Navigating the Standardized Testing Conundrum: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Written By Katrina Fulcher

Over the past week, we delved into Fulcher-Rood et al.'s (2018) findings, uncovering the prevalent use of standardized testing among school-based SLPs. This qualitative study explored the tools SLPs use, the rationale behind their choices, and how data from assessments guide diagnoses for children with speech-language disorders.

In this blog post, we aim to dissect the standardized testing landscape, exploring its benefits, drawbacks, and the complex considerations that SLPs must navigate when choosing assessment tools.

Defining Standardized Testing:

At its core, a standardized test is an assessment tool designed with specific psychometric qualities—reliability and validity. These tests offer consistent administration procedures and typically norm-referenced scores, allowing comparisons to a larger population.

The Good:

The appeal of standardized testing lies in its quantifiable and objective nature. As SLPs, we seek to understand a child's speech and language skills within a developmental trajectory, and comparing them to a normative group seems like a logical approach. Additionally, standardized testing is used in our field and

in many other professions that school-based SLPs work with (e.g., school psychologists and special educators). This gives team members a common ground and language when discussing a child on their collective caseload.

The Bad and the Ugly:

However, the seemingly straightforward path of standardized testing is not without pitfalls. Some common issues include:

  1. Decontextualization: These tests often lack real-world context, assessing language skills in isolation. (3, 6)

  2. Variable Psychometric Quality: Standardized tests may vary in the quality of their psychometric properties. (1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11)

  3. Lack of Diagnostic Accuracy Metrics: Many tests lack metrics to diagnose disorders (e.g., sensitivity and specificity) accurately. (1, 3, 4, 5, 10, 11)

  4. Arbitrary Cut-off Scores: Research indicates that cut-off scores can be arbitrary and may not reflect the impact of potential disorders. (2)

  5. Cultural and Linguistic Bias: Standardized tests misdiagnose children from diverse backgrounds due to limited representation in normative samples. (4, 5, 11)

The Big Picture:

While standardized tests offer efficiency and comprehensiveness, SLPs must carefully consider their appropriateness for each client. Before deciding if a standardized test should be added to an assessment protocol, these crucial factors should be considered:

  1. Inclusion of diagnostic accuracy measures

  2. Client representation in the norming sample

  3. Client exposure to test stimuli and language

  4. Alignment of test stimuli and language to assessment goals or the language expectations for the client within a variety of contexts

Looking Ahead:

Stay tuned as we continue to dissect the nuances of standardized testing in the coming weeks. Follow us on our social media platforms as we break down the common issues of standarzied testing. Also, subscribe to our newsletter for announcements regarding classes in this area! Our goal is to empower SLPs with the knowledge to select appropriate tests and embrace more authentic, culturally, and linguistically diverse assessment practices.

Upcoming Classes:

Explore our upcoming classes on assessment, where we'll dive into selecting the best standardized tests and adopting more culturally sensitive and authentic assessment practices. Join us in this journey to enhance your assessment skills and provide the best care for your clients.

References:

  1. Betz, S. K., Eickhoff, J. R., & Sullivan, S. F. (2013). Factors influencing the selection of standardized tests for the diagnosis of specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(2), 133–146. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 0161-1461(2012/12-0093)

  2. Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & CATALISE consortium. (2016). CATALISE: A multi-national and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children. PLOS ONE, 11(7), Article e0158753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158753

  3. Denman, D., Cordier, R., Kim, J.-H., Munro, N., & Speyer, R. (2021). What influences speech-language pathologists’ use of different types of language assessments for elementary school–age children? Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(3), 776–793. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_lshss-20-00053

  4. Denman, D., Speyer, R., Munro, N., Pearce, W. M., Chen, Y.-W., & Cordier, R. (2017). Psychometric properties of language assessments for children aged 4–12 years: A systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 1515. https://doi. org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01515

  5. Dollaghan, C. A., & Horner, E. A. (2011). Bilingual language assessment: A meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 54(4), 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2010/10-0093)

  6. Fulcher-Rood, K., Castilla-Earls, A., & Higginbotham, J. (2019). Diagnostic decisions in child language assessment: Findings from a case review assessment task. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(3), 385–398. https://doi.org/10. 1044/2019_lshss-18-0044

  7. Fulcher-Rood, K., Castilla-Earls, A. P., & Higginbotham, J. (2018). School-based speech-language pathologists’ perspectives on diagnostic decision making. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(2), 796–812. https://doi.org/ 10.1044/2018_ajslp-16-0121

  8. Hoffman, L. M., Ireland, M., Hall-Mills, S., & Flynn, P. (2013). Evidence-based speech-language pathology practices in schools: Findings from a national survey. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(3), 266–280. https://doi.org/10.1044/ 0161-1461(2013/12-0041)

  9. McCauley, R. J., & Swisher, L. (1984). Psychometric review of language and articulation tests for preschool children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49(1), 34–42. https://doi.org/ 10.1044/jshd.4901.34

  10. Ogiela, D. A., & Montzka, J. L. (2021). Norm-referenced language test selection practices for elementary school children with suspected developmental language disorder. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(1), 288–303. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_lshss-19-00067

  11. Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1994). Selection of preschool language tests: A data-based approach. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 25(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461.2501.15

  12. Records, N. L., & Tomblin, J. B. (1994). Clinical decision making: Describing the decision rules of practicing speech-language pathologists. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr.3701.144

  13. Selin, C. M., Rice, M. L., Girolamo, T., & Wang, C. J. (2019). Speech-language pathologists' clinical decision making for children with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 50(2), 283-307. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0017

Katrina Fulcher
Previous

Norm-Referenced Testing in Speech-Language Pathology: A Practical Guide
Next

ASHA 2023 Convention Unveiled: Navigating Non-Traditional Paths