Confused about expressive speech delay

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here. Thanks again for the thoughtful posts and useful input. I appreciate the suggestion to follow up with an audiologist. (DD did fail the test at a lower frequency for one of her years.)

I would really make an appt. ASAP. My son's articulation was off and he had similar language scores and we never realized he couldn't hear well. Luckily it was correctable with ear tube surgery. Google how to read an audiogram and look at the audiogram of familiar sounds.
Here is one example:
https://www.google.com/search?q=audiogram+of+familiar+sounds&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari#imgrc=d2GBumAYAUKWgM%3A

His audiologist explained that kids really should hear at 15 decibels or better but pediatricians and schools often set their passing standards to 25 decibels. Whispering is at around 20 decibels. Once my son got ear tubes his speech and language skyrocketed. We also did the Wordly Wise program and read aloud a lot to him. He is now in 3rd grade and has a really good vocabulary. We notice that every once in a while he mispronounces a word and we think it is because he learned it when he was three and not hearing well. One ear still isn't as good as the other (pass at 25 decibels) so his audiologist wrote a note for him to be seated with better ear toward teacher and away from loud ambient noise like an air conditioning unit.

Many thanks, will do. (OP here) Do you happen to have a recommendation for audiologist? (I will call the pediatrician tomorrow and ask for his recommendations as well).

NP here. We did ours at Georgetown and it was totally covered by insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You can't look at the speech test scores in isolation. You need to view them in the context of IQ scores. A kid who has a speech test score of 85 but an IQ of 120 has a greater than 2 std deviation difference. That is a concern. A kid who has an 85 speech test score and a 100 IQ score is not something to be concerned about.

Similarly, you need to compare subscores gaps of more than 1 std deviation(either 3 pts on 10+ scale or 15 on 100+ scale). So receptive scores at 120 and expressive scores of 85 are troubling.

I've never heard anyone suggest comparing iq scores to speech Eval scores to "put them in context". To the SLPs on this thread, is that really at all a relevant thing to do?
Over and over again I've read that speech skills are unrelated to intelligence, so using iq as a way to gauge expressive language delays would be as useful as using the time on a 100 meter dash to gauge it. They're two totally different skills and you can be brilliant, a fast runner, and extremely articulate, or any combination.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't look at the speech test scores in isolation. You need to view them in the context of IQ scores. A kid who has a speech test score of 85 but an IQ of 120 has a greater than 2 std deviation difference. That is a concern. A kid who has an 85 speech test score and a 100 IQ score is not something to be concerned about.

Similarly, you need to compare subscores gaps of more than 1 std deviation(either 3 pts on 10+ scale or 15 on 100+ scale). So receptive scores at 120 and expressive scores of 85 are troubling.

I've never heard anyone suggest comparing iq scores to speech Eval scores to "put them in context". To the SLPs on this thread, is that really at all a relevant thing to do?
Over and over again I've read that speech skills are unrelated to intelligence, so using iq as a way to gauge expressive language delays would be as useful as using the time on a 100 meter dash to gauge it. They're two totally different skills and you can be brilliant, a fast runner, and extremely articulate, or any combination.

You are correct, and comparing scores on an IQ test and a language test is comparing apples and oranges. Using them for context is an outdated practice, but since the tests are not normed the same and designed to be compared, it's outside of the test parameters. It can even be difficult to compare different language tests-they are designed differently and use different methodology to give information about language ability. Single word vocabulary vs paragraph comprehension vs following multistep directions with increasing cognitive load...That's why SLPs are trained in assessment and the best ones use a variety of structured and unstructured assessment tasks to provide a comprehensive view of a person's language, rather than a cookie cutter approach that involves the same test every time.

We do pay more attention to gaps in receptive and expressive language IF one is average and the other is not, but receptive will almost always be (and generally should be) higher than expressive language. Our brains are capable of understanding more in context than we are able to generate, and I have seen some confusion by parents who want them to be equal. This can be the case, but more often than not it isn't. If a receptive score is a few points lower it's likely that the true score (the 90% confidence that was mentioned in an earlier post) is within a range that overlaps the true score of the expressive language. If receptive language is significantly below expressive language, that is a pattern seen most often in ASD. Not always, but most often. All of that to say, a receptive score of 120 and an expressive score of 85 still indicates that a person has average expressive language skills and above average receptive language. They are looking at different skillsets and indicate a relative strength in receptive language, not a relative weakness in expressive language.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

Because the scores are interpreted by standard scores. And scores are grouped into ranges. If you fall below a certain range - usually by a standard deviation and a half - then it is of concern and a true delay. Being on the lower range of average is still average. Not everybody is going to be above average. I highly doubt your school system would give services to someone who scored in the average range. If so, then you are wasting tax payers money. 85 and even a few points below (there is a range) is still average whether it be low average. We do not go by percentiles as it is just a comparison to how other children scored. Again, you are not a speech pathologist. I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

Some tests might have a standard deviation of 10, but these tests were both described as having a standard deviation of 15, which would classify that as average. You may be thinking more of IQ tests, which tend to have descriptors like that. Almost all language tests describe 85 as average. In no way should a child be coded as having a language disability with scores of 85. It's not a delay at all. It's just not advanced, which can be difficult for many people in this area to comprehend.

[Anonymous]

For those interested in seeing CELF-5 info:

http://www.speechandlanguage.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/celf-5_determining_severity_lang_disorder.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't look at the speech test scores in isolation. You need to view them in the context of IQ scores. A kid who has a speech test score of 85 but an IQ of 120 has a greater than 2 std deviation difference. That is a concern. A kid who has an 85 speech test score and a 100 IQ score is not something to be concerned about.

Similarly, you need to compare subscores gaps of more than 1 std deviation(either 3 pts on 10+ scale or 15 on 100+ scale). So receptive scores at 120 and expressive scores of 85 are troubling.

I've never heard anyone suggest comparing iq scores to speech Eval scores to "put them in context". To the SLPs on this thread, is that really at all a relevant thing to do?
Over and over again I've read that speech skills are unrelated to intelligence, so using iq as a way to gauge expressive language delays would be as useful as using the time on a 100 meter dash to gauge it. They're two totally different skills and you can be brilliant, a fast runner, and extremely articulate, or any combination.

You are correct, and comparing scores on an IQ test and a language test is comparing apples and oranges. Using them for context is an outdated practice, but since the tests are not normed the same and designed to be compared, it's outside of the test parameters. It can even be difficult to compare different language tests-they are designed differently and use different methodology to give information about language ability. Single word vocabulary vs paragraph comprehension vs following multistep directions with increasing cognitive load...That's why SLPs are trained in assessment and the best ones use a variety of structured and unstructured assessment tasks to provide a comprehensive view of a person's language, rather than a cookie cutter approach that involves the same test every time.

We do pay more attention to gaps in receptive and expressive language IF one is average and the other is not, but receptive will almost always be (and generally should be) higher than expressive language. Our brains are capable of understanding more in context than we are able to generate, and I have seen some confusion by parents who want them to be equal. This can be the case, but more often than not it isn't. If a receptive score is a few points lower it's likely that the true score (the 90% confidence that was mentioned in an earlier post) is within a range that overlaps the true score of the expressive language. If receptive language is significantly below expressive language, that is a pattern seen most often in ASD. Not always, but most often. All of that to say, a receptive score of 120 and an expressive score of 85 still indicates that a person has average expressive language skills and above average receptive language. They are looking at different skillsets and indicate a relative strength in receptive language, not a relative weakness in expressive language.

Not just ASD. Language disorders often have this as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

Because the scores are interpreted by standard scores. And scores are grouped into ranges. If you fall below a certain range - usually by a standard deviation and a half - then it is of concern and a true delay. Being on the lower range of average is still average. Not everybody is going to be above average. I highly doubt your school system would give services to someone who scored in the average range. If so, then you are wasting tax payers money. 85 and even a few points below (there is a range) is still average whether it be low average. We do not go by percentiles as it is just a comparison to how other children scored. Again, you are not a speech pathologist. I am.

No, I'm not a speech pathologist but recognize your area of expertise. Nonetheless, I have years of experience in the special education field. Whether you agree or not, our school system does (not all the time) often qualify children with speech/lang scores of 85 and below--especially if they're obtained IQ scores are significantly higher.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

Because the scores are interpreted by standard scores. And scores are grouped into ranges. If you fall below a certain range - usually by a standard deviation and a half - then it is of concern and a true delay. Being on the lower range of average is still average. Not everybody is going to be above average. I highly doubt your school system would give services to someone who scored in the average range. If so, then you are wasting tax payers money. 85 and even a few points below (there is a range) is still average whether it be low average. We do not go by percentiles as it is just a comparison to how other children scored. Again, you are not a speech pathologist. I am.

No, I'm not a speech pathologist but recognize your area of expertise. Nonetheless, I have years of experience in the special education field. Whether you agree or not, our school system does (not all the time) often qualify children with speech/lang scores of 85 and below--especially if they're obtained IQ scores are significantly higher.

(meant to write "their" not "they're)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You can't look at the speech test scores in isolation. You need to view them in the context of IQ scores. A kid who has a speech test score of 85 but an IQ of 120 has a greater than 2 std deviation difference. That is a concern. A kid who has an 85 speech test score and a 100 IQ score is not something to be concerned about.

Similarly, you need to compare subscores gaps of more than 1 std deviation(either 3 pts on 10+ scale or 15 on 100+ scale). So receptive scores at 120 and expressive scores of 85 are troubling.

I've never heard anyone suggest comparing iq scores to speech Eval scores to "put them in context". To the SLPs on this thread, is that really at all a relevant thing to do?
Over and over again I've read that speech skills are unrelated to intelligence, so using iq as a way to gauge expressive language delays would be as useful as using the time on a 100 meter dash to gauge it. They're two totally different skills and you can be brilliant, a fast runner, and extremely articulate, or any combination.

It's not unusual to compare language scores to nonverbal cognitive scores when considering need for speech-language therapy services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

Because the scores are interpreted by standard scores. And scores are grouped into ranges. If you fall below a certain range - usually by a standard deviation and a half - then it is of concern and a true delay. Being on the lower range of average is still average. Not everybody is going to be above average. I highly doubt your school system would give services to someone who scored in the average range. If so, then you are wasting tax payers money. 85 and even a few points below (there is a range) is still average whether it be low average. We do not go by percentiles as it is just a comparison to how other children scored. Again, you are not a speech pathologist. I am.

No, I'm not a speech pathologist but recognize your area of expertise. Nonetheless, I have years of experience in the special education field. Whether you agree or not, our school system does (not all the time) often qualify children with speech/lang scores of 85 and below--especially if they're obtained IQ scores are significantly higher.

They shouldn't be. It's not a true delay. And it certainly shouldn't be coded as a speech language delay. I hope the state doesn't audit your school system. Please be careful about spreading wrong information. This thread is about the OP and her child. Your response that a 16% should warrant looking into is what the speech paths on this thread are responding to. The OP asked if she was being given misinformation about scores and she was. 16% is not what is being looking at when coding a language delay, it's the standard scores. The OP's child does not have the standard scores to be diagnosed with a speech language delay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

Because the scores are interpreted by standard scores. And scores are grouped into ranges. If you fall below a certain range - usually by a standard deviation and a half - then it is of concern and a true delay. Being on the lower range of average is still average. Not everybody is going to be above average. I highly doubt your school system would give services to someone who scored in the average range. If so, then you are wasting tax payers money. 85 and even a few points below (there is a range) is still average whether it be low average. We do not go by percentiles as it is just a comparison to how other children scored. Again, you are not a speech pathologist. I am.

No, I'm not a speech pathologist but recognize your area of expertise. Nonetheless, I have years of experience in the special education field. Whether you agree or not, our school system does (not all the time) often qualify children with speech/lang scores of 85 and below--especially if they're obtained IQ scores are significantly higher.

They shouldn't be. It's not a true delay. And it certainly shouldn't be coded as a speech language delay. I hope the state doesn't audit your school system. Please be careful about spreading wrong information. This thread is about the OP and her child. Your response that a 16% should warrant looking into is what the speech paths on this thread are responding to. The OP asked if she was being given misinformation about scores and she was. 16% is not what is being looking at when coding a language delay, it's the standard scores. The OP's child does not have the standard scores to be diagnosed with a speech language delay.

+1,000 (another SLP chiming in on this thread)

[Anonymous]

OP, my kid is very similar to your, articulation and expressive language problems, but average to above average in other areas. With all due respect to the speech pathologists here, if your communication with your child suffers and if you feel they are struggling to be understood, take them to speech. It hardly matters if they are in the 16th percentile or 15th percentile, which is really the SPH's question. My daughter tested at 86 for artic. and was denied by the school system because she wasn't low enough. You are your child's best advocate so if you feel your DC is struggling it hardly matters if they are above or below the cut off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As an SLP, I'm a little frustrated by how unethical some SLPs in the area are, framing average scores as "low" or "borderline" to worry parents into paying a significant amount of money to fix something that isn't actually a problem. The test authors designated 85-115 as average scores. Not low average or borderline. We also collect a range of 90% probability that a child falls into which will include higher scores into the mid-90s based on an 86 which takes into account that some children don't perform their best during testing situations, or on certain days, etc. Your child received average scores on two well-respected tests, and the CELF contains a large cognitive load component which can lead to over-identifying. She will almost certainly continue being average, barring any unforeseen circumstances. Those scores are a good thing, and one or two word changes on that report would drastically impact how you felt about your daughter's future.

If you choose to give her ST, it certainly won't hurt her. She'll continue developing typically and therefore make progress. Just know that if you have better things to spend that money on, you shouldn't feel obligated. Your concern wasn't even in this area, nor were the results of the screening. ChildFind offers free screenings if you want a free second opinion, otherwise you may want to consult with another SLP in the area.

(Sorry for how negative the tone of this post is, it just frustrates me to no end. Parents worry enough about their children and those who actually need the help don't need fudging on reports to know it.)

I appreciate your thoughts and can understand your frustration. On the other hand, I'm also an educator and evaluator...I understand standard deviation and the range of 85 - 115 but think that scoring at the 16th %ile is worthy of concern. Certainly, most people would have some concerns over a WISC-V Verbal Scale Score of 85.

NP here. But, you are not a speech pathologist and you have misinterpreted the percentile. The standard scores are average. And speech therapy is not really going to change that. If this child was to be tested years later,the scores would most likely be the same. The private practice is telling the parent that this child needs speech therapy and that implies that there is a speech language delay when there really isn't. That is unethical.

How was the 16th %ile misinterpreted? I'm not saying it's a severe delay but was pointing out that falling within the low average range (some tests give a qualitative performance descriptor at that level as below average) is worthy of concern. In our school system, a child may (depending on the eligibility team's decision) qualify for services if he/she obtained several speech/lang scores at that level.

Because the scores are interpreted by standard scores. And scores are grouped into ranges. If you fall below a certain range - usually by a standard deviation and a half - then it is of concern and a true delay. Being on the lower range of average is still average. Not everybody is going to be above average. I highly doubt your school system would give services to someone who scored in the average range. If so, then you are wasting tax payers money. 85 and even a few points below (there is a range) is still average whether it be low average. We do not go by percentiles as it is just a comparison to how other children scored. Again, you are not a speech pathologist. I am.

No, I'm not a speech pathologist but recognize your area of expertise. Nonetheless, I have years of experience in the special education field. Whether you agree or not, our school system does (not all the time) often qualify children with speech/lang scores of 85 and below--especially if they're obtained IQ scores are significantly higher.

They shouldn't be. It's not a true delay. And it certainly shouldn't be coded as a speech language delay. I hope the state doesn't audit your school system. Please be careful about spreading wrong information. This thread is about the OP and her child. Your response that a 16% should warrant looking into is what the speech paths on this thread are responding to. The OP asked if she was being given misinformation about scores and she was. 16% is not what is being looking at when coding a language delay, it's the standard scores. The OP's child does not have the standard scores to be diagnosed with a speech language delay.

Were a large, progressive school system and have been audited with no particular concerns noted about our speech/lang pathologists' evaluations, our eligibility consideration process, or our students' IEP's. Just for the record, I understand about standard scores, percentiles, etc. It's a difference of professional opinion.