Screening Score, Bilingualism, and a Prior "Difference" Dismissal
A 7;4-year-old, Amara, is referred by her first-grade teacher because she "doesn't follow directions" and is falling behind in reading. Universal screening shows oral reading fluency at the 12th percentile and a language screening score of 78 (cutoff 85; mean 100, SD 15). Amara was born in the U.S. to parents who speak Nigerian English and Yoruba at home, and she has attended English-speaking school since age 4. She passed a hearing screening at 20 dB in both ears at the start of the year. The teacher reports that Amara is quiet in class, often watches peers before starting tasks, and had 8 absences in the first quarter. The previous SLP recorded "English is her second language-language difference, no further testing" and closed the case 10 months ago. The current SLP has 30 minutes of release time to decide whether to proceed with a full evaluation.
1. Should the SLP open a full evaluation now? Evaluate the evidence for and against proceeding.
Read the worked answer
Proceed. The screening score is about 1.5 SD below the mean, and screening scores are never diagnostic on their own; what matters is convergence. Three data sources converge: a standardized screen below cutoff, reading fluency at the 12th percentile, and a teacher report of functional difficulty. Reading failure in first grade is a red flag for a language-based learning disability and is not explained by bilingualism.
What weakens the case, and must be addressed rather than ignored: 8 absences reduce instructional exposure; Amara is still acquiring academic English; and Nigerian English is a legitimate dialect whose phonological and grammatical features should not be scored as errors. A quiet, observant classroom style is also not a disorder.
What is not acceptable is the prior dismissal. "English is her second language" is a reason to assess differently, not a reason to decline assessment. Difference versus disorder is an empirical question answered with data from both languages, dynamic assessment, and opportunity-to-learn information.
The SLP should open a referral for a full and individual evaluation, document the converging data, and simultaneously ensure the classroom has appropriate supports.
2. Describe the assessment plan and how the SLP should interpret scores from a bilingual child.
Read the worked answer
Plan. (1) Parent interview in the family's preferred language covering developmental, health, language-use, and schooling history, including how long Amara has been exposed to English and who speaks what to whom. (2) Language samples in English and Yoruba, analyzed for mean length of utterance, grammatical accuracy, and narrative skill. (3) Dynamic assessment of vocabulary and grammar-teach, then measure transfer-because it distinguishes lack of exposure from disordered learning. (4) Phonological awareness and decoding measures, since the referral is reading-based. (5) A measure of nonverbal reasoning to contextualize language scores.
Interpretation. English-only standardized scores are a single data point, not the diagnosis. Conceptual scoring (crediting a correct concept in either language) gives a fairer vocabulary estimate. Compare Amara to other bilingual learners where norms exist, and weigh the exposure history: English schooling began at age 4, so academic English is still developing. Nigerian English dialect features should be coded as differences, not errors. A disorder is supported when difficulties appear in both languages, persist despite adequate instruction, and show poor response to dynamic teaching. A profile of intact Yoruba with depressed English only, improving with support, points to a difference or an instructional gap rather than a disability.
3. How should the team handle the earlier "difference, no further testing" decision and the timeline going forward?
Read the worked answer
The earlier decision should be revisited openly, not quietly reversed. The record needs a documented rationale: the prior conclusion rested on a single variable (second-language status) and was not supported by data from both languages, by dynamic assessment, or by classroom response data. Ten months have passed with no services, which is exactly the gap child find is meant to prevent.
Timeline. Once the referral is made, the district must respond within its mandated timeframe (commonly 15 school days to respond and 60 days from consent to complete the evaluation, depending on state rules). Attendance concerns do not justify delaying evaluation; they are data to weigh, not a barrier. The team can collect general education intervention data in parallel, but it cannot use a "wait and see" period as a substitute for timely evaluation when converging evidence exists.
Communication. Explain to the family, without defensiveness, that the earlier decision was incomplete and that the new evaluation will examine both languages. If the evaluation ultimately shows no disability, the outcome is still useful: targeted classroom supports, progress monitoring, and a clear plan. Either way, the decision must rest on multiple measures rather than on the label "bilingual."