Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The test of cognitive skills and the test of language development-2 primary short form as indicators… Lindsay, Mary 1989

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1989_A8 L55.pdf [ 3.27MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0054375.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0054375-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0054375-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0054375-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0054375-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0054375-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0054375-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0054375-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0054375.ris

Full Text

THE TEST OF COGNITIVE SKILLS AND THE TEST OF LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT-2 PRIMARY SHORT FORM AS INDICATORS OF LANGUAGE DYSFUNCTION By MARY LINDSAY B . S c , The U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto, 1974 B.Ed., Lakehead U n i v e r s i t y , 1977 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology & S p e c i a l Education) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August 1989 @ Mary Lindsay, 1989 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of £(/^caAona/ /^jc^o/og^ * dlxt/*/ /t/ucarto^ The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date yJutjusJ ^ J , /9S? DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT The Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s (TCS) Le v e l 1 and the Test of Language Development-2 (TOLD-2) Primary Short Form were administered to 34 students diagnosed with language d i s o r d e r s and 34 language normal s t u d e n t s . The s u b j e c t s were matched f o r age, sex and years of s c h o o l i n g . Both the TCS L e v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form d i f f e r e n t i a t e d the language d i s o r d e r e d group from the language normal group. R e s u l t s are d i s c u s s e d with respect to (a) d i f f e r e n c e s of each of the language groups based on the s u b t e s t s , (b) a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS Le v e l 1 C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Index and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient for the language normal group only, and (c) the a p p l i c a b i l i t y of the r e s u l t s to the s c r e e n i n g f o r language d y s f u n c t i o n . i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT i i LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i CHAPTER I THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n and Background 1 Purpose of the Study 3 R a t i o n a l e for the Study . . 4 Summary 6 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 8 I n t r o d u c t i o n 8 P e r s p e c t i v e s on Language Disorder 10 Language Di s o r d e r 10 Language-Cognition R e l a t i o n s h i p 12 Strong C o g n i t i o n Hypothesis 14 L o c a l Homologies Hypothesis 16 I n t e r a c t i o n i s t Hypothesis 18 Weak C o g n i t i o n Hypothesis 19 C o g n i t i o n Anchored i n Language Hypothesis 20 Issues i n T e s t i n g 23 Screening 23 Group versus I n d i v i d u a l T e s t i n g 24 S i m i l a r i t i e s i n Tests of Language and Tests of A b i l i t y 26 Construct V a l i d i t y 28 Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s 28 Test of Language Development-2 Primary 33 Test S i m i l a r i t i e s 36 Summary 37 i i i Page III METHODOLOGY 39 Purpose 39 S e l e c t i o n of Subjects 39 Language Disordered 39 Language Normal 41 Instrumentation 42 Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s 42 Test of Language Development-2 Primary 47 Procedures 51 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms 52 Hypotheses 54 Data A n a l y s i s 55 IV RESULTS 56 Hypothesis 1 59 Hypothesis 2 62 V DISCUSSION 69 I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Fi n d i n g s 69 Hypothesis 1 70 Hypothesis 2 74 L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study 77 Research I m p l i c a t i o n s 78 Programming I m p l i c a t i o n s 82 Conclusions 84 REFERENCES 8 3 i v LIST OF TABLES Page 1 I n t e r n a l C o n s i s t e n c i e s f o r TCS Le v e l 1 &. TOLD-2 Primary Short Form 58 2 Language Group S t a t i s t i c s on TCS Le v e l 1 & TOLD-2 Primary Short Form S c a l e s : Means, Standard D e v i a t i o n s and A n a l y s i s of Variance 61 3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among TCS L e v e l 1 & TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Scales for Combined Language Groups 64 4 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among TCS Le v e l 1 & TOLD-2 Primary Short Form S c a l e s : Language Disordered & Language Normal Groups 67 v LIST OF FIGURES Page 1 Scattergram and Language Group Regression Lines f o r A s s o c i a t i o n Between TCS Le v e l 1 CSI & TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient 68 v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would l i k e to express my g r a t i t u d e t o : My t h e s i s c h a i r p e r s o n , Dr. Randall Cranston, f o r h i s guidance and encouragement throughout the process. Dr. J u l i a n n e Conry and Dr. Robert Conry f o r t h e i r c o n t r i b u t i o n s to t h i s t h e s i s . The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Dial-A-Book L i b r a r y S e r v i c e s t a f f who so e f f i c i e n t l y bridged the d i s t a n c e gap. The teachers and the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s of School D i s t r i c t #71 (Courtenay) who supported the p r o j e c t . K e i t h and Michael f o r t h e i r acceptance. v i i CHAPTER 1 THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY I n t r o d u c t i o n and Background In the school s e t t i n g , there i s a s p e c i f i c i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequence between communication s k i l l s and e f f e c t i v e l e a r n i n g . Creaghead and T a t t e r s h a l l (1985) b e l i e v e that three of the u n d e r l y i n g competencies necessary for the i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequence a r e : (a) "understanding of classroom r o u t i n e and other s p e c i f i c formats f o r school c o n v e r s a t i o n s and w r i t t e n m a t e r i a l " , (b) " a b i l i t y to f o l l o w and give o r a l and w r i t t e n d i r e c t i o n s " , and (c) " a b i l i t y to comprehend and use n o n l i t e r a l language" (p.105). Breakdowns i n t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n a l sequence occur f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons. "The c h i l d may not know (a) the l i n g u i s t i c systems that are e s s e n t i a l for p a r t i c i p a t i o n , (b) the conceptual notions behind the statements, (c) the r u l e s governing f u n c t i o n a l Intent, and (d) the ways these v a r i a b l e s combine" ( V e t t e r , 1982, p.15). The student with a s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y i n language or a language d i s o r d e r may experience any of these breakdowns. Problems i n language comprehension and ex p r e s s i o n , 1 word-finding d i f f i c u l t i e s and speech d i s c r i m i n a t i o n problems c h a r a c t e r i z e t h i s group of c h i l d r e n . The student with language d i s o r d e r s may l e a r n to compensate fo r these d e f i c i t s with a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n . Without i n t e r v e n t i o n these language d e f i c i t s may p e r s i s t i n t o adulthood (Wilg & Semel, 1984). Before a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n can occur, the student with language d i s o r d e r s must be I d e n t i f i e d . Teacher nomination of students with language d i s o r d e r s has not been h i g h l y e f f e c t i v e . Teachers t y p i c a l l y i d e n t i f y students with p h o n o l o g i c a l d e f i c i t s (Higgins & Lindsay, 1987). As such, the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of students with language d i s o r d e r s has t y p i c a l l y f a l l e n i n t o the hands of the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t . In some school d i s t r i c t s , the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n process may take the form of i n d i v i d u a l l y administered language s c r e e n i n g measures. For example, in School D i s t r i c t #71 (Courtenay), at the k i n d e r g a r t e n l e v e l , a l l students are I n d i v i d u a l l y screened for speech and language d i f f i c u l t i e s . In c o n j u n c t i o n with t h e i r c l i n i c a l o b s e r v a t i o n s , the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s use a composite of s u b t e s t s s e l e c t e d from d i f f e r e n t language assessment measures i n t h e i r e a r l y 2 i d e n t i f i c a t i o n or s c r e e n i n g procedures: Grammatlc Understanding and Oral Vocabulary from the Test of Language Development-Primary (Newcomer & Hammill, 1977), E x p r e s s i v e Language from The S t r u c t u r e d Photographic E x p r e s s i v e Language Test (Werner & Kresheck, 1983) and A s s o c i a t i o n s and C a t e g o r i z a t i o n from the Language P r o c e s s i n g Test (Richard & Hanner, 1985). I n d i v i d u a l l y administered language s c r e e n i n g measures are time-consuming and overextend the l i m i t e d resource of speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s e r v i c e . Purpose of the Study Recognizing the need f o r the e a r l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of language at r i s k c h i l d r e n and the l i m i t e d resource of speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t time, the present study explored the p o s s i b i l i t y of a more resource e f f e c t i v e means of i d e n t i f y i n g language at r i s k s t u d e n t s . School D i s t r i c t #71 i s c u r r e n t l y p i l o t t e s t i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s (TCS) (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1981) throughout grades 3 and 5 i n the s c h o o l d i s t r i c t . A goal of the group t e s t i n g i s "to provide s c r e e n i n g for s p e c i a l programs" ( H i l b o r n & Deese, 1987, p.3). One of the purposes of the present 3 study was to assess the v a l i d i t y of the TCS L e v e l 1 as a s c r e e n i n g measure for i d e n t i f y i n g students with language d i s o r d e r s . A second purpose of the present study was to explore the r e l i a b i l i t y of the use of a short form of an i n d i v i d u a l l y administered s c r e e n i n g instrument that i s s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to measure language. R a t i o n a l e f o r the Study The TCS authors imply the TCS i s developed from the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s of i n t e l l i g e n c e by Spearman, Thurstone, G u i l f o r d , C a t t e l l and Sternberg. "The nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e may be d e s c r i b e d i n v a r i o u s ways. For example, one may t h i n k i n terms of the f a c t o r s d e s c r i b e d by Spearman or Thurston; the op e r a t i o n s , contents, and products p o s t u l a t e d by G u i l f o r d ; the f l u i d and c r y s t a l l i z e d a b i l i t i e s of C a t t e l l ; or the components suggested by Sternberg. To i d e n t i f y the aspects of a b i l i t y to be measured by TCS, s e v e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l viewpoints were c o n s i d e r e d " <CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1982, p.8). Each of the mentioned t h e o r i e s of i n t e l l i g e n c e has a v e r b a l component. Troy (1985), i n a t e s t review of the TCS concludes that the 4 a b i l i t i e s measured by the TCS are p r i m a r i l y v e r b a l . The hypothesis of the present study was that TCS scores would d i f f e r e n t i a t e students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal s t u d e n t s . Being a group administered t e s t , the TCS would r e q u i r e l e s s expense and time than i n d i v i d u a l s c r e e n i n g by the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s . If TCS scores d i f f e r e n t i a t e d students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal students, then the TCS would have a c o r r e l a t i o n with a t e s t s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to measure language. The language Instrument chosen f o r the present study was the r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of the Test of Language Development-Primary (TOLD-P): the Test of Language Development-2 (TOLD-2) Primary (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988). The TOLD was s e l e c t e d f o r the present study because i t i s t e c h n i q u e l y adequate with respect to norming, r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y ( A l l e n , 1985; Reynolds, 1983), as i s the TOLD-2 Primary (Westby, 1988). The TOLD i s widely known and p a r t s have been used p r e v i o u s l y by the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s i n t h e i r i n d i v i d u a l language s c r e e n i n g procedures i n School D i s t r i c t #71 to I d e n t i f y c h i l d r e n with language d i s o r d e r s . 5 According to the authors of the TOLD-2 Primary, "an a b b r e v i a t e d v e r s i o n , or short form, of TOLD-2 Primary may be used to assess language a b i l i t y q u i c k l y . . . when s c r e e n i n g the language s k i l l s of l a r g e numbers of c h i l d r e n as a p r e c a u t i o n a r y measure ( i . e . to i d e n t i f y i n d i v i d u a l s who may have problems)" (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.9). Summary The i n c i d e n c e of language d i s o r d e r s i n the school p o p u l a t i o n i s h i g h . The prevalence r a t e s of language abnormality i n the p o p u l a t i o n have been c i t e d as being 4% or greater (Binnington, 1986; Wiig & Semel, 1984). "The e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n seems to be that language and l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d youngsters may b e n e f i t from language therapy d u r i n g the years from k i n d e r g a r t e n through f o u r t h grade. . . .Schools should make syst e m a t i c e f f o r t s to i d e n t i f y language p r o c e s s i n g and p r o d u c t i o n d e f i c i t s among l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d r e n d u r i n g the e a r l y and middle grades i n order to provide a p p r o p r i a t e i n t e r v e n t i o n before the problems are compounded" (Wiig & Semel, 1984, p.11). The demand for speech and language s e r v i c e s exceeds the amount of 6 s e r v i c e a v a i l a b l e . In B r i t i s h Columbia, current funding from the M i n i s t r y of Education provides a s e r v i c e l e v e l to meet the needs of 2% of the school p o p u l a t i o n ( M i n i s t r y of Education, 1985). The present study explored the use of a group t e s t , the TCS Le v e l 1 and the use of an i n d i v i d u a l l y administered a b b r e v i a t e d form of the TOLD-2 Primary to d i f f e r e n t i a t e language at r i s k students from language normal s t u d e n t s . The present study e s t a b l i s h e d how isomorphic the a b i l i t i e s measured by the TCS Le v e l 1 are with those language s k i l l s measured by the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. 7 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Introduct ion According to L i n d f o r s (1987), language supports on-going l e a r n i n g . It i s through language the c h i l d encounters a broader scope of id e a s . Language shapes the c h i l d ' s i d e a s . Language provides a means of knowing what sense the c h i l d i s making of h i s world. In the school s e t t i n g , language i s used i n a number of ways. Language serves a s o c i a l f u n c t i o n for i n t e r a c t i o n amongst peers. Language i s o f t e n used In contexts that d i f f e r from everyday language use. For example, teachers use language to e x p l a i n new ideas, s t r u c t u r e d i s c u s s i o n s , provide feedback as to the accuracy of a response, focus a t t e n t i o n and d i r e c t b ehavior. The c h i l d with language d i s o r d e r s i s extremely v u l n e r a b l e to mis s i n g communication i n t h i s type of s e t t i n g . Olson (1977) d e s c r i b e s the c h i l d ' s a c q u i s i t i o n of language as a process where "the meaning of an utt e r a n c e . '. . i s not drawn e x c l u s i v e l y from the utterance but ra t h e r that the meaning i s communicated by an a r r a y of environmental and c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d 8 ( features of which the formal s t r u c t u r e of the utterance i s only one" (p.183). The c h i l d with language d i s o r d e r s has d i f f i c u l t y forming a match between n o n l i n g u i s t i c notions (meanings) and the a r b i t r a r y boundaries of l i n g u i s t i c c a t e g o r i e s (words). A number of t h e o r i e s have been advanced as to why some c h i l d r e n are so disadvantaged i n t h e i r language a c q u i s i t i o n . T r a d i t i o n a l l y , language has been a s s o c i a t e d with c o g n i t i o n . Wadsworth (1971) notes that Piaget observed that t o d d l e r s work out a set of meanings and then search f o r a way of e x p r e s s i n g these meanings. In some c u l t u r e s , f a c i l i t y with language i s thought to be i n d i c a t i v e of i n t e l l i g e n c e : "The common core of peoples' b e l i e f about what c o n s t i t u t e s i n t e l l i g e n c e i n c l u d e s problem-solving a b i l i t y , v e r b a l a b i l i t y , and s o c i a l competence" (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1987, p.159). It i s the purpose of t h i s chapter to examine the l i t e r a t u r e concerning (a) language d i s o r d e r s , (b) the l a n g u a g e - c o g n i t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p as i t p e r t a i n s to the o r i g i n s of language d i s o r d e r s , and (c) f a c t o r s i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of language d y s f u n c t i o n : s c r e e n i n g , group t e s t i n g , the content s i m i l a r i t i e s between t e s t s of a b i l i t y and t e s t s of 9 language and c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y , w i l l conclude the chapter. F i n a l l y , a summary P e r s p e c t i v e s on Language Disorder Language Disorder Wiig and Semel (19S4) d e s c r i b e the language d i s o r d e r syndrome as being " c h a r a c t e r i z e d by problems in language comprehension and expression, word-finding d i f f i c u l t i e s (dysnomia) and speech d i s c r i m i n a t i o n problems" (p.19). According to Carrow-Woolfoik and Lynch (1982), these aforementioned c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a l l p e r t a i n to language performance and represent only one facet of language d i s o r d e r s . Carrow-Woolfoik and Lynch propose a h i g h l y i n t e r r e l a t e d dimensional d e s c r i p t i o n of language d i s o r d e r s c o n s i s t i n g of d i s o r d e r s i n the dimension of language knowledge and d i s o r d e r s i n the dimension of language performance. Diso r d e r s i n the dimension of language knowledge show up as d e f i c i t s i n the knowledge of r u l e s of the l i n g u i s t i c code i n v o l v i n g grammar, semantics or pragmatics. The c h i l d who has d i s o r d e r s of grammar may 10 i n c o r r e c t l y use morphemes, use unconventional word order, misplace negatives or omit verb i n f l e c t i o n s . D i s o r d e r s of semantics are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by an inadequate correspondence between grammar and meaning. In normal language development, the c h i l d matches the s i t u a t i o n a l context to the input that he hears. From there, he g e n e r a l i z e s the r u l e s of l i n g u i s t i c input and the context and then i n t e r n a l i z e s them i n t o h i s language system. The a s s o c i a t i o n between words, grammatic s t r u c t u r e s and t h e i r meanings i s mismatched i n d i s o r d e r s of semantics. The r u l e s of pragmatics may be taught but more of t e n than not, these r u l e s of form, f u n c t i o n and use of language are a b s t r a c t e d from the o b s e r v a t i o n of the behavior of others i n v a r i o u s s i t u a t i o n s . Disorders of pragmatics r e s u l t i n the c h i l d not knowing what to say, when, to whom and where. The c h i l d ' s p e r c e p t i o n s and a b i l i t y to a b s t r a c t are at q u e s t i o n . D i s o r d e r s of comprehension and e x p r e s s i o n f a l l i n t o the dimension of language performance. Comprehension r e f e r s to the process of decoding the incoming message. The c h i l d with a language d i s o r d e r may have a p r o c e s s i n g system that d i s t o r t s the q u a l i t y 11 of the p e r c e p t i o n of the l i n g u i s t i c input so that he mishears and m i s p e r c e i v e s . D i s o r d e r s of e x p r e s s i o n or language p r o d u c t i o n r e s u l t i n problems of word f i n d i n g , omission of forms, poor sequencing of s y l l a b l e s and words and changes i n tense. What a c h i l d wants to say does not match h i s output i n t h i s d i f f i c u l t y with f o r m u l a t i o n . Problems with execution may a l s o occur i n d i s o r d e r s of language performance. In the act of producing the utterances, the c h i l d ' s i n t e g r a t i o n between h i s f o r m u l a t i v e and automatic p r o d u c t i v e system f a i l s . Language-Cognition R e l a t i o n s h i p The r e l a t i o n s h i p between c o g n i t i o n and language i s an i n c o n c l u s i v e i s s u e . According to Owens (1984), "the exact r e l a t i o n s h i p of thought and language i s unknown. For every example of thought i n f l u e n c i n g language, there i s another of the opposite r e l a t i o n s h i p " (p.109). The contemporary approach to t h i s debate i s seen i n current language i n t e r v e n t i o n trends emphasizing "raeta s k i l l s " (Goldberg & R o t h s t e i n , 1986). M e t a l i n g u i s t i c s , 12 metacognition and metacomprehens1 on are a l l based on a c o g n i t i v e p e r s p e c t i v e to language development. C l a r k (1975) cre a t e d a d i s t i n c t i o n i n the kinds of thought or knowing. Knowledge i s e i t h e r n o n l i n g u i s t i c ( c o g n i t i o n ) or l i n g u i s t i c (language) i n nature. The two kinds of knowledge never f u l l y correspond but there i s an area of o v e r l a p i n which li n k a g e s between c o g n i t i o n and language occur. A number of p o s i t i o n s or hypotheses that attempt to d e s c r i b e the c o g n i t i v e framework of language have been advanced. It i s w i t h i n t h i s c o g n i t i v e framework that the nature of language d i s o r d e r s i s d i s c u s s e d . Rice (1983) e l a b o r a t e s upon C l a r k ' s "mapping problem" between language and n o n l i n g u i s t i c knowledge and i d e n t i f i e s f i v e l a n g u a g e - c o g n i t i o n t h e o r i e s that d e s c r i b e the d i f f e r i n g p o s i t i o n s on the r e l a t i o n s h i p of language and c o g n i t i o n as: (1) s t r o n g c o g n i t i o n hypothesis, (2) l o c a l homologies hypothesis, (3) i n t e r a c t i o n i s t hypothesis, (4) weak c o g n i t i o n hypothesis and (5) c o g n i t i o n anchored i n language hyp o t h e s i s . In a d d i t i o n , Rice acknowledges the p o s s i b i l i t y of another theory where mental processes are not rooted i n meaning, the l a n g u a g e - s p e c i f i c 13 h y p o t h e s i s . She e l a b o r a t e s upon the l a n g u a g e - s p e c i f i c hypothesis as proposed by Chomsky and t h e o r i z e s that l a n g u a g e - s p e c i f i c processes may account fo r l i n g u i s t i c knowledge beyond that accounted for by c o g n i t i o n as well as i n the o v e r l a p p i n g s e c t i o n s where c o g n i t i o n and language d i r e c t l y map onto each other. Each language-cognition theory has i t s own set of i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r language development. From the p e r s p e c t i v e of the language-cognition t h e o r i e s , d e f i c i t s accounting for language d i s o r d e r s w i l l be d i s c u s s e d . Strong C o g n i t i o n Hypothesis In the s t r o n g c o g n i t i o n hypothesis, c o g n i t i o n precedes and accounts fo r language a c q u i s i t i o n . Proponents of t h i s theory such as Piaget and Inhelder (1969) hypothesize that language b u i l d s on c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s that have a l r e a d y a r i s e n i n the sensorimotor p e r i o d . According to Cromer (1976), language allows three developments to occur. Once language emerges, i t hastens r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ; develops the a b i l i t y to transcend immediate space and time; and develops the a b i l i t y to represent a number of elements 14 s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r a t h e r than by means of s u c c e s s i v e , step-by-step thought. Evidence s u p p o r t i n g t h i s s t r o n g c o g n i t i o n hypothesis i s most c o n v i n c i n g at the l e v e l of meanings. According to the r e s u l t s of Macnamara's study (1982), c h i l d r e n s t a r t with meanings worked out f i r s t as b a s i c c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s and then look for a way to express them l i n g u i s t i c a l l y . A number of s t u d i e s have examined the q u e s t i o n of b a s i c c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e s or c o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e s . P i a g e t i a n s d e s c r i b e them as being the sensorimotor stage where the c h i l d d i f f e r e n t i a t e s between himself and o t h e r s . T h i s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n c a l l s for communication. It has been sp e c u l a t e d by Bloom (1975) that object permanence must be achieved before r a p i d vocabulary growth can take p l a c e . Snyder (1978) b e l i e v e s that language can be seen as an instrument to achieve g o a l s . He found that only one developmental s k i l l c o r r e l a t e d with language development: means-ends (stage 5). S l o b i n (1979) c i t e s the a b i l i t y t o p e r c e i v e , analyze and s t o r e v e r b a l messages as a c o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e to language development. 15 C o r r i g a n (1979) suggests that c o n f u s i o n over c o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e s e x i s t s due to the d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of c o g n i t i v e b e h a v i o r s . U n t i l there i s an exact s p e c i f i c a t i o n of how these behaviors are to be de f i n e d i t i s impossible to conclude whether or not r e s u l t s of c o g n i t i v e c o r r e l a t e s of language s t u d i e s a c t u a l l y support t h e i r p r e d i c t i o n s . The s t r o n g c o g n i t i o n theory advocates c o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e s to language. The n e c e s s i t y of c o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e s suggests that the c h i l d with language d i s o r d e r s has c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t s . U n d e r l y i n g p r o c e s s i n g f a u l t s such as sh o r t - t e r m memory (Menyuk, 1976; Wiig & Semel, 1984), the i n a b i l i t y to sequence m a t e r i a l r a p i d l y (Lowe & Campbell, 1965; M i l l e r , Campbell, Chapman & Weismer, 1984) and the r a t e of a u d i t o r y p r o c e s s i n g ( T a l l a l , 1988; T a l l a l & P i e r c y , 1973) have been found i n c h i l d r e n with language d i s a b i l i t i e s . L o c a l Homologies Hypothesis The simultaneous emergence of p a r a l l e l c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c knowledge c o n s t i t u t e s the l o c a l homologies h y p o t h e s i s . A p a t t e r n of a s s o c i a t i o n of 16 c o g n i t i v e and r e l a t e d l i n g u i s t i c knowledge appearing at the same time l e d Bates and her co l l e a g u e s (1977) to propose that c o g n i t i o n and language d e r i v e from a common, deeper u n d e r l y i n g system of c o g n i t i v e operations and s t r u c t u r e s that i s biased toward n e i t h e r . The p a t t e r n of c o g n i t i v e and l i n g u i s t i c l i n k a g e i s d i f f e r e n t at d i f f e r e n t times i n development. The homologies are l o c a l i z e d i n that they are bundled together i n small packages i n s t e a d of being g l o b a l . F i s c h e r (1980) proposed that the c h i l d a c q u i r e s s k i l l s that are s i t u a t i o n s p e c i f i c . Language and c o g n i t i o n are a set of o v e r l a p p i n g s p e c i f i c s k i l l s that i n t e r r e l a t e i n s k i 1 1 - s p e c ! f i c c o n t e x t s . The l o c a l homologies hypothesis provides t h e o r e t i c a l support f o r the c o n c l u s i o n that c h i l d r e n with language d i s o r d e r s have a more general r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l d e f i c i t . The r e s u l t s of some s t u d i e s suggest that c h i l d r e n with language d i s o r d e r s perform below age e x p e c t a t i o n on c o g n i t i v e tasks such as imagery and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (Kamhi, 1981) and means-ends schemes (Snyder, 1978). 17 I n t e r a c t l o n l s t Hypothesis In the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t hypothesis, language and c o g n i t i o n mutually i n f l u e n c e each other's development. Supporting the i n t e r a c t i o n i s t viewpoint i s the communicative s i g n i f i c a n c e of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y behaviors (such as re a c h i n g and p o i n t i n g g e s t u r e s ) as a means of e l i c i t i n g r e a c t i o n s from o t h e r s . Bruner (1975) viewed the young c h i l d ' s s o c i a b l e n e s s as the motivator f o r communication. Vygotsky (1978) noted the r o l e of the i n t e r l o c u t e r i n the development of c h i l d r e n ' s e a r l y communication. S c h l e s i n g e r (1977) makes another o b s e r v a t i o n s u p p o r t i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n h y p o t h e s i s . From a study of the agent category ( s u b j e c t ) i n language, he concludes that n o n l i n g u i s t i c meanings are worked out p r i o r to language development and are not isomorphic with those encoded i n language. S i e g e l , Lees, A l l a n and Bolton (1981) suggest that language f a c i l i t a t e s success on n o n l i n g u i s t i c c o g n i t i v e t a s k s . S i e g e l et a l . conclude that c h i l d r e n with language d i s o r d e r s when compared to language normal c h i l d r e n perform p o o r l y on s e r i a t i o n , c o n s e r v a t i o n , 18 s p a t i a l order and t o p o l o g i c a l concepts because language i s l a c k i n g as a problem-solving t o o l . Weak C o g n i t i o n Hypothesis The premise that c o g n i t i o n does not account f o r a l l language development has been i d e n t i f i e d by Cromer (1976) as the weak c o g n i t i o n h y p o t h e s i s . In t h i s theory, c o g n i t i o n provides the i n i t i a l e n t r y i n t o language but does not provide for p a r t i c u l a r s of l i n g u i s t i c r u l e s . Some aspects of grammar are a r b i t r a r y . They do not have t h e i r own d i s t i n c t meanings. For example, s e l f - r e f e r e n c e develops by r e f e r r a l by proper name and l a t e r by " I " or "me" depending upon the grammatical context. A s h i f t i n un d e r l y i n g meanings cannot account for t h i s t r a n s i t i o n . A second o b s e r v a t i o n that can be o f f e r e d i n support of the weak c o g n i t i o n p o s i t i o n i s that e q u i v a l e n t meanings can be conveyed while the grammatical s t r u c t u r e i s not the same; such as the use of synonyms. S l o b i n (1973) i n h i s c r o s s - l i n g u i s t i c s t u d i e s suggests another p e r s p e c t i v e of how meanings match with grammatical o p t i o n s . He assumes that c h i l d r e n s t a r t 19 out with the same set of 'semantic i n t e n t i o n ' and then must d i s c o v e r a l i n g u i s t i c means for e x p r e s s i n g that i n t e n t i o n i n a given language. "The c h i l d b r i n g s c e r t a i n o p e r a t i n g p r i n c i p l e s to bear on the task of l e a r n i n g to speak, r e g a r d l e s s of the p e c u l i a r i t i e s of the p a r t i c u l a r language he i s exposed t o " ( S l o b i n , 1973, p.177). The l i n g u i s t i c complexity of that language accounts for the l a g between the f i r s t attempts to communicate c e r t a i n meanings and the mastery of the r e l e v a n t d e v i c e s . The c h i l d with language d i s o r d e r s s t r u g g l e s to determine the formal s t r u c t u r e s to express h i s meanings. The c h i l d must possess s p e c i f i c l i n g u i s t i c c a p a b i l i t i e s i n order to express these meanings i n language. D i f f i c u l t i e s i n a c q u i r i n g language may be a t t r i b u t e d to the lack of c e r t a i n l i n g u i s t i c mechanisms s a i d by t h e o r i s t s such as Chomsky (1965) and Cromer (1981) to be i n n a t e . C o g n i t i o n Anchored i n Language Hypothesis The c o g n i t i o n anchored i n language hypothesis i s most c l o s e l y i d e n t i f i e d with the Whorfian hypothesis (Rice & Kemper, 1984). Whorf ("Experimental S t u d i e s , " 1964) was concerned with how n a t i v e language i n f l u e n c e s 20 the p e r c e p t i o n s and thoughts of i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i e t y . He proposes that the semantic and grammatical d i s t i n c t i o n s across languages lead to d i f f e r e n c e s i n thought. Brown and Lenneberg (1954) d e s c r i b e the Whorfian p o s i t i o n as being based upon two p r o p o s i t i o n s : (a) " D i f f e r e n t l i n g u i s t i c communities p e r c e i v e and conceive r e a l i t y i n d i f f e r e n t ways" (b) "The language spoken i n a community helps to shape the c o g n i t i v e s t r u c t u r e of the i n d i v i d u a l s speaking that language"(p.461). According to S l o b i n (1979), ' c u l t u r e d i f f e r e n t ' r e s u l t s i n a d e f i c i t i n communicative s k i l l s when the s o c i a l environment does not match the school environment. "The a c q u i s i t i o n of c o n t e x t - f r e e uses of language i s one of the most important r e s u l t s of s c h o o l i n g " (p.167). A language d i s o r d e r can be a t t r i b u t e d to the e x t e r n a l f a c t o r of c u l t u r e . A ccording to S c h l e s i n g e r (1982), there are pe r c e p t u a l r e g u l a r i t i e s or t e x t u r e i n the world that account f o r s i m i l a r i t i e s across languages. The same concepts tend to be encoded i n language. C h i l d r e n s o r t w i t h i n the t e x t u a l p a t t e r n and anchor f i r s t concepts to l i n g u i s t i c responses. C h i l d r e n with language d i s o r d e r s 21 may s o r t i n a c c u r a t e l y as the world i s not arranged i n d i s c r e t e c a t e g o r i e s , r e s u l t i n g i n c a t e g o r i z a t i o n problems. The c h i l d with a language d i s o r d e r may lack the concepts encoded i n language. He may have thoughts that are q u a l i t a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from those of normal speakers. His i s a problem of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . To i l l u s t r a t e , a c h i l d with an i n t e r p r e t a t i o n problem may not be aware of animate and inanimate object d i f f e r e n c e s and thus be hindered i n l e a r n i n g the d i s t i n c t i o n between proper and common nouns. The c o g n i t i o n anchored i n language hypothesis a t t r i b u t e s language d i s o r d e r to c a t e g o r i z a t i o n and/or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n d e f i c i t s that may be c u l t u r a l l y based. The p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d l a n g u a g e - c o g n i t i o n t h e o r i e s have o f f e r e d v a r y i n g e x p l a n a t i o n s of language d i s o r d e r s . C o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t s have been enumerated as o b s t a c l e s to language l e a r n i n g but the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between language and c o g n i t i o n are not n e c e s s a r i l y u n i d i r e c t i o n a l nor f r e e from c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e . 22 Issues i n T e s t i n g Screening "The language and communication d e f i c i t s a s s o c i a t e d with l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s are o f t e n s u b t l e . They are, t h e r e f o r e , too f r e q u e n t l y overlooked i n the education of the youngster. . . . It i s o f t e n not u n t i l a f t e r the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d c h i l d has f a i l e d to a c q u i r e b a s i c s k i l l s i n reading, s p e l l i n g , and w r i t i n g that the q u e s t i o n of whether he may have d e f i c i t s i n understanding and using spoken language a r i s e s " (Wiig & Semel, 1984, p.5). Screening programs attempt to i d e n t i f y p o t e n t i a l areas of weakness and l e s s e n t h e i r e d u c a t i o n a l impact. Screening i s a c u r s o r y examination to a s c e r t a i n whether any of the students evaluated are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r classmates to warrant f u r t h e r assessment ( S a l v i a & Ysseldyke, 1985). T y p i c a l l y , s c r e e n i n g programs are i n i t i a t e d to i d e n t i f y e x c e p t i o n a l s t u d e n t s . Teacher awareness of e d u c a t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t problems tends to be v a r i a b l e . There may be students in a classroom who are e x c e p t i o n a l and who are not having t h e i r needs met as 23 they have not been recognized as having s p e c i f i c needs. Screening can be more o b j e c t i v e than teacher evaluat i on. Group versus I n d i v i d u a l T e s t i n g Screening programs can take the form of group administered or i n d i v i d u a l l y administered t e s t s . Each method presents advantages and l i m i t a t i o n s . In terms of e f f i c i e n c y and cost, group t e s t i n g i s s u p e r i o r to i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g . A group t e s t may be given to one person or to s e v e r a l s i m u l t a n e o u s l y . An i n d i v i d u a l t e s t must be administered to only one person at a time. Group t e s t i n g allows for more uniform a d m i n i s t r a t i o n c o n d i t i o n s and g r e a t l y s i m p l i f i e s the examiner's r o l e . M i n i m a l l y t r a i n e d examiners, such as the classroom teacher may be used. P s y c h o m e t r i c a l l y , group t e s t s o f t e n provide b e t t e r e s t a b l i s h e d norms. Very l a r g e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e samples may be t e s t e d i n the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n process because of the r e l a t i v e ease and r a p i d i t y of g a t h e r i n g data with group t e s t s ( A n a s t a s i , 1985). Although group t e s t s have the a f o r e s a i d d e s i r a b l e f e a t u r e s , they are not without l i m i t a t i o n s . According 24 to A n a s t a s i (1985), i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g i s more s e n s i t i v e to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s . For example, s i n c e s c o r i n g i s more o b j e c t i v e i n group t e s t s , group t e s t s do not pose open-ended questions and a l l o w for in n o v a t i v e responses. In i n d i v i d u a l t e s t i n g , the examiner may c l a r i f y , rephrase, prompt or probe to e l i c i t the best response. I n d i v i d u a l test a d m i n i s t r a t i o n provides both q u a n t i t a t i v e and q u a l i t a t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n which may i n i t s e l f i d e n t i f y the cause for a t y p i c a l performance. Consequently, I n d i v i d u a l t e s t s are more a p p r o p r i a t e when i n d i v i d u a l program d e c i s i o n s are to be made. Group t e s t s are s u i t a b l e f o r program e v a l u a t i o n and s c r e e n i n g as they are l i m i t e d i n t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y by the way questions are presented and the way responses are to be made. Screening r e s u l t s must be i n t e r p r e t e d with c a u t i o n . Students who perform p o o r l y on s c r e e n i n g measures should be considered 'at r i s k 1 and r e f e r r e d for follow-up assessment. Follow-up assessment i s necessary as students are not always a c c u r a t e l y I d e n t i f i e d by the s c r e e n i n g measures. Some students who perform p o o r l y on the sc r e e n i n g , l a t e r score w i t h i n the a c c e p t a b l e range on the follow-up. They are 25 considered ' f a l s e p o s i t i v e s ' . Students not i d e n t i f i e d as 'at r i s k ' d u r i n g s c r e e n i n g but who l a t e r demonstrate d i f f i c u l t y f o r the very problem that they were screened f o r , are d e s c r i b e d as ' f a l s e n e g a t i v e s ' . The accuracy of s c r e e n i n g d e c i s i o n s or the p r o p o r t i o n of accurate p o s i t i v e d e c i s i o n s i s r e f e r r e d to as the ' h i t r a t e ' . As s c r e e n i n g devices may have a low h i t r a t e , the N a t i o n a l J o i n t Committe on Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s (1986) advises that " c a r e f u l c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the r e l i a b i l i t y , v a l i d i t y , and s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n of s c r e e n i n g instruments and procedures i s e s s e n t i a l i n t h e i r - s e l e c t ion, use and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n " (p.159). S i m i l a r i t i e s i n Tests of Language and Tests of A b i l i t y It i s the o p i n i o n of S a l v i a and Ysseldyke (1985) that "the e v a l u a t i o n of a t e s t ' s v a l i d i t y i s the most d i f f i c u l t aspect of reviewing a t e s t " (p.531). V a l i d i t y or the extent to which a t e s t a c t u a l l y measures what i t purports to measure ( S a t t l e r , 1988) i s e s p e c i a l l y d i f f i c u l t to determine when sampling the domains of language and a b i l i t y . As d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter and here s u c c i n c t l y r e p o r t e d by Owens (1984) "as [the c h i l d ' s ] c a p a c i t y to communicate 26 s y m b o l i c a l l y develops, language and thought become so> i n e x t r i c a b l y intermixed i t becomes almost impossible to sep a r a t e " (p.110). According to Anastasiow, Hanes and Hanes (1982), IQ scores are measures that p r e d i c t whether a c h i l d w i l l have success or d i f f i c u l t y i n m i d d l e - c l a s s - t y p e schools, i n which v e r b a l a b i l i t y and comprehension are dominant s k i l l s . This u n i t y i s r e f l e c t e d i n the content s i m i l a r i t i e s between t e s t s of language and t e s t s of a b i l i t y . The content v a l i d i t y of a t e s t i s evaluated by a c a r e f u l examination of the content ( S a l v i a & Ysseldyke, 1985). Gunnarson (1978) i n a review of content s i m i l a r i t i e s between i n t e l l i g e n c e , achievement, p e r s o n a l i t y and language t e s t s argues that "most s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s c h a l l e n g e language p r o f i c i e n c y i n fundamental ways and o f t e n f u l f i l l many c r i t e r i a of widely used language t e s t s " (p.33). He p o i n t s to the Weschler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for C h i l d r e n as an example of a widely used and h i g h l y reputed a b i l i t y measure that i s based on the premise that language i s the best medium i n which to t e s t i n t e l l i g e n c e . The nonverbal performance s c a l e items r e l y on v e r b a l i n s t r u c t i o n s . 27 Standardized t e s t s that p r o f e s s to be nonverbal c o n t a i n pragmatic language p r o c e s s i n g t a s k s . In a study of the s t r e n g t h of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between measures of language p r o f i c i e n c y and e d u c a t i o n a l t e s t s that purport to measure i n t e l l i g e n c e and achievement, Stump (1978) a s s e r t s that "measures designed to assess I n t e l l i g e n c e are so g r e a t l y dependent upon p r o f i c i e n c y i n standard v a r i e t y of E n g l i s h that they a p p a r e n t l y o f f e r only d i r e c t assessment of that p r o f i c i e n c y and not innate i n t e l l i g e n c e " (p.57). O i l e r (1977) r e p o r t s stronger c o r r e l a t i o n s between t e s t s of language and i n t e l l i g e n c e than t e s t s of language and r e a d i n g . Construct V a l i d i t y Of s i m i l a r importance and interdependent with content v a l i d i t y i s c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . "Construct v a l i d i t y r e f e r s to the extent to which a t e s t measures a t h e o r e t i c a l t r a i t or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c " ( S a l v i a & Ysseldyke, 1985, p.137). Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s . The a b i l i t y measure s e l e c t e d f o r the present study was the Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s (TCS) L e v e l 1. 28 According to the t e s t authors, the TCS "was designed to measure a number of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e d i n v a r i o u s t h e o r i e s " (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1982, p.8). Although these t h e o r i e s are not s p e c i f i c a l l y named, the t e s t authors c i t e the models of Spearman, Thurstone, G u i l f o r d , C a t t e l l and Sternberg as examples of the v a r i o u s ways the nature of i n t e l l i g e n c e may be d e s c r i b e d . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of each of these models and how the TCS i s developed from t h e i r t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s f o l l o w s . In Spearman's two f a c t o r theory, any i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e s a general f a c t o r known as g. and a s p e c i f i c f a c t o r ( s ) . The g_ f a c t o r i s general mental energy, shared i n a l l i n t e l l e c t u a l a c t i v i t i e s . Complicated mental a c t i v i t i e s c o n t a i n the highest amount of g_. The g_ f a c t o r i s i n v o l v e d i n operations of a deductive nature l i n k e d with s k i l l , speed, i n t e n s i t y and e x t e n s i t y of a person's i n t e l l e c t u a l output. Examples of c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with g_ are determining r e l a t i o n s h i p s between two or more ideas and the f i n d i n g of c o r r e l a t e s ( S a t t l e r , 1988). "Verbal t e s t s i n v o l v i n g synonyms, antonyms, c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of 29 concepts and the s o l v i n g of anal o g i e s could measure g_ . . ." ( C a r r o l l , 1983, p.98). I n t e l l i g e n c e i s not u n i t a r y but mult i d i m e n s i o n a l i n Thurstone's m u l t i p l e f a c t o r theory. Human i n t e l l i g e n c e c o n s i s t s of an o r d e r l y o r g a n i z a t i o n of primary mental a b i l i t i e s . Thurstone i d e n t i f i e d the f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s as being primary mental a b i l i t i e s : v e r b a l , p e r c e p t u a l speed, i n d u c t i v e reasoning, number, ro t e memory, deductive reasoning, word f l u e n c y and v i s u a l i z a t i o n ( G u i l f o r d , 1985; S a t t l e r , 1988). G u i l f o r d (1985) developed a three-dimensional S t r u c t u r e of I n t e l l e c t (SOI) model as a way of o r g a n i z i n g i n t e l l e c t u a l f a c t o r s i n t o a system. The f i r s t dimension represents o p e r a t i o n c a t e g o r i e s . The second dimension represents content c a t e g o r i e s and the t h i r d dimension r e p r e s e n t s product c a t e g o r i e s . A cross between the 3 dimensions y i e l d s a f a c t o r . "The nature of the SOI model has suggested that i n t e l l i g e n c e should be d e f i n e d as a syste m a t i c c o l l e c t i o n of a b i l i t i e s or f u n c t i o n s for p r o c e s s i n g i n f o r m a t i o n of d i f f e r e n t kinds i n v a r i o u s forms" ( G u i l f o r d , 1985, p.231). According to Wiig and Semel (1984), the SOI framework addresses the semantic aspects of a u d i t o r y 30 language. C a r r o l l (1983) suggests that ". . . i t i s reasonable to hypothesize that many of the 'divergent p r o d u c t i o n ' f a c t o r s u n d e r l i e v a r i o u s forms of o r i g i n a l i t y i n speaking and w r i t i n g , that some of the 'convergent p r o d u c t i o n ' and ' e v a l u a t i o n ' f a c t o r s u n d e r l i e l o g i c a l i t y of thought and o r g a n i z a t i o n i n speaking and w r i t i n g , and that v a r i o u s ' c o g n i t i o n ' f a c t o r s have much to do with the comprehension of language" (p.100). C a t t e l l (1987) proposed that there are two types of i n t e l l i g e n c e : f l u i d and c r y s t a l l i z e d . " C r y s t a l l i z e d general mental c a p a c i t y shows i t s e l f h e a v i l y i n such primary a b i l i t i e s as v e r b a l f a c t o r , V; numerical a b i l i t y , N; reasoning, ft or I; mechanical i n f o r m a t i o n and s k i l l s , Mk; and experimental judgement ( i n s o c i a l and other f i e l d s ) . F l u i d a b i l i t y appears i n s e r i e s , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , a n a l o g i e s , topology, and other well known i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s , when couched i n shapes which are n e i t h e r v e r b a l nor p i c t o r i a l , but such as would be e q u a l l y a c c e s s i b l e to a person of any background" ( C a t t e l l , 1987, p.114). Sternberg proposed an i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g model of i n t e l l i g e n c e ( K o l l i g a n & Sternberg, 1987). In h i s 31 t r i a r c h i c theory, i n t e l l i g e n c e i s r e l a t e d both to the i n t e r n a l world of the i n d i v i d u a l (componential subtheory) and the e x t e r n a l world of the i n d i v i d u a l ( c o n t e x t u a l s u b t h e o r y ) . An e x p e r i e n t i a l subtheory r e l a t e s i n t e l l i g e n c e to experience with both the i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l worlds of the i n d i v i d u a l . Sternberg (1985a) s t a t e s that "verbal-comprehension a b i l i t i e s have been recognized as an i n t e g r a l part of i n t e l l i g e n c e i n . . . i n f o r m a t i o n - p r o c e s s i n g t h e o r i e s " (p.66). Each subtest of the TCS r e f l e c t s some aspect of the p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d t h e o r i e s . "The Sequences t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to recognize a r u l e or -p r i n c i p l e i m p l i c i t i n a p a t t e r n . . . The sequence items r e q u i r e the a b i l i t y to e x t r a p o l a t e . . ." (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1983, p . l ) . S a t t l e r (1988) d e s c r i b e s t h i s e d u c t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s with respect to Spearman's two f a c t o r theory. "The Memory t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to r e c a l l p r e v i o u s l y presented m a t e r i a l . . . . Forming a s s o c i a t i o n s i s an important aspect of memory . . . " (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1983, p . l ) . Memory i s one of the operations i n G u i l f o r d ' s SOI model. Memory and v i s u a l i z a t i o n are 32 primary mental a b i l i t i e s i n Thurstone's m u l t i p l e f a c t o r y theory. "The Analogies t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to r e c o g n i z e r e l a t i o n s h i p s that may be l i t e r a l or symbolic. . . . The Verbal Reasoning t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to reason l o g i c a l l y and d i s c e r n r e l a t i o n s h i p s . . ." (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1983, p.1-2). The s o l v i n g of ana l o g i e s and reasoning are c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s a s s o c i a t e d with a l l of the p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d t h e o r i e s . Test of Language Development-2 Primary. The language measure used i n the present study was the Test of Language Development-2 (TOLD-2) Primary Short Form. The Short Form of the TOLD-2 Primary c o n s i s t s of two s u b t e s t s : P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion. According to the t e s t authors, the TOLD-2 Primary uses "a l i n g u i s t i c model as a t h e o r e t i c a l base" (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.2). The te s t authors i n c o r p o r a t e d a number of t h e o r e t i c a l < p e r s p e c t i v e s i n t h e i r conceptual model. Newcomer and Hammill (1988) c i t e the c o n t r i b u t i o n s of Bloom and Lahey, Chomsky, Devito, Jakobson, Fant and H a l l e , and Vygotsky to t h e i r model. The model r e f l e c t s two 33 aspects of l i n g u i s t i c theory: l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s and l i n g u i s t i c systems. The l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s or major components of language are i d e n t i f i e d as phonology, syntax, morphology and semantics. "The term phonology r e f e r s to the sound system of language . . . The term syntax r e f e r s to the s t r u c t u r e of language . . . Morphology, o f t e n included as part of syntax, i s the study of the sm a l l e s t meaningful u n i t s of language . . . The term semantics r e f e r s to the study of meaning i n language" (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.3-4). Although the re f e r e n c e to Jakobson, Fant and H a l l e (1969) c i t e d by Newcomer and Hammill deals p r i m a r i l y with the phonology of language, p a r a l l e l f e a t u r e s of the TOLD l i n g u i s t i c theory can be found i n the models i d e n t i f i e d with Bloom and Lahey, DeVito, Chomsky and Vygotsky. Bloom and Lahey (1978) d e s c r i b e a language s t r u c t u r e c o n s i s t i n g of three o v e r l a p p i n g components: content, form and use. Content i n Bloom and Lahey's s t r u c t u r e i s s u b t i t l e d 'semantics'. Phonology, morphology and syntax c o n s t i t u t e form. Language use i s d e s c r i b e d i n terms of f u n c t i o n and use; both of which i n v o l v e the r e c e p t i v e and e x p r e s s i v e systems. 34 DeVito (1970) and Chomsky (1965) make r e f e r e n c e to a 'generative grammar". In a ge n e r a t i v e grammar, s y n t a c t i c , semantic and p h o n o l o g i c a l components are recogni zed. Newcomer and Hammill (1988) c a t e g o r i z e language i n t o two systems: r e c e p t i v e ( l i s t e n i n g ) and e x p r e s s i v e (speaking). Their model i s s i m i l a r to Vygotsky's (1986) c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n of the language system as 'inner speech' which i s "thought connected with words" and ' e x t e r n a l speech' which i s "thought embodied i n words" (p.249). The s u b t e s t s P i c t u r e Vocabulary, Grammatic Understanding and Word D i s c r i m i n a t i o n represent the l i n g u i s t i c f e a t u r e s of semantics, syntax and phonology, r e s p e c t i v e l y i n the r e c e p t i v e system. In the ex p r e s s i v e system, Oral Vocabulary samples semantics. Sentence I m i t a t i o n and Grammatic Completion measure aspects of syntax. Word A r t i c u l a t i o n r e p r e s e n t s the phonology f e a t u r e . In the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form, the su b t e s t s P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion represent the i n t e r r e l a t e d l i n g u i s t i c systems and f e a t u r e s of r e c e p t i v e semantics and e x p r e s s i v e syntax, 35 r e s p e c t i v e l y . When d e s c r i b i n g the v e r b a l f a c t o r of Thurstone's m u l t i p l e f a c t o r theory, C a r r o l l (1983) s t a t e s that the v e r b a l f a c t o r can be found i n any of the t e s t s i n v o l v i n g comprehension: vocabulary, opposites and synonyms, completion and reading comprehension. The P i c t u r e Vocabulary subtest i n v o l v e s the comprehension of word meaning and the Grammatic Completion subtest i s a completion task by nature of i t s c l o z e technique format. Test S i m i l a r i t i e s The t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t s enumerated e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter, upon which the TCS i s developed, a l l have a v e r b a l component. The a b i l i t i e s that the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form measure, can be l i n k e d to at l e a s t one theory from which the TCS i s d e r i v e d . In a d d i t i o n , the four s u b t e s t s of the TCS (Sequences, Memory, Analogies, Verbal Reasoning) and the behaviors sampled by P i c t u r e Vocabulary of the TOLD-2 Primary are a l l named by S a l v i a and Ysseldyke (1985) as behaviors that may be found i n i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t s . The behaviors sampled by the TOLD-2 Primary subtest Grammatic 36 Completion have been rep o r t e d by Newcomer and Hammill (1988) to have c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y when c o r r e l a t e d with the Slosson I n t e l l i g e n c e Test for C h i l d r e n and A d u l t s . On a t h e o r e t i c a l l e v e l , i t i s p o s s i b l e to hypothesize that the behaviors sampled by the TCS and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form a l l measure some aspect of g_. What has been determined by the present study i s : (a) to what extent those behaviors sampled by the TCS Le v e l 1 and by the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form are considered to be i n d i c a t i v e of language d y s f u n c t i o n (b) to what extent those behaviors sampled by the TCS Le v e l 1 c o r r e l a t e with the behaviors sampled by the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. The nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p was p r e v i o u s l y unknown due to the newness of the two meas ures . Summary The c h i l d with a language d i s o r d e r may d i s p l a y d e f i c i t s p r i m a r i l y i n the dimension of language knowledge and/or language performance. "Although q u i t e p r e l i m i n a r y , c o g n i t i v e r e s e a r c h with language d i s o r d e r e d c h i l d r e n l a r g e l y a f f i r m s the presence of 37 i n t e l l e c t u a l d e f i c i t s at v a r i o u s ages and across d i v e r s e domains: instrumental schemes, symbolic play, v i s u a l imagery, conceptual knowledge, and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g " (Johnston, 1982, p.794). Hypotheses concerning the language-cognition r e l a t i o n s h i p can be viewed as d i f f e r i n g i n t h e i r s t r e n g t h of i n f l u e n c e . Each hypothesis a t t r i b u t e s language d i s o r d e r to v a r y i n g degrees and areas of c o g n i t i v e d e f i c i t s . Issues of concern i n the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n of language d i s o r d e r focus upon the ' h i t r a t e ' of s c r e e n i n g measures. These s c r e e n i n g instruments may be suspect i n terms of (a) group t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n as i t i s not as s e n s i t i v e to i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s as i n d i v i d u a l t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and (b) content v a l i d i t y because of the u n i t y of the language-cognition r e l a t i o n s h i p . The a b i l i t i e s measured by the TCS and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form appear to be i n t e r r e l a t e d . In part, the present study explored the nature of the commonalities. The next chapter d e s c r i b e s the methodology of the present study. 38 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Purpose The purpose of t h i s study was to assess the v a l i d i t y of the Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s (TCS) Le v e l 1 and the Test of Language Development-2 (TOLD-2) Primary Short Form as s c r e e n i n g measures f o r i d e n t i f y i n g students with language d i s o r d e r s . If the TCS L e v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form can d i f f e r e n t i a t e students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal students, these t e s t s would expedite the current procedures i n place f o r the s c r e e n i n g of students with language d i s o r d e r s . This chapter i n c l u d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the sample, instruments, procedures, d e f i n i t i o n s , hypotheses and data a n a l y s i s . S e l e c t i o n of Subjects Language Disordered The s u b j e c t s f o r the language d i s o r d e r e d group were students i n School D i s t r i c t #71 (Courtenay) 39 between the ages of 6 years 8 months and 8 years 11 months. The age range 6 years 8 months to 8 years 11 months i s the age o v e r l a p between the TCS L e v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary. These students were p r e v i o u s l y I d e n t i f i e d as language d i s o r d e r e d by the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s . In School D i s t r i c t #71, students are designated 'language d i s o r d e r e d ' or 'language-learning d i s a b l e d ' by demonstrating an e d u c a t i o n a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d e l a y or d e f i c i t i n language. The d e l a y / d e f i c i t r e s u l t s i n a d i s c r e p a n c y between the student's expected or p o t e n t i a l achievement (based on estimated i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t y ) and the student's a c t u a l achievement. The d e l a y / d e f i c i t i s determined by the c l i n i c a l / d i a g n o s t i c experience of the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t and language assessment measures such as: Peabody P i c t u r e Vocabulary Test-Revised (Dunn & Dunn, 1981), The S t r u c t u r e d Photographic E x p r e s s i v e Language Test (Werner & Kresheck, 1983), Test of Language Development (Newcomer & Hammill, 1977), Token Test f o r C h i l d r e n (DiSimoni, 1978), Language P r o c e s s i n g Test (Richard & Hanner, 1985), C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n of Language 40 Functions D i a g n o s t i c B a t t e r y (Semel & Wiig, 1980) and N the Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y B a t t e r y (Woodcock, 1980). In t h e i r assessment by the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s , a l l students i n the language d i s o r d e r e d sample a t t a i n e d t e s t scores at l e a s t one standard d e v i a t i o n below the mean on one or more of the aforementioned t e s t s . No one t e s t instrument was common to the assessment of a l l of the c h i l d r e n nor were a l l the t e s t s n e c e s s a r i l y administered i n t h e i r e n t i r e t y . Each student i n the language d i s o r d e r e d sample was on the a c t i v e caseload of the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t . The sample of students with language d i s o r d e r s c o n s t i t u t e d the p o p u l a t i o n of students with language d i s o r d e r s at t h i s age range; numbering 34 s t u d e n t s . Language Normal The s u b j e c t s f o r the language normal group were students i n School D i s t r i c t #71 who were between the ages of 6 years 8 months and 8 years 11 months. 41 Language normal s u b j e c t s were n a t i v e E n g l i s h speakers and had no known handicapping c o n d i t i o n s . M u l t i s t a g e c l u s t e r sampling was used to s e l e c t the language normal group. F i r s t , language normal s u b j e c t s were matched to students with language d i s o r d e r s a c c o r d i n g to s c h o o l . Subsequently at the school l e v e l , language normal s u b j e c t s were matched with respect to age, sex and years of formal s c h o o l i n g . From the e l i g i b l e language normal s u b j e c t s , a random sample was s e l e c t e d . By i n t e r v i e w i n g the classroom teacher, the s e l e c t e d language normal students were checked for any e x c e p t i o n a l i t y that might i n f l u e n c e t e s t performance. Instrumental ion Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s The TCS i s a group administered t e s t of a p t i t u d e . Emphasis i s placed on those a p t i t u d e s r e l a t e d to e d u c a t i o n a l programs such as problem s o l v i n g , i d e n t i f y i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e v a l u a t i n g and remembering. There are f i v e l e v e l s of the TCS for use at grades 2 through 11. The present study uses L e v e l 1 of the TCS. 42 L e v e l 1 i s r e l a t e d to the grade range 2-3 or the age range 6 years 8 months through 10 years 10 months. Each l e v e l of the TCS has four s u b t e s t s : Sequences, Analogies, Memory and Verbal Reasoning. (The mean and standard d e v i a t i o n f o r each subtest i s d i f f e r e n t and has been repo r t e d for Item Response Theory s c o r i n g only.) By averaging the s c a l e d scores of the four s u b t e s t s , an o v e r a l l measure of general a b i l i t y , the C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Index (CSI) i s d e r i v e d . The CSI has a mean equal to 100 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 16. "TCS was designed t o measure a number of the c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s i n c l u d e d i n va r i o u s t h e o r i e s ; however, emphasis i s placed on the kinds of reasoning and r e t e n t i o n s k i l l s necessary for school s u c c e s s " (CTB/McGr aw-Hi11, 1982, p.8). The p u b l i s h e r , CTB/McGr aw-Hl11 (1982) provides the f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of the s u b t e s t s : Sequences This t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to comprehend a r u l e or p r i n c i p l e i m p l i c i t i n a p a t t e r n or sequence of f i g u r e s . The student must analyze the p a t t e r n or sequence e s t a b l i s h e d i n each 43 item stem and then s e l e c t the part that would continue the p a t t e r n or sequence. There are 20 items i n t h i s t e s t . Memory This t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to r e c a l l p r e v i o u s l y presented m a t e r i a l . The Memory t e s t i s presented i n two p a r t s . The Memory Lea r n i n g M a t e r i a l s , c o n t a i n i n g sample items and 20 p i c t u r e p a i r s , i s administered at the beginning of the t e s t i n g s e s s i o n . A f t e r an i n t e r v a l of about 15 minutes, the.Memory t e s t i s administered, and the student i s asked to r e c a l l the p i c t u r e p a i r s . There are 20 items i n t h i s t e s t . A n a l o g i e s This t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to see concrete and a b s t r a c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s and to c l a s s i f y o b j e c t s or concepts a c c o r d i n g to common a t t r i b u t e s . The student must reco g n i z e the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between two p i c t u r e s and then choose a p i c t u r e that i s r e l a t e d to a t h i r d p i c t u r e i n the same way that the f i r s t two are r e l a t e d . There are 20 items i n t h i s t e s t . 44 Verbal Reasoning This t e s t measures the student's a b i l i t y to d i s c e r n r e l a t i o n s h i p s and reason l o g i c a l l y . Some of the items r e q u i r e the student to i d e n t i f y which p i c t u r e i s d i f f e r e n t from the other p i c t u r e s . Other items r e q u i r e the student to i d e n t i f y an i l l o g i c a l p i c t u r e or a p i c t u r e that shows something that does not make sense. A f i n a l kind of item r e q u i r e s the student to i d e n t i f y a p i c t u r e that shows a l o g i c a l s o l u t i o n to an o r a l l y s t a t e d problem or s i t u a t i o n . There are 19 items i n t h i s t e s t . (p.2) The t e c h n i c a l report of the TCS provides d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n about the s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n procedure and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the norm sample of 83,000 c h i l d r e n from the United S t a t e s . The TCS authors s t a t e " . . . the schools that p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the TCS s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n appear to be reasonably r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the schools of the n a t i o n (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1983, p.42). According to Troy (1985), more s t a n d a r d i z a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n has been provided i n the t e c h n i c a l report than he has found with other group t e s t s . The TCS 45 T e c h n i c a l Report s t a t e s i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y r e l i a b i l i t y using the Kuder-Richardson formula 20. "Most subtest r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s appear adequate, i n the high .70s to .80s" ( K e i t h , 1985, p.1556). Test development i s well documented. The t e s t authors acknowledge that "there i s some o v e r l a p i n the s k i l l s measured by the s u b t e s t s " (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1983, p.6). The TCS was c o r r e l a t e d with the Short Form Test of Academic Aptitude (SFTAA) to e s t a b l i s h c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y . I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s f o r SFTAA Level 1-TCS L e v e l 1 and SFTAA L e v e l 2-TCS L e v e l 1 are .69 and .77 r e s p e c t i v e l y . P r e d i c t i o n v a l i d i t y i s i n d i c a t e d by the c o r r e l a t i o n s between the C a l i f o r n i a Achievement Tests (CAT) and the TCS. I n t e r c o r r e l a t 1 on c o e f f i c i e n t s for CAT L e v e l 12-TCS Level 1 and CAT L e v e l 13-TCS Le v e l 1 are .61 and .63 r e s p e c t i v e l y . To date, reviews of the TCS have been found only i n the Ninth Mental Measurements Yearbook ( K e i t h , 1985; Sternberg, 1985b) and Test C r i t i q u e s II (Troy, 1985). In h i s review of the TCS, Troy suggests that the t r a i t s measured by the s u b t e s t s are p r i m a r i l y v e r b a l i n nature. 46 E a r l y t e s t reviews of the TCS ( K e i t h , 1985; Sternberg, 1985b) completed before the t e c h n i c a l data were r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e , q u e s t i o n the norming, r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y of the TCS. In a l a t e r review of the TCS, where i t i s obvious that the TCS T e c h n i c a l Report had been r e l e a s e d , Troy (1985) s t a t e s : "The Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s i s an e x c e l l e n t t e s t from a t e c h n i c a l point of view" (p.785). Test of Language Development-2 Primary The TOLD-2 Primary (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988) i s an i n d i v i d u a l l y administered t e s t of o r a l language. "The TOLD-2 Primary measures v a r i o u s f e a t u r e s (syntax and semantics) and systems ( l i s t e n i n g and speaking) of language" (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.2). There are seven s u b t e s t s designed to e l i c i t the behaviors of a s s o c i a t i n g words and sentences to p i c t u r e s , t e l l i n g the meaning of words, sentence i m i t a t i o n , grammatic completion, a u d i t o r y d i s c r i m i n a t i o n and word art i c u l a t i o n . Various types of scores are a v a i l a b l e : raw scores, p e r c e n t i l e s and standard scores for the s u b t e s t s (mean=10, standard deviation=3), and q u o t i e n t s 47 for the composite scores (mean=100, standard deviation=15). According to the t e s t authors, a short form of the TOLD-2 Primary c o n s i s t i n g of the P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion s u b t e s t s may be administered i n order to o b t a i n an i n d i c a t i o n of o v e r a l l language: "When a quick estimate of o v e r a l l language i s r e q u i r e d , g i v e the P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion s u b t e s t s , . . . TOLD-2 Primary s u b t e s t s have s u f f i c i e n t r e l i a b i l t y to be i n t e r p r e t e d as independent e n t i t i e s , although they are more powerful when used as a b a t t e r y " (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.9). The P i c t u r e Vocabulary subtest "measures the extent to which the c h i l d understands the meanings a s s o c i a t e d with spoken E n g l i s h words" (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.5). The c h i l d p o i n t s to one of four p i c t u r e s that best r e p r e s e n t s the meaning of the stimulus word spoken by the examiner. The Grammatic Completion subtest "assesses the c h i l d ' s a b i l i t y to recognize, understand, and use common E n g l i s h morphological forms. . . . a c l o z e technique, r e q u i r e s that the examiner read u n f i n i s h e d 48 sentences and that the c h i l d supply [say] the missing morphological form" (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.5-6). Newcomer and Hammill base t h e i r short form t e s t design on a study by Cheramie, Gates, Thomissee and Breckenridge (1987). Cheramie et a l . c i t e three major approaches that have been used i n the development of short forms of the Weschler I n t e l l i g e n c e Scale for C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d : "(a) s e l e c t i o n of the most v a l i d set of s u b t e s t s ; (b) s e l e c t i o n of the most v a l i d s t r a t i f i e d set of s u b t e s t s ; and (c) item sampling" (p.89). In the development of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form, Newcomer and Hammill chose the two most v a l i d s u b t e s t s that y i e l d e d the highest c o r r e l a t i o n with the Spoken Language Quotient. Two other s t u d i e s give f u r t h e r credence to the Newcomer and Hammill r a t i o n a l e . In a v a l i d a t i o n study of the TOLD, Wong and Roadhouse (1978) r e p o r t e d that both P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion d i s c r i m i n a t e d normal readers from the other two groups of d i s a b l e d readers and language delayed s u b j e c t s . Hessler and Kit c h e n (1980) found i n a study of the language c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of students with l e a r n i n g d i s a b l i t i e s that these students 49 performed, on average, w i t h i n normal l i m i t s on P i c t u r e Vocabulary and below average on Grammatic Completion. Hessler and Kitchen's f i n d i n g s suggest that "the language d e f i c i e n c i e s of the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d appear to be g e n e r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i z e d by d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the for m u l a t i o n , r e t r i e v a l , and subsequent e x p r e s s i o n of the semantic, s y n t a c t i c , and morphological p r o p e r t i e s of language, r a t h e r than d i f f i c u l t i e s i n the r e c e p t i o n and r e c o g n i t i o n of v e r b a l i n f o r m a t i o n " (p.38). The TOLD-2 Primary i s a r e v i s i o n of the 1977 v e r s i o n of the Test of Language Development-Primary (TOLD-P). Past reviews of the TOLD-P ( A l l e n , 1985; I l l e r b r u n , Haines & Greenough, 1985; Reynolds, 1983) have been f a v o u r a b l e . According to these reviews, the TOLD-P i s seen as being t e c h n i c a l l y adequate with respect to norming, r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y ( A l l e n , 1985; Reynolds, 1983). R e v i s i o n s and m o d i f i c a t i o n s of the TOLD-P have been minimal. The 1988 v e r s i o n of the P i c t u r e Vocabulary subtest has been r e v i s e d t o i n c l u d e more d i f f i c u l t words; i n c r e a s i n g the items to 35. A few items were a l t e r e d and a few s u b s t i t u t i o n s were made i n the 1988 e d i t i o n of the Grammatic Completion 50 s u b t e s t . By means of an equ i v a l e n c y study, the t e s t authors report "that r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s p e r t a i n i n g to the e a r l i e r e d i t i o n of the t e s t can be c o n f i d e n t l y a p p l i e d to the most recent e d i t i o n as w e l l " (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988, p.45). Westby (1988) d e c r i b e s the TOLD-2 Primary as "well designed i n terms of meeting e s t a b l i s h e d psychometric c r i t e r i a " (p.237). Procedures The TCS Level 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form were administered by the r e s e a r c h e r . On separate dates, the TCS Level 1 was group administered to both language normal students and students with language d i s o r d e r s i n each s c h o o l . According to the TCS authors, "there should be one p r o c t o r f o r every f i f t e e n s t u d e n t s " (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1982, p.21). T o t a l group s i z e of both language normal students and students with language d i s o r d e r s per t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n d i d not exceed 15 st u d e n t s . Subsequent to each group a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the TCS, the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form was i n d i v i d u a l l y administered on the same day. 51 D e f i n i t i o n of Terms The f o l l o w i n g terms were d e f i n e d fo r t h i s study: 1. I n t e l l i g e n c e : the a b i l i t y to deal with a b s t r a c t i o n s , the a b i l i t y t o l e a r n and the a b i l i t y to cope with new or novel s i t u a t i o n s ( S a t t l e r , 1988). " O p e r a t i o n a l l y , i n t e l l i g e n c e i s what an i n t e l l i g e n c e t e s t measures" (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1987, p.160). 2. A p t i t u d e , a b i l i t y and c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s : used i n t e r c h a n g e a b l y with the term i n t e l l i g e n c e to r e f e r to the c o n s t r u c t s which the s p e c i f i c IQ t e s t purports to measure (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1987) 3. C o g n i t i o n : n o n l i n g u i s t i c knowledge (Rice, 1983) 4. Language: the l i n g u i s t i c model comprised of the i n t e r r e l a t e d components of phonology, syntax, morphology and semantics (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988) 52 5. Language d i s o r d e r e d / language l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d : language s k i l l s are below age ex p e c t a t i o n s and have a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on e d u c a t i o n a l and/or s o c i a l progress w i t h i n the e d u c a t i o n a l system ( M i n i s t r y of Education, 1985) 6. TCS C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Index (CSI): age-based standard score with a mean of 100 and standard d e v i a t i o n of 16 7. TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient: d e r i v e d by adding P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion subtest standard scores and c o n v e r t i n g the sum to a quotient using Table H; mean of 100, standard d e v i a t i o n of 15 53 Hypotheses In the present study, the general hypothesis t e s t e d was: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n performance between language normal students and students with language d i s o r d e r s on (a) the four s c a l e s of the TCS L e v e l 1 and (b) the two s c a l e s of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. An a d d i t i o n a l s p e c i f i c hypothesis t e s t e d was: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS Level 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s for (a) the combined language groups, (b) the language normal group and (c) the language d i s o r d e r e d group. 54 Data A n a l y s i s Estimates of the r e l i a b i l i t y of the TCS Le v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form were analyzed by LERTAP 3 (Galan &. Nelson, 1986). D i f f e r e n c e s i n performance between language normal students and students with language d i s o r d e r s were compared i n the H o t e l l i n g ' s T 2 t e s t from SYSTAT: The System f o r S t a t i s t i c s (Wilkinson, 1988). Using SYSTAT, Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between (a) TCS Le v e l 1 s c a l e s , (b) TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s and (c) TCS Le v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s . The r e l a t i o n s h i p s were determined f o r combined as well as separate language groups. MULTICORR ( S t e i g e r , 1979) was used f o r the purpose of comparing p a t t e r n s . o f i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among TCS Le v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s u b t e s t s . A sc a t t e r g r a m and r e g r e s s i o n equations for each of the language groups were developed. 55 CHAPTER IV RESULTS The present study was designed to ev a l u a t e the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s (TCS) Lev e l 1 and the Test of Language Development-2 (TOLD-2) Primary Short Form to d i f f e r e n t i a t e students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal s t u d e n t s . A secondary purpose of the study was to examine the c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS Le v e l 1 C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s Index (CSI) and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient. If a t e s t has low r e l i a b i l i t y , i t may be too crude to r e v e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between sample groups (Borg & G a l l , 1983). A c c o r d i n g l y , estimates of the r e l i a b i l i t y or i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the TCS L e v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form were determined. The method used to estimate the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y of the TCS L e v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form was c o e f f i c i e n t alpha as analyzed by LERTAP 3 (Galan & Nelson, 1986). " C o e f f i c i e n t alpha i s a l g e b r a i c a l l y e q u i v a l e n t to two other i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c y c o e f f i c i e n t s : KR-20 and Hoyt's (1941) index d e r i v e d from an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e a p p l i c a t i o n " (Galan & Nelson, 1986, p.25). 56 As can be seen i n Table 1, the estimates of r e l i a b i l i t y of the TCS Le v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form i n the present study are s i m i l a r t o the i n t e r n a l c o n s i s t e n c i e s r e p o r t e d by the t e s t authors. "For most t e s t s of c o g n i t i v e and s p e c i a l a b i l i t i e s , a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .80 or higher i s g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be a c c e p t a b l e " ( S a t t l e r , 1988, p.25). The s u b t e s t s and t o t a l forms of the TCS L e v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form have a c c e p t a b l e r e l i a b i l i t y . 57 TABLE 1 I n t e r n a l C o n s i s t e n c i e s f o r TCS L e v e l 1 & TOLD-2 Primary Shprt Form SCALES Mean Value Reported Present i n Manual Study Value KR 20 SEM ALPHA SEM TCS I,evel % Sequences 0.88 Memory 0.78 Analogies 0.79 Verbal Reasoning 0.73 T o t a l t e s t TOLD-2 Primary P i c t u r e Vocabulary 0.85 Grammatic Completion 0.90 T o t a l short form 0.92 1.80 2.03 1.73 1.60 0.87 1.86 0.74 2.00 0.77 1.91 0.76 1.70 0.89 3.91 0.81 2.03 0.90 2.19 0.91 3.06 Note. The dash i n d i c a t e s unreported d a t a . 58 The r e s u l t s of the study are presented as two s e c t i o n s , one f o r each of the hypotheses developed i n Chapter 3. Hypothesis 1: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n performance between language normal students and students with language d i s o r d e r s on (a) the four s c a l e s of the TCS L e v e l 1 and (b) the two s c a l e s of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. Standard subtest scores of the four s u b t e s t s of the TCS L e v e l 1 and the two s u b t e s t s of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form were compared using SYSTAT: The System f o r S t a t i s t i c s (Wilkinson, 1988). The H o t e l l i n g ' s T z r e v e a l e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between language d i s o r d e r e d and language normal groups on the TCS L e v e l 1 (Wilks' Lambda=0.628; df=4,63; p<0.001) and on the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form (Wilks' Lambda=0.552; df=2,65; p<0.001). The u n i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s r e s u l t i n g from the H o t e l l i n g ' s T 2 procedure (Table 2) I n d i c a t e d that the two language groups d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on three of the TCS L e v e l 1 v a r i a b l e s : Sequences, Analogies and Verbal Reasoning. 59 The two groups a l s o d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y on both of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form v a r i a b l e s : P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion. With the ex c e p t i o n of the TCS s u b t e s t , Memory, the r e s u l t s of the v a r i a n c e support Hypothesis 1. 60 TABLE 2 Language Group S t a t i s t i c s on TCS L e v e l 1 & TOLD-2 Primary Short Form S c a l e s : Means. Standard D e v i a t i o n s & A n a l y s i s of Variance Language Group Disordered Normal SCALES M SD M SD F p TCS hQYQl % SQ 323.47 86.46 402. 85 101. 98 11. 99 0. 001 MM 434.06 62.01 461. 27 80. 11 2. 45 0. 122 AN 289.62 114.53 377. 88 102. 24 11. 24 0. 001 VR 347.91 105.89 475. 29 81. 71 30. 84 0. 000* CSI 80.24 12.05 97. 71 12. 04 35. 77 0. 000* rOLD-2 Primary PV 8.59 2.03 11. 03 1. 98 25. 21 0. 000* GC 5.74 1.29 8. 50 2. 26 38. 44 0. 000* QUO 82.97 7.15 98. 59 10. 37 52. 26 0. 000* Note. For each group, n=34. SQ=Sequences; MM=Memory; AN=Analogies; VR=Verbal Reasoning; CSI=Cognitive S k i l l s Index; PV=Picture Vocabulary; GC=Grammatic Completion; QUO=Quotlent. df=1,66 * p<.001 61 Hypothesis 2: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS L e v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s f o r (a) the combined language groups, (b) the language normal group and (c) the language d i s o r d e r e d group. Using SYSTAT, Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were computed t o determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between (a) TCS Le v e l 1 s c a l e s , (b) TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s and (c) TCS L e v e l 1 s c a l e s and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s (see Table 3). The c o r r e l a t i o n s between the TCS L e v e l 1 s u b t e s t s were s i m i l a r to the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d i n the TCS T e c h n i c a l Report (1983). The c o r r e l a t i o n between TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s u b t e s t s and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient were somewhat higher and more c o n s i s t e n t than TCS subtest c o r r e l a t i o n s with the CSI. The Verbal Reasoning subtest of the TCS L e v e l 1 c o r r e l a t e s more h i g h l y with the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s u b t e s t s than do the other three TCS subscales with those of the TCS Lev e l 1. For both the Sequences and Analogies s u b t e s t s of the TCS Le v e l 1, there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e 62 c o r r e l a t i o n with one of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s u b t e s t s . Verbal Reasoning has a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n with both TOLD-2 Short Form s u b t e s t s . No s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n e x i s t s between the TCS Level 1 Memory subtest and e i t h e r of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s u b t e s t s j u s t as there i s no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n between the Memory subtest and any of the other three TCS Le v e l 1 s u b t e s t s . There Is a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS L e v e l 1 CSI and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient. 63 TABLE 3 I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s Among TCS L e v e l 1 & TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Scales for Combined Language Groups TCS TOLD-2 TCS SQ MM AN VR PV TPS SQ 16 48 36 MM 30* 17 13 AN 42* 28 39 VR 44* 19 33* TOLD-2 PV 30* 21 25 45* GC 27 25 30* 47* 45* TSC CSI 74* 50* 75* 68* 48* QUO 33* 27 32* 54* 85* GC CSI 73 48 79 71 53 49* 85* 57* Note. Decimals have been omitted. E n t r i e s above the di a g o n a l are mean c o r r e l a t i o n s r e p o r t e d i n t e c h n i c a l manual; those below the diagona l are c o e f f i c i e n t s developed i n t h i s study (n=68). SQ=Sequences; MM=Memory; AN=Analogies; VR=Verbal Reasoning; PV=Picture Vocabulary; GC=Grammatlc Completion; CSI=Cognitlve S k i l l s Index; QU0=Quotlent. * p<.01 64 To examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p of language a b i l i t y on the subtest i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s , the two language groups were analyzed s e p a r a t e l y . When c o r r e l a t i o n s were computed s e p a r a t e l y for the two language groups, the language normal group c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS Level 1 CSI and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient was .55, but -.06 for the language d i s o r d e r e d group. This suggested that there i s a lack of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between TCS Level 1 CSI and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient f o r the language d i s o r d e r e d group. As w e l l , other d i f f e r e n c e s i n subtest i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s for the language d i s o r d e r e d group were observed (see Table 4). Therefore, i t was necessary to t e s t the equivalence of covar i a n c e p a t t e r n s between the two language groups. MULTICORR ( S t e i g e r , 1979) was used for t h i s purpose of comparing the patt e r n s of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s among the TCS Level 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s u b t e s t s . A n a l y s i s of equivalence of c o v a r i a n c e among TCS Le v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s i n d i c a t e d a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two groups (X*=37.835, df=15, p=.001). 65 In order t o detect o u t l i e r s and determine i f the \ TCS L e v e l 1 CSI - TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient r e l a t i o n s h i p i s a l i n e a r one f o r both language groups, a r e g r e s s i o n equation was developed employing the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient as the p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e and the TCS Le v e l 1 CSI as the c r i t e r i o n . The r e s u l t i n g s c a t t e r p l o t and r e g r e s s i o n equation are given i n F i g u r e 1. The n e g l i g i b l e negative c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the language d i s o r d e r e d group i s of t h e o r e t i c a l i n t e r e s t . An o u t l i e r that may d i s t o r t the r e s u l t s for the language d i s o r d e r e d group i s noted. 66 TABLE 4 I n t e r c o r r e l a t I o n s Among TCS Le v e l 1 & TOLP-2 Primary  Short Form S c a l e s : Language Disordered & Language Normal Groups TCS TOLD-2 TCS TOLD-2 SQ MM AN VR PV GC CSI QUO ICS SQ 10 46* 35 -13 -05 74* -14 MM 34 33 -09 -05 00 37 -04 AN 18 15 27 -06 -13 75* -12 VR 22 30 -03 15 23 62* 25 TOLD-2 PV 33 27 20 30 -02 -03 84* GC 08 26 24 19 33 -06 52* TCS CSI 65* 59* 64* 42* 54* 36 -06 TOLD-2 QUO 24 37 27 29 79* 84* 55* Note. Decimals omitted. E n t r i e s above the dia g o n a l r e f e r to language d i s o r d e r e d group (n=34). Entr ies below the d i a g o n a l r e f e r to language normal group (n=34) SQ=Sequences; M M=Memory; AN =Analogies; VR=Verbal Reasoning; PV=Picture Vocabulary; GC=Grammatic Completion; CSI=Cognltive S k i l l s Index; QU0=Quotlent. *p<.01 67 * -• -Language Di s o r d e r e d Language Normal TCS LEVEL 1 CSI FIGURE 1 Scattergram and Language Group Regression Lines for A s s o c i a t i o n Between TCS Level 1 CSI and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient 68 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION The i n t e n t of the present study was to examine the c a p a b i l i t i e s of the Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s (TCS) Lev e l 1 and the Test of Language Development-2 (TOLD-2) Primary Short Form to d i f f e r e n t i a t e students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal s t u d e n t s . If both t e s t s are indeed i n d i c a t o r s of language development, then the TCS Le v e l 1 should c o r r e l a t e with the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. This chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o four s e c t i o n s . F i r s t , the r e s u l t s are i n t e r p r e t e d . Next, the l i m i t a t i o n s of the study are presented, followed by suggestions for f u t u r e r e s e a r c h . The chapter c l o s e s with some c o n c l u s i o n s about the use of the TCS Le v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form as s c r e e n i n g measures i n the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of language d y s f u n c t i o n . I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of F i n d i n g s The f i n d i n g s are presented i n two s e c t i o n s , with respect to each hypothesis of the study. 69 Hypothesis 1: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n performance between language normal students and students with language d i s o r d e r s on (a) the four s c a l e s of the TCS L e v e l 1 and (b) the two s c a l e s of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. According to the H o t e l l i n g ' s T z t e s t , there i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n performance between language d i s o r d e r e d and language normal groups on the TCS Le v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. The a n a l y s i s of va r i a n c e i n d i c a t e d that the language normal group had s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher means than the language d i s o r d e r e d group on the Sequences, Analogies and Verbal Reasoning s c a l e s of the TCS Le v e l 1, and on both the P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion s c a l e s of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. The t e s t reviews (Troy, 1985; Wong & Roadhouse, 1978), the l i t e r a t u r e d e s c r i b i n g the lang u a g e - c o g n i t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p ( C l a r k , 1975; Rice, 1983), the re p o r t e d content s i m i l a r i t i e s between t e s t s of language and t e s t s of a b i l i t y ( O i l e r , 1977; Stump, 1978), as we l l as the c o r r e l a t i o n s a v a i l a b l e from the t e s t t e c h n i c a l manuals, and the c o r r e l a t i o n s obtained i n t h i s study, a l l suggest that the a b i l i t i e s measured by the Sequences, Analogies, Verbal Reasoning, P i c t u r e Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion s c a l e s are p r i m a r i l y v e r b a l i n nature. In the present study, the students with language d i s o r d e r s obtained s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower scores than language normal students on a l l of the s c a l e s except TCS L e v e l 1 Memory. This l a c k of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the two language groups on the Memory subtest seems to agree with K e i t h ' s (1985) o p i n i o n that the Memory subtest r e q u i r e s nonverbal r a t h e r than v e r b a l s k i l l s and i s f u r t h e r supported by the lower i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between Memory and each of the other three TCS Le v e l 1 s u b t e s t s . The TCS T e c h n i c a l Report (1983) shows i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s between Memory and each of the three s u b t e s t s ranging from .10 to .20 with a median of .15. The present study r e p o r t e d s l i g h t l y higher i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s ranging from .19 to .30 with a median of .28. From Table 3 (Chapter 4), i t can be noted that for the TCS L e v e l 1 Memory sub t e s t , the re p o r t e d I n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n values d i f f e r more from those d e r i v e d from the present study, than f o r any other i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . The v a l i d i t y of the Memory subtest becomes suspect. The TCS authors (1983) suggest that Memory i s indeed a v e r b a l t a s k : " P i c t u r e s . . . are used f o r the Memory t e s t r a t h e r than numerical d i g i t s because v e r b a l l e a r n i n g tasks are h i g h l y conducive to a s s o c i a t i v e l e a r n i n g " ( p . l ) . This c l a i m of being v e r b a l i n nature may not be t o t a l l y u n s u b s t a n t i a t e d . An a l t e r n a t i v e e x p l a n a t i o n as to why the Memory subtest f a i l s t o d i s c r i m i n a t e language d i s o r d e r e d and language normal groups may be i n d i c a t e d i n a study of c h i l d r e n with a s p e c i f i c language d e l a y by Stark, T a l l a l , Kailman and M e l l i t s (1983). They found that a language normal group and a group with a s p e c i f i c language d e l a y d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y with respect to scores on each of the v e r b a l s u b t e s t s of the Wechsler I n t e l l i g e n c e S c ale f o r C h i l d r e n - R e v i s e d (WISC-R). However, both groups experienced the most d i f f i c u l t y with s h o r t - t e r m a u d i t o r y memory as assessed by the D i g i t Span s u b t e s t . For both groups, the D i g i t Span mean s c a l e d scores were the lowest of any of the WISC-R subtest s c a l e d s c o r e s . The study r e p o r t e d by Stark et a l . suggests that s h o r t - t e r m memory tasks present d i f f i c u l t y f o r both language normal c h i l d r e n and c h i l d r e n with language d i s o r d e r s . The design of the TCS Le v e l 1 Memory subtest i s such, that i t may not be s e n s i t i v e to the d i f f e r e n c e i n memory between the groups. Memory as assessed by most a b i l i t y s c a l e s such as the WISC-R measure immediate r e c a l l and a t t e n t i o n . The design of the TCS Le v e l 1 Memory subtest i s not s i m i l a r . "The Memory t e s t [of TCS L e v e l 1] re p r e s e n t s delayed r e c a l l of m a t e r i a l . The i n t e r v a l between the l e a r n i n g experience and the Memory t e s t i s approximately 15 minutes . . . " (CTB/McGraw-Hi11, 1982, p.2). At the beginning of the t e s t i n g s i t u a t i o n , students are presented with the Memory Lea r n i n g M a t e r i a l s . The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Memory Learning M a t e r i a l s takes approximately 10 minutes. The Memory Learning M a t e r i a l s c o n s i s t of a p r a c t i c e e x e r c i s e and two readings of 20 p a i r s of a s s o c i a t i o n s by the examiner. The Memory Lea r n i n g M a t e r i a l s are followed by the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Sequences s u b t e s t . Tasks designed to measure memory r e q u i r e a t t e n t i o n and c o n c e n t r a t i o n . A general impression of the research e r i s that the i n s t r u c t i o n a l format of the Memory Lea r n i n g M a t e r i a l s i s d u l l and captures the 73 a t t e n t i o n and c o n c e n t r a t i o n of only the most h i g h l y motivated student. The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of the Sequences subtest d u r i n g the i n t e r v a l between the Memory Learning M a t e r i a l s and the Memory subtest by design c o n t r i b u t e s a d d i t i o n a l d i f f i c u l t y to the memory t a s k . At i t s best, the TCS Le v e l 1 Memory subtest may be an i n d i c a t o r of mo t i v a t i o n and t e s t - t a k i n g behavior. Hypothesis 2: There i s a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS Le v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form s c a l e s f o r (a) the combined language groups, (b) the language normal group and (c) the language d i s o r d e r e d group. As can be seen i n Table 3 (Chapter 4), there i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n (p<.01) between the TCS Le v e l 1 CSI and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient f o r the combined language groups. This c o r r e l a t i o n supports Hypothesis 1 and the premise that the p r i m a r i l y v e r b a l nature of these s c a l e s i s the b a s i s of t h e i r shared v a r i a n c e . Although s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , t h i s CSI-Quotient 74 c o r r e l a t i o n has l i t t l e p r a c t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e as the c o r r e l a t i o n accounts f o r only 32% of the common v a r l a n c e . The c o r r e l a t i o n between the TCS L e v e l 1 CSI and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Quotient i s d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t because the p a t t e r n of c o r r e l a t i o n s between the language d i s o r d e r e d and the language normal groups d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y and s u b s t a n t i a l l y . The language d i s o r d e r e d group tended to e x h i b i t lower and n o n s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between s u b t e s t s , as w e l l as f o r the CSI and the Quotient. The language normal group showed more s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n s between su b t e s t s and the t o t a l t e s t s . The r e g r e s s i o n l i n e s have no p r e d i c t i v e v a l u e . For the language d i s o r d e r e d group, the CSI-Quotient c o r r e l a t i o n i s s l i g h t l y negative and does not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y from zero. Although there was a p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the CSI and Quotient f o r the language normal group, t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t as language would be the unknown v a r i a b l e of i n t e r e s t i n p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s . The negative c o r r e l a t i o n of the language d i s o r d e r e d group may be a t t r i b u t a b l e to d i f f e r e n t f a c t o r s . Although the TCS L e v e l 1 s c a l e s may be v e r b a l i n nature, these v e r b a l a b i l i t i e s may be d i f f e r e n t from those assessed by the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. The TOLD-2 Primary Short Form samples knowledge of word meanings and morphological forms. This type of knowledge i s not d i r e c t l y sampled by the TCS Le v e l 1. The p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n between the CSI and Quotient for the language normal group would then r e f l e c t a c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n of c o g n i t i o n and language. A second p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n of the negative c o r r e l a t i o n f o r the language d i s o r d e r e d group i s the presence of nonverbal elements a f f e c t i n g the TCS s c a l e s c o r e s . Although language may f a c i l i t a t e problem s o l v i n g , the students with language d i s o r d e r s have nonverbal c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s that may form a match with the nonverbal elements of the TCS s c a l e s . The students with language d i s o r d e r s may have success on the TCS and t h e r e f o r e , account f o r the low c o r r e l a t i o n . Stark et a l . (1983) i n t h e i r study of c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of language-delayed c h i l d r e n using the Wechsler s c a l e s suggest that the s p e c i f i c a l l y language-delayed c h i l d r e n and the language normal c h i l d r e n were e n t i r e l y comparable with respect to t h e i r 76 performance s c a l e d s c o r e s , performance s c a l e s , the TCS i n s t r u c t i o n s accompanied by for the language d i s o r d e r e d process of thought r e q u i r e d v e r b a l language, but r a t h e r can be expressed by the TCS TOLD-2 Primary Short Form Q a b i l i t i e s o n l y . As with the Wechsler subt e s t s depend upon v e r b a l an example. It i s p o s s i b l e group that the mediating f o r problem s o l v i n g i s not some nonverbal a b i l i t y that L e v e l 1 CSI whereas, the o t i e n t r e p r e s e n t s language L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study The major l i m i t a t i o n of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n was the c r i t e r i a f o r membership i n the language d i s o r d e r e d group. The s u b j e c t s f o r the language d i s o r d e r e d group were students between the ages of 6 years 8 months and 8 years 11 months. These students were p r e v i o u s l y i d e n t i f i e d as language d i s o r d e r e d by the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s who based t h e i r d e c i s i o n upon c l i n i c a l / d i a g n o s t i c experience and s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t i n g . There i s v a r i a b i l i t y w i t h i n the language d i s o r d e r e d group with respect t o the type of language d i s o r d e r s , degree of s e v e r i t y , and whether any other 77 d e f i c i t s may have i n f l u e n c e d performance. For the language d i s o r d e r e d group, i t was assumed by the speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s that there i s a d i s c r e p a n c y between the c h i l d ' s a c t u a l language and language p o t e n t i a l r a t h e r than c o n s i d e r i n g that the c h i l d ' s language i s commensurate with the c h i l d ' s o v e r a l l a b i l i t y l e v e l . If the c h i l d ' s language i s indeed commensurate with h i s o v e r a l l a b i l i t y , what e x i s t s i s not a language d i s o r d e r but r a t h e r a g l o b a l l y - f u n c t i o n i n g below average i n d i v i d u a l . The present study a l s o has l i m i t e d g e n e r a l i z a b l 1 i t y due to the r e s t r i c t e d age range of 6 years 8 months to 8 years 11 months. The age range suggests that s c r e e n i n g would not occur u n t i l e a r l y grade 1 u s i n g the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form and the mid to l a t t e r part of grade 1 using the TCS L e v e l 1, due to the t e s t format i n v o l v i n g group a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and completion of an answer b o o k l e t . Research I m p l i c a t i o n s Subsequent i n v e s t i g a t i o n s need to examine the s c r e e n i n g ' h i t r a t e ' of both the TCS L e v e l 1 and the 78 TOLD-2 Primary Short Form. Although both of these t e s t s have been proven i n the present study to d i s c r i m i n a t e students with a melange of language d i s o r d e r s from language normal students, the accuracy with which they do so remains t o be determined. With re s p e c t t o the TCS L e v e l 1, an examination of the extent to which the TCS L e v e l 1 d i s t i n g u i s h e s language d y s f u n c t i o n as opposed to verbal-performance (V-P) IQ d i s c r e p a n c i e s i s needed. According to Kaufman (1981), " i t i s not unusual f o r normal youngsters to have d i f f e r e n c e s of 15 or more p o i n t s [on the WISC-R]; i n f a c t , one out of four normal c h i l d r e n has a s i g n i f i c a n t V-P d i f f e r e n c e at the .01 l e v e l , . . ." (p.523). Just how the TCS L e v e l 1 w i l l d i s t i n g u i s h t h i s type of student from the t r u l y language d i s o r d e r e d remains to be seen. A comparison of the accuracy r a t e s of TCS Level 1 and/or TOLD-2 Primary Short Form versus c u r r e n t language s c r e e n i n g procedures would be of v a l u e . During the past year i n School D i s t r i c t #71 (Courtenay), language s c r e e n i n g procedures have taken the form of i n d i v i d u a l s c r e e n i n g at the k i n d e r g a r t e n l e v e l . Two speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s have used t h e i r c l i n i c a l experience i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a composite of s u b t e s t s s e l e c t e d from d i f f e r e n t language assessment meaures to screen approximately 600 k i n d e r g a r t e n s t u d e n t s . The process has been time-consuming. Many c o n s e c u t i v e t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t i o n s occur as whole c l a s s e s are screened per school v i s i t . Under such circumstances, examiner e r r o r c o u l d be h i g h . There i s no psychometric b a s i s f o r the s e l e c t i o n of s u b t e s t s that are used i n the s c r e e n i n g p r o c e s s . The h i t r a t e of the current s c r e e n i n g procedure i s unknown. I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the u t i l i t y of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form i n the k i n d e r g a r t e n s c r e e n i n g process would be of b e n e f i t . Screening using the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form may be conducted by school personnel as d i a g n o s t i c e x p e r t i s e i s not a p r e r e q u i s i t e . The speech-language p a t h o l o g i s t s would gain a d d i t i o n a l time for language i n t e r v e n t i o n for the l a r g e number of students a l r e a d y i d e n t i f i e d as r e q u i r i n g language therapy. Other areas which warrant f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n are the language and a b i l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the group designated as the language d i s o r d e r e d group. By s p e c i f y i n g the nature of the language d i s o r d e r s , f u t u r e s t u d i e s c o u l d determine whether or not the s c a l e s of 80 the TCS L e v e l 1 and TOLD-2 Primary Short Form are s e n s i t i v e to a l l types or only c e r t a i n dimensions of language d i s o r d e r s . If the s c a l e s are too s p e c i f i c , then a high i n c i d e n c e of m i s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n may r e s u l t i n s c r e e n i n g . Future s t u d i e s are needed to determine i f f a c t o r s other than language d y s f u n c t i o n are r e s p o n s i b l e f o r low CSI s c o r e s . Low i n t e l l i g e n c e i s an immediate f a c t o r for c o n s i d e r a t i o n . Some students with a l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y experience d i s t r a c t i b i l i t y and d i f f i c u l t y i n r a p i d l y s h i f t i n g mental operations on symbolic m a t e r i a l ( S a t t l e r , 1988). E i t h e r of these f a c t o r s would a f f e c t performance on the TCS. G i f t e d students may perform p o o r l y on the TCS due to t h e i r e x c e p t i o n a l i t y . A b i l i t y t e s t s have been designed to measure much of what i s necessary f o r academic s u c c e s s : memory, a s s o c i a t i o n and convergent reasoning as opposed to the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which c h a r a c t e r i z e g i f t e d n e s s : d i v e r g e n t reasoning and e v a l u a t i o n ( G e t z e l s & Jackson, 1962; Wallach & Kogan, 1965). The inherent c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a g i f t e d i n d i v i d u a l cause him to be e s p e c i a l l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o the p i t f a l l s of the a b i l i t y assessment s i t u a t i o n . 81 E a r l y i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of language d y s f u n c t i o n i s of grave importance. Therefore, e x t e n s i o n of the lower age l i m i t of the groups under study deserves f u r t h e r a t t e n t i o n . K i r k (1987) c a l l s for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of language d i s o r d e r s at a preschool l e v e l . A d i s o r d e r i n language i s c l a s s i f i e d as a developmental l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t y . " I f not remediated at an e a r l y age, [ i t ] w i l l c o n t r i b u t e . . . to d i s a b i l i t i e s i n l e a r n i n g the academic s u b j e c t s l a t e r on" (p.78). The TOLD-2 Primary i s normed for c h i l d r e n as young as 4 years 0 months. The present study examined the lower l i m i t of 6 years 8 months. Further s t u d i e s could determine i f the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form can d i f f e r e n t i a t e language d i s o r d e r e d from language normal students at the pres c h o o l l e v e l . Programming I m p l i c a t i o n s The f i n d i n g s of the present study have e d u c a t i o n a l i m p l i c a t i o n s . Although the TCS L e v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form have been found to d i s c r i m i n a t e students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal students, the content and co n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the 82 TOLD-2 Primary Short Form i n d i c a t e that i t would be a b e t t e r language s c r e e n i n g instrument than the TCS Level 1. The behaviors measured by the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form are s p e c i f i c a l l y designed to assess language and provide some d i a g n o s t i c i n f o r m a t i o n . The c o i n c i d e n t a l d i s c r i m i n a t i o n of students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal students by the TCS L e v e l 1 suggests that the TCS Level 1 may serve as a gross s c r e e n i n g measure. S p e c i f i c a l l y speaking, as School D i s t r i c t #71 (Courtenay) continues to expl o r e and extend the use of the TCS throughout the sc h o o l d i s t r i c t , the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n should implement and eva l u a t e the use of the TCS L e v e l 1 as an I n d i c a t o r of language development. Caution i s advised as intimated by the n e g l i g i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between achievement on the TCS Lev e l 1 and achievement on the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form f o r the language d i s o r d e r e d group. The language a b i l i t i e s sampled by the TCS Le v e l 1 are unknown and may not match those language s k i l l s r e q u i r e d f o r s u c c e s s f u l communication i n the school s e t t i n g . 83 Conclusions The l i t e r a t u r e supports the premise of a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between language s k i l l s and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t y where i t i s d i f f i c u l t to d i s t i n g u i s h the two areas as separate e n t i t i e s . The present study suggests that language and c o g n i t i o n are not one i n the same e i t h e r . The r e s u l t s of the present study support the use of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form as a s c r e e n i n g measure for the i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of 'language at r i s k ' s t u d e n t s . The r e l i a b i l i t y of the ab b r e v i a t e d form of the TOLD-2 Primary seems t o be s u b s t a n t i a t e d . With the exce p t i o n of the Memory sub t e s t , both the TCS L e v e l 1 and the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form are t e c h n l q u e l y adequate and were found i n t h i s study to d i s c r i m i n a t e students with language d i s o r d e r s from language normal s t u d e n t s . However, the content and c o n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the TOLD-2 Primary Short Form make i t the b e t t e r instrument for the s c r e e n i n g of language development. The TCS Lev e l 1 should be considered as a gross i n d i c a t o r of language d y s f u n c t i o n . More Information about the co n s t r u c t v a l i d i t y of the TCS Le v e l 1 i s needed. 84 0 REFERENCES A l l e n , D. (1985). Review of Test of Language Development. In James V. M i t c h e l l , J r . (Ed.), Ninth mental measurements yearbook (p.1261). L i n c o l n , NE: The Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements of the U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska. A n a s t a s i , A. (1985). P s y c h o l o g i c a l t e s t i n g . New York: Macmillan. Anastasiow, N.J., Hanes, M.L. & Hanes, M.L. (1982). Language and rea d i n g s t r a t e g i e s for poverty  c h i l d r e n . B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Bates, E., Benigni, L., Bretherton, I., Camaioni, L., & V o l t e r r a , V. (1977). From gesture to the f i r s t word: On c o g n i t i v e and s o c i a l p r e r e q u i s i t e s . In M. Lewis & L. Rosenblum (Eds.), I n t e r a c t 1 on.  c o n v e r s a t i o n and the development of language (pp.258-278). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Binnington, V. (1986). A c a l l f o r a c t i o n . S p e c i a l  Education Newsletter. BCTF, 4(1). Bloom, L o i s . (1975). One word at a time. Hague: Mout on. Bloom, L. &. Lahey, M. (1978). Language development  and language d i s o r d e r s . New York: John Wiley & Sons . Borg, W.R. & G a l l , M.D. (1983) E d u c a t i o n a l r e s e a r c h (4th ed . ) . New York: Longman. Brown, R. & Lenneberg, E. (1954). A study i n language and c o g n i t i o n . J o u r n a l of Abnormal & S o c i a l Psychology. 49, 454-462. Bruner, J.S. (1975). The ontogenesis of speech a c t s . J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language. 2.(1), 1-20. 85 C a r r o l l , J.B. (1983). Psychometric theory and language t e s t i n g . In J.W. O i l e r , J r . (Ed.), Issues  i n language t e s t i n g r e s e a r c h (pp.80-107). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Carrow-Woolfoik, E. & Lynch, J . I . (1982). An  i n t e g r a t i v e approach to language d i s o r d e r s i n  c h l I d r e n . New York: Grune & S t r a t t o n . C a t t e l l , R.B. (1987). I n t e l l i g e n c e : I t s s t r u c t u r e ,  growth & a c t i o n . Amsterdam: E l s e v i e r . Cheramie, G.M., Gates, D.O., Thomissee, C , & Breckenridge, R.L. (1987). E f f i c a c y of the GOH short form of the WISC-R i n the e v a l u a t i o n of EMR st u d e n t s . Journal of Psvchoeducat1onal  Assessment. 5>(2), 89-98. Chomsky, Noam. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. P r e s s . C l a r k , E.V. (1975). Knowledge, context and s t r a t e g y i n the a c q u i s i t i o n of meaning. In D. Dato (Ed.), Developmental p s y c h o l i n g u i s t i c s : Theory & a p p l i c a t i o n s 26th Annual Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y  Roundtable (pp.77-97). Washington, DC: Georgetown U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . C o r r i g a n , R. (1979). C o g n i t i v e c o r r e l a t e s of language: D i f f e r e n t i a l c r i t e r i a y i e l d d i f f e r e n t i a l r e s u l t s . C h i l d Development, 5j0_(3), 617-631. Creaghead, N.A. & T a t t e r s h a l l , S. (1985). Observation and assessment of classroom pragmatic s k i l l s . In C S . Simon (Ed.), Communication s k i l l s and  clas s r o o m success (pp.105-127). San Diego, CA: C o l l e g e - H i l l P r e s s . Cromer, R.F. (1976). The c o g n i t i v e hypothesis of language a c q u i s i t i o n and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s . In D.M. Morehead & A.E. Morehead (Eds.), Normal and  d e f i c i e n t c h i l d language (pp.283-334). B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park Press. 86 Cromer, R.F. (1981). R e c o n c e p t u a l i z l n g language a c q u i s i t i o n and c o g n i t i v e development. In R.L. S c h i e f e l b u s c h & D. B r i c k e r (Eds.), E a r l y language:  a c q u i s i t i o n and I n t e r v e n t i o n (pp.51-137). B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . CTB/McGraw-Hi11. (1981). Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s  L e v e l 1. Monterey, CA: Author. CTB/McGr aw-Hi11. (1982). Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s  t e s t c o o r d i n a t o r ' s handbook and guide to  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . Monterey, CA: Author. CTB/McGr aw-Hi11. (1983). Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s  t e c h n i c a l r e p o r t . Monterey, CA: Author. Devito, J.A. (1970). The psychology of speech and  language: An i n t r o d u c t i o n to p s y c h o l I n g u i s t i c s . New York: Random House. DiSimoni, F. (1978). The Token Test f o r C h i l d r e n . Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources. Dunn, L. & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody P i c t u r e  Vocabulary T e s t - R e v i s e d . C i r c l e Pines, MN: American Guidance S e r v i c e . Experimental s t u d i e s of the r e l a t i o n between language  and c o g n i t i o n . (1964). (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. 016 953) F i s c h e r , K.W. (1980). A theory of c o g n i t i v e development: The c o n t r o l and c o n s t r u c t i o n of h i e r a r c h i e s of s k i l l s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review. 8_7_<6), 477-531. Galan, A. & Nelson, L. (1986). LERTAP 3. Vancouver, BC: D i t a c t i c s S e r v i c e s . G e t z e l s , J . & Jackson, F. (1962). C r e a t i v i t y and  i n t e l l l g e n c e . New York: John Wiley & Sons. 87 Goldberg, R. & R o t h s t e i n , V. (1986, November). Connections: A framework for o r g a n i z i n g semantic  InformatIon. Paper presented at C o u n c i l for E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n 15th Annual Conference, Vancouver, B.C. G u i l f o r d , J.P. (1985). The s t r u c t u r e - o f - i n t e l l e c t model. In B.B. Wo1man (Ed.), Handbook of  I n t e l l i g e n c e (pp.225-266). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Gunnarson, B. (1978). A look at content s i m i l a r i t i e s between i n t e l l i g e n c e , achievement, p e r s o n a l i t y and language t e s t s . In J . O i l e r & K. P e r k i n s (Eds.), Language edu c a t i o n : T e s t i n g the t e s t s (pp.17-35). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Hessler, G. & Kitchen, D. (1980). Language c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a purposive sample of e a r l y elementary l e a r n i n g s t u d e n t s . Learning D i s a b i l i t y  Q u a r t e r l y , 3, 36-41. Higgins, E. & Lindsay, M. (1987). S p e c i a l needs  assessment program - Program e v a l u a t i o n . LRC ( A v a i l a b l e from School D i s t r i c t #71). H i l b o r n , K. & Deese, D. (1987). Handbook for CAT/TCS  te s t i n g . LRC ( A v a i l a b l e from School D i s t r i c t #71). I l l e r b r u n , D., Haines, L. & Greenough, P. (1985). Language i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s c r e e n i n g t e s t for k i n d e r g a r t e n : A comparison with four s c r e e n i n g and three d i a g n o s t i c language t e s t s . Language. Speech  & Hearing S e r v i c e s i n Schools, 16, 280-292. Jakobson, R., Fant, C.G. & H a l l e , M. (1969). P r e l i m i n a r i e s to speech a n a l y s i s . Cambridge, MA: MIT P r e s s . Johnston, J.R. (1982). The language d i s o r d e r e d c h i l d . Speeph, LatngMtage ft Rearing, 2_, 780-801. 88 Kamhi, A.G. (1981). N o n l i n g u i s t i c symbolic and conceptual a b i l i t i e s of language-impaired and normally developing c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Speech &  Hearing Research. 24. 446-453. Kaufman, A.S. (1981). The WISC-R and l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s assessment: State of the a r t . J o u r n a l of Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 14.(9), 520-26. K e i t h , T.Z. (1985). Review of Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s . In James V. M i t c h e l l , J r . (Ed.), Ninth mental measurements yearbook (pp.1555-1556). L i n c o l n , NE: The Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements of the U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska. K i r k , S.M. (1987). The l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d preschool c h i l d . Teaching E x c e p t i o n a l C h i l d r e n . 12.(2), 78-80. K o l l i g i a n , J . & Sternberg, R.J. (1987). I n t e l l i g e n c e , i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g , and s p e c i f i c l e a r n i n g d i s a b i l i t i e s : A t r i a r c h i c s y n t h e s i s . J o u r n a l of  Learning D i s a b i l i t i e s . 20(1), 8-16. L l n d f o r s , J.W. (1987). C h i l d r e n ' s language and  l e a r n i n g (2nd ed. ) . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l . Lowe, A.D. & Campbell, R.A. (1965). Temporal d i s c r i m i n a t i o n i n aphasoid and normal c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Speech & Hearing Research. 8_, 313-314. Macnamara, J . (1982). Names f o r t h i n g s : A study of  human l e a r n i n g . Cambridge, MA: MIT Pr e s s . Mehrens, W.A. & Lehmann, I . J . (1987). Using  s t a n d a r d i z e d t e s t s i n education (4th ed.). White P l a i n s , NY: Longman. Menyuk, Paula. (1976). A problem of language: l e n g t h vs. s t r u c t u r e . In D.M. Morehead & A.E. Morehead (Eds.), Normal and d e f i c i e n t c h i l d language (pp.259-282). B a l t i m o r e : U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . 89 M i l l e r , J . , Campbell, T., Chapman, R. & Weismer, S. (1984) . Language behavior i n acquired c h i l d h o o d aphasia. In A.L. Holland (Ed.), Language d i s o r d e r s  i n c h i l d r e n (pp.57-99). San Diego, CA: C o l l e g e H i l l P r e s s . M i n i s t r y of Education, P r o v i n c e of B r i t i s h Columbia. (1985) . B.C. s p e c i a l programs-A manual of  p o l i c i e s , procedures, and g u i d e l i n e s . N a t i o n a l J o i n t Committee on L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t i e s . (1986) . Learning d i s a b i l i t i e s and the preschool c h i l d . L earning D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y . 9_, 158-163. Newcomer, P. & Hammill, D. (1988). Test of Language Development - 2 Primary. A u s t i n , TX: Pro-ed. Newcomer, P. & Hammill, D. (1977). Test of Language  Development. A u s t i n , TX: E m p i r i c . O i l e r , John W. (1977). How Important i s language p r o f i c i e n c y to IQ and other e d u c a t i o n a l t e s t s ? (ERIC Document Reproduction S e r v i c e No. 144 394) Olson, David R. (1977). The contexts of language a c q u i s i t i o n . In J . Macnamara (Ed.), Language  l e a r n i n g and thought (pp.177-184). New York: Academic P r e s s . Owens, Robert E., J r . (1984). Language development. Columbus, OH: M e r r i l l . P i a g e t , J . & Inhelder, B. (1969). The psychology of  the c h i l d . New York: B a s i c Books. Reynolds, C.R. (1983). S t a t i s t i c s f o r the enhancement of p r o f i l e a n a l y s i s on the Test of Language Development-Primary. Psychology i n the Schools. 20. 5-9. Rice, M.L. (1983). Contempory accounts of the c o g n i t i o n / l a n g u a g e r e l a t i o n s h i p . J o u r n a l of Speech  and Hearing D i s o r d e r s , 48(4), 347-359. 90 Rice, M.L. & Kemper, S. (1984). C h i l d language and  cognlt i o n . Baltimore, MD: U n i v e r s i t y Park P r e s s . Richard, G. & Hanner, M.A. (1985). Language Process ing T e s t . Moline, IL: LingulSystems. S a l v i a , J . & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1985). Assessment In  s p e c i a l and remedial e d u c a t i o n . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n . S a t t l e r , Jerome M. (1988). Assessment of c h i l d r e n . San Diego, CA: Jerome M. S a t t l e r , P u b l i s h e r . S c h l e s i n g e r , I.M. (1977). The r o l e of c o g n i t i v e development and l i n g u i s t i c input i n language a c q u i s i t i o n . J o u r n a l of C h i l d Language. £, 153-169. S c h l e s i n g e r , I.M. (1982). Steps to language: Toward a theory of n a t i v e language a c q u i s i t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Semel, E.M. & Wiig, E.H. (1980). C l i n i c a l E v a l u a t i o n  of Language Functions D i a g n o s t i c B a t t e r y . Columbus, OH: M e r r i l l . S i e g e l , L.S., Lees, A., A l l a n , L. & Bolton, B. (1981). Non-verbal assessment of P i a g e t i a n concepts i n preschool c h i l d r e n with impaired language development. E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. ij.2), 153-158. S l o b i n , D.I. (1973). C o g n i t i v e p r e r e q u i s i t e s f o r the development of grammar. In C A . Ferguson & D.I. S l o b i n (Eds.), Studies of c h i l d language  development (pp.175-294). New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. S l o b i n , D.I. (1979). P s y c h o l I n g u i s t i c s . D a l l a s , TX: Scott-Foresman. Snyder, L. (1978). Communicative and c o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s and d i s a b i l i t i e s i n the sensorimotor p e r i o d . M e r r i l l - P a l m e r Q u a r t e r l y , 24, 161-180. 91 Stark, R., T a l l a l , P., Kallman, C. & M e l l i t s , E. (1983). C o g n i t i v e a b i l i t i e s of language-delayed c h i l d r e n . J o u r n a l of Psychology. 114. 9-19. S t e i g e r , J.H. (1979). MULTICORR. A computer program for f a s t , accurate, small-sample t e s t i n g of c o r r e l a t i o n a l p a t t e r n h y p o t h e s i s . E d u c a t i o n a l and  P s y c h o l o g i c a l Measurement. 39. 677-680. Sternberg, R.J. (1985a). C o g n i t i v e approaches to i n t e l l i g e n c e . In B.B. Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of  i n t e l l i g e n c e (pp.59-118). New York: John Wiley & Sons . Sternberg, R.J. (1985b). Review of Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s . In James V. M i t c h e l l (Ed.), N i n t h mental  measurements yearbook (pp.1556-1557). L i n c o l n , NE: The Buros I n s t i t u t e of Mental Measurements of the U n i v e r s i t y of Nebraska. Stump, T.A. (1978). Cloze and d i c t a t i o n tasks as p r e d i c t o r s of i n t e l l i g e n c e and achievement s c o r e s . In J . O i l e r & K. Perkins (Eds.), Language  edu c a t i o n : T e s t i n g the t e s t s (pp.36-57). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. T a l l a l , P. (1988). Developmental language d i s o r d e r s : Part 1 - d e f i n i t i o n . Human Communication Canada. 12.(2), 7-22. T a l l a l , P. & P i e r c y , M. (1973). Developmental aphasia: Impaired r a t e of non-verbal p r o c e s s i n g as a f u n c t i o n of sensory m o d a l i t y . Neuropsycholgia. l l f 389-398. Troy, M. (1985). Test of C o g n i t i v e S k i l l s . In R. Sweetland & D. Keyser (Eds.), Test cr i t l q u e s 11 (pp.780-786). Kansas C i t y : Test C o r p o r a t i o n of Amer i c a . V e t t e r , D.K. (1982). Language d i s o r d e r s and s c h o o l i n g . Topics i n Language D i s o r d e r s , 2_(4), 13-19. 92 Vygotsky, Lev. (1986). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: M.I.T. P r e s s . Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind i n s o c i e t y : The  development of higher p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s e s . Cambridge, MA: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Wadsworth, B.J. (1971). P i a g e t ' s theory of c o g n i t i v e  development. New York: David McKay. Wallach, M. & Kogan, N. (1965). C o g n i t i v e o r i g i n a l i t y , physiognomic s e n s i t i v i t y & defensiveness i n c h i l d r e n . Durham: Duke Univers i t y . Werner, E. & Kresheck, J.D. (1983). The S t r u c t u r e d  Photographic E x p r e s s i v e Language T e s t . Sandwich, IL: J a n e l l e . Westby, C a r o l . (1988). Test of Language Development-2 Primary, Test of Language Development-2 Intermediate. The Reading Teacher. 42(3), 236-237. Wiig, E.H. & Semel, E. (1984). Language assessment &  i n t e r v e n t i o n f o r the l e a r n i n g d i s a b l e d . Columbus, OH: M e r r i l l . W i lkinson, L. (1988). SYSTAT: The system f o r  s t a t 1 s t l c s . Evanston, IL: SYSTAT, Inc. Wong, B.Y.L. & Roadhouse, A. (1978). The t e s t of language development (TOLD): A v a l i d a t i o n study. L e a r n i n g D i s a b i l i t y Q u a r t e r l y , 1, 48-61. Woodcock, R.W. (1980). Woodcock Language P r o f i c i e n c y  B a t t e r y , Hingham, MA: Teaching Resources. 93 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0054375/manifest

Comment

Related Items