Gregory Kyomi D, Oetting Janna B
Salus University, Elkins Park, PA.
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2018 Apr 5;49(2):218-231. doi: 10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0045.
We compared teacher ratings as measured by the Teacher Rating of Oral Language and Literacy (TROLL; Dickinson, McCabe, & Sprague, 2001, 2003) and Children's Communication Checklist-Second Edition (CCC-2; Bishop, 2006) to 2 established screeners, the Part II of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test (DELV-ST-II; Seymour, Roeper, & de Villiers, 2003) and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills-Next (DIBELS; Good, Gruba, & Kaminski, 2009), and then examined whether teacher ratings alone or when combined with the DELV-ST-II or DIBELS accurately classify nonmainstream English-speaking kindergartners by their clinical status.
Data came from 98 children who lived in the rural South; 47 spoke African American English, and 51 spoke Southern White English. Using the syntax subtest of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Norm Referenced (Seymour, Roeper, & de Villiers, 2005) as the reference standard, 43 were language impaired and 55 were typically developing. Analyses included analysis of variance, correlations, and discriminant function with sensitivity and specificity indices.
The TROLL, CCC-2, DELV-ST-II, and DIBELS showed clinical status but not dialect effects, and they correlated with each other, the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Norm Referenced, and other language measures. Classification accuracies of all 4 tools were too low for screening purposes; however, empirically derived cut scores improved the results, and a discriminant function selected the TROLL and DELV-ST-II as optimal for determining who should be referred for an evaluation, with the TROLL yielding the highest level of sensitivity (77%).
Findings support teacher ratings as measured by the TROLL when screening nonmainstream English-speaking kindergartners for language impairment in the rural South, while also calling for additional development and study of teacher rating tools and other screening instruments.
我们将通过口语和读写能力教师评定量表（TROLL；迪金森、麦凯布和斯普拉格，2001年、2003年）以及儿童交流检查表第二版（CCC - 2；毕晓普，2006年）所测得的教师评定结果，与两种已确立的筛查工具进行比较，这两种工具分别是语言变异诊断评估筛查测试第二部分（DELV - ST - II；西摩、勒珀和德维利尔斯，2003年）以及早期基本读写能力动态指标后续版（DIBELS；古德、格鲁巴和卡明斯基，2009年），然后考察单独的教师评定结果，以及与DELV - ST - II或DIBELS相结合时，能否根据临床状况准确地对说非标准英语的幼儿园儿童进行分类。
数据来自98名居住在南方农村地区的儿童；其中47名说非裔美国英语，51名说南方白人英语。以语言变异诊断评估常模参照版（西摩、勒珀和德维利尔斯，2005年）的句法分测验作为参照标准，43名儿童存在语言障碍，55名儿童发育正常。分析包括方差分析、相关性分析以及带有敏感度和特异度指标的判别函数分析。
TROLL、CCC - 2、DELV - ST - II和DIBELS均显示出临床状况，但未显示出方言影响，它们彼此之间、与语言变异诊断评估常模参照版以及其他语言测量指标均存在相关性。所有这4种工具的分类准确率对于筛查目的而言都过低；然而，通过实证得出的临界分数改善了结果，并且一个判别函数选择TROLL和DELV - ST - II作为确定哪些儿童应被转介进行评估的最佳工具，其中TROLL的敏感度最高（77%）。
研究结果支持在筛查南方农村地区说非标准英语的幼儿园儿童语言障碍时，使用TROLL所测得的教师评定结果，同时也呼吁对教师评定工具和其他筛查工具进行更多的开发和研究。
