1.8.1 Assessment process of bilingual children in Switzerland & recommended practices
Based on a publication of the Bernese association of speech therapists (Abegglen, Abbühl, Sarai, Beer,
& Mathys, 2018), educational support of CLD children might be differentiated between speech and language provision versus intensive L2 (German) language courses. This paper further describes some explanations and guidelines to therapists and practitioners as to how best gauge the type of necessary support: L2 (German) language course is to be offered to children who still do not possess sufficient knowledge of the German language in order to fully participate in class and school activities. This provision, which is part of the broader special educational measures provision, takes place inclusively within the class setting or at a group level. There are three levels of possible provision: L2 instruction in class, intensive L2 course and advanced L2 instruction. The main aim of this type of provision is to enable CLD children to acquire the necessary BICS and CALP skills for everyday communication, as well as written language acquisition. The authors further refer to Tracy (2008) specifying that
acquisition of BICS requires a L2 (German) input of 3 half-days per week over a period between 6
41 months up to 2 years in a setting where L2 is consistently used 40% of the time. SLT provision, on the other hand, is mainly aimed at children presenting with delays and/ or disorders in their L1.
Table 1. Summary of the recommended “care pathway” for CLD children in Switzerland (translated from original)
L1 acquisition not assessable ... ..and insufficient L2 exposure ... →Intensive multidisciplinary L2 provision to increase L2 input.
*monitor learning progress L1 Acquisition impaired (based
on parental report) …
... L2 Acquisition also impaired → SLT referral (evalutaion)
L1 Acquisition not assessable ... L2 Acquisition also impaired → SLT referral (evaluation) Source (in German): Logopädie TeamThun, 2011; retrieved from logopedie-bern.ch.
Within this context the authors propose that the following assessment practises take place: a) information gathering at the school setting (teachers, parents etc) regarding type, duration, quality of language input, communicative - linguistic behaviour (questioning, play behaviour, sound inventory, repetition abilities, self-correction, attention skills, abilities in L1 and L2). If there is substantiated suspicion of linguistic impairment, a speech and language assessment should follow that should include observation of any “red flag” behaviours, such as (amongst others): stagnation of L2 acquisition, poor attention skills, poor or no role play, distinct phonetic difficulties during repetition tasks, poor communicative behaviours and keyword understanding, stereotypical use of words and others, b) Parental case-history using appropriate forms, and c) Recommended assessment instruments include narrative ability, nonword repetition and dynamic assessments (not detailed).
1.8.2 Application of recommended practices in Switzerland: Challenges
Application of international and “local” recommendations, such as the ones presented above, regarding the assessment of bilinguals presents a challenge for therapists internationally. As mentioned earlier, of specific interest for this study is the assessment of CLD children acquiring (Swiss-) German, as well as the challenges met during this process. This is of special significance when considering that almost 41% of the total number of new-borns in Switzerland are of foreign origin (BFS, 2016). There is, therefore, ever-growing need of clinicians equipped with the appropriate skills to assess (and treat) such a multicultural paediatric population.
42 Compared to neighbouring Germany or Austria, there is evidence that there is an increasing number of bilingual speech therapists that provide therapeutic measures to CLD children in Switzerland. Also, based on the same study (Schütte & Lüdtke, 2013) about practices of SLTs concerning CLD children, percentages of clinicians that collaborated with interpreters and involved parents during the
assessment and therapeutic process were comparatively high. Overall, the ASHA (2004)
recommendations regarding sociolinguistic factors and involvement of relevant services seem to be met, at least to a certain degree.
However, when it comes to the actual assessment of CLD children, the situation is less positive (Schütte & Lüdtke, 2013). Swiss SLTs obtained the lowest score on the item “Usage of known bilingual instruments”, when compared to their German and Austrian colleagues. Furthermore, Häusermann (2009) acknowledged difficulties met by local therapists to take into consideration the children’s overall linguistic skills (in both languages), either because of a lack of knowledge of the children’s first language or due to difficulty of identifying and using a suitable instrument in German.
The author highlights the methodological issues around employing norms of High-German tests and proposes the usage of a play-based assessment of non-verbal behavior. In addition, due to a lack of sufficient and valid assessments in Swiss-German (Hartmann, Rindlisbacher, Till, & Winkes, 2015), it is not uncommon for many SLTs to rely on personal adaptations of instruments in High-German (presented below) or on informal measures, i.e., unofficial adaptations of bilingual tests in Swiss-German. One exception appears to be the “Sprachstandserfassung” (HfH Zurich) with specific guidelines on the optimal assessment procedure regarding bilingual children (Diagnostik der
Sprachlichkeit bei Migrationshintergrund). The employment of a compilation of different parts of tests is recommended, such as the Communication Profile for Bilingualism (Kommunikatives Profil
Mehrsprachigkeit für Kinder zwischen 3,5 und 5,5 Jahren; Ersoy, Juditzki, Mühling, Steiner, &
Tölken, 2003), Subtests of the Patholinguistic Diagnosis of Language Disorders (Patholiguistischen Diagnostik bei Sprachentwicklungsstörungen- (PDSS); Kauschke & Siegmüller, 2002).
Also, questionnaires and clinical sampling techniques, such as the comparative measurement of the Mean Length of Utterance (MLU), should be used to assess children’s performance in both home language and Swiss-German in the areas of pragmatics, semantics, morphology and phonetics.
However, to our knowledge, no studies have been published confirming the usefulness of these recommendations within the specific context. Overall, it is argued that there is a lack of adequate speech and language assessment tools regarding the use of Swiss-German of CLD children (Häusermann, 2009).
43 1.8.3 The Swiss-German context: most common instruments used with bilinguals; psychometric properties and general issues.
Some of the most used formal assessments of CLD children by Swiss-German SLTs are presented below. Reference to reliability or validity is provided only where such data is available (Neugebauer &
Becker-Mrotzek, 2015):
a) HAVAS-5-/Hamburger Verfahren zur Analyse des Sprachstandes bei Fünfjährigen (Analysis of the linguistic level of 5-year-olds; Reich & Roth, 2003) is a non-standardized assessment of receptive and expressive language based on a 10-minute sample of a child’s utterances in both languages. It has an overall reliability of .63 (Cronbach’s alpha).
b) Kenntnisse in Deutsch als Zweitsprache: Screeningmodell für Schulanfänger (Knowledge of German as a Second Language: Screening for school beginners; Staatsinstitut für Schulqualität und Bildungsforschung München, 2002), is a screening tool targeting children in reception year which is based on an interview of the child in German. There is no data available regarding reliability.
c) Sprachstandsüberprüfung und Förderdiagnostik für Ausländerkinder (Test of the linguistic level of foreign children; Hobusch, Lutz, & Wiest, 1999), for children from 6- 10 years old. It is standardized but can also be used informally to assess children’s ability to answer questions, follow directions or describe pictures in German. There is no data available regarding reliability or validity.
d) Diagnostische Leitfragen (Diagnostic questions; Knapp, 2001) is a questionnaire that evaluates teachers’ observations of children’s linguistic competencies in different areas.
e) Linguistische Sprachstandserhebung – Deutsch als Zweitsprache – (Lise-Daz) (Linguistic evaluation-German as a Foreign Language; Schulz & Tracy, 2011) is a comprehensive assessment of language for children between 3-8 years of age, which has been standardized using children with German as an additional language (GAL). This test has a high reliability (ICC: .92-.99). Due to these high psychometric characteristics this instrument was chosen as a measure of reference and, therefore, its structure will be analysed in more detail in the methodology section.
f) The Cito-Sprachtest (Language test) Version 3 (Cito Deutschland, 2010) is a computer-based test examining passive vocabulary, cognitive concepts, phonological awareness, and text
comprehension. Reliability regarding these subtests varies between .76 and .91 (Cronbach’s alpha).
g) The Delfin-4 / Diagnostik, Elternarbeit, Förderung der Sprachkompetenz In Nordrhein-Westfalen bei 4-Jährigen (Assessment, Parental support, and Stimulation of the linguistic competence of 4-year-olds; Fried, Briedigkeit & Schunder, 2008) was devised to determine the school readiness of children between 4-7 years of age. Despite its good reliability (Level 1: .86, Level 2: .95), it has been criticized for its cultural (in-) appropriateness.
h) The SISMIC questionnaire / Sprachverhalten und Interesse an Sprache bei Migrantenkindern im Kindergarten (Linguistic behaviour and interest in language regarding migrant kindergarteners;
44 Ulich & Mayr, 2004) provides a systematic observation of the linguistic development of migrant children from age 3.5 until around 6.
i) The inductive approach (Induktive Ansatz) focuses on the use of mobile phones by the parents to obtain naturalistic samples of a child’s speech in both languages of children from age 3 (Scharff-Rethfeld, 2014).
Despite the usefulness of the above measures, their weaknesses should not be overlooked, especially when considering the guidelines (ASHA, IALP) for bilingual assessment, such as i) using translators and interpreters, ii) using alternative assessment procedures, iii) using formal standardized tests appropriately, as well as interviewing techniques (Caesar & Kohler, 2007).
To summarize: a) Only very few tests have specifically been devised for children with German as a second language; b) Existing tests do not cover the demands of all children, as they offer norms for specific language groups, if at all; c) All of the aforementioned tests are static tests and, thus, have low prognostic value and do not offer any information on the children’s potential for language learning (predictive validity), with the exception of some useful items in some of the questionnaires; d) Reliability, efficiency and time requirements are frequently not mentioned, e) Lack of adaptations in Swiss-German further complicates assessment.
1.9 Issues regarding speech and language assessment of bilinguals: the case of standardized