Oct 9, 2018 - The Bankson Language Screening Test was developed to provide a. Test Category: English and Language. Print Friendly, PDF & Email. Speech and language screening by audiologists is not new, although few audiologists screen speech and language, which should be an integral component of the audiological evaluation. This article considers ASHA’s views about speech and language screening by audiologists, screening tests available to audiologists, and the training of audiologists to screen speech and language.
Screening
Compton, A. J., & Hutton, S. (1978). Compton-Hutton phonological assessment. San Francisco: Carousel House.Google Scholar
Drumwright, A. F. (1971). Denver articulation screening examination. Denver: University of Colorado Medical Center.Google Scholar
Fluharty, N. B. (1978). Fluharty preschool speech and language screening test Boston: Teaching Resources Corporation.Google Scholar
McDonald, E. T. (1976a). A screening deep test of articulation with longitudinal norms. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.Google Scholar
Neidecker, E. A. (1987). School programs in speech-language: Organization and management (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Taylor, J. S. (1992). Speech-language pathology services in the schools (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
Van Riper, C, & Erickson, R. L. (1973). Predictive screening test of articulation (3rd ed.). Kalamazoo: Western Michigan University.Google Scholar
Phonetic Inventories
Bernthal, J. E., & Bankson, N. W. (1988). Articulation and phonological disorders (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Creaghead, N. A., Newman, P. W., & Secord, W. (1989). Assessment and remediation of articulator); and phonological disorders (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.Google Scholar
Emerick, L. L., & Haynes, W. O. (1986). Diagnosis and evaluation in speech pathology (3rd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Fisher, H. B., & Logemann, J. A. (1971). The Fisher-Logemann test of articulation competence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Fudala, J. B., & Reynolds, W. M. (1986). Arizona articulation proficiency scale (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.Google Scholar
Goldman, R., & Fristoe, M. (1986). Goldman-Fristoe test of articulation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Haynes, W. O., Pindzola, R. H., & Emerick, L. L. (1992). Diagnosis and evaluation in speech pathology (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
McDonald, E. T. (1976b). A deep test of articulation. Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.Google Scholar
Pendergest, K., Dickey, S., Selmar, J., & Sudar, A. (1984). Photo articulation test (2nd ed.). Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers.Google Scholar
Peterson, H. A., & Marquardt, T. P. (1990). Appraisal and diagnosis of speech and language disorders (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Templin, M. C, & Darley, F. L. (1969). Templin-Darley test of articulation (2nd ed.). Iowa City: University of Iowa.Google Scholar
Bernthal, J. E., & Bankson, N. W. (1988). Articulation and phonological disorders (2nd ed.).Google Scholar
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bosley, E. C. (1981). Techniques for articulatory disorders. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Nemoy, E. M., & Davis, S. F. (1980). The correction of defective consonant sounds (16th printing). Londonberry, NH: Expression Co.Google Scholar
Distinctive Features and Phonological ProcessesGoogle Scholar
Bankson, N. W., & Bernthal, J.E. (1990). Bankson-Bernthal phonological process survey test Tucson, AZ: Communication Skill Builders.Google Scholar
Bernthal, J. E., & Bankson, N. W. (1988). Articulation and phonological disorders (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Compton, A. J., & Hutton, S. (1978). Compton-Hutton phonological assessment. San Francisco: Carousel House.Google Scholar
Elbert, M., & Gierut, J. (1986). Handbook of clinical phonology: Approaches to assessment and treatment. San Diego: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Haynes, W. O., Pindzola, R. H., & Emerick, L. L. (1992). Diagnosis and evaluation in speech pathology (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Hegde, M. N. (1991). Introduction to communicative disorders. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Hodson, B. W. (1986). Assessment of phonological processes (rev. ed.). Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers.Google Scholar
Hodson, B. W., & Paden, E. P. (1991). Targeting intelligible speech: A phonological approach to remediation (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Ingram, D. (1981). Procedures for the phonological analysis of children’s language. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. J. (1986). Assessment link between phonology and articulation (ALPHA). East Moline, IL: LinguiSystems.Google Scholar
Lowe, R. J. (1989). Workbook for the identification of phonological processes. Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers.Google Scholar
Shriberg, L., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1980). Natural process analysis. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Stoel-Gammon, C, & Dunn, C. (1985). Normal and disordered phonology in children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Weiner, F. F. (1979). Phonological process analysis. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
Complete Kit
Ages 3 - 6 years
Testing Time 30 minutes
Administration Individual
Contents
The Bankson Language Test-Second Edition (BLT-2) provides examiners with a measure of children’s psycho-linguistic skills. The device is organized into three general categories that assess a variety of areas: Semantic Knowledge-body parts, nouns, verbs, categories, functions, prepositions, opposites; Morphological/Syntactical Rules-pronouns, verb usage/verb tense, verb usage (auxiliary, modal, copula), plurals, comparatives/superlatives, negation, questions; and Pragmatics-ritualizing, informing, controlling, and imagining. The selection of subtests to be included in the BLT-2 was predicated on a review of those areas that language interventions frequently test and remediate in younger children.
Test results may be reported in terms of standard scores and percentile ranks, which are provided for children ages 3-0 through 6-11. The test is administered individually. The normative sample consisted of more than 1,200 children living in 19 states.
The demographic features of the sample are representative of the U.S. population as a whole on a variety of variables as provided by the Statistical Abstract of the United States (1985). Evidence of internal consistency reliability is provided in the test manual, and reliability coefficients exceed .90. Support for content, concurrent, and construct validity also is provided. The BLT-2 is a valuable assessment instrument for use by speech-language pathologists, special educators, and others. A 20-item short form also is available to screen children for language problems.