EXAMINER’S MANUAL SCREENER VERSION
EXAMINER’S MANUALSCREENER VERSIONDRAFTMabel L. Rice, Ph.D.Kenneth Wexler, Ph.D.
Copyright 2001 by The Psychological Corporation, a Harcourt Assessment CompanyStandardization edition copyright 2000 by The Psychological Corporation, a HarcourtAssessment CompanyAll rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by anymeans, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information storage and retrievalsystem, without permission in writing from the publisher.The Psychological Corporation and the PSI logo are trademarks of The Psychological Corporation, aHarcourt Assessment Company, registered in the United States of America and/or other jurisdictions.Rice/Wexler and Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment are trademarks of Harcourt, Inc.Printed in the United States of America01588966291 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 A B C D E
AcknowledgmentsThe Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment grew out of a program ofresearch directed by the authors and funded by awards from the National Institute ofDeafness and Other Communication Disorders (RO1 DC01803), and research directedby Rice and also funded by NIDCD (P50 DC02746 with Bruce Tomblin as the principalinvestigator).The real beginning was the youngsters with language impairments I encounteredduring my early years as a speech-language pathologist, especially those for whomthere was no apparent cause for their impairment. My frustration with the limitationsI encountered with the means of identification available for affected children led meto a course of inquiry that has played out over the following decades. I spent the fallof 1990 in Ken Wexler’s lab at MIT, where one could learn about the emerging modelsof morphosyntax and engage in ongoing tutorials with Ken and a marvelous group ofdoctoral students, including: David Poeppel, William Snyder, Sergey Avrutin, and ColinPhillips; and later expanded to Carson Schutze and Jenny Ganger, along with facultymembers Alec Marantz and David Pesetsky. I express my deep appreciation to Ken, forhis interest in my questions about children with unexplained difficulties in grammatical acquisition, and for the cohesion and rigor of the theory of Optional Infinitives inchildren. This theory allowed for the formulation of precise predictions to be evaluatedin children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), and, perhaps, a better understanding of how some of the pieces of the puzzle are configured and how they interface with other pieces. The model ultimately led to an instrument that may help usto better identify young children with limited language competency.Investigation of children with SLI, and the necessary comparison groups of unaffectedchildren, is an extensive empirical endeavor that involves the contributions of manypeople. I wish to thank Karla Barnhill for her steadfast and highly valuable contributions as a coordinator of data collection, and for her firsthand, astute observations ofmany of the children who participated in the experimental protocols. I am gratefulto Janna Oetting, Pat Cleave, and Sean Redmond for their suggestions and advice; fortheir participation in the development and evaluation of new elicitation tasks duringtheir participation in the lab; for their contributions to data collection; and for theircreative extensions of the lab work in their dissertations and subsequent programsof independent research. Mary Howe and Hiromi Morikawa provided data summariesand documentation of an ongoing series of outcomes. Janet Marquis has been therethroughout for queries about quantitative analyses and general guidance on mattersstatistical; she brought her expertise to the formal analyses of the experimental data.Scott Hershberger carried part of the quantitative load for the first reports of growthcurve data analyses. Pam Hadley provided valuable procedural suggestions early on,along with insightful interpretive extensions in her dissertation study and her subsequent investigations of young children. My deep appreciation goes to Patsy Woodsfor her daily contributions as Administrative Assistant; she functions as a real EarthMother to the entire team. In addition to these people, there are many other studentsand staff who have participated and who have my appreciation for their contributionsto the lab.Beyond the Kansas site, I wish to express my appreciation to Bruce Tomblin for hisinvitation to join the collaboration on Specific Language Impairment for studies onthe large samples of children recruited and studied at the University of Iowa. Thisinvitation allowed for the collection of data on some of the experimental probes witha wider group of language impaired children, and valuable collaborative interactionsiii
with my scientific colleagues Jeff Murray, Lawrence Leonard, Susan Ellis Weismer,Carol Miller, Robert Kail, Marc Fey, and Lawrence Shriberg. A special thanks goes to mycolleague down the hall, Hugh Catts.I thank Carolyn Mervis for her invitation to collaborate with her on studies of childrenwith Williams Syndrome; Martha Crago, Fred Genesee, and Joanne Paradis for theirinvitation to collaborate with them on studies of French-speaking children with SLI;and Helen Tager-Flusberg and Jeanne Roberts for their invitation to collaborate withthem on studies of children with autism. I thank Kate Taylor and Steve Zubrick fortheir invitation to spend time developing new lines of inquiry while in residence inPerth, Australia.A number of people within the community of scholars have helped shape the direction of my thinking about grammatical morphology and language impairments, butof course they are not responsible for my continued limitations. They include Jill andPeter deVillers, Judith Johnston, Harold Clausen, Dorothy Bishop, Celia Jakubowicz,Steven Crain, Jeannette Schaeffer, Yonata Levy, Gina Conti-Ramsden, CorneliaHamann, Roz Thornton, and Andrew Radford. I wish also to thank Judith Cooperfor her wise consultations on grant matters.The making of this test was a 3-year endeavor. Thanks to the many people at ThePsychological Corporation for their efforts in the development of the Rice/WexlerTest of Early Grammatical Impairment: Dr. Charles “Chuck” Wilkins and Dr. AgnesStephenson provided valuable quantitative assistance; the text benefited from thecapable editing of Dawn Dunleavy, Pam Parmer, and Michelle Girard. Dr. Carol Waryaswas supportive from the very beginning. Jan Laurent, Project Manager, coordinatedand oversaw the entire project, and did so with impressive competency and grace.I also thank the individuals who participated as bias reviewers and the many professionals who participated as field examiners.To my friends Kathleen, Kim, Susan C., Susan K., Marilyn, Toni, Scott, Rhonda, andothers—thanks for your support. For my daughter, Melinda, and for Toshi, with love.For the children with language impairments and those who wish to teach them.Mabel RiceJuly 2001This test is based on long years of research that Mabel Rice and I conducted on SpecificLanguage Impairment (SLI); I thank Mabel for introducing me to the fascinating, difficult, and important problem of language impairment and for all the patience andcourage that she showed in allowing ideas and results that I believed in, but that wereso different from received views on impairment, to enter into this problem. The NIHsupported this SLI research; I hope that they will feel that their faith was justified.The knowledge that we now have of SLI could not have begun to develop if there hadn’tbeen long years of difficult, if exciting, research on esoteric scientific problems involvingthe Optional Infinitive stage in many languages. I will never forget what I have elsewhere called the “great community of OI researchers”—the large group of people aroundthe world who jumped into the problem, collecting and analyzing data, pointing outcounterexamples in language X, confirming data in language Y, and running differentanalyses; finding loopholes, inconsistencies, and even, occasionally, praise.iv
This field has grown so quickly that even I, an optimist, am stunned. If this testbenefits children, which is my dearest hope, there are many people to be thanked—so many people involved from around the world that I dare not try to list them all.Let me just mention the following:Among students at MIT who contributed so much to move me in the right directionon early development; Amy Pierce Brand, David Poeppel, Carson Schutze, ColinPhillips, Sergey Avrutin, Jenny Ganger, Masha Babyonyshev, William Snyder, TaniaIonin; postdoctoral fellows and lab visitors Teresa Guasti, Roz Thornton, Frank Wijnen,Astrid Ferdinand, Vicenc Torrens, Manuela Schoenenberger, Thomas Lee, JeanneteSchaeffer, Judy Baek, and Hyeon-jin Lee; Juergen Weissenborn, a lab visitor who heardmy lectures, listened carefully, and found evidence in his own French and Germandata; Bonnie Schwartz, a lab visitor who let me understand how second languageacquisition differs; my knowledgeable, argumentative, and interested facultycolleagues, David Pesetsky and Alec Marantz; Nina Hyams, the person who kept generative approaches to early inflectional development alive for so many years, was alwaysavailable to give me the benefit of her expertise; Rita Manzini dropped in occasionallywith the trenchant remark that proved so useful; Corneilia Hamann always had newchallenges to offer; Bernhard Rohrbacher pushed forward in analyzing data from a veryyoung child; Celia Jakubowicz, Lea Nash, and Harald Clahsen prodded me withdifferent ideas; Steven Crain, while not working on this particular issue, was always acomrade in figuring out how to discover what kids were capable of in language; LuigiRizzi who had the scientific insight and foresight to get interested in the problem earlyand invited me to teach in Geneva, thereby opening up not only his own intriguingwork on the problem, but a whole community’s.This is just the beginning; I am leaving out too many people and not even attemptingto list all the researchers on SLI who eventually reacted and contributed in variousways. The point is that, while the scientific research that laid the foundation for theRice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment may be sometimes situated inpapers with several names on it, in essence it is the product of a great scientificcommunity.It is also the product of the support that I continue to receive from loved ones. I couldnot have managed to maintain such effort without the love and support of my wife,Sherry Wexler (who was deeply involved in her own doctoral work during this period),Paul, and Stephanie and Chris. I thank them from the bottom of my heart.Ken WexlerJuly 2001v
Table of ContentsChapter 1Overview. 1Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1Theoretical Background:A Morphosyntactic View of Children’s Grammar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1A Clinical Marker Approach to Language Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Advantages of Using Rice/Wexler Compared toOther Language Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6Chapter 2Administration and Scoring. 7Probes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Test Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Examiner’s Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Stimulus Manual . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Record Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Training Videotape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7Manipulatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8User Qualifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Administration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Using the Screening Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Scores Reported . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8Testing Considerations and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Test Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Establishing a Rapport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Parents/Caregivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10The Testing Session . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Completing the Record Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Computing Chronological Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Administration Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11General Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Practice and Trial Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Using Prompts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Phonological Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Scoring Responses and Marking the Record Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13Completing the Phonological Probe Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Third Person Singular Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14Recording Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Scoring Responses and Marking the Record Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Completing the Third Person Singular Probe Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16vii
Past Tense Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16Recording Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Scoring Responses and Marking the Record Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Completing the Past Tense Probe Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19Supplemental Scoring for the Past Tense Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20*Be/Do Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Recording Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scoring Responses and Marking the Record Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Completing the Be/Do Probe Score Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Grammaticality Judgment Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Scoring Responses and Marking the Record Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Completing the Grammaticality Judgment Probe Summary . . . . . . . . . . .Completing the Summary Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20*Calculating Elicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Calculating the Screening Score . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20Identifying Criterion Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Marking the Growth Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22Chapter 3Interpretation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Scores Calculated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25About the Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25Development of Criterion Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26Using the Rice/Wexler in Clinical Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27Establishing Eligibility for Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Using Rice/Wexler as a Screening Tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28Interpreting the Rice/Wexler Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Elicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Interpreting the Phonological Probe Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Interpreting the Third Person Singular Probe Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30Interpreting the Past Tense Probe Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31*Interpreting the Be/Do Probe Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Interpreting Grammaticality Judgment Probe Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Production Probes and A' Values: Implications forGeneral Intervention Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34Comparisons With Related Test Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35Interpreting Children's Performance Relative toNonverbal Intelligence or Parent Education Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36viii
Chapter 4Research and Development. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37History of the Instrument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Probe Development and Previous Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37Tryout Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40Bias Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Examiner Input and Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Standardization Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44Selection and Qualification of Examiners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Description of the Standardization Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50Development of Criterion Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Growth Curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53Previous Studies and Comparisons to Rice/Wexler Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55Chapter 5Technical Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Test-Retest Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69Validity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Evidence Based on Test Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Evidence Based on Internal Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71Evidence Based on Relations to Other Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74Convergent Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75Discriminant Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Relationship Between Rice/Wexler and Parent Education Levels . . . . . . . . 81Appendix A Criterion Scores. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83Appendix B Sensitivity and Specificity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85Appendix C Probe Score Look-up Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101*Appendix D A' Look-up Tables.Appendix E Scoring Examples. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103*Appendix F Rice/Wexler Test of Early GrammaticalImpairment Examiners . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107*This material is listed for reference only, but can be found in the full version of this manual at thefollowing link: http://www2.ku.edu/ cldp/MabelRice/pubslist.shtmlix
List of FiguresFigure 1.1 The Bell-Shaped Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5Figure 1.2 Distribution of Children’s Performance in the Area of Grammar . . . . . . . 6Figure 2.1 Calculating Chronological Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Figure 2.2 Recording and Scoring Responses for the Third PersonSingular Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17Figure 2.3 Recording and Scoring Responses for the Past Tense Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . 21*Figure 2.4 Examples of Editing Be/Do Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 2.5 Recording and Scoring Responses for the Be/Do Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 2.6 Recording and Scoring Responses for the GrammaticalityJudgment Probe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 2.7 Completing the Summary Scores Sections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23Figure 4.1 Box and Whiskers Plot for Third Person Singular . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52Figure 4.2 Box and Whiskers Plot for Past Tense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52*Figure 4.3 Box and Whiskers Plot for Be/Do Score (Be) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 4.4 Box and Whiskers Plot for Be/Do Score (Do) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 4.5 Box and Whiskers Plot for Elicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 4.6 Box and Whiskers Plot for Grammaticality JudgmentDropped Marker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 4.7 Box and Whiskers Plot for Grammaticality JudgmentAgreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 4.8 Box and Whiskers Plot for Grammaticality JudgmentDropped -ing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 4.9 A' Calculations for Grammaticality Judgment Probe—Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .*Figure 4.10.A' Calculations for Grammaticality Judgment Probe—Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Figure 4.11 Past Tense Calculations—Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66Figure 4.12 Past Tense Calculations—Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66List of TablesTable 2.1Examples of Responses to Reprompt and to Not Reprompt . . . . . . . . . . . 12Table 4.1Tryout Research Sample by Age and Language Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41Table 4.2Rice/Wexler Bias Panel Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43Table 4.3Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Age—Children inthe Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46Table 4.4Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Age—Children inthe Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Table 4.5Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Gender—Children inthe Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Table 4.6Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Gender—Children inthe Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47Table 4.7Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Race/Ethnicity—Childrenin the Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48x
Table 4.8Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Race/Ethnicity—Childrenin the Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Table 4.9Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Region—Children inthe Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Table 4.10 Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by Region—Children inthe Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48Table 4.11 Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by ParentEducation Level—Children in the Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . 49Table 4.12 Rice/Wexler Standardization Sample by ParentEducation Level—Children in the Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . 49Table 4.13 Means and Standard Deviations for theRice/Wexler Probe Scores, Elicited Grammar Composite,and Grammaticality Judgment Scores by Age—Children in the Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Table 4.14 Means and Standard Deviations for theRice/Wexler Probe Scores, Elicited Grammar Composite,and Grammaticality Judgment Scores by Age—Children in the Language Disorder Group. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51Table 4.15 25th Percentile, Mean Score, and 75th Percentile foreach Rice/Wexler Probe and for the Elicited GrammarComposite—Children in the Normal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54Table 4.16 Analysis of Variance for Rice/Wexler Probes andfor the Elicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Table 4.17 t test for the Rice/Wexler Probe Scores and forthe Elicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Table 4.18 Repeated Measures ANOVA—Group by Age and A’ Type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61Table 4.19 Repeated Measures ANOVA Table—Normal Language Groupand Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62Table 4.20 t test between Rice/Wexler Grammaticality JudgmentProbe Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63Table 4.21 t test between Rice/Wexler Grammaticality JudgmentProbe Scores—Children in the Language Disorder Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64Table 5.1Test-Retest Means, Standard Deviations, Mean AbsoluteScore Differences, and Stability Coefficients forRice/Wexler Probes and Elicited Grammar Composite (n 106). . . . . . . . 70Table 5.2Correlations of the Rice/Wexler probes andElicited Grammar Composite—Children in theNormal Language Group . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72Table 5.3Correlations of the Rice/Wexler Probes and ElicitedGrammar Composite—Children with Language Impairments. . . . . . . . . . 73Table 5.4Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations BetweenCELF –Preschool Word Structure and Rice/Wexler Probesand Elicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76Table 5.5Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations BetweenCELF –3 Word Structure and Rice/Wexler Probes andElicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77Table 5.6Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations BetweenCELF –Preschool Basic Concepts and Rice/Wexler Probes andElicited Grammar Composite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78xi
Table 5.7Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations BetweenCELF –3 Word Classes and Rice/Wexler probes and ElicitedGrammar Composite for Children with Language Disorders. . . . . . . . . . . 79Table 5.8Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for the ElicitedGrammar Composite and Non-Verbal IQ Scores for Childrenwith Language Disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80Table 5.9Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for the ElicitedGrammar Composite and Grammaticality Jud
v This field has grown so quickly that even I, an optimist, am stunned. If this test benefits children, which
The Arkansas Rapid Automatized Naming Screener (AR-RAN) is an informal measure created by the Arkansas Department of Education, which gave the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) permission to use in Indiana schools. This screener will fulfill the rapid naming subset of the universal screener. This screener is based on
2 Guided Tour ZRS Screener Guided Tour Getting Started in ZRS Screener Using ZRS Screener is quite easy. The ZRS Screener's main display is the screening interface. To aid in your work with Zacks data, the company's information is organized into several categories and sub-categories. Each
ABOUT THE SCREENER The Screener of Handwriting Proficiency is designed for educators and specialists to help them assess critical and measurable skills that students need for success. The Screener provides whole-class data, through formative and summative assessments, on student’s handwriti
the screener. In screener Models PC-1500 through PC-11500, the diverter paddles are white UHMW (teflon). In screener Models PC-16000 through PC-40000, the diverter paddles are a combination of steel tabs and blue urethane. An internal bypass gate allows continuous and infinitely variable control of the percentage of material which is to be
T 5 INTRODUCTION The iRead Screener Technical Guide was developed by Dr. Richard K. Wagner in collaboration with Scholastic Inc. This Technical Guide (Version 1.0) describes the purpose and development of the iRead Screener, and documents its reliability and validity. The iRead Screener Technical Guide will be updated as its research corpus expands.
to students in second semester kindergarten and first semester grade 1. WIDA Screener: WIDA Screener is the English proficiency placement assessment for grades 1 (second semester) through 12. WIDA Screener test forms are divided into five grade-level clusters: grade 1, grades 2-3,
144 Screener Cursive Posttest 145 Screener Posttest Lesson Plan 146 Screener Scoring Tool & Reports 149 – WRITING ACTIVITIES 150 Continents, Capitals, and Serial Commas 151 Paragraph – Brooklyn Bridge 152 Poem – A Flounder 153 Compound Words – Sea Words 154 Irregular Nouns &am
WARNING The screening results may not be used directly for the prescription of corrective eyewear. Directions for use Introduction 5. . 6 Introduction Welch Allyn Spot Vision Screener Model VS100. Controls, Display Window, and Connections Drawings and text are representative of the Spot Vision Screener with all available options.
