I agree that an SLP should do their own testing if there are suspected language deficits. If a psychologist comes up with red flags with language in their assessments, they SHOULD (in my opinion) go ahead and make the referral to an SLP for a complete picture. That being said, the info from the psychologists can be useful for sure, but I wouldn't make a speech/language treatment plan based solely on that. We are trained differently and analyze language in a different way than they do, which is why we are specialists in language and they are not.
I'm in a position of setting up a speech program at a charter school, and just ordered a bunch of assessments. I got the CELF-4 (which I know tends to score a little lower, but I like how comprehensive and easy to interpret it is), OWLS-II (which I think tends to score a little high) including the LC, OW, Reading Comp and Written Expression profiles, the GFTA-2, Emerging Literacy and Language Assessment (ELLA, from Super Duper - I've given it once and like it so far - it really looks closely at phonological awareness and story retell skills. There's also a working memory section too which I'm not crazy about because it doesn't yield very much information), Listening Comprehension Test, The Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP; I wanted to try something other than the Khan-Lewis, and I liked that it has a diagnostic screening part that I can use for RTI, as well as an oral-motor screening included in the assessment.), Test of Childhood Stuttering (I was tired of the SSI..), and Apraxia Profile..
« Back to index