SLPA Delegation, Language of Assessment, and a Tight IEP Deadline
A school-based SLP in a district with 62 students on her caseload supervises one SLPA. Two weeks before an initial IEP meeting, the SLP asks the SLPA to "finish up" the assessment for a 7-year-old, Mateo, by administering and scoring the CELF-5 and drafting the present levels section, because the SLP is scheduled for a 3-day training. The SLPA has completed the district's 2-day competency training in scoring. Mateo's mother, who speaks primarily Spanish, has requested that the evaluation be conducted in Spanish; the SLP speaks conversational Spanish but is not proficient enough to test in it, and the district's bilingual evaluator has a 6-week waitlist. The mother also asks whether Mateo's "shyness" at school could be related to the family's recent move and whether he needs a diagnosis "for the autism funding." The IEP timeline requires the assessment within 60 days of consent, and consent was signed 41 days ago.
1. Which parts of this assessment can the SLP delegate to the SLPA, and which must the SLP perform herself? Justify the answer using supervision and ethics principles.
Read the worked answer
Delegable, with conditions. In most states the SLPA may administer and score standardized tests and collect structured observations only if (a) state licensure or certification permits it, (b) the test manual permits administration by an assistant, and (c) the supervising SLP has trained the SLPA on that instrument. Scoring, recording behavioral observations, and collecting language samples are typically within scope under direct supervision.
Not delegable. The SLPA may not interpret scores, make a differential diagnosis, determine eligibility, or independently author the evaluation report or the present levels of performance. ASHA's SLPA scope of practice and the Code of Ethics make the supervising SLP responsible for the integrity of the evaluation and for any conclusion she signs.
The practical problem. The SLP has not directly evaluated Mateo; signing an eligibility determination built entirely on an SLPA's data would misrepresent her level of involvement. Three options are defensible: reschedule the training or arrange coverage so the SLP is present for at least part of the testing; have the SLP conduct the core measures while the SLPA gathers collateral data; or, if the SLPA administers, the SLP must review the protocol, observe Mateo directly, and conduct the interpretation herself. The phrase "finish up the assessment" is not a task that can be handed over wholesale.
2. How should the SLP handle the request for Spanish-language assessment and the mother's autism question?
Read the worked answer
Language of assessment. IDEA requires evaluation in the child's native language or other mode of communication unless it is clearly not feasible. A 6-week waitlist is an administrative inconvenience, not a legal exception. The SLP should not administer English-only standardized tests and report the scores as valid. Instead she can: use a trained interpreter to support parent interview, language sampling, and dynamic assessment; gather a Spanish language sample from the mother or a bilingual staff member; and use nonstandardized measures and descriptive data. If a bilingual SLP ultimately administers a standardized test, the scores can be reported as one data point; interpreted administration of a standardized test invalidates the norms and must be labeled as such.
The autism question. "Shyness" is not a diagnostic marker, and a school team does not make a medical diagnosis of autism. The SLP should explain the difference between educational eligibility and a medical diagnosis, gather structured social-communication information (teacher rating scales, observations across settings, developmental history), evaluate social communication as part of language assessment, and refer the family to a medical or community diagnostic team if concerns persist. Eligibility categories should never be selected to unlock funding.
3. With 19 days left on the 60-day timeline, what are the SLP's options, and what should be documented?
Read the worked answer
The district remains bound by the 60-day clock from consent. The SLP cannot unilaterally extend it. Options, in order of preference:
- Meet the timeline with a valid process - use a trained interpreter for parent interview and language sampling, administer nonverbal and dynamic measures, and complete an English-language sample plus Spanish data. This yields a defensible evaluation even without a bilingual standardized test.
- Request a written, mutually agreed extension - if the bilingual evaluator's data are essential, the team can ask the parent to agree in writing to a specific new date, documenting the reason. A verbal "okay" is not enough.
- Supplement later - complete the initial evaluation on time and add bilingual testing when the evaluator is available, reconvening the team if results change the picture.
Documentation should include: consent date, the reason for any delay, which measures were administered by whom and in which language, the interpreter's qualifications, limitations of the data, and the parent's stated concerns in her own words. Delaying the evaluation without agreement risks a child-find complaint and leaves Mateo without services.