Purpose: To provide an analysis of the accuracy and effectiveness of using the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Fourth Edition (CELF-4) to identify students as having language-based disabilities.
Method: The CELF-4 is analyzed within the current standards set by the federal law on special education, the available research, preferred practice guidelines, and the statistical information provided in the CELF-4 Examiner's Manual. This study also analyzes the accuracy and effectiveness of the CELF-4 from varying perspectives such as English Language Learners, students who speak dialects other than Standard American English, economically disadvantaged students, and students with motor, attention, and memory limitations.
Conclusions: Despite the widespread use of the CELF-4 as a primary diagnostic tool in disability determinations, construct validity especially in its discriminant accuracy is weak; significant bias issues exist in many subtests especially for English Language Learners and speakers of dialects other than Standard American English; and standardization based on the U.S. census is unlikely to reflect the language norms of a student's speech community which is the standard for identifying a language disability. Nonetheless, student performance on the CELF-4 can provide insight regarding a student's strengths and weakness that may be useful as part of a disability determination. Particular CELF-4 subtests provide valuable information about a student's language skills but disability determinations based on scaled scores or standard scores derived from the CELF-4 should be avoided.
|Advisor:||Saxman, John H.|
|School Location:||United States -- New York|
|Source:||DAI-B 71/09, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Speech therapy, Special education, Quantitative psychology|
|Keywords:||Bias, Clinician's guide, Construc validity, Dialects, Disbility determinations, Discriminant accuracy|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be