Speech-Language Pathologists' Beliefs About Language Assessment of Bilingual/Bicultural Individuals A survey of speech/language pathologists, in 5 states across the United States was conducted to determine their beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals. Most SLPs reported low efficacy in bilingual assessment for both their own skills (personal efficacy) and those of the field in general (general efficacy). SLPs ... Research
Research  |   February 2003
Speech-Language Pathologists' Beliefs About Language Assessment of Bilingual/Bicultural Individuals
 
Author Notes
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: E-Kritikos@neiu.edu
  • © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
Article Information
Special Populations / Cultural & Linguistic Diversity / Language Disorders
Research   |   February 2003
Speech-Language Pathologists' Beliefs About Language Assessment of Bilingual/Bicultural Individuals
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2003, Vol. 12, 73-91. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/054)
History: Received November 2, 2000 , Accepted April 30, 2002
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, February 2003, Vol. 12, 73-91. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2003/054)
History: Received November 2, 2000; Accepted April 30, 2002
Web of Science® Times Cited: 27

A survey of speech/language pathologists, in 5 states across the United States was conducted to determine their beliefs about the language assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals. Most SLPs reported low efficacy in bilingual assessment for both their own skills (personal efficacy) and those of the field in general (general efficacy). SLPs who learned a second language in the context of cultural experience (the CE group) reported more personal efficacy in bilingual assessment than speech-language pathologists who learned a second language via academic study (the AS group), who in turn felt more competent than monolingual SLPs (the M group). Furthermore, the 3 groups of respondents differed in terms of attributions for their low personal efficacy. The M group was most likely to mention their lack of knowledge about bilingual issues, the AS group commented on their less than optimal language proficiency, and the CE group focused on both proficiency and experience as influences. Over half of all participants (52%) reported that bilingual input in a child's environment would influence their interpretation of that child's language assessment results. Most of these participants (40%) reported that they would be more conservative in recommending language therapy for a bilingual than a monolingual child, particularly due to the respondent's own lack of knowledge of bilingual issues. Implications regarding the relations between language learning experiences and beliefs about the assessment of bilingual/bicultural individuals among SLPs are discussed.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access