MONROE TOWNSHIP PUBLIC SCHOOLS

SPEECH AND LANGUAGE

INITIAL EVALUATION REPORT
Student Name: L. D.
School: Barclay
Brook
Date of Birth: 4/25/2007
Grade: 2nd
Date of Testing: 3/30/2015 & 4/14/2015
Examiners: Brenda Ogrodnick, MS, CCC-SLP
Mary Salama, BA, SLP Graduate Student Clinician
Chronological Age: 7 years, 11 months

REASON FOR TESTING AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

L., a 7-year, 11-month-old girl, was referred for a speech and language evaluation
by the Child Study Team to determine eligibility for services. The LDTC reported
concerns with L.s oral language during her evaluation. Prior to the evaluation, it was
reported that L. is conversational, though she does demonstrate difficulty with grammar.

TESTS ADMINISTERED:
1. Test of Language Development Primary: Fourth Edition (TOLD-P:4)
2. Test of Problem Solving Revised Elementary (TOPS-r)
3. Clinical observations

TEST RESULTS:
The Test of Language Development Primary: Fourth Edition (TOLD-P:4) is an
evaluation tool used to assess spoken language in young children. It provides normreferenced data that aids in identification of communication strengths and weaknesses.
Six subtests were administered: Picture Vocabulary, Relational Vocabulary, Oral
Vocabulary, Syntactic Understanding, Sentence Imitation, and Morphological
Completion. Scaled Scores within the range of 8-12 are considered average. A
description of each subtest and L.s score performance appear below:
Subtest
Picture Vocabulary (PV)
Relational Vocabulary (RV)
Oral Vocabulary (OV)

Scaled Score
8
4
5

Percentile Rank
25
2
5

Syntactic Understanding (SU)

Sentence Imitation (SI)
Morphological Completion
(MC)

8
5

25
5

The Picture Vocabulary (PV) subtest measures a childs understanding of the

meaning of spoken English words when presented with four pictures and is asked to point
to an instructed pictured item. This test assesses vocabulary skills and the ability to
follow oral directions, which are skills essential in the classroom. L. demonstrated
relative strength in this area and her score for this subtest fell within the average range.
The Relational Vocabulary (RV) subtest assesses a childs understanding and
their ability to orally express the relationships between two spoken stimulus words. For
example, How are . and alike? This subtest has implications for both vocabulary
and the way a child organizes thoughts or ideas. This skill is used during classroom
instruction. L.s score for this subtest fell significantly below the average range.
In the Oral Vocabulary (OV) subtest, a childs ability to produce oral definitions
to common English words provided by the examiner will be evaluated. The implications
for performance in the classroom assessed by this subtest correlate to the students
knowledge of vocabulary words and their ability to use language to express definitions.
L.s score for this subtest fell below the average range.
The objective of the Syntactic Understanding (SU) subtest is to evaluate the
students ability to understand the meaning of sentences. The student is asked to point to
the picture that matches or corresponds to the sentence stated by the examiner. The
student must be able to interpret the meaning of the sentence, determine which picture
displays that meaning, and be able to follow oral directions. This subtest was an area of
relative strength for L. Her score for this subtest fell within the average range.
In the Sentence Imitation (SI) subtest, the objective is to assess a students
ability to listen to spoken sentences of increasing length and complexity and to repeat the
spoken sentence verbatim. This subtest demonstrates a childs grammar and
organizational skills and relates to their ability to follow directions. L.s score for this
subtest fell below the average range.
The Morphological Completion (MC) subtest evaluates a students ability to
recognize, understand, and use common word endings. The examiner reads a pair of
sentences and then asks the student to provide the missing word. For example, Heres a
cat. Over there are four more cats. This subtest assesses a students expressive
language and grammar skills. This was an area that L. struggled with and her score fell
significantly below the average range.

Composites
Listening (PV + SU)
Organizing (RV + SI)
Speaking (OV + MC)
Grammar (SU + SI + MC)
Semantics (PV + RV + OV)
Spoken Language

Index Scores
88
69
64
72
73
70

Percentile Rank
21
2
<1
3
3
2

The total Spoken Language Score on the TOLD-P:4 was calculated at an index
score of 70 with a percentile rank of 2, indicating performance significantly below the
average range for a student of Lacees age. Relative strength was demonstrated in L.s
listening skills and weakness were revealed in expressive vocabulary and grammar.
The Test of Problem Solving Revised Elementary (TOPS-r) examines the
discrete language skills associated with cognitive problem solving and reasoning. The
critical thinking skills addressed in this assessment are based on the students language
strategies using logic and experience. These include a range of skills including:
determining solutions, drawing inferences, empathizing, predicting outcomes, using
context clues, and vocabulary comprehension. Fourteen photographs are presented with
several problem-solving questions posed for each pictured scene. Standard scores within
the range of 85-115 are considered average. L. scored as follows:
TOPS-r
Total Test

Standard Score
< 55

Percentile Rank
<1

L.s total test score was calculated to at a standard score of < 55 and the percentile
rank was < 1 indicating that she performed significantly below the average range
compared to chronological age peers. Consistent with the TOLD-P:4, L. demonstrated
difficulty defining words. She also was unable to make inferences, including identifying
situational problems or solutions.
Clinical observations
L. willing participated with the examiner during the evaluation and attended
nicely to presented tasks. She was observed to pause, taking time to look carefully at
pictures and respond to questions. Occasionally, she commented on pictures. For
example, L. said, That is a lonely dog, while looking at a picture of one dog next to a
picture of many dogs. This demonstrated her ability to make appropriate comments and
observations. However, when asked to explain how two items were alike, she had
difficulty expanding on her explanations. One example is when asked, How are an apple
and orange alike? She responded that, you peel them both, but did not make other
comments connecting these fruits that would have gained credit. When she was asked to
define what a word means, she also displayed difficulty elaborating and her answers with
more information. She typically provided only a few words and demonstrated

grammatical errors in her expression. For example, when asked to define bed she
responded, where you sleep it. During a task requiring her to complete the sentence
with the missing plural word ending, she generally did not finish the sentence with the
appropriate word. Also, it was noted that during the evaluation she incorrectly used the
past tense of slide and said, slided. This may demonstrate weaknesses in using
grammatical endings. During the TOPS-r assessment, L. had difficulty answering some
questions and struggled with making inferences and problem solving. An example was
when she was asked, How do you think the kids trained for this race? She answered,
Because they are supposed to be running. She generally performed better with
questions directly related to the picture. It was additionally observed that she substituted
the th sound with an /f/ sound. Overall, she demonstrated strengths in following
directions and receptive vocabulary skills for her age, but struggled with problem solving,
grammar, and expanding expressively when answering questions.

SUMMARY:
At the time of evaluation, L. is a 7-year, 11-month-old student referred for a
Speech and Language evaluation by the Child Study Team to determine eligibility for
special education services. L. was evaluated with the Test of Language DevelopmentPrimary: Fourth Edition (TOLD-P:4) and received a index score of 70 and a percentile
rank of 2. She was also assessed with the Test of Problem Solving Revised Elementary
(TOPS-r) and received a standard score of < 55 and a percentile rank of < 1. These results
indicate that L.s overall oral language skills fall below the average range.
Recommendations will be offered at the time of the meeting.
Brenda Ogrodnick, MS, CCC-SLP
Speech/Language Specialist
Mary Salama
Speech-Language Pathology Graduate Student Clinician