The revision decision: is change always good? A comparison of CELF-R and CELF-3 test scores in children with language impairment, focal brain damage, and typical development.

Autor: Ballantyne AO; University of California, San Diego, Department of Neurosciences, 9500 Gilman Drive, #0935, La Jolla, CA 92093-0935, USA. aballant@crl.ucsd.edu, Spilkin AM, Trauner DA
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Language, speech, and hearing services in schools [Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch] 2007 Jul; Vol. 38 (3), pp. 182-9.
DOI: 10.1044/0161-1461(2007/019)
Abstrakt: Purpose: The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF) is a widely used, comprehensive test battery that assesses language in school-age children and adolescents. The CELF-R (E. Semel, E. H. Wiig, & W. Secord, 1987) was updated to the CELF-3 (E. Semel, E. H. Wiig, & W. A. Secord, 1995) in 1995. The goal of the present study was to compare scores and evaluate the diagnostic utility of the CELF-R and CELF-3 in 2 clinical populations and a typically developing control group.
Method: The present study compared CELF-R and CELF-3 test scores of 107 children with language impairment (LI), 54 children with early focal brain damage (FL), and 90 controls.
Results: All 3 groups demonstrated significantly better performance on the CELF-3 than on the CELF-R. LI children scored in the moderately-to-severely impaired range on the CELF-R, but in the mildly-to-moderately impaired range on the CELF-3. FL children went from being mildly-to-moderately impaired on the CELF-R to within normal limits on the CELF-3. Controls went from the average range on the CELF-R to the high average range on the CELF-3.
Conclusion: This study is important for professionals who administer language tests and/or use language testing results to recommend appropriate school placements, additional services, and/or interventions. Although psychometric tests are frequently revised, it is not always the case that a revised version has improved diagnostic utility.
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: