A bilingual five-year-old, an English-only screen, and a six-week wait
Ms. Alvarez brings her son Mateo, age 5 years 4 months, to a community clinic. Mateo was born in the United States; his parents emigrated from Guatemala, and Spanish is the household language. He entered an English-only preschool at age 3 and is now in full-day kindergarten. The teacher reports that Mateo uses short sentences ("me want juice"), has trouble following two-step directions, and often plays alone; she suspects a language disorder and requests speech therapy in English. An English vocabulary screen yields a standard score of 74 (mean 100, SD 15). The parents say that at home Mateo talks a great deal, tells simple stories, and follows instructions in Spanish, though he sometimes mixes in English words. He has had no ear infections, passed a newborn hearing screen, and there is no family history of language or learning problems. The clinic has one bilingual speech-language pathologist with a six-week wait, and the family's insurance will not cover outside testing in Spanish.
1. What is the most defensible interpretation of the English vocabulary score, and what should happen before anyone concludes Mateo has a language disorder?
Read the worked answer
The score is not interpretable as evidence of disorder. The measure was normed on monolingual English speakers and administered in Mateo's weaker language, in which he has had roughly two years of exposure. A standard score of 74 in that context mixes language ability with exposure, and the known outcome of ignoring this is both over-identification of bilingual children as disordered and under-identification of true disorder when poor performance is dismissed as "just bilingual."
Before concluding anything:
- Obtain a bilingual assessment covering both languages, ideally by the clinic's bilingual SLP; if that is impossible within a reasonable timeframe, use a trained interpreter with the same instruments and treat the results as descriptive, not normative.
- Use conceptual scoring, crediting knowledge in either language, and collect a conversational language sample in Spanish and English analyzed for mean length of utterance, tense marking, and error types.
- Gather structured parent report (for example a developmental history and vocabulary checklist in Spanish) and classroom observation across settings.
- Rule out hearing loss with an audiological evaluation despite the passed newborn screen.
The combined picture - fluent, age-typical Spanish with a classic sequential-bilingual English profile - would be a difference, not a disorder. The absence of a Spanish measure makes the current data insufficient either way.
2. Suppose bilingual assessment shows below-age-level skills in both Spanish and English, with error patterns not typical of Spanish–English bilingual development (omitting tense morphology in both languages, poor nonword repetition), while nonverbal reasoning is solidly average. How should the team reason, and what error does "his nonverbal IQ is fine" invite?
Read the worked answer
This profile supports developmental language disorder. Deficits in both languages, with error patterns that do not resemble the normal course of bilingual acquisition - cross-linguistically unusual morphological errors plus weak nonword repetition, a well-established clinical marker - indicate a language-specific impairment rather than insufficient exposure. Typical sequential bilinguals show uneven skills across languages and errors traceable to transfer or to the learning curve; they do not show parallel deficits in both languages on nonword repetition.
The IQ error. Average nonverbal reasoning does not argue against DLD. Diagnostic criteria do not require a discrepancy between language and nonverbal ability. A discrepancy requirement systematically excludes children whose language and cognition are both below average and mislabels children whose nonverbal scores are inflated by task demands. Nonverbal IQ is relevant for ruling out intellectual disability as the better explanation, not as a threshold the language deficit must fall below.
What to rule out and what to add. Hearing loss, seizure disorders, and a social-communication profile suggesting autism - the teacher's note that Mateo plays alone warrants a structured social communication and play observation, not an immediate autism referral on that basis alone. Speech intelligibility, fluency, and oral-motor function should also be screened. The team should then write functional goals in both languages rather than an English-only remediation plan.
3. Given the six-week wait for the bilingual SLP and the insurance limitation, what service-delivery and ethical decisions are appropriate now?
Read the worked answer
Do not let the constraint convert into an English-only evaluation by an unqualified examiner. Administering and interpreting a normed test in a language the child does not speak, then acting on the score, is a test-use violation; the instrument's validity does not extend to that use. The team should document the limitation rather than produce a number that will follow the child.
What can start immediately:
- Consult with the bilingual SLP by phone or telehealth to plan interim assessment and to review the language samples and parent report.
- Coach the teacher on supports that do not depend on a diagnosis: visual supports, pre-teaching vocabulary in both languages, allowing Spanish peer interaction, and reducing the amount of English-only pull-out that removes Mateo from instruction.
- Give the family concrete home-language enrichment activities - reading and storytelling in Spanish - because maintaining the first language supports, rather than impedes, second-language development.
- Schedule the bilingual evaluation now and monitor in the interim with a structured progress measure.
Ethically, the record should state that a language disorder is suspected but unconfirmed, that testing in English alone would be invalid, and what was done to reduce harm from delay. If the school proposes an English-only eligibility decision before the bilingual assessment, that is the point to object in writing.