Parent and Teacher Assessment of Receptive and Expressive Language in Preschool Children with Developmental Disabilities.

摘要: We compared parent and teacher ratings for a group of 16 preschool children on the Receptive Expressive Emergent Language Scale. Paired t-tests indicated no significant differences between expressive language, but difference receptive language subscale. Pear son's correlations showed positive relationships ratings. These results suggest device could be used in research to document delay perhaps classification purposes. However, interrater agreement was only 31.25% age 56.25% age. Thus, reliability appears too low instructional planning. Collaboration parents teachers Gallimore, & Kaufman, 1993). Thus there is important effective early intervention would obvious benefit documenting (Calhoun 8c Rose, 1994). One major common assessment scales when activities inused by teach volves young with ers. way do this compare developmental delays (Mahoney O'Sullithe from an completed van, 1990). Assessment docparents those same umenting child's level functioning, degroup children. termining eligibility services, evaluatChildren programs ing effects (Mahoney, often experience respect lan 1984). Obviously, reliable inforguage development (Fey, 1986). A as mation must obtained. sessment Unfortunately quest therefore indicated. may lead professionals bypass pamost commonly devices assessing rental involvement. This result because have sometimes been portrayed Bzoch League (1971) potentially biased their Scale (But or simply lacking terfield, 1994; Mahoney, 1984; Owens skills necessary complete standardRogerson, 1988). second edition de ized (Sheehan, Howvice (ie> REEL-2) published 1991. ever, parental input into proThe REEL (and consists re cess can provide valuable information cepdve functioning. In addition, acBoth subscales 66 items derived tively seeking input, patterns normative better ensure that needs among birth 36 months concerns will addressed (Bernhe.mer, Items are rated typka, child (+). emerging partly exhibited (±); having never observed (-). Scoring based Preparation manuscript supported supplied third party infor grant Australian Research Coun„ , t ' ® mant, usually caregiver. The cil. Correspondence concerning article . should Jeff Sigafoos, Schoneil devlce flelds Age Special Education Centre, Univer(RLA) sity Queensland, Qld 4072, Australia. Email: (ELA) which, j.sigafoos@mailbox.uq.oz.au chronological age, identify / 329 content downloaded 157.55.39.138 Mon, 27 Jun 2016 05:25:23 UTC All use subject http://about.jstor.org/terms problems goals intervention. When relies third-party informants need (Burnett, 1989; Fontana, Marcus, Dowds, Huges, 1980). manual first (1991) ported 90 100% 28 normally developing infants linguistically stimulating environments (1971, p. 19; 1991, 9). While these percent ages high degree reliability, interpreted caution cause standard very liberal (Johnson, 1973). That is, scored if obtained were within plus minus one interval each other. sample did not include disabili ties, hold serious delays. If chil dren disabilities sug gest goals, its appear studies which assessed interven tion professionals. Consistency par ent indicate vice some confidence disabilities. Therefore, present study pre school ties.