ing
task (15 girls and 43 boys). Of the students who refused to write, 3
completed reading and language measures. Refusers typically achieved
lower scores on language and literacy measures, but there were no
statistically significant differences between the two groups.
The children who completed writing assessments were being educated
in a variety of ways: 35 in mainstream classes, 8 in special units
within mainstream schools, and 15 in special schools including
residential schools for children with SLI. Over the previous 8 years, a
significant proportion of the participants had moved between different
types of provision. As was the case at previous points in the study
(Dockrell & Lindsay, 2008) there were few differences between
participants in different settings on the psychometric measures.
Students in specialist settings scored significantly lower on measures
of reading comprehension, F(1, 57) = 6.112, p = .02, [eta][p.sup.2] =
.10, formulated sentences, F(1, 57) = 4.498, p = .04, [eta][p.sup.2] =
.08, and nonverbal ability, F(1, 57) = 4.995, p = .03, [eta][p.sup.2] =
.08, but not on any other language (vocabulary, receptive grammar,
listening to paragraphs) or literacy (single word reading, fluency or
We identified measures to tap oral language skills, literacy,
nonverbal ability, and written language, and selected tests that were
age and culturally appropriate and standardized with measures of
reliability and validity. All measures are commonly used for the
identification and assessment of children with SLI in the United
Kingdom. Measures of reliability and validity are reported for each
scale on first mention, and unless otherwise stated information was
gained from technical manuals and refers to the overall reliability and
Nonverbal Ability. The British Ability Scales II (BAS II) Matrices
subtest (Elliott, Murray, & Pearson, 1997), presents children with a
set of patterns where one pattern is incomplete. There is a choice of
six responses and children are required to point to the missing piece:
reliability, .85; validity with the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children (WISC-III; Wechsler, 1991) performance scale, .47.
Receptive Vocabulary. In the British Picture Vocabulary Scale
(BPVS; Dunn, Dunn, Whetton, & Burley, 1997), children are shown four
line drawings and asked to point to the one that best illustrates a word
spoken by the investigator: reliability, .89; validity with the
Expressive One-word Vocabulary test (Gardner, 1990), .72.
Grammar. In the Test of Reception of Grammar (TROG; Bishop, 1983),
children are shown four pictures and the investigator reads a sentence.
The child selects a picture that matches the sentence structure:
reliability, .88; validity with the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals: Revised UK Edition (CELF-[R.sup.UK]; Peers, Lloyd, &
Foster, 1999), .53.
The CELF-[R.sup.UK] (Peers et al., 1999) Formulated Sentences
subtest requires a child to produce a sentence in response to an orally
presented single word or two-word combination: reliability, .82;
validity with other CELF-[R.sup.UK] expressive subscales, .43-.49. The
Listening to Paragraphs subtest requires the child to attend to a short
paragraph and answer specific questions related to the content:
reliability, .74; validity with other receptive scales, .30-.43
Reading Decoding. The BAS II Word Reading scale (Elliott et al.,
1997) assesses recognition and oral reading of single words:
reliability, .93; validity with Wechsler Objective Reading Dimensions
reading scale, .71 (WORD; Wechsler, 1993). The Test of Word Reading
Efficiency (TOWRE; Torgesen, Wagner, & Rashotte, 1999) contains two
subtests. The Sight Word Efficiency (SWE) subtest assesses the number of
real printed words that can be accurately read within 45 sec, and the
Phonetic Decoding Efficiency (PDE) subtest measures the number of
pronounceable printed nonwords that can be accurately decoded within 45
sec: interscorer reliability, .99; test-retest reliability, .90 and
above; validity, .92-.94 SWE and .89-.91 PWE (Woodcock Reading Mastery
Scales-Revised, Woodcoc