BERRIEN COUNTY REGIONAL EDUCATION SERVICE AGENCY
711 ST. JOSEPH AVENUE
BERRIEN SPRINGS, MI 49103
(269) 471-7725
CONFIDENTIAL
FOR RESTRICTED USE ONLY
MULTIDISCIPLINARY/ SPEECH-LANGUAGE EVALUATION
NAME:FILE #:
DOB: PARENTS:
AGE: ADDRESS:
SEX:PHONE:
GRADE:Infant/Toddler/Preschool DISTRICT:
DATES OF TESTING:DATE OF REPORT:
REASON FOR REFERRAL
month old boy/girl, was seen for a Speech and Language evaluation in the family’s home, on . was referred to Early On due to parental/pediatrician’s concerns regarding speech and language development. At the time of the initial screening, delays were noted in ability to both use and understand language as well as possible delays in ‘s cognitive, fine motor, gross motor, social emotional, and self-help skills. Therefore, a special education referral was signed in order to ascertain ___’s eligibility for special education.
An Early On screening completed by this examiner.....revealed overall developmental delays, including delays in the areas of social-communication and interactional skills. Therefore, a referral to evaluate for special education eligibility was obtained.
Permission was therefore obtained for further evaluation to be completed by the speech pathologist and school psychologist to determine ’s need for special education services and continued services upon his third birthday.
DEVELOPMENTAL & MEDICAL HISTORY
Medical history included
was noted to pass his newborn hearing screening.
Family history for special education and/or speech and language difficulties included
Achievement of motor milestones was reportedly within normal limits, with walking independently at
lives at home with his father, mother, and younger who is almost two years old.
SPEECH-LANGUAGE ASSESSMENT & OBSERVATIONS
Parental Input
‘s mother/father served as informant/s on this date. Developmental milestones for speech and language included cooing and babbling as an infant, with speaking his/her first word at months of age. Speech reportedly progressed slowly after that. Word combinations reportedly began about months ago. According to , ‘s current vocabulary consists of the approximately words / the following words:
Examples of these words and/or word approximations include:
In order to indicate yes asnd no, will use body language and facial expressions, shake and nod his/her head, / verbally say ‘yes’ and ‘no’.
‘s primary method of communication at home is through
Mr./Mrs./Ms. can reportedly understand approximately % of his/her speech, while others understand less than 50%.
According to Mr./Mrs./Ms. , is beginning to demonstrate frustration when he/she is unable to communicate his/her wants and needs effectively. Frustrations is demonstrated through
Frustrations within the home were reported when communication cannot be readily achieved.
Mr./Mrs./Ms. felt that ‘s comprehension/understanding of language was excellent/good/ pretty good compared to other children his/her age. can reportedly understand the following words/commands:
With regards to play,
Behaviorally,
With regards to feeding
Communication/Language Sampling
A sample of ’s ability to communicate was obtained through his interactions with the examiner and . was pleasant and cooperative throughout the assessment.
adjusted quickly to the evaluators, and remained pleasant and cooperative throughout the assessment.
presented as a self-directed boy/girl whose behavior was not felt to be regulated by verbalizations within this evaluation.
Presented as a self directed boy/girl, who’s behavior was not felt to be regulated by verbalizations within this evaluation setting.
___ did not become actively distressed if the examiner attempted to join him/her in play or use physical contact such as holding or tickling; however, ---- appeared to have minimal interest in joint interactive play or turn taking.
Eye contact was judged to be minimal and fleeting, and on --- terms. Eye contact was observed to increase
Although eye contact was observed, it appeared fixed rather than communicative and social.
demonstrated little curiosity and/or awareness of this examiner, and demonstrated little to no interest in the examiner’s toys (or); however, demonstrated good interest in the examiner’s toys.
Child demonstrated difficulty initiating or maintaining reciprocal interactive play.
was not observed to initiate joint attention or communicative interactions.
Although responses to his/her parents and/or the examiner were limited, interactions increased when the situations were self-motivating. For example
Unusual body posturing was observed, as well as occasional toe walking.
Child was observed to walk… repetitiously in circles, producing unusual vocalizations.
When examiner presented items in which --- was interested in, he/she became hyper-focused on this activity and appeared to tune everything else out. When attempts were made to redirect him/her to a new task, he/she was typically inattentive.
Imitation and early functional or pretend play was not observed.
During testing, two/ three tests were administered: the Birth to 3 Comprehensive Test of Developmental Abilities-2 (B-3) and the Preschool Language Scale-5 (PLS-5) and the Goldman Fristoe Test of Articulation-2 (GFTA-2). The Birth to 3 is based primarily upon parental/care giver report, as well as observation; whereas, the PLS-5 is based upon observation of the child’s performance on tasks that are presented. The GFTA-2 is an articulation test that requires a child to label pictures in order for sound production to be assessed. A standard score (S.S.) of 100 on the PLS-5 and GFTA-2is average, and any score falling between 85 - 115 falls within the average range. ____ received a receptive language S.S. of ___ and an expressive language S.S. score of ----, indicating a moderate/severe receptive and expressive language delay. — received a S.S. of — on the GFTA-2, thus indicating a severe articulation delay. Spontaneous labeling could not be elicited on a consistent basis; therefore, scores were based on imitation from the examiner’s model. The GFTA-2 revealed age equivalency articulation scores falling below the 24 month age level, with ---- scoring in the — percentile, meaning that ----% of the male population his age that were sampled made fewer errors. ----‘s articulation was characterized by-----. Overall speech intelligibility was judged to be at the –% by this examiner. Speech intelligibility decreased as length of utterance increased.
On the second visit, school Social Worker, Karla Flood administered the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS), which is a semi-structured, standardized assessment of communication, social interaction, and play or imaginative use of materials for children who have been referred due to possible autism.
tests were administered as part of this evaluation, the Preschool Language Scale-5 (PLS-5),the Receptive andExpressive One-Word Vocabulary Tests (ROWPVT and EOWPVT), and the Birth to 3 Comprehensive Test of Developmental Abilities.The PLS-5 is a test used to measure expressive language abilities as well as auditory comprehension abilities. This test is based on observation of the child’s performance on tasks presented. A standard score (S.S.) of 100 is average and any standard score falling between 85 and 115 is considered to be in the average range. received a standard score of on the auditory comprehension or receptive language portion of the test, and a standard score of on the expressive language portion of the test. Both of these scores indicate that has a severe receptive and expressive language delay.
The Birth to 3 Comprehensive Test of Developmental Abilities is a test based on parental report. This test was used with as the informant during ’s initial screening, but was also completed by the examiner due to inconsistent reports and possible misinterpretation from the parent. According to parents, received an age equivalent score of months in the area of receptive language and an age equivalent score of months in the area of expressive language. When this measure was completed by the examiner, received an age-equivalent score of months in the area of receptive language and months in the area of expressive language. It should be noted that parental report results scored higher than results based on observation during the assessment.
Standardized Assessment Results
Receptive / Expressive / Chronological AgePLS-5 / 11 months (S.S. 50) / 15 months (S.S. 68) / 35 months
Birth to 3 (parent) / 21 months / 22 months
Birth to 3 (examiner) / 10.5 months / 20.25 months
ROWPVT (receptive) / n/a (not able to be administered)
EOWPVT (expressive) / 24 months (S.S. 80)
Standard Score Percentile Age Equivalent
Goldman-Fristoe 2
Test of Articulation
Receptive Language
Age equivalency scores revealed receptive language skills at the
During this assessment,
receptive language skills at or slightly above chronological age.
age appropriate receptive language skills. readily understood language at both the conversation level, as well as at the specific linguistic comprehension task level.
receptive language skills at the month age level, thus indicating a receptive language delay
Auditory hypo-sensitivity was both observed and reported, as frequently appeared to tune out what was being said to him/her.
Responses to name were inconsistent (or) not observed.
demonstrated no/minimal response and/or recognition to familiar words, simple verbal requests, or familiar songs when presented by this examiner on today’s date.
Expressive Language
Age equivalency scores revealed expressive language skills at the --- month age level, thus indicating a expressive language delay.
primary method of communication on today’s date was through
was/was not stimuable for elicited imitation of sounds or words on today’s date.
The words/sounds heard on today’s date included:
An informal oral motor assessment revealed / was not completed due to
With regards to feeding and swallowing
No feeding or swallowing problems were reported.
is reportedly no longer on a bottle or pacifier
Extensive and sustained jargon was produced and appeared more self-stimulatory than communicative in nature; as this jargon was not directed towards anyone or accompanied by eye contact or gestures.
Child did not use visual referencing, vocalizations or gestures, such as pointing, in order to communicate.
No use of pointing in order to communicate was observed or reported.
Articulation
----‘s articulation was characterized by-----. Overall speech intelligibility was judged to be at the –% by this examiner. Speech intelligibility decreased as length of utterance increased.
Pragmatic Language
Pragmatic difficulties were noted in use of eye contact in order to demonstrate an awareness of people in a social interactional situation, and his/her inability to initiate and/or regulate a social interaction rather than a self serving interaction. was not observed to initiate joint attention or social regard to his/her family or the examiners. ---- did not respond or follow a line of regard, such as when the examiner exclaimed, “Oh, look!” and pointed to a new toy. ---- did not demonstrate shared enjoyment. He/she did not always appear to be aware of other people in a social interactional situation, and did not attempt to respond to verbal requests or answer questions directed at him/her. did not attempt to comment on external objects and events or internal objects or events. No use of communicative, reciprocal turn taking was observed.
Child’s mother/father indicated that this examiner had observed and elicited typical behaviors and performances from child and as such the results obtained should be viewed as reliable measures of child’s communication skills.
During testing, did not attempt to imitate any facial expressions or movements, and did not to attend to or look at other’s faces. He also did not demonstrate any back and forth vocalizations or play while using appropriate eye contact (i.e. interpreter attempted to use a ball to play a back and forth game and pushed the ball away and turned his body).When eye contact was observed, it was minimal or fleeting, but eye contact was observed to increase during sensory-motor play (i.e. bouncing, swinging, tickling). A game of peek-a-boo was initiated by the examiner, and was able to participate with hand-over-hand assistance. Mohamed participated and gave eye contact for approximately10 seconds, but lost attention, and moved to a nearby toy. Mohamed was not able to initiate any turn taking games such as this. did not demonstrate joint attention during the assessment, but typically played with the toys in his own way and by himself, not sharing or showing them to others around him
PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS
Speech and Language Evaluation
Speech-language test results revealed a severeexpressive language, and receptive language delay.
Pragmatically, is not displaying appropriate eye contact, he is not demonstrating joint attention, or appropriate reciprocity at this time, and he is not consistently responding to his name.
It is the opinion of the examiner that ’s social or pragmatic language skills are interfering with his expressive and receptive language.
The extent of ____’s communication delays did not appear to be attributed to lack of stimulation or language opportunities.
A child of this age should
An effect to educational performance was reported in increasing frustration when he/she is unable to communicate his/her needs and wants effectively. (or) demonstrated in difficulty to use and understand language within his/her environment.
An effect to educational performance was reported in the family’s increasing frustration when communication cannot be readily achieved.
Psychological Evaluation
RECOMMENDATION OF ELIGIBILITY
It is the recommendation of the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team that qualify for special education services as Early Childhood Developmental Delay (ECDD), Michigan Rule R340.1711. This recommendation is based on the fact that demonstrates a delay of greater than one-half of his expected development in language and some social-emotional skills. These delays have resulted in an adverse effect to ’s educational environment. Further evaluation should be considered if does not continue to make progress in his ability to communicate and engage with others in social situations. Specific services to be provided will be determined at the Individualized Educational Program (IEP) meeting.
Based on this evaluation, results support special education eligibility for Speech and Language Impaired (SLI), Michigan Rule R340.1710, at this time.
Sue Mondak, M.A., CCC-SLP
Speech-Language Pathologist
SchoolPsychologist
cc: Family, District, Special Education File
1