Early Language and Literacy Test Analysis



At-a-Glance Test Review: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4)

|Name of Test: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4 (CELF-4) |

|Author(s): Semel, E., Wiig, E., and Secord, W. |

|Publisher/Year (Please provide original copyright as well as dates of revisions): PsychCorp 1980, 1987, 1995, 2003 |

|Forms: Form 1 ages 5-8 years and Form 2 ages 9-21 years |

|Age Range: 5 years, 0 months, to 21 years, 11 months |

|Norming Sample |

|Total Number: 2 650 |

|Number and Age: 200 students at each age level from 5 years to 17 years, 50 students in each age years from 17 to 21 |

|Location: 47 states in four regions |

|Demographics: age, gender, race/ethnicity, geographic region. |

|Rural/Urban: not specified |

|SES: stratified by four parent education levels: < Grade 11, Grade 12 completion, college, and university |

|Other (Please Specify): “children receiving special services” constituted 9% of sample with 7% diagnosed of sample diagnosed with language disorders; numbers consistent with data from National |

|Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities (2003) and US Office of Education Program. The authors note that previously CELF-3 did not include these children in the standardization sample.|

|Summary Prepared By (Name and Date): Eleanor Stewart 12 Jul 07, additions 16 Jul |

|Purpose of Test: to identify, diagnose and monitor language and communication disorders in students aged 5 to 21. (p.1) |

|Theoretical Model: not provided |

|Theory: The developmental stages model uses milestones identified from extensive research. |

|concepts and following directions |

|word structure |

|recalling sentences |

|formulated sentences |

|word classes (1 and 2) |

|sentence structure |

|expressive vocabulary |

|word definitions |

|understanding spoken paragraphs |

|semantic relationships |

|sentence assembly |

|phonological awareness: 17 tasks criterion referenced (meets age or not) |

|rapid automatic naming (RAN): criterion referenced (normal, slower, non-normal for speed and normal, more than normal, and non-normal for number of errors) |

|word associations: criterion referenced |

|number repetition (1 and 2) |

|familiar sequences (1 and 2) |

|pragmatics profile |

|observational rating scale: in accordance with US education legislation. |

|Phonological awareness includes: detection, identification, blending, segmenting across word, syllables and phonemes. |

|Who Can Administer: “Diagnosticians who have been trained and are experienced in administration and interpretation of individually administered, standardized tests” (Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003, |

|p. 1). |

|Administration Time: Time varies with number of subtests administered as well as age of student and other student characteristics. |

|Test Administration (General and Subtests): There are a total of 18 subtests but not all subtests are administered. This is where the assessment model is useful for selecting from among the |

|subtests. |

|The record form includes the specific instructions for each subtest. |

|Test Interpretation: Chapter 3 provides a detailed interpretation of results for assessment levels 1 and 2. Chapter 4 continues with a description of levels 3 and 4 which includes “when to |

|administer subtests to evaluate related clinical behaviors”, “criterion-referenced subtest scores”(phonological awareness, word associations, etc.), authentic and descriptive assessment measures |

|(pragmatic profile and ORS). |

|Standardization: Age equivalent scores (by subtest scores) Grade equivalent scores Percentiles Standard scores (and subtest scaled scores) Stanines Normal Curve Equivalents |

|Other (Please Specify) Core Language and Index Scores which are standard scores in Appendix D. |

|Criterion-referenced subtest scores (Appendix G) association (age 5-21 years), phonological awareness (age 5-12 years, 11 months), rapid automatic naming in time per second and error (5-21 |

|years,11 months), and pragmatic profile (5-21 years,11 months) |

|Reliability: |

|Internal consistency of items: Composite scores yielded high alpha coefficients in the range from .89 to .95. Subtest coefficients were lower in the range from .70 to .91. |

|Test-retest: 320 students were retested with high correlations on composite scores (demonstrated with .90+ reported for all age groups). Subtest scores were less robust with ranges from .60 to |

|.90. The average interval in days was 16. |

|Inter-rater: Two raters were chosen randomly from a pool of 30 raters who had trained under the supervision of the test developers. Agreement for subtests that required scoring judgments were |

|reported. High agreement was evidenced (.90 to .98). |

|Other: Reliability for clinical groups was reported (405 students in four groups: language disorder, mental retardation, autism, and hearing impairment). Authors include inclusion criteria and |

|demographic information. |

|SEMs and confidence intervals were provided for 68%, 90%, and 95% levels. |

|Validity: |

|Content: Based on literature review, expert panel review of content, clinician feedback. |

|Criterion Prediction Validity: studies, high correlations with CELF-3. |

|Construct Identification Validity: Factor Analysis research. The Buros reviewer states, “ comprehensive intercorrelational and factor analytic analyses confirmed the basic construct validity of |

|the instrument” (Langlois & Samar, 2005, p. 222). |

|Differential Item Functioning: |

|Other: In clinical validity studies, CELF-4 differentiates clinical populations of children with language disorders, autism, mental retardation, and hearing impairment. |

|Summary/Conclusions/Observations: *The authors were attentive to the U.S. legislative changes that required testers to address “curricular goals and academic benchmarks” (p. 198) thus specifically|

|creating the rationale for the Observational Rating Scale (ORS). |

|*There is less of an appeal for Canadian clinicians who must deal with provincial variations. I wonder how much variation there is given the differences in resources and, perhaps, in working |

|definitions of clinical categories? Is there such information? |

|Clinical/Diagnostic Usefulness: The CELF-4 is intended as a diagnostic tool and it is used by clinicians for exactly that purpose. That the sensitivity has been proven is one of the strengths of |

|this test as clinicians are most concerned about accurately identifying children with language problems particularly when funds are limited as they most often are. The test authors and developers |

|have provided us with a strong tool that can be linked to classroom language performance. |

References

Langlois, A., & Samar, V. J. (2005). Review of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4. In R.A. Spies, and B.S. Plake, (Eds.), The sixteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 217-223). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.

Semel, E., Wiig, E. & Secord, W. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals -4 (CELF-4). San Antonio, TX: PyschCorp.

To cite this document:

Hayward, D. V., Stewart, G. E., Phillips, L. M., Norris, S. P., & Lovell, M. A. (2008). At-a-glance test review: Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals-4 (CELF-4). Language, Phonological Awareness, and Reading Test Directory (pp. 1-3). Edmonton, AB: Canadian Centre for Research on Literacy. Retrieved [insert date] from .

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download