JCPSLP Vol 14 No 1 2012

The current study provides early support for the use of the ALDeQ within an Australian population. It must be noted that the questionnaire was only used with ELL of Vietnamese, Romanian, and Macedonian backgrounds; therefore, findings may not be generalised to cultural groups not included in the study. Although cultural differences in ALDeQ scores were not investigated within this study, it is encouraging that typically developing scores for Australian and Canadian samples were consistent, giving some support to the cross-cultural application of the ALDeQ. Paradis and colleagues (2010) investigated differences between cultural groups’ scores on the ALDeQ and found a trend, but no significant differences. Further research into the application of the questionnaire across different cultures is warranted. Conclusion The current study reinforces some of the original findings of Paradis and colleagues (2010) and provides preliminary results suggesting that the ALDeQ’s Canadian norms may be applicable to an Australian sample in order to differentiate between ELL with language difficulty and typically developing ELL. The ALDeQ is convenient and simple to administer and may have scope to be used by a variety of professionals. It may have potential for use within an assessment protocol for preschool or school-aged ELL when direct assessment of the L1 is not possible, or to add information to direct assessment (Paradis et al., 2010). The ALDeQ allows us to gain information from the parent who indisputably knows their child best and provides a norm referenced score, although further research with a larger sample size in the Australian context is necessary to confirm the results of the current study. Acknowledgments We are grateful to Johanne Paradis, Kristyn Emmerzael, and Tamara Sorenson Duncan who gave permission for use of the ALDeQ in this study. Our appreciation extends to the study participants, and the support of friends and family, including Richard May, throughout this project. This research was funded by a student research grant from Speech Pathology Australia and ReCAP grant from the School of Psychology and Speech Pathology, Curtin University. References American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (1993). Definitions of communication disorders and variations . doi:10.1044/policy.RP1993-00208 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). (2004, April 27). Knowledge and skills needed by speech-language pathologists and audiologists to provide culturally and linguistically appropriate services . doi:10.1044/policy.KS2004-00215 Bashir, A. S., & Scavuzzo, A. (1992). Children with language disorders: Natural history and academic success. Journal of Learning Disabilities , 25 (1) 53–65. doi:10.1177/002221949202500109 Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. The International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism , 11 , 1–29. doi:10.2167/beb392.0 Caesar, L. G., & Kohler, P. D. (2007). The state of school-based bilingual assessment: Actual practice versus recommended guidelines. Language, Speech and Hearing

identifying language difficulty in preschool and school-aged ELL, particularly when direct L1 assessment is not feasible. There are currently limited resources available to assist in accurate referrals of ELL to speech pathology services. The ALDeQ could begin to fill this gap, and has scope for inclusion as part of an assessment battery for ELL identified at risk of language difficulty. It is appropriate for use with both preschool and school-aged ELL. An interpreter may be required to administer the ALDeQ although analysis of responses does not require knowledge of the L1’s developmental norms. Unlike standardised face-to-face testing, the questionnaire allows information about communication in natural environments to be gained, and is more time efficient than dynamic assessments. The ALDeQ’s simple and efficient administration, together with its parent-friendly language, indicate a potential capacity for administration by a range of professionals, provided they receive appropriate training and have awareness of cultural sensitivity. Strengths, limitations, and future research The current study was underpowered due to its small sample size and use of non-parametric analysis; however, the results provide preliminary support for use of the ALDeQ to aid in discriminating between typically developing and language difficulty groups. Replication of this study with a large sample size is recommended. The current study used parent report to classify children as having language difficulty or typically developing language. Future studies should place greater stringency on participant selection criteria, including measures of non-verbal intelligence and face-to-face assessment to minimise potential misdiagnosis in initial participant group selection and improve external validity. The current study used two different methods of data collection which may have impacted results, and future studies should systematically explore manipulation of mode of administration of the ALDeQ (telephone versus face-to-face interview). Although a significant result was found between groups in the ALDeQ Total Score, discrepancies in the ALDeQ’s differentiation ability for ELL with marginal scores (scores close to the cut off point) were evident. Paradis and colleagues’ (2010) study found the ALDeQ to have good specificity, with issues regarding sensitivity. The current study did not determine sensitivity and specificity of the ALDeQ; however, it found that one ELL in each diagnostic group achieved a score which placed him/her in the opposite category, although these two children’s scores were close to the –1.25SD cut-off. Misclassifications of ELL with marginal scores may be due to original group misidentification, particularly as classification relied only on parent report. Future research should continue to investigate ALDeQ misidentification at the marginal level, with scope to reconsider the ALDeQ cut-off as a range rather than a specific value. Children who score within the marginal range would be prioritised for further testing. The current study included a possible language difficulty group with children reported to have been clinically identified with a language difficulty or who had a current referral to language therapy, while the Paradis and colleagues (2010) study used clinical diagnosis as their criteria for inclusion in their language impaired group. Investigation of ALDeQ score differences between children referred to speech pathology services for language difficulty versus children with diagnosed language difficulty should also be addressed.

28

JCPSLP Volume 14, Number 1 2012

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology