and written Spanish skills, a screening interview
was conducted by a development staff member who was a bilingual Spanish-English speaker.
'.fhe screening interview consisted of three tasks: conversing briefly on a familiar topic, reading
Spanish text aloud, and transcribíng sentences presented in Spanísh (examiners from Puerto
Rico were sirrúlarly evaluated for competency in spoken and written English skills). The inter-
viewer conversed witb the examiner and rated him or her on intelligibility, vocabulary, gram-
mar, fluency, and appropriate social language. The examiner was asked to read a brief passage
of his or her choice in Spanish (or English), and was rated for pronunciation accuracy and flu-
ency. Finally, the examiner was asked to transcribe sentences wíth varying degrees of difficulty
that were presented verbally. Transcriptions were faxed to the interviewer, who then rated the
transcriptions for accuracy, spelling, and legibility.
Ex:arniners who passed the screening submitted one case as a practice test befare receiving
approval for further standardization testing. Throughout testing, examiners receíved detailed
wrltten and telephone feedback and support. Newsletters featuring information about potential
testing problems and pro:sress of the standardization research were also sent to examiners.

Standardization Sample
PLS-5 Spanish standard::zation research involved a normative sample of 1,150 children and
additional samples for reliability and validity studies. For the youngest age bands (birth through ,
11 months), the normative sample included 50 children far each three-month age group. For
children ages 1 year throi1gh 5 years 11 months, the normative sample included 75 children
for each six-month age group. For older children ages 6 years through 7 years 11 months, the
norrnative sample included 50 children for each six-month age group. To be included in the
normative study, participants had to meet the following requirements.
° Children must be able to take the test in the standard manner without modifications.
.. Children must under~;tand and speak Spanish as their p1imary (most often used in the
home) language.
° For children not yet speaking, Spanish must be the prirnary language (most often used
in the home) that the primary caregivers speak to them. Table 4.8 presents dernographic
characteristics of the nonclinical and clinical samples r.elated to the Jevel of Spanish and
English fluency.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanish Design and Standardization 69

 ..
-
Table 4.8 Demographic Characteristics of the PLS-5 Span:lsh Nonclinical and Clinical Samples,
by Level of Spanish and English Fluency

~: :
3.
f:--':..;.::_-.-~c..:..::._:,.;.,-.,..,.=..~_:__....:.....,__:.~~~-,--~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---l {
901 -'
'
Noie. Ghlldren under the age of 1 year are not reportad (N = 200). Generally, chíldran batwnen the ages of blrth and 11 months dld not produce enough languag& ~ :
lo evaluate level offluency. Far ttio romaining age grcups (1:0-7:11), lhem were 4 nondinital and 2 cllnical cases far whích fluenoy wes n~t reportad.

Clinician's Note: Although the sample included children who were bilingual, Spanísh
was the primary language (first language) of all particípants in the standardization studies.
Approximately 26% of the sample lived in homes in which English was reportedly spoken
sorne of the time.
The normative sample was stratified on. the basis of age, sex, and geographic region. Tables
4.9-4.11 show demog~phic characteristics of the sample (i.e., age, sex, region, and country
of origin). In addition, the normative sample was stratified on the basis of primary caregiver's
education leve! and matched to national figures based on the U.S. Census (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 2008).
Table 4.9 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, hy Age and Sex

50.0 50.0 50
50.0 SO.O 50
50.0 50.0 50
50.0 50.0 50
50.7 49.3 75
49.3 50.7 75
50.7 49.3 75
49.3 50.7 75
50.7 49.3 75
49.3 50.7 75
49.3 50.7 75
50.7 49.3 75
49.3 50.7 75
50.7 49.3 75
50.0 50.0 50
50.0 50.0 50
50.0 50.0 so
50.0 50.0 50
To\a\ Sarr¡ple ·: · 50.0 50.0 1,150

- · 70 · -PfeschliCS!tatrgu~g-e ·scales""5Bpanish
Table 4.10 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Age an~ Geographic Region

···-

l~I~i~
2.0 30.0 40.0 50
2.0 24.0 28.0 50
40.0 24.0 36.0 50
4.0 1.3 37.3 26.7 30.7 75
1:&::1:11 • ·. 2.7 48.0 21.3 25.3 75
... 'l7
1.3 1.3 54.7 20.0 22.7 75
4.0 2.7 42.7 22.7 28.0 75
5.3 2.7 49.3 20.0 22.7 75
1.3 46.7 20.0 32.0 75
4.0 1.3 50.7 13.3 30.7 75
1.3 65.3 9.3 24.0 75

~i~i~\iJ~,_·
5.3 2.7 50.7 14.7 26.7 75
1.3 5.3 48.0 B.O 37.3 75
2.0 2.0 52.0 20.0 24.0 50
2.0 2.0 38.0 22.0 36.0 50
7'!):.;7·5 ." . 4.0 4.0 50.0 16.0 26.0 50
·. ~. .:·:\·:\:;· .~ .
7:6-7:11 .. 4.0 4.0 56.0 6.0 30.0 50
\otal S11mpt_~ 2.7 1.8 47.0 19.0 29.4 1,150
Note. Row peroentages mey not sum !9 1 JO due to roundlng.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanísh Design and Standardization 71

 _,
Table 4.11 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Age and Country of Origin/Descent

1 1 '

:~rti.~·\l'.:·\~)~'i/.
::-· .
2.0
2_0 2.0
56.0
52.0
38.0
40.0
4.0
4.0
50
50
·0:6-0:8.. 6.0 58.0 28.0 8.0 50
0:9--0:11 2.0 4.0 56.0 38_0 50
1:0-1 :5 5.3 2.7 2.7 53.3 32.0 4.0 75
1:6-1:11 .. 8.0 4.0 50.7 29.3 8.0 75
:
2:0-2:5 :~'.··:/:' 10.7 5.3 1.3 56.0 24.0 2.7 75
2:6-2:11 .....
..
8.0 5.3 1.3 49.3 28.0 8.0 75
3:0-3:5 6.7 2.7 2.7 50.7 25.3 12.0 75
.3:6-3:11 12.0 5.3 46.7 29.3 6.7 75
~
4:(}-4:5 6.7 1.3 1.3 52.0 30.7 a.o 75 .,

:4:6-4:11 13.3 2.7 4.0 52.0 24.0 4.0 75 i

'
5:0:-5:5 5.3 60.0 28.0 6.7 75
~
5:6-5:11 8.0 1.3 1.3 40.0 38.7 10.7 75 '
6;(}-6:5
:l'
,,
4.0 4.0 64.0 26.0 2.0 50
: 6:6-6:11 2.0 54.0 36.0 8.0 50
7:0-7:5 6.0 2.0 58.0 28.0 6.0 50
7:6-7:11 64.0 34.0 2.0 50
Tf?tal Samp¡e 6.5 2.5· 1.0 53.4 30.5 6.1 1,150
Note. Row percentages may not sum to 100 dueto rounding.
ª ti prlmary female camgiver's country of origin/deseent was not mported, primary mala caiegivet's country al orlgin/descent was used. Primsry Caregivsr Is deflned as the parent/gusrtllan

''
who epends the rnost lime wflh the child on a dally basls.

,
·Í
"·

''
Clinician's Note: The place of origin reported for each child is based on the primM)'
caregiver's place of origin or descent. Many children in the normative sample were born
in the United States.
í

'•
t

f
•

· ·· · 72 · ·-Preschoo/-Language -S cafes-5Spanish
 Information on caregiver education level was obtained from responses to a. question that asked
the caregiver(s) to speci:l:y the highest grade completed by each parentlguardian and specify
whích parent/guardian was the primary caregiver. The primary caregiver's education level, as
indicated below; wa.5 usE:d as the stratification variable.
" llth grade or less
., Hig}:¡ ,schqol_gr:adu.ate or .GEDequivalent
., 1-3 years of college .::ir technical school
• 4 or more years of college

le 4.12 PLS-5 Spanish Nonriattive Sample, by Age and Primary Caregiver's Educ~Íion Le~el

34.0 36.8 32.0 31.9 20.4 12.0 10.8 50

38.0 36.8 32.0 31.9 20.0 20.4 10.0 10.8 50
38.0 36.8 HO 31.9 22.0 20.4 12.0 10.8 50
40.0 35.6 2.j,3 29.6 21.3 22.6 13.3 12.2 75
37.3 35.6 26.3 29.6 21.3 22.6 16.0 12.2 75
34.7 32.1 3:l.3 33.5 18.7 22.B 13.3 11.5 75
36.0 32.1 2!!.3 33.5 22.7 22.8 12.0 11.5 75
38:7 39.0 30.7 30.2 20.0 21.4 10.7 9.4 75
36.0 39.0 30.7 30.2 24.0 21.4 9.3 9.4 75
38.7 37.3 2li.7 30.2 20.0 19.0 14.7 13.4 75
36.0 37.3 30.7 30.2 18.7 19.0 14.7 13.4 75
30.7 29.5 3fi.O 35.6 21.3 23.0 12.0 11.9 75
32.0 29.5 30 35.6 22.7 23.0 10.7 11.9 75
36.0 35.3 3t'..O 36.3 18.0 18.1 14.0 10.3 50
34.0 35.3 36 .D 36.3 20.0 18.1 10.D 10.3 50
38.0 40.5 30.0 28.4 20.0 20.1 12.0 10.9 50
36.0 40.5 30.0 28.4 22.0 20.1 12.0 10.9 50
36.2 35.8 30 .6 31.9 20.9 21.0 12.3 11.3 1,15()

female caregiver's educa.tlon leve! was not reported 1 primary rnale caregiver's educatlon leve\ was used. Primary Caregtver is daflned as the parenVguardian who spends the
wl!h the child on a dally basls.
pa¡dalion data far Hlspanic chlldren, oges 0-7, from C.-1Tenr P Jputa!/on Survey, M'31C/1 2008 [machlne-readable data file) conducled by lhe Bureau of the Census for the Buroau ot
;..,.,.. Sztisllcs.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanish Desígn and Standardization 73

 •
4
f
4
Tables 4.13-4.16 show additional cha.racteristics of th:: normative sample, such as children's
learning environment, educational classífication/diagnosis, length of time residing in the United :j
1
•
States, and Spanish lexical/regional variation spoken . .~!
. ··~
•
PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, µy Age and Child's Learning Environment ·~}~ •
Table 4.13
----~--------~--~--~...;--m_;;......;;:;.. ...........__ ~--.-.~--...;;----------_,, ....____·1 •
~-:i::}
~"%
~
•f
1&;
-~
.~
f
::'~

•f
10 13 8.7 3 2.0
70.7 11 7.3 12 8.0 19 12.7 2 1.3
l
i '
64.0
52.0
30.7
9
2
6.0
1.3
10
9
3
6.7
6.0
2.0
26
50
15
17.3
33.3
10.0
4
10
82
2.7
6.7
54.7 7 4.7
2 1.3
0.7
3
2
2.0
1.3 ·;
.i
i:;
'•
:iiifdi'Saiñvie
27 27.0
24 24.0
1.0 1.0 24
1
24.0
1.0
42
32
42.0
32.0 42
5 5.0
42.0 2
1.0
2.0
1.0
'•
682 59.3 45 3.9
Nota. Row percentages may not S\Jm to 1 oo due to rounding.
54 4.7 114 9.9 121 10.5 81 7.0 47 4.1 8 0.7 6

Nota. Some chlldran are inciuded In more than one categoiy because the chlld's Ume was reponed In two of l he lls:ed calegorles (e.g., hall day kindergarten and helf day al home
wtthsitt.,,.).
ª lncludes any envlronmerrt.not dsfined as ene of the llstod categor!es.
0.5
·!'

~J
'f
Table 4.14 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Educational Classificatíon/Diagnosis

0.1 0.4
5 0.4 1.7
49 4.3 3.8
2 0.2 0.1
10 0.9 0.5

e
0.1
d
26 2.4
ª U.S. population deta fer ages 3-7 from the Thlrty-Flrsr Annuel Report ro Congress ª" Che lmplemsntat1011 ol the lndlvlduuls with D/sabllities Educstfon Aci, 2007;
Uotted States Department of Education, Offlce of Speolel Educatlon and Rehabliitati•re Services. Offlce ot Speclal Educatioo Pmgrems, 2009. Retrieved from
ht1p:/fwww.ldeadara.org/tables31sttar_1·7 .htm.
b lncludes hearlng lmpairments, other heatth lmpairments, mulUplo dlsablllties, doal -blindness, end traumatic braln lnjury.
e U.S. population dala avallable for combine<! ages 6-18 only. The PLS-5 Spanish normativa ssmple dala could not be accurately comparad tothe U.S.
populalion data dueto the unlque age grouplngs.
d U.S. populatlon data no1 evallabla fer children enrolled In Engllsh as a Second Language classes.

74 · -- .. Preschoof-tanguage-Sca/es-5 -Spanish
Table 4.15 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Length of Time Lived in the U.S.

16 1.4
9 0.8
10 o:9
10 0.9
21 '1.8
33 2..9
681 59.2.
338 29.4
32 2.8
1,150 100.0

Table 4.16 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Spanish Le:rical/Regional Variation Spoken

~~~~i:~r·~-:·:~~'?f~.ri,:~·., 30 2-6
"Dorr¡ifti~n, Republic ·· 8 0.7
ii~~rt~ .Ric~' :. ":· "" 347 30.2
Central Amertca
B Salvador 26 2.3
Guatemala 22 1.9
Honduras 22 1.9
Nicaragua 2 0.2
Mexico 597 51.9
South America
Argentina 7 0.6
Bolivia 2 0.2
Chile 7 0.6
Colombia 23 2.0
Ecuador 4 0.3
Paraguay 2 0.2
feíll·: :_.. <· · 3 0.3
15 1.3
20 1.7

12 1.0

.
·ri~~~:
' ·~
. :.' :.:: 0.1
Note. Total N ~ 1, 150.
8 Lexícal varlatlons rcported from two or more Spanish-speaking countrles,
b lncludes Mainstream Amerlcan Eoglish .

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanish Des;gn and Standardizatíon 75

 Data on the children's use of Spanish were collected from the normative sample. Frequency
of usage (Always, Often, Sometimes, Never) in different contexts was reported, as well as the
primary caregiver's perception of which language (Spanish, English, both) the child was ?1ºst
proficient in listening to and speaking. Table 4.17 dispJays the results of the primary caregíver's
report of frequency of children's ~panish usage in different contexts.

Table 4.17 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample, by Frequency and Context of Child's Spanish
Exposure and Usage ·¡.
~
'·

:··=~s,:·t,~.=/\ 76B
132
80.8
13.9
586
126
61.7
13.3
352
106
37.1
11.2
sornetirnés ·Y.'. : 35 3.7 115 14.1 110 11.6
n~ü~('..' >·:::::: 1 0.1 34 3.6 83 8.7
·Not fleportedª . . 14 1.5 89 9.4 299 31.5
Totai\?N:\i';:/ ·:' 950 100.0 950 100.0 950 100.0
Noí11. Chili:liéñ-üiiiler11iii óge iií'fyiiiir'iire iiot répilrted (N;;,·200).Typlcally, áiildran·b•.tween·the ages of birth·and 11 ·month• do nol demonstrate
consistent or stebfe communfcstion· skffls, so caregfvers dld not provide thfs lnfcormatlon.
a May in elude soma chifdren for whom the context is not approprlata. For example, not ali chifdren are partlcfpating ln a classroom environment.

In addition, examíners were asked to rate the language skills of each child he or she tested on
a 5- or 6-point Likert scale (see Tables 4.18 and 4.19). Ratings for most younger children under
1 year were "not reported" by the primary caregiver; d1ildren within this age group seldom or
inconsistently demonstrate these types of language skills .

. _76 Preschoo/ Language Sca/es-5 Spaoish .

·~1
~ ¡
Langu.age Comprehe:nsio:n
The examiner checked the box ne}.i: to the statement that best described the child's comprehen-
·~ 1
sion of Spanish and EngJish. Table 4.18 reports standard score means, and standard deviations
for children in the normative sample by the level of language comprehension. Children with
--- 1
! ratings of 5 or 6 were not included in the PLS-5 Spanish studies. Children with ratings of 3 or
- \ 4. were corobined into one group (i.e., Understands Both Spanish and-English) in the table. The
1 statements the examiners used to rate the child's comprehension were:
. ~ 1
l. · Child understands Spanish but no English
.~ 1
2. Child understands Spanish and a little English
1........ 1· 3. Child understands both Spanish and English
. ~.

4. Child understands sorne concepts in Spanish and sorne concepts in Englisli

5. Child understands E nglish and sorne Spanish
6. Child does not ur:.derstand Spanish; he or she only understands English
1
'
Table 4.18 PLS-5 Spanish Normntive Sample Standard Score Means and Standard
Deviations for Spanish-Speaking Children at Different Levels of Language
Comprehension, by Age

.A1Jditory .. :··..: . .
· Comprehension
1:0-1:11 116 97.5 16.5 22 102.9 15.9 12 101.6 9.2
2:0-2:11 127 98.7 17.3 13 103.5 8.9 10 108.3 12.5
3:0-3:11 119 100.2 12.8 16 108.3 11.9 14 109.1 13.6
4:0-4:11 105 96.8 13.5 26 104.7 15.0 19 104.9 16.1
5:0-5:ll 78 95.4 14.5 35 98.5 15.8 36 106.5 15.1
6:0-B:11 38 97.4 13.7 18 101.9 17.7 42 106.6 16.7
7:0-7:11 30 95.9 15.9 15 98.6 15.3 55 101.9 11.9
Expressive
Gommunlcation
1:ll'-1:11 116 101 .6 16.0 22 104.4 13.5 12 107.8 6.0
2:0-2:11 127 98.9 13.1 13 101.2 7.4 10 101.6 8.6
3:0-3:11 119 97.4 14.3 16 103.5 14.3 14 101.2 17.6
4:0-4:11 105 99.9 15.7 26 106.5 17.8 19 100.9 20.6
5:0-5:11 . 78 98.7 14.4 35 99.2 17.2 36 103.4 14.1
6:0-6:11
..·. . . 18 99.2 16.0
38 96.1 12.0 42 102.0 16.3
7:0-7:\l :: :.: ·.·
..
30 96.5 14.4 15 97.7 16.7 55 103.3 14.5

1~~~J~·9~>:··.: ~·: '.

:r :~1:n . . · .<:_:: . : 116 99.6 16.5 22 104.0 14.6 12 104.9 6.3
..... .
. ·. ·...
2:0-2:11 . .. · ' 127 98.8 15.2 13 102.6 8.2 10 105.7 10.8
3:0-3:11 ... . 119 98.6 13.8 16 106.6 13.8 14 105.6 16.5
4:0-4:J 1 :. : .=.-.. •; 105 98.2 14.8 26 106.1 16.4 19 103.2 19.5
5:1)-5:11 78 96.8 14.8 35 98.7 17.3 36 105.4 15.0
6:!Hi:1i ·-. .:. · 38 96.4 13.3 18 100.7 17.4 42 104.7 17.4
7:!p:11 30 95.8 15.6 15 98.2 16.2 55 102.9 13.3
Note. Children under the age of 1 year are not repmted (N = 200). lypically, childran belween the ogos of blrth and 11 months dld not demonstrate conslotent or stable
comm unica1ion skllls so caregivers dld not provlde tllls ínfonnatk n, Forthe remalning age groups (1 ;0-7;11}, levef of language cotnprehensíon wa&: not reported for 4 children.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanísh Design and Standardizatíon 77

 Expressive Langu.age
The examiner checked the box ne>..t to the statement i:hat best described the child's expressive
language skills in Spanish and English. Table 4.19 reports standard score means and standard
deviations for children in the normative sample by the level of expressive language. Children
with. ratings of 4 or 5 (demonstrating a lack of Spanish language fluency) were not included in
the PLS-5 Spanish studies. The statements the examiners used to rate the child's expressive
sldlli in Spanish and English were:
l. Child converses fluently in Spanish; he or she :;peaks no English
2. Child converses fluently in Spanish and speak5 Spanish most of the time; he or she
speaks a little English
'
3. Child converses fluently in both Spanish and English .~

4. Child converses fluently in Englísh and speaks English most of the time; he or she
speaks a little Spanish
5. Child converses fluently in English; he or she .:;peaks no Spanish
i

Tahle4.19 PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample Standard Score Means and Standard Deviations for ·Y
:':
Spanish-Speaking Children at Different Levels of Expressive Langaage, by Age

Auditoi'ii".'/;'·?:' ·;
Comprehensi~n
1:0::1:·H:--·/.<. 130 98.1 16.4 15 100.9 14.5 5 104.8 a.o
2:fr-f:1i 129 98.7 17.1 11 104.0 9.5 10 108.3 12.5
3:8-3:11
. . . ·.
~
122 100.3 12.8 17 108.5 11.6 10 110.4 14.6
4:0--4:11 105 96.8 13.5 30 103.9 15.1 15 106.6 15.9
5:~5::1....·: : 78 95.4 14.5 42 100.2 16.9 29 106.0 13.9
6:~.:1r:. 38 97.4 13.7 24 102.4 17.9 36 107.1 16.4 ··1
7:0-:.7:11 31 96.5 15.9 21 98.9 14.4 48 102.0 11.9
EXjiressive J
Communícation ;

1:0--'..1;,·1 :.':...
2:0-2:1-L : : ·;:. ·.
130
129
102.0
98.9
15.6
13.0
15
11
104.9
102.2
13.0
7.7 10
5 109.0
101.6
7.3
8.6
. $
~~
.i

3":~3;11: \·.>:.::.
~
122 97 .4 14.3 17 104.0 14.4 10 100.6 18.4
4·0-4·ff , ... , .... 105 99.9 15.7 30 104.5 18.2 15 103.4 21.2 .;

~ilW~';,L
·~
78 98.7 14.4 42 101.1 17.1 29 101.5 13.8 .~:

38 96.1 12.0 24 99.5 15.9 36 102.3 16.4 ·r

31 97.1 14.5 21 99.6 15.4 48 102.9 15.0 •it
~
=~
130 100.1 16.2 15 103.3 12.9 5 107.2 8.1 ,
::;.

129 98.8 15.1 11 103.4 8.i 10 105.7 10.B ~

~1
122 98.7 13.9 17 106.9 13.E 10 105.9 17.5 ~·
105 98.2 14.8 30 104.6 16.f. 15 105.5 19.7 ~
1
·t
78 96.8 14.8 42 100.7 17.E; 29 104.2 14.3 1
38 96.4 13.3 24 101.1 1 7.~i 36 105.1 i7.3 ~ ~

Note.
31 96.4 15.7 21 99.3 14.9 48 102;8 13.6
Children under the e9e of 1 year ara not reponed (Ne 200). Generally, children between the ages of bl rth ami 11 rnonths did not produce enough. languege 10 evoluate tha
·~
level of fluency. for tha rerneining ag& groups (1;1.l-7:11), Jevel of expresslve language wes not reparuod for ·! clllldren.
·.'
-~

-
78 Preschool Language Sca/es-5 Spanish
Standardization Scoring Guidelines
Standardization included a much larger, more diverse sample of child.ren than tryout. Thus, the
verbatim responses collected for the Expressive Communication scale during standardization
included many response:~ not accounted for in b:yout, making it necessary to revise the scoring
guidelines. The process for revising the scoring guidélines included
•· ···compiling a random sample of 200verbati.m: responses collected fror.n standardizátion;
" evaluating if the tryout scoring guidelines applied to the verbatim re&ponses; if the tryout
scoring guidelines were applicable, adding verbatim responses that differed qualitatively
from tryout responses as examples; or if the tryout scoring guidelines were not applicable,
revising the guidelines to appropriately categorize correct and incorrect responses; and
• using the final set of scoring guidelines to score the remaining verbatim responses collected
in sta.ndardization.

Combined ltems
For standardization, several items from the tryout phase were combined into one item pre-
sented with a single admínistration and recording procedure. Tiüs was done to streamline·
presentation of manipulatives and to shorten administrati011 time. Based on analysis of the sta.n-
dardization data, decisions were made to separate these combined items into individual ítems
and present them in one of three ways in the final editi.ons of the test:
0 as adjacent items (i.e ., the items share the same administration procedure but have separate
scoring criteria);
0 as separated items (i.e., the items have tbe same administration procedures, but separate
scoríng criteria and are separated by other ítem(s); or
11 only part of the combined item was kept and the other part dropped.

Jtem IPlacement ¡~nd Developmental Age Bands

Based on the standardiz::i.tion data, test iterns and subitems that did not fit the desired range
of ítem difficulty or did not discriminate between typically developing children and those in
the clinical sample were deleted. The remaining items were reordered within and across age
groups. Because the age groupíngs of test items are íntended to assist clinicians in explaining to
parents or caregivers the approximate ages at which certain skills are exhibited, a criterion of
at least a 70% to 90% pass rate for child.ren in the normative sample was used to place PLS-5
Spanish test items in specífic developmental age bands.

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanish Design and Standardization 79

 .

Determining Start Points and Discontinua Rules

To avoid frustrating children with the length of test aclrninistration, start points and discontinue i
rules were established. · During standard.ization, the start point was one year younger than the
chíld'~ chronoLogical age in order to collect sufficient data to determine the fínal starting point.

The final start points were established based on the p grformance of the nonnative and clinical
samples. For each age band, the first three consecutive items with p values of .90 or greater
were selected as the start point. This method of estahlishing start points reduces the chance of
beginning testing with items that may be too easy far the child while still enabling the majority
of chíldren to establish a basal of three consecutive correct items. The discontinue rule of seven ,. .
:,
consecutive zero (O) seores was applied during standardization. to ensure that each chíld tested ·:
would have the most oppmtlinity to attempt all items for which he or she might receive cred.it.
A d.iscontinue rule study was conducted on the norm2.tive sample to evaluate the probabílity of
a child eaming additional points after each of several possib1e discontinue rules were applied,
for example, after five, six, or seven consecutive incouect responses. The results indicated that !.
after failing six consecutive iteros, less than 1% and 3% of the PLS-5 Spanish normative sarnple ,
had a chance of obtaining additional credit fro1n a subsequent ítem on the AC and EC scales, ·t
respectively. In addition, the rank-order correlations between the raw total seores with a <lis- j
continue rule of síx or seven consecutive incorrect ite'ns are at or higher than .98 across all age
groups. Therefore, a final discontinue rule of síx cons1;cutive zero (O) seores was selected.

Develop1nent of Norms
Standard Seores
TI1e standard seores on the PLS-5 Spanish are repor:ed at three-month intervals from
ages birth through 11 months, and at six-month intervals from ages l year through 7 years
11 months. PLS-5 Spanish normative information was developed using the method of inferen-
tial norming (W.ilkins, Rolfbus, Weiss, & Zhu, 2005). Various moments of normalcy (i.e., means,
standard deviations, and skewness) of each scale wen: calculated for each age group of the nor-
mative sample. The moments were plotted across age, and various polynomial regressions (rang-
ing from linear to 4th degree polynomials) were fit to the moment data. Predictíon function for
each moment was selected based on consistency "vi.th underlying theoretical expectations and
the pattern of growth curves observed in the nonnative sample. For each scale, the selected
functions were used to derive estimates of the popuktion moments. The estimated moments
were then used to generate theoretical distributions for each of the reported nonnative age
groups, yielding mid-point percentiles for each raw S<:ore. These percentiles were converted to
standard seores with a mean of 100, a standard deviation of 15, and a range of 50 to 150. The
irregularitíes associated with sampling error were eliminated by smootbing. TI1e standard score
equivalents and percentile ranks for Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication
are presented in appendix A in the Manual de administración y puntuación.
Total Language seores were derived by fust adding the standard seores from the Auditory
Comprehension and Exprnssive Communication scales, then normalizing the distribution to
have a mean of 100 anda standard deviation of 15. Some smoothing of the score distributions
was done to adjust for small írregularities. Using the sum of the Aud.itory Comprehension and
EA'Pressive Communication standard seores rather than the sum of their raw seores ensures that
the Total Language seores represent an equal weighting of each scale's score. Total Language
standard score equivalents and percentile ranlcs are presented in appendix B in the Manual d.e
administración y puntuación.

80 ~reschoo/ Language Scales-5 Spanísh

 Age Equivalents
Age equivalents were derivad for the AC and EC scales raw seores and for the sum of AC and
EC raw seores. Median raw seores were computed for each age group and fítted across ages
by polynomial models. A best-fittíng model was selected from whích age equivalents by month
were obtained. The age equivalent represents the median raw score at each age level. Age
<=!qtJ,ivalents are presented in appendix C in the Manual de administración-y puntuací.ón.

Growth Scale Values

The growth scale values for the AC and EC scales were developed by Rasch or one-parameter
Item Response Theory C:RT) model (Hambleton, Swaminathan, & Rogers, 1991). Concurrent
calibration (Llnacre, 2005) was used in WINSTEPS 3.61 to obtain IRT-based ability seores
(thetas). These ability seores were then rescaled to form growth scale values \vith a mean of 500
and a standard deviation of 100 for each scale. For both scales, t.he average growth score, begin-
ning at 5 years to 5 years 5 months, is anchored at 500. Growth scale values corresponding to the
scale raw seores are presented in appenclix C in the Manual de adminístmeión y puntuación.

Supplemental Measlllres
Cuestionario de •::omunicación en el hogar
The Cuestionario de comunicación en el hogar was developed to give you the caregiver's per-
spective of a child's communication behaviors. To develop questions that examiners commonly
ask caregivers during the history/intake process, test developers consulted with speech-language
pathologists who specialize in assessment of young children (infants, toddlers, and preschoolers)
vát.h language delay and/or older chíldren with severe communication disorders (e.g., autism).
The questions were then presented to members of an advisory board for content review. The
questions were also presE:nted to a focus group of parents with children ages 6 months through
2 years 11 months; they spoke primarily Spanish in the home. Parents were asked to complete
the Cuestionario de com'J,nicací6n. en el hogar, noting any suggestions to make the question-
naire more "parent-friendly.DBased on foedback from the advisory board and focus group, tl1e
original content and fonr.:at for the Cuestionario d.e comunicación en el hogar were modified
far
" substitution of profes:;ional terminology with common language (e.g., "articula~ was replaced
Vílith "dice correctamente los sonidos");
e clarification of the in:itructions for completing the questionnaire (e.g., the caregiver should
circle all answers that apply); and
0 refinernent of content (e.g., distinguíshing between home and community settings, dis-
tinguishing between iime spent during the weekdays versus the weekend, distinguishing
between events in the cb.ild's daíly life that are common versus occasíonal versus seldom).
0 Provision of space for parents to express a<lditional a.reas of c.oncern.

language Sample~ Checklist

A child ma.y produce language in spontaneous speech that reflects the emergence or mastery of
language skills that were not elicited in stroctured tasks. The PLS- 5 Spanish Language Sample
Checklist, modified from PLS-4 Spanish, examines a child's spontaneous speech for language
development and master.y in the areas oflanguage structure (morphology, syntax), word mean-
ing (semantics), social language (U5e), speech intelügibility, and overall Spanish versus English
usage (approximate percentage).

Chapter 4 PLS-5 Spanísh Desígn and Standardízation 81

 Articulation. Screener
In developing the PLS-5 Spanish Articulation Screener, clinician feedback was reviewed to
determine if the PLS-4 Spanish articulation items rneded revision. Clinicians expressed a
desire to have v-lsual stimuli accompanying the Artic:ulation Screener items. A word list was
compiled that would both target the appropriate phonemes and provide easily identi:fiable
visual stimuli for children ages 2 years to 7 years 11 months. A total of 41 target phonemes
were developed.
The Articulation Screener was administered to ever:r child between the ages 2 years through .
7 years 11 months who participated in the PLS-5 Spanish standardization. Examiners recorded t -~ .
a plus (+) for every correct production of a targeted phoneme and minus (-) for each incorrect '~ ·11·
production. .; 'I
Arialysis on the normative sample indicated that children younger than 2 years 6 months were
unable to reliably complete the Articulation Screener. Thus, cut seores were established for
each age group from 2 years 6 months through 7 years 11 months. To establish criterion seores, ; ..
the distribution of raw seores was analyzed for each age group, and score ranges were identified 3 :_ .
as follows. ·' .:
0 Seores higher than 1.5 5tandar<l deviations below the mean (the 7th percentile or above)
are considered within the normal range of ability.
• Seores between 1.5 and 2 standard deviations h3low the mean (between the 2nd and
6th percentiles) are considered below the normal range of ability. Further evaluation is
recommended.
• Seores more than 2 standard deviations below be mean (below the 2nd percentile) are
considered significantly belüw the normal range 6f ability. Further evaluation is strongly
recommended for children within this score raIJ.ge.
Criterion seores for the Arüculation Screener are presented on the Protocolo and in the
Manual de administración y puntuación.

82 P_reschoof Language Sca/es-5 Spanish

"videi1ce of Reliability and Validity

When. using a standardized, norm-referenced rneasure, the cünician must be c011fident that the
s<;:ores obtained are reliable and valid indicators of the areas that the test measures. This chap-
ter prov:ides evidence of reliability and validity of PLS-5 Spanish seores in measuring a young
child's language ability.

vidence of Reliabi:üty
Relíability refers to the consistency of seores that would theoretically be obtained if the same
child were repeatedly tested on the same test under identical conditions. Although this could
never be done, various estimates of reliabilíty are obtained in practice. Classical test theory
assumes that an observed test score is an approximation of a child's true score on the construct
being measured, that L<;, the score the child would get if a perfect test existed for measuring
that construct. The difference between a child's true score and the obtained score is called
measurement error. Mea.surement error consists of both systematic and random errors. A reli-
able test has relatively small random measurement error and provides consistent seores within
and across adrninistratio1s. The reliability of a test score and systematic error should always be
considered in the interpretalion of obtained test seores and differences between a child's test
seores on multiple occasions. The reliabílity of PLS- 5 Spanish was evaluated using the test-
retest stability, internal consistency, and interscorer reliability methods.

Evidence of Test-Retest Stability

One way of examining reliability is by calculating test-retest stability. Test-retest stability is
the correlation between the test and retest seores and is a direct measrire of test stability for
repeated testing. To examine test-retest stability, u child is administered the same test twice,
under as similar conditio1s as possible. A child typically does not perform exactly the same in
the two test sessions. The interval between test administrations is small enough to minirníze
development and learnin;5 changes on tbe part of the clúld being retested, yet long enougb so
tbat any practice or memory effects have been minimized.
The PLS-5 Spanish test-retest stability was calculated with data collected on 193 children who
met the inclusion criteria for the normative sample. The sample included children birth through
7 years 11 months of age.
The demograpbic characteristics of the test-rete!:>i: study sample are presented in Table 5.1. The test-
ing interval ranged from 3 to 15 days (M = 6.7), with both tests adminfatered by the same exa.miner.
The test-retest stability w.i.~: estimated using Pearson's product-moment con-elation c:oefficient.

85
 Tahle 5.1 Demographic Characteristics of the PLS-5 Spanish Test-Retest Sample

37 1!l.2
22 11.4
22 11 .4
21 Hl.9
23 11.9
25 w.o
20 10.4
23 1i.9

94 41!.7
99 5"1.3

185 9!5.9
8 4.1

lf!~lí~I~;:
Pu~rto. meo . ··: . · : ·
...
105
68
7
6
:3.6
:3.1
·l5
54.4
35.2
South America · 6 3.1

73 37.8
56 29.0
35 18.1 ~.r
29 15.0
-',
·j >
-
•
3 1.6 ·jr~
i •
79
6 3.1
4-0.9
•4
37 19.2
68
Note. Colomn percentages for e ech demographic may not SIJm to 100 dueto rouncling.
:::5.2 •
a lf primary lernala csregiver's country of orlgln/descant waB nat reported, prtmary 1nale careglver's country of origio/descent was used. Prlmwy Caregiver Is 1
defined as tho parenVguardlan who spends 1ho mo!lttlme Wlth the child on a dai~t basls.
b Ir primary fernele careglver's education leve! was not reported, prlmary mal• care;¡lver's educatlon leve! was used. Pritn81Y Caraglver is define<! as the J"'T""1I
guardian who spends !he most time wlth lhe chíld on e dally basla.
•
! •

V
,,
i. 86 Preschooi Language· Scales-5 Spanish
r.;
i.i.
· ~ ,·
. ~... ::--

.,! The mean AC, EC, anc: Total Language standard seores, and their standard deviations, by age
¡ group and test administration, are presented in Table 5.2. The table reports the correlation
eoefficients coITected for the variability of the normative sample (Allen & Yen, 2002;
\ Magnusson, 1967). The table also reports th.e effect sizes, specifically the standard differenee
1 between the first and second test.administratíon., whích is calculated as the mean score differ-
t?.J:!ee.1?.etwi::en the two t,3st administrations divided by the pooled·standard deviation (Caben;
2001). The average corr3Cted stability C.'Oeffi.cients range from .85 to .92 for the different age
ranges, indicating that PLS-5 Spanish seores possess good to excellent stability across time.
The data also índicate that the mean retest seores for both scales (AC and EC) and the Total
Language composite are higher than the seores from the first test administration, with the
effect size ranging from .04 (small) to .33 (moderate). The score differences are most likely due
to praetice effects beca.use the test adminfatrations oceurred wíthin a short period of time. In
practice, PLS-5 Spanish should not be adminístered with.in thís narrow interval beca.use seores
can be artifi.cially inflated on subsequent administratíons. The child's needs and requirements of
particular settings will determine the frequency of assessment that ís necessary or appropriate.

Table 5.2 PLS-5 Spanish Test-R.etest Reliability for Auditory Comprehension, fü.pressive
Communication, and Total Language, by Age

~;~~],'PV........,.. _ . .;;
·::;·'Auélltor',{Comprehéns on/t' 80 98.9 14.7 102.3 15.4 0.23 .84 .85

.' :1~d;~~~b~~~t,~~~{:~:· 78
77
100.1
99.5
14.8
14.4
100.7
101.7
15.3
15.2
0.04
0.15
.89
.91
.89
.92
.~:A~~:0NHt~Pit:~füt':\:·
.~ditory Cof!lprehenston . 43 102.4 13.8 103.9 15.0 0.10 .86 .88
Expres~iV~ -cci~mu~i~ti·an 40 101.9 16.7 102.8 16.9 0.05 .88 .85
1otal langLJage 39 102.7 15.8 '104.1 16.5 0.09 .92 .91
5:0-:7:11, ·...:
.;:Au~tto~ éóm~r;tÍe~¿¡¿~ 62 103.5 10.9 105.5 10.9 0.18 .71 .85
' Expressi~e c~~mu~i~~ti~n 65 102.2 11.8 106.1 11 .5 0.33 .83 .89
rotii'~ii.~~ii.e:" · "··· 59 103.7 10.3 108.7 9.7 0.30 .83 .92
Nota. Adj = adjusted.
a Standerd dlfference Is Cohen's d, compu!ed as !he dlfference oftha two l est means dlvidad by tho square root ol the poo\ed varlance (Cohen, 1988, pp. 20, 44).
b Ali re!labtrrty coefficients were corrected for !he varlablllty of the sample. based on !he standafd deviatlon obtalned on !he flrst adminlslratlon. iplng the variability carrection
al Allen and Yen (2002).

Evidence of lnternal Consistency

The seeond type of reliahilíty evidence is ínterual consisteney. Iutemal eonsistency reliability
measures how consistentl:1 the items in the domair1 te!>i:ed (e.g., a single scale ora group of
scales) measure one construct. Internal consistency reliability coefficients are used to describe
the homogeneity of the iterns ·w:ithin a scale. Internal consísteney infonnation is presented for
both the normative sampl3 and for clinical samples of children identified as havin.g a language
disorder or delay.

Ghapter 5 Evidence of Refiabi/ity and Validity 87

 •
•
Evidence of Reliability for Children :in the Normative Sample
The internal consistency of the PLS-5 Spanish AC cind EC scales was examined usíng the
split-half method. Splít-half reliabili-Ly coefficient is the correlation between the total seores
of the two half-tests corrected by the Spearman-Brown formula for the ful1 scale (Crocker & ·f·
Algina, 1986; Li, Rosenthal, & Rubín, 1996). The Total Language composite score internal {
consistency relíability coeffid.ents were calculated with the formula recommended by Guilford t
(1954) and Nunnally and Bemstein (1994). Table 5.:3 presents the interna! consistency reliability t·
coefficíents for AC and EC standard seores and Total Language composite score by age for the i ·
normative sample. The average reliabihty coefficient:s were calculated using Fisher's z transfor- ·i
1
mation (Silver & Dunlap, 1987; Strube, 1988). These reliability coefficients were used to derive
critical values and confidence intervals listed in the norms tables.
As the data in Table 5.3 indicate, split-half reliabilit;1 coeffi:cients fer the AC scale range from ..;' -
••
.80 to .94 by age group, with an average of .90 for the total norrnative sarnple. For the EC scale, ¡. :
split-half reliability coefficients range from .80 to .9:5 by age group, with the average of .90 for
the total normative sa.mple. The coefficients for botb the AC and EC scales are good (rxx > .80)
•
to excellent (rxx > .90). The reüability for the Total Langua.ge composite ra.nges from .87 to .97
across a.ges, with an average of :94 for the total norrnative sample. The composite reliabilities
are higher than the reliabilities of the individual sedes that contribute to the composite. This is
because each scale represents a narrower portion of a child's language ability while the compos-
ite score summarizes performance on a broader sample of language a.bfütie~ (more items) than
are tested in a single scale.
Table 5.3 Split-Half ReJiability Coefficients for PLS-5 Spa:nish Normative Sample for Auclitory
Compr ehension, E xpressive Communication aml Total Language, by Age

.O:Q--0:2 .: . so .80 .83 .88

0:3--0:5 50 .85 .80 .87
0:5-0:8 50 .84 .86 .89
0:9--0:11 50 .84 .80 .88
1:0--1:5 75 .85 .86 .91
1:6-1:11 75 .94 .92 .96
. 2:0--2:5 .... 75 .94 .92 .96
. 2:6-2:11- 75 .93 .90 .95
3:0--3_:5...; :.'.. ' 75 .94 .93 .96
3:5-3:11 .. . 75 .88 .91 .94
··. ·.:·
. 4:G-4:5 .·. 75 .93 .95 .96
: .. .:. . ·.
4:fi-:-4::11 75 .91 .95 .96
s:o-~·;5 ·'
: ·:. 75 .93 .95 .97
5:~5:1\' 75 .93 .89 .95

:i!~f~,'}
50 .90 .91 .95
50 .94 .91 .96
50 .91 .91 .95
50 .80 .81 .88
· T\)taJ Sample 1,150 .90 .90 .94

88 Preschool Language Sca/es.,,-&Spanish. ..

 ~videnceof Reli~tbility for Children Diagnosed With a
Language Disorder
Reliability was exarrrined for children, ages 1 year 6 months through 7 years 11 months, who
were diagnosed with a Receptive, E:i..'Pressive, or Receptive-Expressive language disorder.
Detailed demographic information for the dinical samples is reported in Table 5.12, and
descriptions of the inclusion critería for each of the sa:mples are repórted la.ter i:n thís chapter.
Table 5.4 provides intemü consistency rehability coefficients of AC and EC scales and Total
Language score for the cJnical samples. The reliability coefficients were calculated using the
same procedure describe.el for the normative sample.
The AC, EC, and Total Language reliability coefficients for the clinicalsa.rnples of.children
wíth language disorders are higher than or similar to the coefficients reported for the norma-
tive sample. This suggests that PLS-5 Spanish is a reliable measure of communication skills for
chíldren ·with a diagnosis of language disorder, as well as those of the general population.

Thhle 5.4 Split-HalfRe1iability Coeffi.cieots for PLS-5 Spanish Cünical Samples for Auditory
Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language

· Auditory Comprehension· 53 .99 69 .99 48 .99

Ex~ressive C~mmunlcatlon 51 .98 67 .98 47 .98
TQtal Langyage 51 .99 67 .99 47 .99
Note. RlD = Aeceptive Language Disorder, ELD =Expresslve Language Diaorder, RLO-El.D = Aeceptive-Bcpressíve l.anguage Disorder.

Evidence of Inters1rmrer Reliability

Most of the PLS-5 Spanish items are objectively scored; however, sorne ítems require fa.miliar-
ity with scoring criteria ba1:ed on chnical judgment, and qualitative and quantitative judgments
about the child's responses . Because there is room for ínterpretation, it is necessaxy to ensure
that the scoring rules can be understood tbe same way aroong dífferent examiners. A11 PLS-5
Spanish standardízation protocols were scored by trained scorers. Seven scorers were trained on
the subjective scoring rules (see chapter 4 for development of scoring guidelines) .
During the data entry and scoring, lwo steps were taken to ensure that the subjective scoring
rules were applied consistently. First, a sample of 200 protocols were randomly selected for
evaluatim1 on the consistency of the exa.miners' seores during testing. This sample includes a.u
average of 13 protocols from each normative age group. A trained scorer rescored the items that
are subjectively scored. The agreement between the examiner score and rescore was calculated
for ea.ch item. If a high level of ínterscorer agreement for an i.tem was demonstrated (i.e., greater
than 95% agreernent between the examiner anda trained scorer), the i.tem was no longer
rescored by a scorer. Items t:hat did not meet a 95% agreement rate continued to be rescored.
Second, 10% of ali protocol:; were "double scored." That is, ea.ch protocol was scored by two
scorers, from the group of seven trai.ned scorers, independent~v. The hvo seores were compared,
and a third scorer resolved my differences prior to data eutry.
Intraclass correlation (McGraw & Wong, 1996; Shrout & Fleíss, 1979) was used to estimate
the interscorer reliabilitv of ·:he final data. The ínterscorer reliabiliti.es were .99 for Auditorv
Comprehension and .99, for i~xpressive Communication. These results demonstrate that ,
although sorne of tl1e items from the Auditory Comprehension and fü.'Pressive Communication
scales require more judgment, they can be scored reliably, even by individua.Is wi.th different
levels of experience with PL3-5 Spanish scoring criteiia.

Chapter 5 Evidence of Relíabílity and Vafidíty 89

~ ..
•
f
Standard Error of- M easurement and Confidence lntervals
Tbe standard error of measurement (SEM) provides an esti.mate of the amount of error in a child'sf
observed test score. The SEM is inversely related to the reliability of a scale, so that the greater ~
••
the reliability, the smaller the SEM, and the greater the confidence you can have in the precision :1 f

''
of the observed test score. Measurement error is commonly expressed in terms of standard devía- ],
tion units; that is, the standard error of measurement is the standard deviation of the measure-
ment error dístribution. The standard error of measuremen.t is calcufuted with the formula:
SEM = .SD ,/1- rxx
'
where SD is the theoretical standard deviation unit of the seale, and rxx is the reliability coef-
ficient of the score. •'
When PLS-5 Spanish is administered to a child, the resulting seores, wlúch may include sorne
measurement error, are estimates of his or her true. seores. Because of this, the SEM of the
test helps you gain a sense of how much the child's score is likely to differ from his or her true .
'
í
í
score. Anytime the reliability of a test is less than perfeet, whieh is virtually always on tests
of human traits, the seores obtained on the test would contain sorne amount of measurement
error. Table 5.5 reports the SEM of the PLS-5 Sp~mish AC and EC standard. seores and Total
•
Language composite.
The SEM for the Total Language composite seores is often smaller than the SEM for the AC
and EC seores. The.sriiiiller values mdicate a reduced level of error in fuese seores. The SEM.
can also be used to develop a eonfi.denee interval around a child's score. The calculated confi-
dence intervals at 90% and 95% confidence levels for the AC, EC, and Total Language stan-
dard seores are rep01ted ín the norms tables (see appendix A in the Manual de administración
y puntuación). Con±ldence intervals are calculateé. based on the estímated true score and the
standard error of estimation (SEE) according to the method proposed by Dudek (1979) and
Glutting, McDermott, and Stanley (1987).
The estimated true score i<; obtaíned by the formula:

Estimated True Score == 100 + rxx (X- 100)

where X is the observed standard score and rxx is the reliability coefficient of the scale score.
The SEE is derived by the formula proposed by Stanley (1971):

SEE =SD (r0:_) ./1- rn

where SD is the theoretical standard deviation of the composite score, and r xx is the reliability
coefficíent of the related score.
The confidence intervals are calculated by the following formula:

p% Confidence Interval = Estimated True Score +!- Zp (SEE)

where pis the confidence level, such as 90% or 95%, and Zp is the Z value associated with the
confidence level.
 This method centers füe confidence interval on tbe estimated true score rather than on the
observed score, and in turn, results in an asymmetrical 1nterval around tbe observed score. This
asymmetry occurs because the estimated true score typically is closer to the mean of the scale
than the observed sc01e. A confidence interval based on the estimated true score and the SEE
is a correctíon for true··score regression toward the mean. Far example; if a child age 5 years
5 months obtained a 'fotal Larigliage score of 10, the child's estiinated tr._u~. SCf:?:re \tjll b.e 7¡.S,
the 95% confidence interva1 óf tlie Chlld's Total frue Lállgüage score
will be 65-79 (because
the 95% confidence ini:erval is 71.8 +/- 1.96 SEE, where the SEE is 3.4.5), and the 90% confi-
dence interval of the child's true Total Language score will be 66-77 (71.8 +/- 1.65 SEE).
Because the reliability -estimates are relatively high, confí.dence intervals calculated with the
SEM centered on the obtained score and those calculated ·with the SEE centered on the esti-
mated true score will be the saille or similar. Confldence int~rvals calculated by either method
are interpreted in the S;~me way. Suggestions for interpreting test results using confidence inter-
vals are in chapter 3.

Tahle5.5 Standard Errors of Measurement for PLS-5 Spanish Normative Sample for Auditory
Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language~ by Age

~~;;~:g
50 6.7 6.2 5.2
50 5.8 6.7 5.4
50 6.0 5.6 5.0
'0:9-:-0:1 _i-' ' : • 50 6.0 6.7 5.2
·1:0-1:5 75 5.8 5.6 4.5
1:6-1:11 75 .3.7 4.2 3.0
2:0-2:5 75 3.7 4.2 3.0
2:6-2:11 75 4.0 4.7 3.4
3:0-3:5 75 3.7 4.0 3.0
3:6--3:11 75 5.2 4.5 3.7
4:D-4:5 75 4.0 3.4 3.0
4:6-4:11 75 4.5 3.4 3.0
5:0-5:5 75 4.0 3.4 2.6
5:6- 5:i1 75 4.0 5.0 3.4
6:0-6:5 50 4.7 4.5 3.4
' 6:6-_6:_11_ 50 3.7 4.5 3.0
7:0- 7:5 50 4.5 4.5 3.4
7:6-7:11 50 6.7 6.5 5.2
1,150 4.9 5.0 3.9
Note. SEMs ore reported In terms al stanc ard acore units and are basod on spllt-half reliablíltles,

Chapter 5 Evídence of Re/íabilitv and Validity 91

 Standard Score Differences
An important consideration in interpreting the performance of individual children is the
amount of difference between standard seores on PU;- 5 Spanish. Score d.ífferences examine
two aspects of score interpretation: the statistical significance of the difference and the preva-
lence, or frequeney, of the diffeFence in the population. These aspects are designed to address
two questions:
l. Is the dí.fference real and not due to measurer:ient error?
2. Is the difference clinically meaningful?

Stati.stical Signfficance of Standard S•!ore Differences

A statistically significant difference between seores, .mch as the AC and EC standard seores,
means that the lli<:eühood of obtaining such a difference by chance is low (e.g., p < .05 or p <
.15) if the true difference between the seores is zero (Matarazzo & Herman, 1985). The level of
significance reflects the level of confidence you can have that the difference behveen the seores
is a true difference.
The difference (critica! value) between seores required for significance is computed from the •
standard error of measurement of the difference (SEdiff). Because the SEdiff is computed from
the SEM of two seores, it is larger than the standard error of measurement fór either score.
Multiplying the SEdiff by an appropriate z value.yields the amount ofd#Ierence required for
't
statistical significance at any given level of confidence.
The critical values between the PLS-5 Spanish standard seores required for statistical sígnifi-
cance can be found in Table 5.6. These values are provided for the .05 and .15 levels of sign.ifi-
cance by age and for the total normative sample.

:'!.f"''
,,' í

.,.•
·!

. , .. ¡ t1

.•

''
•
•''·

J
!'
· · · - · 92 - ·-- - ·Preschoo/Language Scales-5 Spanish
·..;
.;
 Table 5.6 Critical Values for Discrepancy Comparison Between Anditory Comprehension (AC)
and Expressive Communication (EC) Standard Seores, by Age

1
l. .05 18
... . . . ···- · -··· -·--
.15 13
\
! .05 17
- 1 .15 13
1 '··.·

0:6---0:8 .05 16
1
.15 12
1
i 0:9---0:11 .05 18
.15 13
.05 16
. , ..
: ··'.:::. .15 12
1:6-1:11 ·. .05 11
: ·- .... : .15 8
2:G-2:5. :: . :· .05 11
.15 8
2:6-2:11 .05 12
. . ,.
• ,
.15 9.
. 3:0-3:5 : .05 11
.15 8
3:6-3:11 .05 13
.15 10
4:0-4:5 .05 10
.15 7
. 4;6-4:1t .05 11
.15 8
5:0-5:5 .05 10
.15 7
5:6-5:11 .05 12
.15 9
6:0-fr5 .05 13
.15 9
6:6-6:11 .05 11
·.: .
.15 8
7:0-,7:5 .': ' .05 12
: .15 9
.05 18
.15 13
· Total Sall)ple . ·
. . ···. . .05 14
. ·.·. ·.·
.15 10

Chapter 5 Evidence of Reliabilíty and Validity 93

 Frequ.ency of Standard Score D ifferences
The frequency of an observed score difference in the general population is also referred to as
the prevalence of the score difference. A statistically significant difference between a child's
standard seores can occur with surprising frequency among children in the general population.
When interpreting the difference. between a child's standard seores, you must determine if
the difference in seores is statistically significant and if the difference occurs frequently in the
general population. These are two different issues and consequently have different implications
when interpreting a child's score. (See a discussion of !:tatistical versus clinical significance in
McCauley, 2001.)

AC and EC Standard Score Differencf!S

The Auditory Comprehension scale is a measure of lisf:ening comprehension. The Expressive
Communication scale is a measure of overall language expression. Although the distinction
between receptive and expressive Ianguage skiils may help us better understand the nature of a
language disorder, and to better plan inter\lention for a child, expression of language cannot be
completely separated from comprehension of language, even in a test such as PLS-5 Spani.sh.
Nevertheless, clinicians are expected to provide infon m .ti.on on receptive and eJ>'Pressive
•• language
perfonnance and to consider if the differences are clinically meaningful for intervention planning.
Sometimes the difference between the AC and EC standard seores is significant in a statistical
sense, but it is also important to know if it is unusual or uncommon clinically. To help interpret
standard score differences more relíably, tbe prevalen :!e of AC and EC standard score differ-
ences in the normative sample were studied.
The pattems of differences between the two directions (i.e., AC < EC, AC > EC) were similar
in the normative sample. About half of all children earned a higher AC standard score (48.2%)
and about half ea.roed a higher EC standard score (4f1%); 2..8% of the normative sample showed
no difference at all. The results, reported in Tables 5.7-5.9, demonstrate that large differences
(i.e., 24 or more standard score points) were uncommon in both the normative sample and in
the sample of children identified with a receptive, expressíve, or combined receptive-expressive
language disorder.

.~4 _Pr~sc_f100! Language Sca/es.~5 Spanlsh

Table 5.7 Cumulative Prevalenei:? of Auditory Comprehension (AC) and Expressive
Communication (EC) Standard Score Discrepancies in the Normative Sample and a
Sample of Children with Receptive Language Disorders (RLD)

0.3 0.3 o.o

0.3 0.3 o.o o.o
0.4 0.3 o.o o.o
0.5 0.3 o.o o.o
0.6 0.3 o.o o.o
0.6 0.4 O.O o.o
0.6 0.4 o.o o.o
0.7 0.5 o.o o.o
0.8 0.7 o.o o.o
0.9 1.o o.o o.o
1.o 1.o o.o o.o
1.1 1 .3 o.o o.o
1.9 1.3 O.O o.o
2.2 1 .6 o.o 2.0
2.3 2.1 o.o 2.0
2.3 2.6 O.O ·2,0
2.B 3.1 O.O 2.0
: .. ._·, 22 . 3.7 3.6 2.0 3.9 "22 :_:; :» .
;.

·/:. 21 4.1 4.0 2.0 3.9 : .. -21 '. ', •

:.::
: :20 5.1 4.5 3.9 3.9 ·.'::.2o'.': ..
~'.·) 9 5.7 5.6 3.9 5.9 ·i9. ·.,- :::
·. ·; .18 .. : 6.6 6.3 5.9 7.8 ·. :"\\\8~.>J/.·,
\~~·:;·:' :~ ~ ..' " 7.4 7.7 7.8 7.8
.
':>:'.!/1.6 ·. 9.1 8:9 9.8 7.8
10.5 9.6 11.8 7.8
12.0 11.4 13.7 7.8
13.3 12.4 17.6 9.8
15.2 15.6 19.6 9.8
17.6 18.0 25.5 15.7
20.0 19.8 27.5 17.6
22.1 22.7 35.3 21 .6
24.7 25.1 35.3 25.5
27.7 28.3 35.3 25.5
30.7 31 .7 35.3 25.5
33.7 34.6 37.3 27.5
39.0 37.0 39.2 29.4
42.2 40.8 43.1 33.3
44.6 44.7 52.9 35.3
49.0 48.2 52.9 37.3

;~~f§~W!
9.5 9.5 9.8 10.2
7.4 7.2 6.0 7.0
8 8 10 9

Ghapter 5 Evidence of Reliab ilít y and Validity 95

Table 5.8 Cumulative Prevalence of Auditory Comprehension (AC) and Expressive
Communi,cation (EC) Standard Score Discrepam:~ies in the Normative Sample and a
Sample of Children with Expressive Language Disorders (ELD)

''('\~'.fi't' 0.3 0.3 O.O o.o

0.3 0.3 o.o o.o
'.. :.}7:. 0.4 0.3 o.o o.o
::-::;·;~:~..'39 .' ;- ·. '. 0.5 0.3 o.o o.o
o.o o.o
·~·.·=;:'.:F:. :·:>::
0.6 0.3
0.6 0.4 o.o o.o
,j/:,;,33 ..:::.: 0.6 0.4 o.o o.o
·,", 32 . 0.7 0.5 o.o o.o
.:.;.;,:.31 .. 0.8 0.7 o.o o.o
,. '
:··:($0 0.9 1.0 O.O 1.5
·,'.;.:.,.....~9. 1.0 1.0 o.o 3.0
. ;· 28 1.1 1.3 o.o 3.0
;\·,' ..27 1.9 1.3 o.o 3.0
'• :::~;·: .'26 2.2 1.6 o.o 6.0
~ ':..25 2.3 2.1 o.o 6.0
< · 24 2.3 2.6 o.o 9.0
23 2.8 3.1 o.o 9.0
22 3.7 3.6 1.5 10.4 22 \ '.:'.'·
21 4.1 4.0 1.5 13.4 21 .·
20 5.1 4.5 1.5 13.4 20
19 5.7 5.6 1.5 16.4 19 ::.;
~ ·.
18 6.6 6.3 3.0 19.4 18
17 7.4 7.7 4.5 19.4 17 :.\°'
16 9.1 8.9 6.0 19.4 16 ·,:/\
15 10.5 9.6 7.5 19.4 15
14 12.0 11.4 9.0 20.9 l4
13 13.3 12.4 11.9 22.4 13
12 15.2 15.6 13.4 23.9 1·2 ..:·::--.
11 17.6 18.0 16.4 28.4 .r1 ·..:,:;/
·.10

. <Ti!":~
20.0 19.8 19.4 31.3
.9 22.1 22.7 26.9 34.3 ~-
; '• 8 24.7 25.1 26.9 37.3
.::. :.: 7 27.7 28.3 26.9 37.3
30.7 31.7 26.9 40.3
33.7 34.6 28.4 41.8
39.0 37.0 31.3 43.3
42.2 40.8 34.3 47.8
44.6 44.7 41.8 49.3
49.0 48.2 43.3 50.7
9.5 9.5 8.9 13.4
7.4 7.2 5.7 8.5
'Mediar¡, B 8 9 11

96
 Table 5.9 Cumulative Prevalenc:e of Auditory Comprehension (AC) and Expressive
Communication (EC) Standard Score Discrepancies in the Normative Sample and a
Sarnple of Children wii:h Receptive-Expressive Langoage Disorders (RLD-ELD )

<i<i~!Y~': :
,:.:::::;.:: ;~49::.J."(·; 0.2 0.3 o.o o.o
39 0.3 0.3 o.o o.o
38 0.3 0.3 o.o 0.Ó
37 0.4 0.3 o.o o.o ':."37 :
.36 0.5 0.3 o.o o.o .. _: :35·_::/:. .:
... ·.·35 0.6 0.3 o.o o.o .:'35.:·:.:;.: :
·34 0.6 0.4 o.o o.o -:34. := . .
33 0.6 0.4 o.o o.o
·32 0.7 0.5 o.o o.o
. ·31 0.8 0.7 o.o o.o
.. 3@ 0.9 1.0 o.o o.o
. .:\
·.. 29 1.0 1.0 o.o o.o : :29 ..
:\" 28 1.1 1.3 o.o o.o ':·:· :. 2~: '..
·"27 1.9 1.3 o.o o.o -:_ 27 .. : .
.··. .:26 2.2 1.6 o.o 2.1 ·:.".26.:.:'·: ..
: 25 2.3 2.1 o.o 2.1 25
24 2.3 2.6 o.o 2.1 24
1 23 2.8 3.1 O.O 2.1 23

-i 22
21
20
3.7
4.1
5.1
3.6
4.0
4.5
2.1
2.1
2.1
4.3
4.3
4.3
22
21
20
i
19 5.7 5.6 2.1 6.4 19
18 6.6 6.3 4.3 8.5 18
17 7.4 7.7 6.4 8.5 17
16 9.1 8.9 8.5 8.5 16
15 10.5 9.6 10.6 B.5 15
14 12.0 11.4 12.8 8.5 1-4
13 13.3 12.4 17.0 10.6 13
12 15.2 15.6 19.1 10.6 12
H 17.6 18.0 23.4 17.0 11 ... .

10 20.0 19.8 25.5 19.1 :rn ...

:9 22.1 22.7 34.0 23.4 .9 . .. ...
: :8 24.7 25.1 34.0 27.7 ''....~ . . ..·· :.:
"' ] 27.7 28.3 34.0 27.7
'..: ~:·. ,". 30.7 31.7 34.0 27.7

:.~:.·:),~/:: ·:.:_~ 33.7 34.6 36.2 29.8

._ .....
39.0 37.0 38.3 31.9
., :,:::-. ·:_'·"-:~·;_
42.2 40.8 40.4 36.2
·.:: ;':2 ·:: 44.6 44.7 51.1 38.3
..
::_, ; .. .
49.0 48.2 51.1 40.4
:.. ·..Mean 9.5 9.5 9.6 10.2
:.-..: ::so 7.4 7.2 5.9 7.0
Medjau 8 8 9 9 · ·:Median, ..

Chapte r 5 Evid ence of Relía bilítv and Validity 97

Evidence of Validity
Evidence of test validity refers to the degree to which specific data, research, or theory sup-
ports that a test measures the concepts it purports to measure and is applicable to the intended
population (AERA, APA, & NCME, in press). There are multiple sources of information
required in the process of test va'lidation.
The validity of a test is demonstrated by providing evidence to support the tesfs interpreta-
tions and uses. Evídence of validity includes evidencE: based on test content, evidence based on
response processes, evidence based on internal structure, and evidence based on relationships
with the prior version of the test and other tests that measure the same constructs.

Evidence Based on Test Content

An examination of the rela.tionship between the content of a test and the construct it is
intended to measure provides a majar source of ev:idence about the validity of the test seores.
Validity evidence related to test content is supported when the content areas beíng measured
are generally accepted as relating to the proposed co:1struct (content relevance), and when the
content areas measured by the test are accepted to b~ an adequate sampling of these areas
(content coverage). The content of tests used with children must also appropriately reflect i
developmental aspects of the concepts being measured. Inappropriate content (both construct ti
related and social appropriateness), itero wording, or ítem construction (administration rules
and wording of instructions) may confound the interpretation and usefulness of test seores.
The PLS-5 Spanish content construction was designed to reflect the development of language
abilities of children ages birth through 7 years 11 months. The goal of the content construction
was to ensure that the items in the Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication
scales adequately sample those hmguage domaíns and represent the linguistic milestones
achieved at various stages of language development.

'
Evidence of validity based on the PLS-5 Spanish content was gathered ín númerous ways,
including literature review, users' feedback, and expert review and suggestions about the lan- ¡
guage areas and skills that the test should address, and the breadth and appropriateness of the 1
ti
item/subitem coverage and item/subitem fonnats. A description of the literature rev:iew, user
·1
surveys, and content, bias, and ítem reviews are desctibed in chapter 4.
ti
1
1
PLS-5 Spanish Cont ent and Scope 11
ti
Receptive language and expressive language are ofte :1 represented as consisting of the inter- 1
related components of content, forrn, and use (Owens, 2008). In becoming a fully competent
language user, a child learns to comprehend and exp:~ess the content, or meaníng, conveyed in I· -
language. A child begins to understand and apply rules governing the form, or structure, of lan-
guage (i.e., word endings and word arder) while acquiring new vocabulary concepts. Early in a i
child's life, he or she develops skills that reflect an awareness of the social functions oflangu.age 1
(e-g., use oflanguage to get someone's attention, to p:rotest, to greet people, to converse). 1
:1
Finally, as a child becomes a competent language user, he or she integrates these language 1
i
sldlls to salve problems, categorize, and make inferences. Like its predecessor, PLS-5 Spanish ¡
sarnples a child's understanding and use of semantics (content), language structure (form), and
integration of language skills (use) . The child's knowledge of semantics is evaluated with items
that focus on both vocabulary and concepts; language structure is evaluated through items that
focus on morphology and syntax, and integration of l anguage skills is evaluated through items
that focus on appüed language sldlls.

98 __ f!_f!_s_c[!~gl_l.?1.n_guage Scales-:5 Spanish .

 The skills that are tested were identified in the líterature as important markers of normal
development in young ch:Jdren. These skills are described in detail in the PLS-4 Spanish
Examiner's Manual (Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2002) and are well documented in the lit-
erature addressíng langu2,ge development, language disorders, and psycholinguistícs in English
(e.g., Berko-Gleason & Bernstein-Ratner, 2009; Brown, 197.3; de Villiers, 2007; Hirsh-Pasek,
Goli.n.koff, & Eyer, 2003; Kaderave1c, 2011; Mundy et al., 2007; Nelson, 2010; Owens, 2008;
· Silliman, Willcinson, & Brea-Spahn, 2004).
Developmental information for Spanish-speaking children appear in Bedore (2004), Goldstein
(2004), Gutiérrez-Clellen, Calderone, & Weismer (2000), Jackson-Maldonado (2004), Kayser
(2008), Kohnert (2008), Peña & Kester (2004), and Restrepo & Gutiérrez-Clellen {2004).
In addition to the aforementioned language skills, PLS-5 Spanish includes new items in the
areas of understanding gestures, play, emergent literacy, phonological awareness, and tbeory of
mind. The development o:f these items was based on a review of current literature, consultation
with experts in the fíeld of language development, and a compilation of user feedback about the
kind of skills that clinicians want to a.ssess in Spanish and English.
How children demonstrate these sk:ills are diagnostic indicators of whether they are developing
language normally or if th9y have a language disorder. In addition, many of the skills are good
predictors oflater academ:ic success (Kadarevelc, 2011; Nelson, 2010; Owens, 2008; Paul, 2007).

Understanding Ge.s tures

Research indicates that th~ amount and type of gestares a young child demonstrates are predic-
tive of later language, and may help in early identification of children with language impaim1ent
and social skill disorders (Cham1an et al., 2005; Crais, Watson, & Baranek, 2009). Young
children who are developing language normally use gesture-speech combinations as requests,
such as pointing to the refigerator and saying ..jugo." In addition, they also use gesture to
engage others in social interactions by poiOting to objects and actíons that captured their
ínterest.
In comparison, children wlh severe language impairmenl, such as children with autism, will
prirnariJy use physical gest1rres for the purpose of getting their needs met. That is, they graba
caregiver's hand and lead bim or her to the refrigerator. According to Capone (2007), the use of
gestare reflects young children's learning states, and may be a method for assessing what they
know during a time when oral language s1dfü are límíted.

Play
According to Owens, "Play and language develop interdependently." Play can also facilitate
language acquisitíon became:
Play is not goal oriented so it relieves the child from pressure and/or frustration
"to perform."
• Play allows for the chilcl and adult to naturally attend to and share the same
conversational topics .
., Games (e.g., peek-a-boo), 1ike conversatíons, contain tum-taking. (Owens, 2008)
Initially, during the first year of life, sensorimotor or practice play emerges with the child
manipulating objects (e.g., rnouthing, holding, banging, dropping objects; Piaget, 1962). At
approximately 12 months, the child begins to combine objects in relational play (e.g., stacking,
nesting, building a tower of two bloclcs). Functional play (e.g., rolling or throwing a ball, drink-
ing frorn a cup) also begíns to occur in chíldren during the child's second year (Fenson, 1986).
This is followed by symbolic or make-believe play. Symbolic play can be self-directed
(e.g., pretending blocks are .>trawberries and eating them) or otber-dírected (e.g., pretending
block-; are strnwberries and feeding them to a doU).

Chapter 5 Evidence of Refiabilitv and Validity 99

 •

Self-directed play occurs befare other-directed play (C. Westby, personal communication,
August 4, 2009). Children who are developing langua.ge normally will demonstrate each of the
play skills. However, children who have language disorders rnay have limited skills. That is, they
. may engage in functional play skills, such as pushing a toy train around the track, but they will
have difficulty with symbolic play and play that involves joint engagement with others {Bopp,
Smith, & Mirenda. 2006; Sigmah & McGovern, 2001'>).

Emergent Llteracy Skills

Book Handling and Concept of Prínt
•
The terrn emergent denotes the developmental process of literacy acquisition, and recognizes
numerous forms of early literacy behavior. Emergent literacy experiences include a child's
••
familiarity with the parts of a boolc such as turning a book to the correct orientation. Emergent
literacy also includes a child's concept of print, including pointing to environmental print and
letters, scribbling on paper in an attempt at early wriling, and engaging in joint book reading
••
(Senechál, LeFerve, Smith-Chant, & Colton., 2001).

Phonological Awareness
••
Phonological awareness refers to a child's ability to recognize and manipulate the sounds and ~
syllables used to compose words (Bowen, 1998). It includes skills such as identifying words that
rhyme, identifying alliteration (words that start with ·ilie same sound, such ·as gato, galleta, and
gafas) and identifying elision (how words break down. into different smaller words and syllables,
such as hermano is composed of her and mano). These skills lie on a continuum of difficulty,
from the less complex skills of rhyming and initial sound identification to the more complex
skills of rnani:pulating syllables and phonemes (i.e., elision). Research indicates that a child's
mastery of phonological awareness skills is essential to reading competence and subsequent
sch9ol success (Paul, 2007). Therefore, mastery of phonological awareuess skills is included as a
primary focus of instruction far early school-age children mandated in Early Reading First and
Reading First initiatives (No Child Left Behind Act, Title I, Part B, Subpart I, 2001).

Th.eory of Mind
A theory of mind is the capacity to unclerstand other people's mental states such as beliefs,
feelings, and desires, wl:üch can be used to explain and predict others' behaviors (Miller, 2006).
Because what happens in another person's mind is not visible, we create a "theory" of what is
occurring in that person's mind. A child eventually learns that no two minds are alike and is
then able to attribute mental states that differ from bis or her ov.rn to another person. There is
an ineJ...i:ricable link between theory of mind and communication (de Villiers, 2005). A theory
·of mind is important for social interactions; it can he:~p one make sense of another person's
behaviors and predict what a person might or might :1ot do. For example, if an adult appears to
be irritated about something and asks in a grnff voice, "¿Qué quieres?," a child with a theory of
mind might decide it is not a good time to ask íf he or she can have a cookie. A theory of mind
can help a child tailor a message depending on whether or not the listener shares background
knowledge. A theory of mind is ímportant for compmhending narratives and can help a child
understand beliefs, desires, motives, and íntentions of characters.

Clinician's Note: PLS-5 Spanish is not an exhaustive inventory of all in1portant

developmental communícation behaviors that índicat.:l whether or not a child is developing
language normally.
The language behavion on PLS- 5 Spanish are behaviors in which there are significant differ-
ences in performance between children developing language normally and children who have
a language disorder. In addition, the test items selected far ínclusion in PLS-5 Spanish are
not necessartly high prioríty language behaviors that you would target in therapy. Test items
selected for inclusion in the test are those that
" tap ¡:elevant areas '
ot co1rim.~nJcfltiOI1 development;
11J can be administerecl and scored in a consistent, reliable way by clinicíans from a varíety of
backgrounds; and
., demonstrate robust psychometric properties (i.e., items were passed by increasing percent-
ages of chíldren across the age bands, correlated well ;nith the total test score, and discrimi-
nated well between children with normal language skills and children identified as having a
language disorder) .

How a Dual lanuuage Assessment Approach Supports

Content Validity
For a test to have high levels of validity, it is critical that the construct that is being measured is
sampled widely and broadly. Given the evidence that indicates bilingual children acquire different
knowledge and skills in their two languages (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2003; Peña et al., 2002),
children should have the opportunity to display that knowledge in either of their two languages.
A test that provides that opportunity allows for a broader and deeper assessment of a bilingual
child's overall language sldlls.
Dual language assessment has been proposed as an assessrnent approach that provides a more valid
representation of a bilingual clrild's language abílities (Kester & Peña, 2002; Pearson et al., 1993)
because dual language as!;essment reduces underestimation of a bilingual child's abílities (Bedore
et al., 2005; Umbe1 et al., 1992). PLS-5 Spanish supports these findings. Tryout data índicated
that on average, bilingual children received credit for 1 to 3 additional ítems when dual language
assessment was applied. Further research during standardization indicated that bilingual ch:ildren's
dual languag~ seores were on average 3-5 standard sc.'OTe points higher than their Spanish-only
seores. These findings support the validity of the dual language assessment approach.
One of the challenges that comes witb creating a dual Janguage test is translation. While at
face value, it seems that any ítem could be directly translated to another language, a number
of issues come into play v.rhen tnmslatíng items. Peña (2007) notes tbat when translating
items, it is important to c.Jnsider linguistic equivalence (i.e., Do the words and grammar have
similar rneanings across dfferent cultures and Ianguages?), functional equivalence (í.e., Are
the expressed thoughts similar to those of the source te:ict?), and cultural equivalence (i.e~, Are
cultural interpretations of the text the same across different cultural linguistic groups?). Lack of
equivalence in these area; can threaten content validity (Rogler, 1999).
To ensure linguistic eqrnvalence, back translation can be used. In this process, the original text is
translated to the second lrnguage and then independently translated back to the first language.
The original and back-trallSlated ve¡·sions are then compared and any differences are resolved,
The process of resolution often involves a method called "decentering" (Sechrest et al., 1972),
in whích equivalence in meaning and salience (functional equivalence) is acbíeved by shift-
íng away from the wording u sed in the original version of the ítem. Cultural equi:valence is
addressed by evaluating tbe responses of different cultural groups to ensure that test items do
not function differently ac:ross cultural groups.

Chapter 5 Evídence of Refiabílíty and Va!idity 101

 The back translation and resolution using decentering processes were implemented in the devel-
opment of PLS-5 Spanish, providing an assessment rnethod pennitting children to respond in
either Spanish and/or English and allows for item administration in both languages when neces-
saty. The dual language assessment approach supports assessment of a bilingual child's language
abilities as a whole language system rather than two 1:eparate systems. In comparison to the
approaches of past assessment tools, the dual languag;e assessment approach improves validity
estimates because it allows for a broader assessment of language skills across languages. ' ;

Evidence Based on Response Processes

The concept of response process refers to communicatíon and cognitive skills used or behaviors
engaged in by the child to accomplish the items pres1~nted. These skills may be directly related
to the construct being measured or contribute to the perfonnance of a specífic ítem.
The PLS-5 Spa:nish response processes were studied extensively throughout the course of
test development. When the items were being devekped for the PLS-5 Spanish, they were
reviewed to verify the following.
11 For younger children (e.g., birth through 3 years 11 months), the item focused on the
intended skill {e.g., expressive responses required either a vocal, verbal, or gestured
response; items tapping concept comprehension had simple picture stimuli of objects or
animals familiar to young children); ·
• For older children (e.g., 4 years through 7 years 11 months), sorne items focused on a spe-
cific sl<ill (e.g., EC44 Names letters) while othem targeted multiple aspects of language
(e.g., iutegrative langu.age tasks). Items that targeted multiple aspects of language addressed
the fact that older children begin integrating language skílls for more complex communica-
tions with others. For example, a child who resp.::mds correc1:ly to EC48 Repairs Semantic
Absurditíes, demonstrates his or her integrated knowledge of vocabulary/connected speech
and syntax.
e The item did not require skills that were not commonly acquired by children in a targeted
age range.
111 Controls were put into place to minímize confounding processes (e.g., providing picture
supports so auditory mernory processes were minimized).
e The content of the test item was focused on t.he:11es and topics that interest children.
The analysis of children's response processes consisted of testing items in small groups to deter-
mine if the modified or newly developed items elicited the desired behavior. Sorne of the 4- to
7-year-old children were asked to explain wby they ?;elected or gave a certain ansvver (children
younger than 4 tended to have difficulty explaining why they responded as they did). The ·
children's responses were analyzed to determine if the administration directions and/or picture
stimuli needed to be modified. Discrepancies in the difficulties of subitems wíthin an itero were
evaluated, and subitems were either modified or de1eted.
As índicated by research evaluating the importance of practice far children from linguistically
diverse backgrounds (Kayser, 1995), practice items were added to sorne of the test item types. ·
However, not every test ítem has a practice item, as previous experience with PLS-4 Spanish
suggested that children did not have difficulty with many of the interactive-or simple pichire-
pointing itero types. Additionally, including practice items for every test item would lengthen
the test beyond the point that many young childrnn would be able to tolerate.
For children ages 3 years through 7 years 11 montli.s, sorne items are based on academic tasks.
These items may be unfamilia.r for children with lirnited daycare or preschool experiences.
These test items have practice items to assist those children in understanding what they are
being asked to do.

· ·--102 · ·· · Preschool Language Scales-5 Spanish .. · . ··

Examiners who participated in the tryout phase completed a practice test before being
approved to continue with data collection. Practice cases proVided infonnation about which
directions needed to be modifíed for the next research phase (standardization). In addition,
development staff revíewed the tryout test protocols to determine how examiners presented the
items, how c.hildren responded, and how responses were scored. A questionnaire completed by
examiners at the end of tryout provided further information for ref!UÍllg d.iJ:~ctions. to best elicit .
target responses.
A review of ítem p values at the tryout ancl standardization phases prnvided information about
items that were too difficult , inconsistently observed by examiners, and/or
difficult to score. Refinements to the administration directions and test stimuli were made
based on this review and examiners' recommendations. Scoring studies provided i:i;iformation
about scoring rules and test responses that were ambiguous and/or had low interscorer agree-
ment. Items that were consistently problematic to elicit, observe, and/or score were deleted
from the final edition of PLS-5 Spanish.
In summary, analyses of all aspects of the initial, tryout, and standardization phases of PLS-5
Spanish (i.e., administration, elicitation, interpretation, recording, scoring, and child compre-
hension) provide evidenc<:: that the desired response processes are being effectively elicited.

Evidence Based on internal Struct ure

Validity evidence based on interna! structure is provided by examining the degree to which the
various items and scales relate to one another. The interna! consistency values of the scales were
examined for evidence of .homogeneity, which, in addition to providing an e5timate of reliability,
also provides a measure of unidimensionality. Internal consistency values are reported for the
Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication scales and for the Total Language
composite in Table 5.3. Tbe reliabilites range from .80 to .97. indicating that PLS-5 Spanish
has highly homogenous items wíthin each of the scales. ·
Second, the correlation berureen the AC and EC scales was examined. It was expected the cor-
relation between the scale; would be moderate to high. While the two scales measure different
language modalities (i.e., eceptive and expressive language), the items in both scales measure
children's semantics (vocabulary and concepts), language structure, integrative language skills,
and emergent literacy. The correlation between the AC and EC scales across ali ages is .69,
indicating that PLS-5 Spanish items are not only homogeneous within scales but also
across scales.

Evidence Based on Relations to Tests and Score Differences

Between Nonclinir:al and Clinical Groups
Understanding how a test relates to other tests designed to measure the same or similar con-
structs provídes additional evidence of a test's validity. It is important to understand how PLS-5
Spanish relates to the previous version, PLS-4 Spanish, as well as other tests of language abil-
ity, such as Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundmnentals Preschool-Second Edition, Spanísh
(CELF Preschool-2 Spanish; Wiig, Secord, & Semel, 2009). Because evidence of a test's
clinical utility and specifícity is cnicial, additíonal evidence of validity is provided based on the
results of special group sh1dies that compare PLS-5 Spanísh performances of the normative
group with language disordered clinical groups.

Chapter 5 Evideni::e of Reliability and Validffy 103

 Correlation With Preschool Language Scale-Fourth Edition, Spanish
PLS-5 Spanish and PLS-4 Spanish are designed to measure young chiI<lren's receptive and
expressive language development. As a revision of P LS--4 Spanish, seores on tlle two tests
should be similar since they measure similar content . lt is irnportant to note, however, that
the two tests are constructed differently. PLS- 4 Spanish assesses children only in Spanish.
In compari.son, PLS-5 Spanish presents test items in both Spanish and Englísh and allows
for dual language assessment, which reduces undere:;limation of a bilingual child's language
abilities (Bedore et al., 2005; Umbel et al., 1992). A study of the relationshíp between PLS-5
Spanish and PLS-4 Spanish was conducted on a sample of 117 children. The sample included
62 females and 55 males ages birth through 6 years 11 months. Children ages 7 years through 7
years 11 months were not included because PLS-4 Spanish did not include norm seores for that
age range. The sample consisted of chíldren whose primary caregiver reported country of 01igin
as Mexico (50.4%), P uerto Rico (34.2%), Sout.b America (7.7%), Cuba (4.3%) CentralAmerica
(1.7), and Dominican Republic (1.7%). The education level of caregivers of chíldren in the
sample included 35% with less than a high school education, 28.2% with a high scbool diploma,
23.l % wit.b one to three years of college or teclmica] sehool and 13.7% with four or more years
of college. The tests were administered in counterbalanced order. Half of the sample took ·
PLS-5 Spanish fírst, and the other half of the sample took PLS-4 Spanish first. The testing
interval ranged from 3 to 15 days, with an average o~ 7 days. The same examiner administered
both tests. The results are shown in Table 5.10.
Each child's PLS-5 Sp anish Auditory Comprehension, El..1Jressive Communication, ·and Total
Language standard seores were compared to h is or her PLS-4 Spanish AC, EC, and Total
Language standard seores. Based on similar content of the PLS-5 Spanish and PLS-4 Spanish.
it was anticipated that there wou1d be a moderate to high correlation between tbe seores com-
mon to both tests. The adjusted correlations between PLS-5 Spanish and PLS-4 Spanish sea.es
are .69. (Auditory Comprehension) and .71 (Expresshre Communication) indicaling moderare
correlations. The adjusted correlation between PLS--5 Spanish and PLS-4 Spanish Total
Language seores is .81 indicating a high correlation between the two tests. On average, seores
on PLS-5 Spanish are 3.5 points higher on the AC i:cale, 3.2 points higher on the EC scale, and
3.3 points higher on th e Total Language. PLS-5 Sp anish seores may be higher than tbe PLS-4
Spanish seores because of the differences in adil1ini:;tration and scortng approaches. Tbat is,
children may have gotten higher seores on PLS-5 S:?anish because they are provided the
opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in Spanish and English whereas children
are presented only wíth Spanish items in PLS-4 Spanish. As research (Bedore et al., 2005 ;
Umbel et a1., 1992) suggests, the dual language assessment approach adopted in PLS-.5 Spanisb
may reduce the underestimation of a bilingual child's language abilities. It is important to note,
however, t.ba:t despite the different adminístration and scoring approaches, when a child per-
fonned well on PLS-5 Spanish, he or she performed well on PLS-4 Spanísh. Similarly, when a
ch.ild performed poorly on PL S-5 Spanish, he or she performed poorly on PLS- 4 Spanish .

.J0-4 ..Pr~s_e<bQPl.Lémgµag,e Sc.al_es-5 Spanish

 e 5.10 Correlations of PLS-5 Spanish and Preschool Language Scale-Fourth Edition,
Spanish (PLS-4 Spanish) Seores _.

.71 .69 .BB .64 .77 .75 98.2 16.6

.60 .59 .72 .71 .71 .71 99.1 16.2
. ..
··
.73 .73 .76 .75 .81 .81 97.9 17.1
101.7 101.4 101.2
i'lS-5 sp¡¡¡¡isii sD, 14.9 14.8 14.3
·~ AJI seores ara basad on ago nonns: unitG are ~;tandard seores.
a.ll~llici:ns _,, corrected for the varlabílity of the normative ::ample. basad on the standard devlaUon obtalned on tha 1lrst adminlstrallon, usJng the varlabiUty correctlon
- _ . _..... {2003. p , 58}.

Clinician's Note: The Flynu effect, the finding that test score increases have been
continuous and approxírnately linear from the fi.rst years of testing to present, predicts
that PLS-5 Spanish seores would be lower than PLS-4 Spanish seores. In addition to the
positi.ve effects (i.e., reducing the underestimati.on of a bilingual ch:ild's language abilities)
of dual language assessment, other possíble e:Kplanations far why the PLS-5 Spanish and
PLS-4 Spanish data do not support the Flynn effect are:
o Research supporting the Flynn effect is based on intelligence measures such as
Ra.ven's Progressíve Matrices whkh is a test of visual reasoníng (Raven, 2000;
Flynn, 2009; Flynn, 1987). The Flynn effoct may not be evidenced with lan-
guage measures, especially those for very young chíldren.
0 There are many possible explanations for the Flynn Effect, not the least of
which ínclude e:a.vironmental factors such as improved educational program-
ming, better nul:rition and smaller family sizes. Research in the last several
years has suggested evidence of a plateau or regressíon in IQ seores (Mingroni,
2004; Sundet, Barlaug, & Torjussen, 2004; Teasdale & Owen, 2005). One pos-
sible exp1anatio[t for this stagnation or regression may be that improvement of
these environmental factors contributing to the upward trend over the last half-
century, particul arly in developed nations, has been maximized. Assuming this
to be true in the United States, children in the PLS-5 Spanish sample may add
to the evidence 1:hat the Flynn Effect has reached
a platea.u.

Correlation With 1Clinical Evaluation of La:nguage Fu:nda1nentals

Preschool-Second Editio~ Spanisli
A study of the relationslúp between PLS-.5 Spruúsh and CELF Preschool-2 Spanish was
conducted on a sample of 94 children. The sarnple induded 47 females and 47 males, ages
3 years through G years L months. Child.re'n younger than 2 years 11 months or older than
7 years were not íncluded b ecause CELF Preschool-2 Spanish <loes not include nonn seores
for those age ranges. The sample consisted of children whose primary1 caregiver reported
country of originas Mexico (70.2%), Puerto Rico (13.8%), South America (2.l %), Cuba (5.3%)
Central Amelica (7.4), ancl Domínican Republic (l.J.%). The education level of caregívers of
children in the sample included 34% with less than a high school education, 30.9% with a high
school diploma, 22.3% with one to three years of college or technical school, and 12.8% with
four or more years of collE:ge.

Chapter 5 Evidence of Refiability and Validity 105

 The tests were administered in counterbalanced order; ~tpprmdmately half of the sample took
PLS-5 Spanish fust, and the other half of the sample took CELF Preschool-2 Spanísh first.
The test interval ranged from 3 to 14 days, with an average of 6.7 days. The same examiner
administered both tests. Because both PLS-5 Spanish a.nd CELF Preschool-2 Spanish assess
aspects of language development and there iS some overlap in the concepts assessed (e.g., basiC
concepts, expressive vocabulary, sentence structures) it was expected that there would be
a moderate to high correlation between the seores of th.3 two tests. Table 5.11 presents the
results. As eA-pectecl, the adjusted correlatíons are moderate to higb, ranging from .58 to .78.
In general PLS-5 Spanísh standard seores were hígher than CELF Preschool-2 Spanish
standard seores. There was a 0.4 standard score poínt dlfference in PLS-5 Spanish Auditory
Comprehension/CELF Preschool-2 Spanish Receptive Langnage seores, a 3.7 standard score
point difference in PLS-5 Spanish Expressíve Communication /CELF Preschool-2 Spanish
·. i
1
Expressive Language seores, anda 5.6 standard score point difference in the PLS-5 Spanish j
1
Total Language/CELF Preschool-2 Spanish Core Language seores. .; 1
. 1
As in the study conducted with PLS-5 Spanish and PLS-4 Spanish, the higher seores on the
PLS-5 Spanish may be due to the fact that PLS-5 Spanish presents test items in Spanish and ·:,· I
English whereas CELF Preschool-2 Spanish presents test items only in Spanish. In addition,
PLS-5 Spanish has fewer subtests than CELF Preschool-2 Spanish. Short forms tend to
produce higher seores. Alth.ough the seores for PLS-5 3panish are slíghtly higher than CELF
1
Preschool-2 Spanish seores, the correlatíons are moderate to high because the two tests mea- .1
1

sure similar content. areas, and a child who pe1forms poorly on PLS-5 Spanish is likely to score
poorly on CELF Preschool-2 Spanish. "i
)'

Table 5.11 Correlatíons of PLS-5 Spanish and Clinical Evaluatíon of Language Fundamentals
Presclwol-Second Edition, Spanish (CELF Preschool-2 Spanish) Seores

Rer:epti11e Lariguime .::.'.,> . . . .. .71 .76 .66 .75 .73 .78 102.7 14.8
. ' ····· ········.····.
· Expressive táñ9~a 9e'.i: .:·:\'·· .53 .58 .59 .70 .61 .67 100.1 13.1
. Core la~g~~~~·, . ~·..~::::_-:··.' ·\: . .57 .62 .57 .6B .63 .68 98.8 14.4
PLS::S spai:iish Mean 102.s 103.8 104.4
PLS-5 Spanish sp. 13.1 10.9 13.3
. Note. Adj • ad1usted. All seores are ba.sed on age nonns; untts are standard seores.
a AU correlatlons were corrected 1or \he vartability of the norm 9roup, basad on the standan:S devlalion obtalned on the fin;\ admlnlstration, uslng the variabillty correction ot
Cohen et al. {2003, p. 58).

-- - 106 · -Preschool banguage Scales-5 Spanisb

Evidence Based (]1n Special Group Studies
Speech-language pathologists use PLS t.o evaluate a varied population of children for evidence of
language disorders and delays that may warrant appropriate interventi.ons. Other users of PLS,
including early educatimml diagnosticians, psychologists, and developmental pediatricians, evaluate
cbildren who have been díagnosed. with developmental, psychologi.cal, and/or medical disorders
tf.iat µi~ght affoct the normal development oflanguage skills. Some of these children will exbibit
developrnental delays only in language while others may exh:ibit global impairments in cogrútive
development or delayed development in multiple bebavioral domains. Specific types of language
problems may be identifle:d or language abilities may be globally impaired.
The majmity of children who w:ill be evaluated with PLS-5 Spanísh and subsequently receive
intervention will be diagrl'.lSed with a language disorder. PLS-5 Spanish is designed to identify
varying degrees of a Iangnage disorder among these children. Other children with pronounced
language disorders relatec. to clinical conditions, such as hearing loss or autism spectrum disorders,
come to the attention of speech-language pathologists. PLS-5 Spanish is not designed to díagnose
these conditions or synclmmes, but is sensitive to the language difficulties exhibited by children in
these clinical groups. This section presents the results of r.esearch that evaluates the language per-
fonnance of children who bave been previously identified as having a language disorder.

Children ldentified With a Language Disorder

Thís study was conducted to determine the extent to wbich each of the PLS-5 Spanish seores
differentiated between two samples of children: a sample of children who had previously beeu
diagnosed as having a language disorder and a sample of children v'lith typically developing
language skills.
Within the language diso:~der sample, three groups were identífied: children identified with
receptive language disorder, children identified with expressive language disorder, and children
identified with receptive-·expressive language disorder. Refo:r to table 5.12 for the demograplúc
characterístics of each of the clinical groups.

Chapter 5 Evidence of Refiability and Validity 107

Table 5.12 Demographic Characteristics of the PLS-5 Spanish
Language Disorder Clinical Sample

3 5.7 3 4.3 3 6.3

..
2:0-2:11 ". 11 20.8 11 15.9 11 22.9
3:fl-3:11 6 11.3 12 17.4 6 12.5
: 4:0-4;11 10 18.9 14 20.3 8 16.7
5:0-5:11 1.0 18.9 11 15.9 8 16.7
6:0-6:11 8 15.1 10 14.5 7 14.6
7:0-7:11 5 9.4 B 11.6 5 10.4
Sex
Female 12 22.6 19 27.5 10 20.8
Mal e 41 77.4 50 72.5 38 79.2
Race/Ethnicity
African·Amerlcan 1 1.9 1 1.4 1 2.1
Hispanic 52 98.1 68 98.6 47 97.9
: Primary Caregiver's Country of Origin/Descenf'
Central America
Cuba
7
2
13.2
3.8
7
.:
10.1
4.3
7
2
14.6
4. 2
~

1~
•
Domir:iican RepubHc 1 1.9 1 1.4 1 2.1
29
'·.
Mexico 33 62.3 41 59.4 60.4
t
Puerto Rico 7 13.2 1<: 20.3 6 12.5
:
South America 3 5.7 .." 4.3 3 6.3
Primary Caregiver's Educ:ation Levelb
Grade 11 or Less 34 64.2 3EI 55.1 32 66.7
High School Graduate or GED 13 24.5 14 20.3 11 22.9
1-3 Years ot College or Tech Scllool 1 1.9 ~I 13.0 1 2.1
of College 5 9.4 B 11.6 4 8.3
4 ar More Years ·~~-=-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~
Region
Northeast 12 22.6 1:! 17.4 11 22.9
South 18 34.0 24 34.8 17 35.4
West 17 32.1 2·1 30.4 15 31.3
Puerto. Rico. 6 11.3 1:! 17.4 5 10.4
Note. Colurnn percerrtnges far each demographlc may not sum to 100 dueto rounding.
ª lf primary lomale caregJver's oountry of orlgin/descent was not reponed, prlmary mala caregivet's country of orlgln/descent wes used. Prlmary Csreglver Is defined as the perenVguardian
who spends the most time with the child on a daily basls.
b lf pñmary femalc care!Ílver's eáucation Javel was not reportod, pñmary mala caregiver's etlucatlon level was usa<l. Prlmary C8regiver is daflned as the parent/guardian who spends thc
most lime wlth the chlld on a daHy basls.

108 fre,school .Lq¡-1guage S.c;ale~-::5 §panish

 All cbildren in the language disorder sample were matched to typically developing children
on the basis of age, sex, ethnicity, and primary c.1.regiver's education level. For tbe pnrposes of
these studies, a chiid wid1 a language disorder was one who was at least 1 year of age and had
been diagnosed as havin g a moderate to severe receptive, expressíve, or combined réceptive-
ex-pressive language disorder (usii:g the criteria of a score of 77 or less on a standardized lan-
guage test in the area[s] of impairment). All the children identified with langm1geu:lisorder were
enrolled in a language therapy program at the time PLS-5 Spanish was administered.
Chíld.ren who were not ~tble to take the test in the standardized fashion (e.g., chíldren who
had fine or gross motor impaínnents) were not included in the study. A chíld with typically
developing language was defined as a child who had not previously been diagnosed as having a
language disorder and w:i.s not currently receíving speeéh and language services.
Group comparison statisi:ícs for each of the language disorder groups is presented in Tables
5.1.3 -5.15 with means and standard de.viations, significance tests, and standard difference
(effect sizes) for the PLS -5 Spanísh standard seores. Tl1e Auditory Comprehensíon, Expressive
Communication, and Total Language score differences are more than 1.3 standard deviations,
with each language disorder group consistently lower than the matched sample. Effect sizes
above .5 are generally coosidered moderate and those above .8 are typically considered to be
large. The effect size for both scales and Total La.r:iguage for each of the. language disorder
groups is Iarge, thus highlíghting the ability of the PLS-5 Spanish to discriminate between
typieally developíng chile ren and those with language impairments.

Table 5.13 Mean Performance of the Receptive Language Disorder Group and a
Nonclinical Matched S.ample

Audilory Comprellension 53 74.9 13.5 97.5 12.3 22.5 9.24** 1.74

Expressive Communication 51 76.8 13.4 97.8 12.4 21.0 8.47** 1.63
'Tf)tal Langti!l9~ 51 74.3 12.6 97.5 12.1 23.2 9.76"* 1.88
8 Standard diffemnce is Cohen·s d, computad a>; the dlfforence ol the ·:wo test means divided by the square roat of the pooled varfance (Cohen. 1988, pp. 20, 44).
-p<.01

Table 5.14 Mean Performance of the Expressive Language Disorder Group and a
Nonclinical Matched Sa.mple

· Audltory Comprehension 69 79.7 15.2 98.7 13.4 19.0 8.81 ** 1.32

Expressive Communication 67 76.9 12.2 98.7 14.2 21.8 10.66•• 1.65
)otat Laf'\gl,lage 67 76.7 12.5 98.7 14.0 22.0 11.09** 1.66
~Standard ditterence ls Cohen's d, computad as the dttference ot the tv ,o test rneans dMded by the square root of the pooled varfance (Cohen, 1986, pp. 20, 44).
P< .01

Chapter 5 Evidence of Reliabílity and \!a{idity 109

Table 5.15 Mean Performance of the Receptive-Expressive: Language Disorder Group and a
N onclinical Matched Sample

47 13.1 12.6 22.D 8.48... 1.71

47 73.3 12.4 97.1 12.4 23.8 9.43"" 1.92
a Standard difference is Cohen's d, compuled as the dlfference of the two te9\ meaos dMded by the square root of :ne pooled variance (Cohen, 1MB, pp. 20, 44).
-p<.01

Diagnostic Accuracy
Another means of evaluating test utility is to analyze the test's abiüty to accurately identify
children who have a speciHc clinical condition of interest or to rule out that diagnosis, Specific
to PLS-5 Spanish, the clinical conditions of interest are language disorders. Classífication
based on setting of specific diagnostic cut seores, such as -1.5 SD, may be presented as positive
predictive power (PPP) and negative predictive power (NPP). Classification varíes as a function
of the cut score used, as well as the base rate for the clinical condition of interest. The base
rate is most commonly thought of as the prevalence of the clínica! condition ín the population,
but it is more clinically useful to think of it as the a priori probability that someone in the clini-
cian's own referral population ·will have the condition. Surveys conducted with speech-language < •
pathologists from different parts of the U.S. and Puerto Rico indicated that in screening a
population óf preschool children, they expect to identífy 10%-40% of those children thought
to be at risk for Ianguage disorders and in need of forther testing. However, they estimated that
they identify 25%-90% of their preschool referrals as having a language disorder (F. Matias,
D. Stokes, A. Rivera, & R. Santaella, persona1 communication, April 2011). Values of PPP and
NPP are provided for fíve different base rates (20%, 50%, 70%, 80%, and 90%) in Tables
5.16-5.18.
Figure 5.1 illustrates the four possible outcomes based on test classifications. D represents
someone who truly has the disorder and ND represents someone who truly has no disorder.
The test outcomes are + (prediction of disorder) or -- (prediction of no disorder) .

+ -
D a b
NiJ e· d

Figure5.l Possihle Test Outcomes of Positive Predictive Power (+) and Negative Predictive Power H
 Posítive predictive power is calculated using the formula:

PPP =(a X br) +[(a. X br) + (1 - br) X e]

where a ande represent !:he frequencies mdicated in Figure 5.1, and br is the base rate. PPP is
. j;p.terpreted as. the .likelihood that a person with a positive test result actually has the disorder.
Negative predictive power is calculated usü1g the formula:

NPP = [d X (1 - br')] -""" [(d X (1 -: br)) + (b X br)]

wheré b and d represent il1e frequencíes indícated in Figure 5.1. and br is the base rate. NPP is
interpreted as the likelihood that sorneone with a negative test result actually does not have the
disorder. A PPP = 1 indi.cates no false positives, while PPP:: 0.5 indicates a 50% false
positive rate. Similarly. an NPP = 1 would indicate no false negatives, whereas an NPP ·= 0.5
would indicate a 50% false negative rate.
Sensitivity and specificity are two additional diagnosti.c validity statistics that describe how
accurate the test results are in diagnosing a child with a disorder (e.g., language di.sorder).
Sensitivity is computed as al(a + b) and specificity is computed as d/(c + d). Sensitivity tells us
the probability that someone who has the conditíon will test positive for it. Specificity tells us
the probability that someone who does not have the condition will test negative far it.
The sensitivity of PLS-5 Spanish, where the criterion of a language disorder is deflned as a
Total Language score of 85 or less (1 SD or more below the mean). is .85 and the specificity is
.88. This in.dicates that 85% of the children previously identified with a language disorder were
similarly identified by PL:)-5 Spanish and that 88% of the children in the typícally developing
matched population -..vere identified as not having a language disorder. 111ese values do not
depend on the base rate. This means sensitivity and specificity provide overall summary statis-
tics of how well tbe test can classify children with language disorder from children without a
language disorder, althou~;h this overall summary can be misleading far specific base rates. For
example, a test might have both higb sensitivity and specifícity, yet still have a large false posi-
tive rate.
In the real world, you only see the test results; how accurate they are depends on the base rate
as well as the cut score, which is when PPP and NPP become most important. For example,
if the base rate is Iow (e.g., 20%), which might be observed in a normal preschool population,
and far the Total Language score you use a cut score of -2 SD, tb.e PPP = .81. This means that
81 % of the those who are !dentified as having a language disorder actually have it. The NPP
in this situation equals .86, meaning that 86% of those classifíed as not havi.ng a la.nguage
disorder indeed do not, leaving 14% false negative results. On the other hand, if the base rate
is 50% (half the children referred have a language dísorder) and the cut score used i.'i -2 SD,
then the PPP "" .94, meaning that only 6% of those classified as having a language d.isorder are
mísclassified, and the NPF' == .61, rneaning that 39% of those classified as not having a language
disorder are misclassified. Tables 5.16-5.18 show these values for different combinatíons of
base rates and cuf·scores for the AC, EC, and Total Language seores. As the cut score becornes
more extreme (more SDs below the mean), the PPP becomes higher and the NPP gets Iower.
Similarly, as the base rate becomes hi.gher, the PPP becomes higher arid the NPP gets lower.

Chapter 5 ·Evidence of Reliabilíty and Validity 111

 Table 5.16 PPP and NPP Language Disorder Classiñcatio:n for Auditory Comprehension Seores
Based on Cut Seores for Five Base Rates

~~rn'.h::.'..\·:::~·T>; ·:t
?Pf.:>r::·: ;. ·\ :, .53 .98 .95 .91 .82 ·:.t
.,
-~

NPP. :. ·.: .· .94 .29 .48 .61 .79

'(
i.

:-1.5
ppp .78 .99 .98 .97 .94
:~
NPP .89 .19 .35 .48 .68
.,
·2 ~(
PPP.;:. .83 .99 .99 .98 .95
~Pf' .86
Note. PPP ~ Posltive Ptedíctlve Powet and NPP
.15 .28 .40
=Negativa Prodlcltiva Power.
.61
e
Table 5.17 PPP and NPP Language Disorder Classificatfon for Expressive Communication
Seores Based on Cut Seores for Five Base Rat•;::s

"1 --::::: ; .. .... . '

ppp .58 .98 .96 .93 .84
NPP .93 .27 .45 .59 .77
·1.5

·2
ppp
NPP
.66
.88
.99
.17
.97
.31
.95
.44
.89
.64
'
.. f:
1

''
ppp
NPP
.70
.85
.99
.13
.97
.26
.96
.37
Note. PPP = Pos itiva Predictivo Power and NPP = Negatlve Predicitlve Power.
.90
.58
f1
' !
·~·
-:! •-:

-~ ~-
•
Table 5.18 PPP and NPP Language Disorder Classification for Total Language Score Based on
Cut Seores for Five Base Rates
-~
~f i
';" ~
r

f
1

1
•
~ f

:
~

( •
-~~~::,'/_;:;.,\,_F. .63 .98 .96 .94 .87

N~P·\..:: :··:. .96 .40 .60 .72 .86

-1.5 -: ·. . ·.
ppp .78 .99 .98 .97 .93
NPP .91 .21 .38 .51 .71
-2
ppp .81 .99 .99 .98 .94
NP.P .86 .15 .28 .40 .61
Note. PPP ~ Posttlvo Ptedlcüve Power and NPP =Nogtltive Ptedicltive Power.

. . .112 .. .. Pr.eschoof.Language.Scales=5.Spanish____ _
 Evidence Based on Consequences of Testing
There are many factors that rnust be considered when assessing and identifying children as hav-
ing a disorder at a very young age. The Standa.rds for Educational and Psychological Testíng
states that evidence about the consequences of testing is a criti.cal aspect to address when
evaluating the validity of the testfor its intended purposes (AERA, APA, & NCME, in press) .
For .example, young children ·often shy away and do not interact with people in ui:ifamiliar
enviromnents.
Therefore, it is important that the test environment be comfortable and child-friendly so that
test results tlJat reflect the child's "true" abilities can be reported with confidence. To date,
there is no evidence to suggest that PLS-5 Spanish has any negative consequence_s for children
when it is used as intended. In fact, anecdotal ínfon:riation collected in surveys of examiners
during the research phases of the test indicate that children yonnger than age 3 are easily
engaged in the interactive activities and are unaware that they are being guided through spe-
cific activities.
Children older than age 3 enjoy the picture stimuli an<l the test activities. Children with a
language disorder often exhibit splinter skills that keep them from reaching a ceiling quickly;
these children may tire as the test continues, and may need examiner support and reassurance
to complete the test. Recommendations for addressing tbe needs of specific populations (e.g.,
children identifi.ed with specific handicapping conditions) are in the Manual de administración
...y puntuación. These recommendations can assist you in minimizi..ng the potentially negative
impact of testing children who differ from the mainstream population.

ummary
This chapter has provided evidence of the reliability and validity of PLS-5 Spanish seores and
the accuracy of the seores in making decisions about children's language abilities. The validation
process, however, is not completed vvith the publication of a test. In many ways, the standard-
ization data are the beginning of the process. As noted in the Code of Fair Testing Praciices fr¡
Education, validation of a test is the joint responsibility of the test developer and the test user
{Joint Committee on Testing Practices, 2004). The test developer is responsible for fumishing
relevant evidence and a rationale in support of the intended test use. The test user is ultímate1y
responsible for evaluati.ng the evidence in the particular setting in which the test is to be used.
In addition to the test developers and test users, independent researchers will make significant
contributions to the evidence base for the PLS-5 Spanish.

Chapter 5 Evidence of Refiability and Vafídíty 113

List of Examiners

.!rlrona James Simonds Rayda Fonte

Veronica Dominguez Riverside West Palm Beach
Mara na Marirume Szíjj Michelle Fuster
Idalia Hickey Ventura Pemhrvke Pines
Sahuarita Simon Villalobos Jamirá R. Grana
Joni Long Clovis Tampa
Chandler Alicia Young Gerson Guzman
Idalia Carbajal Porter Carden Grove Davenport
Tucson Adíane Lean
Colorado
Heidi Benson Rodriguez Bvynton Beach
Daniela Melgarejo
Phoenix Edwards GenyLima
.hbnsas Coconut Creek
District of Columbia
John Doak Melissa Ledesrna Gloria Esperanza Castrillon
Fort Smith Lopez
Flo1ida Orlando
Amy Faith
Lorena Acosta
Roge1-s Sonia Malave
Maratlwn
Orlando
rnia
Michelle Akerman
Elena Alvarez Gissel Marmol
Orlando
FuUerton
Lakeland
Yelitza I. Ruiz Ahorrio
Ramon Mesa
Maricela Avelar Orlan.do
Sacramento Miamí
Alliete Alfano
Erika Olmedo
Juanita J. Bigelow Coral Gables
Grand Terrace MiamiBeach
Maria G. Arguelles
Gail Miller Fabiola Pascal
Miami
MÍ(lmi
Sonoma
Beab.iz Ashley ·
Therese M. Nugent Tamaro.c Jessell Posada
Oceanside BocaRaton
Annette Baerga
Beatriz Ballesteros Perez Zenaida Reyes
Orlando
Stockton West Palm Beach
Elizabeth Banios
Rosa Preciado Rodriguez Port Saint Lucí.e Fidel Raul Rodriguez
South San Francisco Miami
Maria Alejandra Bustillos
Barbara Reynolds Miami Madelyn Bravo Rodriguez
Redwood City West Palm Beach
Maria De Jesus
Astrid füeber West Palm Beach Maria Elena Soto Rodriguez
Redwood City Mi.ami
Maria Estela Edward
Lorette Shea Lalce Worth Maurin Rodriguez
Roseville West Palm Beach
Maria.lid Feliciano
Orlando

Ust of Ex:aminers 115

 Jane Simmons Eliana Jaramillo Puerto Rico
Wínter Springs Astoria Ailenid Alfonzo
Julissa Taveras Maria Yanina Jure · San Juan
Orland.o Jamaica Michelle Montero Arroyo
Maria T. Torres Alexsandra Lopez Ponce
St. Cloud Buffalo Olga M. Arroyo
Lucy Windevoxhel Barbara Mítchell Yauco
Mirama.r Valley Stroam Gilda Belaval
.Aliana Rodon Toa Alta
Georgia
Bronx NydiaBou
Cristina Saldana Illingworth
Cumming Eva Serrone Gurobo
Flushing lsairi Parrilla Cabrera
Illionois
Fabiana Ursi Dorad.o
Diana Acevedo
Glen Cove Isabel Cajigas
Chicago
Jissenia Yui Ponce
Paula Hougan
Forest Hil'ls Carmen Cmtes
Roclifo1·d
North Carolina
Guay nabo
Massachusetts
Igmaliana Austin Emily Pabon Cruz
Diana Mora Ponce
Revere
Oakboro
Rocío Li ttle Alicia M. Gonzalez ele la Cruz
Michael Smith San Juan
Oal-JJOro
Waltham
Magbis N. Lave N atalia Delgado
Minnesota Mint· Hill P011ce
Sara Gonzalez Sabrina Escobar
Saint Pa.ul Diana Torres
Charlotte San Juan
Missouri Marisol Febo
Ohio
Hortenica Miranda Saint ]ust
Branson Sherly Kennedy
Columhus Maria J. Feliciano
NewJersey San Juan
Oregon
Olga Di Palo Magalys Pagan Figueroa
OldTappan MaryBecker Ciales
Bend
Sonia Ramos Mariela Gonzalez
Lodi Charles E. Clupny Guaynabo
Pendleton
Sandra Rueda Nayda Hernandez
Paterson Yasmin Marin McGrath Santa Isabel
Springfield
NewMexico Oxalis Jusino
Pennsy]vania San Ju.an
Katie Edwards
Al.buquerque ·Phillip Hernandez Sharinelle Manan
Philadelphía Sabana Grande
NewYork
Natalia Faitelevich
Sheila Marrero
Toa Baja
Forest Hills
Cinthía García David Medina
Canovana.s
Briarwood
 Marilyn Mercado Giusti Texas Teresa Shanahan
Ponee RoundRock
Laura Adjunta
Caritza Minmda The Wooáümd.s Blanca Solis
Carolina San Antonio
Mariel'E. Aguirre
Mildred Del Valle Morales ·· -El Paso Carla Tittle
San Juan Ijlugervílle
Patricia Arambula
Magdali Morales San Antonio
Katluyn Robe Torres
Caguas Dora Vargas Bustos Pearland
Karelys Osorio San juan Ernesto Valadez
]1mcos Maria Davis Laredo
Idalis Lopez Ramos RoundRoclc Denise Fandier Zaldana
Toa Alta Frances De La Garza Houston
Carmen Nunez Reyes Mission
Utah
Arecibo Elvia Elizondo Bertha Botella
Nydia M. Barrios Reyes San Antonio CedarCity
Toa Baja Josefina Perez Guzinan
Virginia
Sylvia Cordero Rivera . Edinburg
Dorado Patricia Ramos Cole
Janie Vergara Hodgin Woodridge
Rafaela Padin Ríchmond
Dorado Washington
Imelda Lewis
Ivanys Perez Ijlugerville Marc Anderson
Bellevue
Garrochales Maria Del Rosario Salinas
Arlene Perez Rosa Marenco Claudia Cípnrt
Laredo Aubum
Isabela
Edna N. Rodriguez William G. Masten Elsa Judith Riggin
Comm.erce Yakima
San Sebastictn
Juana Mendive Sylvia B. Sanchez
Damarys Ruiz
La redo Yalcima
Ponce
Caribel Sanab1ia Dora Nava
Ponce San Antonio
Idarrna Serrano Marcia Padron
Carolina SanAntoni.o

Maria M. Sierra Sandra Quintanar

Ponce Red Oak
Susan Sonni Veronica Rallis
San Juan El Paso
Auricelli Torres N ancy Ramirez
Toa Baja El Paso
Noelia Vargas Maria Rivera
Rincon Míssion

Grace Vinas Brenda Knoepffier Serrano

San Juan Spring

list of Examiners 117

References
Ailen., M. J., & Yen, W. M. (2002). Introduction to
measurement theory. Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press.
American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on
Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards far
educational and psychological testíng. Washington,
DC: Author.
American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on
Measurement in Education. (in press). Standards
far educational and psychological. testing.
Washington, DC: Author.
k::erican Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
(2004). Cultural compete11ce. Retrieved from
httpJ/www.asba.org/docs/pdf/TR2005- 00174.html
rrw>Tll'<• nSpeech-Language-Hearing Association.
2005). Service d.elivery toith mtLlticultural popula-
tions. Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/about/
.lerulership-projects/multicultural/readingslread-
:ing_3.htm
AJ:::ie:rica:n Speech-Language-Hearing Associatíon.
). Roles and responsibilities of speech-lan-
gcage pathologists in early ínterventíon (Technical
3eport). Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/docs/
pdf/I'R2008-00290.pdf
.&::mean Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
21109). Demographic profile of ASHA members
· ing büingual and Spanish-language ser-
ail::a. Retrieved from: http/www.asha.org/docs/
!:tm.VRPHJ89-00205.html.
AD~sm. J. R. (2004). First language loss in Spanish-
speahng children: Patterns ofloss and implica-
DDlls for clinical practice. In B. Goldstein (Ed.),
~ language development and rlísorde1-s in
· h -English speakers (pp. 187-211). Baltirnore:
H. Brookes.
b~;an. R. T. (1995). Spanish morphological and syn-
. development. In H. Kayser (Ed.), Bílingu.al
-language pathology: An Hispanic focus (pp.
- 72). San Diego, CA: Singular.
~:rl!!lrllOln, R. T. (1996). Assessing the grammar of
· -speaking children. Language, Speech, and
Heming Seroices in Schools, 27, 333-344.
Anderson, R. T. (2004). First langu.age loss in Spanish-
speaking children: Patterns of loss and implica-
tions for clinical practice. In B. Goldstein (Ed.),
Bilingual la.nguage development and disorders in
Spanish-English speakers (pp. 187-211). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.
Austin, L. (2010) . Dynamic assessment: Whys and
bows. Perspectíves on School-Based Issues, 11,
80-87.
Bagnato, S. J., Macy, M., Salaway, J., & Lehman,
C. (2007) . Research foundation~ of authentic
assessments ensure accurate and representative
early interoention elígibility. Pittsburgh, PA:
TRACE Center for Excellence in Early Childhood
Assessment.
Battle, D . E. (2002). Communication disorders
in a multicultural society. In D. E. Battle
(Ed.), Communication di.sord.ers in multicul-
tu.ral populations (pp. 3-29). Newton, MA:
· Butterworth-Heinemann.
Bedore, L. (2004). Morphosyntactic developrnent. In
B. Goldstein (Ed), Bílin.gu.a.l la.ngu.age d.evelop-
ment and disord.ers in Spanish-Engli.sh speakers.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Bedore, L. M ., Peña, E . D., García, M., & Cortez, C.
(2005). C onceptual versus monolingual scor-
íng: When does ít malee a difference? Speech,
Language, Hearing Ser·vices in Schools, 36,
188-200.
Berko-Gleason, J., & Bernstein-Ratner, N. (2009). 1'he
development oflangu.age. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bilinguistics. (2007). Typícál developm.ent o.f speech in
Spanish in comparison to English. Retrieved from
\Wlw.pediastaff.com/uploads
Bleile, K. M. (2004). Manual o.f articulation and pho-
nological disorders: Infancy thmugh adtiltlwod
(2nd ed.). Clifton Parle, NY: Thomson Delmar
Learning.
Bondurant-Utz, J. A. (2002). A practical guide to
assessing infants and preschoolers with special
needs. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Bopp, K. D .. Smitb, V., & Mirenda, P. (2006).
Predictors of development in autism: St:ate of the
scúm.ce. Retrieved from: bopp@interchange.ubc.ca
Refere1111ces 119
Boud.reau, D. (2005). Use of a. parent questionnaire
· in emergent and eariy literacy assessment of
preschool children. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.
org/10.1044/0161-1461 (2005/004)
Bowen, C. (1998). Encouraging prelíte1-acy skills in
children with speech and language disorders.
Retrieved from http://www.speech-language-
therapy.com/pre-literacy.html
Brassard, M. R., & Boehm, A. E. (2007). Preschool
assessment: Principles and pra.cticcs. New York:
Guilford Press.
Brice, A. (2002). The Híspanic child: Speech, language,
culture and education. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Brice, A., & Brice, R.G. (2008). Lang1iage develop-
ment: Monolingual and bilingual acquisition. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Brown, R (1973). A first language: The early stages.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard Uníversity Press.
Brusniak, R., & Juarez, M. (2004. Sept.). Entryl
exít eligibility frameworlc for bilingual sttulents:
Language and ímplícations for clinical practíce.
Presentation at the annual conference of the
Texas Organization of Multilingual Multicultural
Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists,
Our Lady of the Lake University, San Antonio, TX.
Capone, N. (2007) Tapping todc:llers' evolving semantic
representation vía gesture. ]ourna.l of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 50(3), 732-745
Castilla, A. P. (2011). Narrative assessments u,i.th
Spa.nish-speakin.g children. Retrieved frorn http://
blog.bilingualtherapies.com/assessment-resources/
narrative-assessrnents-with-spanish-speaking-
children
Centeno. J. G., & Eng, N. (2005). Bilingual speech-
language pathology consultants in culturally diverse
schools: Considerations on theoretically-based
consultee engagement. Journal of Educational and
Psychologícal Consultation, 16, 333-347.
Chamberlain, P., & Medinos-Landurand. P. (1991).
Practical considerations for the assessment of LEP
students with special needs. In E . V. Hamayan & J.
S. Da.mico (Eds.), Limiting bias in the assessment
of biling11.al students (pp. 122-156). Austin, TX:
Pro-E d.
Charman, T., Taylor, E., D rew, A., Cockerill, J., Brown,
J. A., & Barid, G. (2005). Outcome at 7 years of
children diagnosecl with autism at age 2: Predictive
validity of assessments conducted at 2 and 3 years
of age and pattern of symptom change over time.
Journal of Chíld Psychology & Psychiatry, 46,
500- 513.
120 Pre_ss;fl_f?__<!_l_~anguéJge Scales-5 Spanish
Cohen, B. H. (2001). fa-plaining psychological. statistics
(2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks & Cole.
Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003).
Applied multiple regressionlcorrelation analysis
foi-t'he behavioral. sciences (3rd ed.). Ma11wah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cr.üs, E. R., Roy, V.; & Free, K. (2006). Parents' and
professionals' perceptions of the implementation
of family-centered practices in child assessments.
American Journal of Speech-Language Pa:thology,
15, 365-377.
Crais, E. R., Watson, L. R., & Baranek, G. T. (2009).
Use of gesture development in profiling children's
prelinguistic communication skills. American
Journal of Speech-Language Hearing Association,
18, 95-108.
Cracker, L., & Algina,J. (1986). Introduction to the
classícal and modern test theory. Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace.
Cummíns, J- (1981). The role of the primary language
•
development in promoting education success fot
language minority students. In C . Leyba (Ed.),
Schooling and language minority students: A theo-
reticalfra.mework (p. 819). Los Angeles: California
State University, Evaluation., Dissemination. and
Assessment Center.
Cummíns, J. (1984). Primary language instruction . In
C. Leyba (Ed.), Schooling and langttage minor-
ity students: A theoretical frameworlc (p. 6). Los
Angeles: California State University, Evaluation, , 1
Disseminatíon and Assessment Ce~ter.
Dale, P. S. (1991) . Assessment of communication and
langua.ge. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
De Curtis, L., Lamberth, E., Langdon, H. W.,
Larroudé, B.• & Shriver-Stahley, K. (2002).
Establishing language and cultural pro.ficiency in
working with CLD populations. Sacramento, CA:
California Speech-Language-I-iearing Association
(CSHA).
de Villiers, J- (2005)_ Langu.age and theory ofmind.
Oxford: University Press.
de Villiers, J- (2007). The interface of language and
theory of mind. Lingua., 117, 1858-1878. Retrieved
from vv·ww.sciencedirect.com
de Villiers, P. A., & de Villiers, J. C. (2010). Assessment
oflanguage acquisition. Wiley Interdisciplina.ry
Remews: Cognitive Science, 1, 230-244.
doH0.1002/wcs.30
Dudek, F. J. (1979). The continuing misinterpreta-
tion of the standard error of measurement.
Psychological Bulletin, 86(2), 335-337.
doi:l0.1037/0033-2909 .86.2.335
 Dmm. L. H. (1968). Special education for the mildly
retarded; Is much of it jl!Stifiable? Exoeptional
Children, 35, 5-22.
C. J. (2000). Revisiting "Rethinking early
intervention." Topics in Early Childhcod Special
Ed:üGa:tW-ñ, 20; 95-104. . ...
Ecfleve:-ría, M. S. {1979). Longitud del enunciado infan-
. ·Factores ambientales e individuales [Children's
mean length of utterance; Envírorunental and indi-
vidual fuctors]. In Estu.dios Generales l. Actas del
5o. Semina'li.o d.e Investigación y Enseñanza de la
Linguistica y Universidad Técnica del Estado (pp.
56-68). Santiago, Chile.
E&1cation for All handicapped Children Act
Amendments of 1986 (EHA), Public Law 99-457,
{1986).
Eisellherg, S. L., Fersko, T. M., & Lundgren, C. (2001).
The use of MLU for identifying language impair-
ment in preschool children. American journal of
Speech-Language Pathology, 10(4), 323-343.
abiano-Smíth, L., & Goldstein, B. A. (2009). Earlv-,
middle-, and late-developing sounds in monolí~gual
and bilingual clúldren; An exploratory investigation.
American Journal of Speech-Langua.ge Pathology,
19. 66-67. doí:l0.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0036)
~enson , L. (1986). The development progression of
play. In A. W. Gottfried & C. C. Br.own (Eds), Play
interactions: the contribution. of play material.s a.nd
parental involvement to children's development,
53-66. Lexington, MA: DC Health.
i:="enson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D . J., Dale, P. S.,
Reznick, J. S., & Bates, E. (1989). Ma.cAi-thui-
Commm~icative Development Inventol"!I· San
Diego, CA: University of California, Center far
Research in Language.
r:igueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagi;iosis
of LD in English learners: Is it nondiscriminatory?
Journal o.f Lea.rning Disabílities, 39, 206-214.
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in J.4 natíons:
\1','hat fQ tests really measure. Fsycho'logical
Bulletiri, 101, 171-191.
F1ynn, J. R. (2009). Wh.at is intelligence: Betjond the
Flynn effect. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gavin, W. J., & Giles, L. (1996). Sample siie effects on
temporal reliability of language sample measures of
preschool children. Jowmal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 39(6), 1258-1262.
Genesee, F., Parad.is,J., & Crago, M. B. (Eds.). (2004).
Dual lan.gu.age deoelopment a.nd disorders: A
handboofc on bílin.gualism & second langti.a.ge
learning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Glutting, J. J., McDermolt, P. A., & Stanley. J. C.
(1987). Resolving differences among methods
of establishing confidence limits far test seores.
Educational an.d Psychological Measurement, 47,
607-614.
GoldStein, B. (2001). Assessing phonologícal skílls in
Hispanic/Latino children. Seminars in Speech and
Language, 21 (l}, 39-39 .
Goldstein, B. (2004). Phonological development and
disorders in bilingual children. In B. Goldstern
(Ed.), Bilingual language development·a.nd disor-
de~ in. Spanísh-English speakers. Baltimore; Paul
H. Brookes.
Goldstein, B. (2007). Phonologícal skills in Puerto
Rícan and Mexícan Spanish-spealdng children with
phonological disorders. Clinical Lingu.istics and
Phonetics, 21(2), 93-109.
Goldstein, B., & Washington, P. (2001). An initial
investigation of phonological patterns in 4-year-old
typically developing Spanish-English bilingual
children. Langirnge, Speech, and Hearing Seroices
in Schools, 32, 153-164.
Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists, beware! The bilin-
gual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain
and Language, 36, 3-15.
Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric metlwds (Znd ed.).
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gutierrez, V. F., Calderone, J., & Weismer, S. E. (2000).
Verbal working memory in bilingual children.
Journal of Speech, Language and Hea.ring
Research, 47, 863-874.
Gutiérrez-Clellen, V. F., & Peña, E. (2001). Dynamic
assessrnent of diverse children: A tutorial.
Language, Speech & Hea.ring Seroices in the
Schools, 32(4), 212-223 .
Gutiérrez-Clellan, V F., Restrepo, M. A., Bedore,
L., Peña, E., & Anderson, R. (2000). Language
sarnple analysis in Spanish-speaking children:
I\~ethodological considerations. La.n gttage, Sper:ch
and Hearing Seroices in Schools, 31 , 88-98.
Harnbleton, R. K. H., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H.
J. (1991). Fundamentals of ítem rnsponse theory.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., & Rodríguez, B. (2004).
Bilingual language acquísilion and the chikl social-
ization process. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingna.l
langu.age development' and clisorders in Spanish-
English s-peo.kers (pp. 21-50). Baltimore: Paul H.
Brookes.
References 121
Harris, J. G., Echemend.ía, R. J., Ardila, A., & Rosselli,
M. (2001). Cross cultural cognitive and neuro-
psychological assessment. In J. J. W. Andrews, H.
Janzen, & D. Saklofske (Eds.), Ability, achieve-
m.ent, and behavíoral assessment (pp. 391-414).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., Iglesias, A., Fabiano-Smith,
L., Nockerts, A., & Digney-Andriacchi, K. (2008).
Narrative transcription accuracy and reliability in
two languages. Topícs in Language Disorders, 28,
178-187.
Heihnann, J. J., Míller, J. F., & Nockerts, A. (2010) .
Using language sample databases. Langu.age,
Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 41,
84-95.
Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Eyer, D. (2003).
Einstein never used flash cards: H ow ou.r chíldren
really l.eam and why they need fo play more and
memorize less. Emmaus, PA: Rodale Press.
Hwa-Froelich, D. A., & Westby, C. E. (2003).
Considerations when working with interpreters.
Commu.nica.tion Dísorders Quarteif.y, 24(2),
78- 84.
lndividuals with Disabilitíes Educatíon Improvement
Act of2004 (IDEIA), Public Law 108-446, U.S.
Statutes at Large 118 (2004): 2647.
Jackson-Maldonado, D . (2004). Verbal moqihology and
vocabulary in monolinguals and emergent bilin-
gua1s. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual language
development & disord.ers in Spanish-English
speakers (pp. 131-161). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Jackson-Maldonado, D., Thal, D., Fenson, L.,
Marchman, V., Newton, T., & Conboy, B. (2003).
MacArthur inventarios del desarrollo de habili-
dades comunicativas: User's guide and technical
mantLOL Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Janzen, J. (2003). Understanding the nature of autism:
A guid.e to autism spectrum díso1·ders (2nd ed.).
San Antonio, TX: Therapy Skill Builders .
Jarrett, M. H., Browne, B., & Wallin, C. M. (2006).
Using portfolio assessment to document develop-
mental progress of infants and toddlers. Young
Exceptional Ghildren, 10, 22-32.
Joint Committee on Testing Practices (2004). Code of
fair t.esting practices in educa-tion. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http ://www.apa.org/
science/programs/testing/fair-testing.pdf
Kaderavek, J. N. (2011). Language disorders in
children: Fundamental concepts of assessment
and interoention. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.
122 Preschoof Language Scales-5 Spanísh
Kayser, H. (1995"). Assessment of speech and language
impairments in bilingual children. In H. Kayser,
L. Acredolo, and S. Goodwyn (Eds.), Bilingual
speech-language pathology: An Hispanic focus (pp.
243-264). San Diego, CA: Singular.
Kayser, H. (1998). Assessment and interoentíon
resource far Hispanic children. San Diego, CA:
Singular.
Kayser, H. (1999). From the hart. Bilingual Therapies.
Retrieved from http://www.bilingualtherapies.com/
kayser-newsletter/1999/introduction
Kayser, H. (2008). Educatíng latino preschool chíldren.
San Diego, CA: Plural.
Kayser, H., & Restrepo. M. (1995). Language samples:
Elicitation and analysis. In H . Kayser (Ed.),
Bílingual speech-language pathology: An I-lispanic
focus (pp. 265-286). San Diego, CA: Singular.
Kester, E . S., & Pena, E. D. (2002). Language ability
assessment of Spanish-English bilinguals: future
directions. Practica.l Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 8(4).
Kohnert, K. (2008). La.nguage disorders in bilingual
children and ad1Jlts. San Diego, CA: Plural.
Kraemer, R. J. (2010). Special education placement fac-
tors for Lattno students. Dissertation. Tucson, AZ ;
The University of Arizona.
Langdon, H . W. (2002). Interpreters and tro.nslator-s in
communication disorders: A practítíoner's hand-
book. Eau Claire, WI: Thinlcing Publications.
Langdon, H. W. (2004, July). The SLP as advocate and
partner of ELL students, parents and families.
Presentation at the 2004 Bilingual Symposium, Las
Vegas, NV.
Langdon, H. \""l. (2008). ll.ssessment & interventionfor
communication disorders in culturally and lingui.s~
tically diverse populations. Clifton, NY: Delmar.
Langdon, H. W., & Cheng, L-R. L. (2002).
Collaborating with interpreters and translators: A
guide for comm.unication disorders professionols.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Lawrence, C. W. (1992) . Assessing the use of age-equiv-
alent seores in clinica1 management. Language,
Speech, and Hearing Seroíces in Schools, 23, 6-8.
Li, H., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D . B. (1996). Reliability
of measurement in psychology: From Speannan-
Brown to maximal reliability. Psychological
Methods, 1(1), 98-107.
Linacre, J. M. (2005). WINSTEPS Rasch measurement
computer program. Chicago: Winsteps.com
Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (Eds. ). (2004).
Developíng cross-cultural competence: A guide far
working with children and their families (3rd ed.).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Magnusson, D. (1967). Test theory. Reading, MA:
A.ddison-Wesley. · ··
Manuel-Dupont, .s., & Yoakum, S. (1997). Training
interpreter paraprofessionals to assist in the lan-
guage assessment of English language leamers in
Utah. Communication Disorders Qt.ui.rterly, 18(1),
91-102.
Matarazzo, J. D., & Herman, D. O. (1985). Clinical uses
of the WAIS-R: Base rates of differences between
VIQ and PIQ in the WAIS-R standardization
sample. In B. B. Wolman (Ed.), Handhook of intel-
ligence: Theories, measurernent, and applications
(pp. 899-93.2). New York John Wiley & Sons.
Mattes, L. & Omark, D. (1991). Speech and language
assessment for the bilingual handicapped (2nd
ed.). Oceanside, CA: Academic Communication
Assocíates. ·
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, wliere are you? New York:
Dial Press.
.,....,_""''u=y, R. J. (1996). Familiar strangers: critelion-
referenced measures in communication dísorders.
Language, Speech, a.nd Hearing Services in
Schools, 27, 122-131. . Nelson, N. W. (2010). CwTiculum.-based language
-.A..-..u...y, R. J. (2001). Assessment of language dísor-
in children. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
A.sSOciates.
__.._....,..ey, R. J., & Swisher, L . (1984). Psychometric
review of language and articulation tests for pre-
scbool children. ]oumal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 49, 34-42.
~Gr.iw., K. O., & Wong, S. P. (1996). Forming sorne
mferences about sorne intraclass correlation coef-
.sdents. Psychological Methods, 1, 30-46.
~. E., Nuñez, M., Cebula, K., & Gomez, J. C.
2008). Autism: An integrated view from neurocog-
• dinical, and intervention research. Oxford:
ell.
""'"""L.Ci:>.U.M., Wolery, .tvL, & Bailey, D. (2004). Assessing
and preschoolers with specia.l needs (3rd
). Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.
-=>;>Cil::..S., & Steele, D. (1991). The Early Chi.ldh.ood
Portfol.io Collection Process. Ann Arbor, MI:
Cerner for Human Growth and Development,
• /'eTSity of Michigan.
~-F., & Iglesias, A. (2008). Systematic a.nalysis of
:roge transcripts (SALT), Bilingual SE Vcrsion
(Cornputer software} . SALT Software, LLC.
Miller, C. A. (2006) . Developrnental relationships
between language and theory of mind. American
Joumal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15,
142-154. doi:lO .104411058-0360 (2006/014)
Miller-Jones. D. (1989). Culture and testing. American
· PsychOZOgist, 44(2), 360-366. ·
Mingroní, .1\:1. A. (2004). The secular rise in IQ: Giving
heterosis a closer look Intelligence, 32, 65-83.
Mundy, P., Block, J., Delgado, C., Pomares, Y., Vaughan
Van Hecke, A., & Parlade, M. V. (2007). Individual
differences and the development of joint attention
in infancy. Child Development, 78, 938-954.
National Clearinghouse for English Language
Acquisition and Language Instruction Educational
Programs. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.
ncela.gwu.edu.
Negroni~Rodriquez, L. K., & Morales, J. (2001).
Individual and family assessment skills with Latino/
Hispanic Americans. In R. Fong & S. Furuto
(Eds.), Culturally competent practice: Slcills, inter-
ventions, and evaluations (pp. 132-146). Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Neisworth, J. T., & Bagnato, S. J. (2004). The mismea-
sure of young children: The authentic assessment
altemative. Irifants and Young Children., 17(3),
198-212.
assessrrumt and interoention far school-a.ge
children and adolescents. MI: Western Michigan
Universily. Retlieved from http://ww\.v.wmich.edu/
hhs/sppal
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110,
Part B, Title 1, Subpart l. Rebieved from: http://
wwv,r.nocb.ildleftbehínd.com/nclb-law/PART
B-STUDENT READING-SKILLS.
Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, l. H. (1994}. Psychometric
theonJ (3rd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.
O'Neill, D. K. (2007). The language use inventory far
young chíldren: A parent-report measure of prag-
matic language development for 18- to 47-month-
old children. Joumal of Speech, Langu.age, anrl
Hearíng Research, 50, 214-228.
Ortiz, A. (1998, August). Assessing the oml language
skills of Hispaníc children: Distinguishing lan-
gua.ge differen.ccs fi·om disabilitie.s. Presentation
at the Texas Fiesta Educativa Pre-conference
Workshop, San Antonio, TX.
01tiz, S. (2004, July). Educati.on.follows maturation:
Developmental, cognít'i.ve, and língtlistic irtf/.u-
enccs in thc instrnction and evaluation of English
language lenrners. Paper presented at the 2004
Bilingual Symposium, Las Vegas, NV.
References 123
Owens, R. E. (2008). Language development: An intro-
duction (7th ed). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Padilla, A. M, & Borsato, C. N. (2007). Educational
assessment of English-language leamers. In L. A.
Suzuki & J. G. Ponterotto (Eds.}, Handbook of
multicultu1·a,l assessment: Clinical, psychological,
and eduoational applications (3rd ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Parker, M. D ., & Brorson, K. (2005). A compara-
tive study between mean length of utterance in
rnorphemes (MLUrn) and mean length of utter-
ance in words (MLUw). Sage Publications, 25(3).
doi:l0.1177/0142723705059114
Paul, R. (2007). Language clisorders from infancy
through adolescence: Assessment and intervention
(3rd ed.) St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., & Oller, D. K.
(1993). Lexical development in bilingual infants
and toddlers: Comparisou to rnonolingual norms.
Language Learning, 43, 93- 120.
Peña, E. D. (2007). Lost in translation: Methodological
considerations in cross-cultural rnsearch. Child
Development, 78(4), 1255- 1264.
Peña, E. D., Bedore, L. M., & Zlatic-Giunta, R. (2002).
Category generation performance of young bilin-
gual children: The influence of condition, category,
and language. Jou.rnal of Speech, Language, and
Hearing Research, 41, 938-947.
Peña, E . V., Bensimon, E. M., & Colyar, J. (2006).
Contextual. problem defining: Learning to think
and act. Liberal Education, 92(2), 48-55.
Peña, E. D., & Kester, E. S. (2004). Semantic devel-
opment in Spanish-English bilinguals: Theory,
assessment, and interventíon. In B. A.Goldstein
(Ed.), Bilingual langua.ge deoelopment and disor-
ders in Spanish-English spealcers (pp. 105-128).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Peregoy, S., & Boyle, O. (1997). Rea.ding, writing, and
learning in ESL: A resource book for K-12 teach-
ers (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Piaget, J. P. (1962). Play, dreains, and imitation in
childhood. New York: Norton.
Raven, J. (2000). The Raven's progressive matrices:
Change and stability over culture and time.
Cognitive P&·ychology 41, 1-48. doi:l0.1006
Restrepo, M. A., & Gutiérrez-CleUen, V. F. (2001).
Article use in Spanish-speaking children with
specific language impairment. Jau.mal of Child
Language, 28, 433-452. · to adolescence in autism. ]ournal of Autism and
124 Preschool Language $cale$- 5 $pan[sh
Restrepo, M. A., & Gutiérrez-Clellan, V. F. (2004).
Grammatical impairments in Spanish-English
bilingual children. In B. Goldstein (Ed.), Bilingual
language de1>elopment and disorders in Spanish-
English spea.kers (pp. 213-234). Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.
Rogler, L . H. (1999) . Methodological sources of cultural
insensitivity in mental health research. American
Psychologist, 54, 424-433.
Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A. (2009). Making a case for
language sampling : Assessment and intervention
wíth (Spanish-English) second language learners.
Retrieved from http://www.asha.org/docs/pdf/
TR2008-00290.pdf
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2002). M1ilticultural students
with special language needs. Oceanside, CA:
Academic Communications Association.
Roseberry-McKihbin, C. (2003) . Assessment of
•
bilíngual learn<~rs: Language dijference or disor-
derP Video and workbook. Rockville Pike, MD:
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2008). Multicultural students
with special language needs: Practical strategies far
a.ssessment and intervention (3rd ed.). Oceanside,
CA: Academic Communication Associates.
Sandall, S., Hemmeter, M. L., Smith, B. J., & McLean,
M. E. (2005). DEC recom:,,,.ended practices: A
coinprehensive gu.ide fo1· practical application
in early ínterventionlearly childhood special
education. Longmont, CA: Sopris West Etlucation
Services.
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of chil.dren: Cognitive
foundations. La Mesa, CA: author.
Sechrest, L., Fay. T. L., & Hafeez Zaidi, S. M. (1972).
Problems of translation in cross-cultural research.
•
jourrzal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 3, 290-304.
Senéchal, M ., LeFevre, J., Smith-Chant, B. L., &
Colton, K. (2001). On refining theoretical models
'•
of emergent literacy: The role of empirical evi-
dence. Journ.al of Sohool Psychology, 39, 439-460. ''
Shipley, K. G., & Roseberry-McKibbin, C. (2005).
Interviewing and counseling in comim.micative
disorders. Austin, TX: PRO ED.
'
'
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass cor-
relations: Uses in assessing rater reliability.
Psychological Bulletin, 86, 420-428.
Sigman, M., & McGovern, C. W. (2005). Improvement
in cognitive aod language skills from preschool
Developmenta1 Disorders, 35, 15-23.
 silliman. E., Wilkinson, L., & Brea-Spahn, M. (2004).
Policy and practice imperatives for language and
literacy learning: '\iVho shall be left behind? In C.
Stone, R. Silliman, B. Ehren, & K. Apfel (Eds.),
Handbook OÍ Lan.gMge and Literacy Devel.opme'nt
and Disorders, 97-102. New York: Guílford Press.
Silver, N. C., & Dunlap, W. P. (1987). Averaging corre-
lation coefficients: Should Fisher's z transformation
be used? fotirnal of Applied Psychology, 72(1) ,
146-148.
Southwood, F., & Russell, A. F. (2004). Comparison
of conversation, freeplay, and story generatíon as
methods of language sample elicitation. Journal of
Speech, Langu.age and Hearing Research, 47(2),
366- 376.
Stanley, J. C. (1971). Reliabílity. In R. Thorndike, (Ed.),
Edu.cational Measttrement (2nd ed.), 356-442,
Washington, DC: American Council on Education.
Strube, M. J. (1988). Sorne comments on the use
of magnitude-of-effect estimates. Joumal of
Gounseling Psychology. 35(3), 342-345.
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special
education identifícation and placernent of English
Ianguage learners. Councilfor Exceptiona.l
Children, 77(3), .317-334.
Sundet, M. J., Barlaug, D. G., & Torjussen, T. M.
(2004). The end of the Flynn Effect? A study of
secular trends in mean intelligence test seores
of Norwegian conscripts during half a century.
Intelligence, 32, 349-362.
Swan, M., & Smith, B. (2004i. Leamer English: A
teacher's guid.e to inte1fenmce and other problerns.
Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Teasdale, T. W., & Owen, D. R. (2.005). A long-term
rise and recent decline in intelligence test perfor-
mance: The Flynn Effect in reverse. Personality
and Individual Differences, 39, 837-843.
Tilstra, J., & McMaster, K. (2007). Productivity, ílu-
ency, and grammaticality measures from narra-
tives: Potential indicators oflanguage proficiency?
Communication Dísorders Quarterly, 29, 43-53.
doi: 10.1177/1525740108314866
Trivette, C. M., & Dunst, C. J. (2005). Community-
based parent support programs. Encyclopedi.a of
early chíldh.ood development. Montreal, Quebec.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2003). Language use and
English-spealdng ability: 2000, Census 2000 brief
[CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the
Census (Producer/ Distributor).
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (2008). Current po¡mlation
survey, Ootober 2008: School enrollm.ent sttpple-
mental file [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC: U.S.
Bureau of the Census (Producer/Distributor).
Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernández, M. C., &
Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilinguaJ children's
receptive vocabularies. Ghild Developm.ent, 63,
1012-1020.
Volkmar, F. R., & Wiesner, L. A. (2009). A practical
guide to autism: What every parent, famíly mem-
ber, a.nd teacher needs to lmow. Hoboken, NJ: John
\Viley and Sons.
Wechsler, D. (2005) . Wechsler intelligence scale for
children-fourth edition, Spa.ni.sh. San Antonio:
Harcourt Assessment.
Westby, C. (2000, September). Assessing language
for academic S1.WCess: Frames for understanding
students from diverse baclcgrounds. Speech pre-
sented at the 2000 Carrow-Woolfolk Lecture, San
Antonio, TX.
Wíig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E. M. (2004).
Clinícal evaluation of language fwndam.entals-sec-
ond edition, preschool. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt
Assessment.
Wiig, E. H., Seccird, W. A., & Semel, E.M. (2009).
Clinical evaluati.on of language f1mdamentals-
second edition, preschool, Spani.sh edition. San
Antonio, TX: Pearson.
Wilkins, C., Rolfhus, E., Weiss, L .~ & Zhu, J. (2005,
April). A simulation stiicly comparing inferential
and traditi.onal norming with small sample si:zes.
Paper presen.ted at the 2005 armual meeting of
the American Educational Resc~arch Association,
MontreaL Canada.
Zimmerman, l. L., Steiner, V.G., & Pond, R. E. (2002).
Preschool language scale-fou.rth editíon. San
Antonio, TX: The .Psychological Corporation.
Zimmerrnan, l. L., Steiner, V. G., & Pond. R. E. (2002).
Presclwol language scale-fourth eclition Spanish.
San Antonio, TX: The PsychologicaJ Corporation.
Zuniga, M. A. (2004). Latino clüldren and families. In
R. Fong (Ed.), Cultumlly competent practice with
immigra.nt arid refugee children and familíes (pp.
183-201). New York: Guilford Press.
RefeE'ences 125