Language Deficits and Behavior
Problems in Children Placed in
Alternate Education Settings
Jamie L. Fontenot
Sandra L. Hayes
Clifton Frilot
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center–Shreveport
L
anguage deficits have been identified in children
with behavior problems as early as 1966 in a
study by Cozad and Rousey. Evidence exists
that there is a relationship between communication disorders and emotional/behavioral disorders, but the nature of
the relationship and how to address the issue is unclear
ABSTRACT: Purpose: It has been hypothesized that
adolescents attending an alternate education setting as a
result of behavior problems will have language deficits.
This study was performed to determine if a relationship
exists between adolescents’ language deficits and behavior problems.
Method: Eleven participants between the ages of 13 and
16 years, whose language had not been tested, were administered seven selected subtests of the Comprehensive
Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL; Carrow-Woolfolk,
1999).
Results: Descriptive statistics were used to determine the
mean score for each subtest for all participants. Three
subtests’ maximum standard scores were within ± 1 SD
from the mean (M = 100, SD = 15); however, all of the
subtests’ mean scores were 1.75 to 3.0 SDs below the
mean. Statistically significant differences among the standard scores as a function of age were reported.
Conclusion: The results indicated that adolescents attending an alternate education setting have undiagnosed
language problems. Severity of the language problems
increased as the adolescents’ ages increased.
KEY WORDS: adolescents, language deficits, behavior
problems, alternate education setting
36
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
(Baker & Cantwell, 1982; Prizant et al., 1990). Camarata,
Hughes, and Ruhl (1988) reported that children who have
language disorders in the preschool years develop emotional
problems later, and it is likely that the group of children
with behavioral disorders includes children who have
persistent language problems from the preschool years.
Morris-Friehe and Sanger (1994) studied students who were
identified 5 to 7 years earlier as being at risk for developing language problems and found that seven of the 19
participants had unidentified language impairments. Mack
and Warr-Leeper (1992) suggested further research about
adolescents with chronic behavior difficulties.
Adolescents with behavioral disorders tend to respond to
their environment in a socially unacceptable manner (Paul
& Epanchin, 1982). The social difficulties occur across settings and result from language deficits (Apel, 1999). Schery
(1985) suggested that the occurrence of social–emotional
problems corresponds with delayed development of language acquisition. Fujiki, Brinton, Morgan, and Hart (1999)
indicated that children who experience language deficits at
an early age have poor social skills that may carry over
into adolescence. As a child reaches the adolescent years,
social problems may lead to behaviors that are unacceptable. Hart, Fujiki, Brinton, and Hart (2004) compared social
behaviors of children with specific language impairment
(SLI) to those of typically developing children and found
differences between the two groups. It was also found that
children with less severe SLI had better social behaviors
than children with more severe SLI.
Camarata et al. (1988) identified 38 children, ages 8 to
12 years, with mild to moderate behavioral disorders. These
INCC
OMMUNICATION
SCIENCE
AND D ISORDERS
• Volume
38 • 36–40
• Spring
2011 • Spring 2011 © NSSLHA
ONTEMPORARY
ISSUES
IN C OMMUNICATION
SCIENCE
AND D ISORDERS
• Volume
38 • 36–40
1092-5171/11/3801-0036
children were enrolled in special education classrooms
and in regular elementary schools. All but one participant
performed below normal on at least one subtest of the Test
of Language Development—Primary, Third Edition (TOLD–
P:3; Newcomer & Hammill, 1997). Several other studies
have also indicated that children with behavioral disorders
may be at risk for having a language disorder. For example,
language problems were found in adolescents who had been
imprisoned (Linares-Orama, 2005) and in female juvenile
delinquents (Sanger, Hux, & Belau, 1997). Redmond (2002)
found that children receiving services for social–emotional
disorders have unidentified language problems because their
language problems are misinterpreted as being one of the
symptoms of the social–emotional disorder. Misdiagnosis
of a social–emotional disorder is problematic because the
true deficits of the child are in his or her language skills.
Intervention for these children typically involves behavior intervention or medication, which fail if the child has
comorbid language problems and may not understand what
is expected.
Taking action to prevent these problems is crucial. Prizant et al. (1990) suggested addressing the problem with
a prevention approach involving early identification of
the communication disorder and appropriate referral. The
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)
presented a model of prevention for communication disorders (1991). McKinley and Lord-Larson (1985) presented
a service delivery model aimed at addressing language
deficits in adolescents. This was done because of the lack
of information available on language problems during the
adolescent years. The model consists of (a) information dissemination, (b) identification, (c) evaluation/program planning, and (d) intervention. Nungesser and Watkins (2005)
encouraged speech-language pathologists (SLPs) to assume
the role as a member of a collaborative team that involves
educators. They believe that SLPs should work with educators by providing information that assists in identifying
behaviors that may be suggestive of language deficits.
An additional concern presented by Camarata et al.
(1988) was whether children with behavioral disorders
should be assessed routinely by SLPs to determine if there
is a possibility for inclusion in a language intervention program. Routine assessment by an SLP may be a step in the
right direction for early identification and intervention. This
idea is supported by research from Mack and Warr-Leeper
(1992) that indicated that addressing learning disabilities
in adolescents with delinquent behavior has been shown
to decrease the exhibited behaviors. Therefore, failure to
identify learning disabilities and language deficits/disorders
may lead to future problems. SLPs surveyed by Sanger,
Moore-Brown, Montgomery, and Hellerich (2004) provided
information regarding their opinion of their role in working
with students involved in violence. Surveys indicated that
SLPs had concerns regarding intervention, role, caseload,
training, and assessment. For improvement to occur, efforts
should be made to address these concerns. Eventually,
behavior problems may lead to placement in a correctional
facility. Brinton and Fujiki (1993) stated
Many speech-language pathologists may be hesitant to consider
the social functioning of children within their professional
territory. At the same time, children identified as primarily
language disabled may not receive services designed to enhance
their social interactions from other professionals. As a result,
the negative social spiral may be allowed to continue and gain
momentum. (p. 196)
Linares-Orama (2005) found that over time, adolescents
who are placed in correctional facilities are expected to
return to school and display appropriate behavior and learn
better, but this frequently does not occur. Teachers, SLPs,
and other appropriate staff should intervene.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the language
skills of adolescents with behavior problems in an alternate
education setting in Louisiana’s Evangeline parish. The
alternate education setting included in this study, Social
Skills/Academic Achievement Center, is an independent
facility (i.e., is not a part of any elementary or high school
campus in the area). According to the Louisiana Board of
Education’s alternative education handbook, any student
who is suspended or expelled from school shall remain
under the administration of the governing power of the
school system, taking such action using alternate education
programs that are permitted by the State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education (Picard, 2003). These alternate programs are intended to present modifications of the
traditional classroom setting as well as strategies planned to
increase the possibility that students will remain in school
and earn their high school diploma. It is hypothesized that
adolescents attending an alternate education setting as a
result of behavior problems will have language deficits.
Specific aims of this study were to determine if there was
a correlation between severity of the behavior problem
and language performance and to determine if there was a
significant difference based on age.
METHOD
Participants and Selection Criteria
The sample selected to participate in this study included
11 adolescents between the ages of 13 and 16 years.
There were 10 males and one female (see Table 1). All
participants were currently enrolled in an alternate education setting due to behavior problems. All students had an
individualized education plan, which is a written plan with
objectives that address a child’s specific learning needs and
identify classroom accommodations that facilitate learning.
However, participants had not received a speech-language
assessment; therefore, no language disorder had been previously identified. Participants passed a hearing screening at
20 dB for frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz
(American National Standards Institute, 1996).
A severity rating based on behavior was determined for
each participant. Severity ratings were operationally defined
based on the offense committed, number of times placed
in an alternate setting, and length of stay. A mild rating
was given for adolescents who were first-time attendees
at the alternate education setting and were not required to
stay in the setting for the entire school year. A moderate
rating was given for adolescents who were attending the
alternate setting for the first time and were placed there for
Fontenot et al.: Language Deficits and Behavior Problems
37
Table 1. Age (years;months), gender, behavior severity, and standard score on selected subtests of the Comprehensive Assessment of
Spoken Language (CASL; Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999) for each participant.
Part.
Age
Gender
Behavior
severity
Syntax
Synonyms Construction
Sentence
Comprehension
Grammaticality
Judgment
Nonliteral
Language
Meaning
From Context
Pragmatic
Judgment
1
13;6
M
Severe
85
70
99
73
77
63
70
2
13;10
M
Moderate
84
63
77
78
93
79
82
3
16;3
F
Severe
54
46
75
75
45
61
46
4
16;10
M
Severe
52
43
45
64
40
40
40
5
13;9
M
Moderate
84
56
65
71
55
77
61
6
15;4
M
Severe
81
52
78
40
44
61
59
7
14;5
M
Moderate
87
50
76
66
64
65
41
8
14;3
M
Moderate
104
73
91
75
84
73
80
9
15;10
M
Severe
80
72
68
75
87
80
74
10
14;7
M
Severe
62
46
82
75
72
71
40
11
16;1
M
Severe
45
44
54
40
40
61
40
the remainder of the school year, and if fighting was the
offense, there could not be weapons involved. A severe
rating was given to adolescents who had previously been
sent to the alternate setting and were attending for the
remainder of the school year. Also, if fighting was the offense and weapons were involved, the adolescents automatically were given a severe rating, regardless of offense
frequency.
samples t test was used to determine if a significant
difference existed between standard scores based on age.
Nonparametric correlations were obtained using Spearman’s
rho to determine if there was significant correlation between behavior severity rating and test performance.
Assessment Tool
The minimum, maximum, and mean standard scores for
each of the seven subtests are presented in Table 2. Three
subtests’ maximum standard scores were within ±1 SD from
the mean (M = 100, SD = 15); however, all of the subtests’
mean scores were 1.75 to 3.0 SDs below the mean.
Four of the eleven (36.3%) participants (1, 2, 7, 8)
scored within 1 SD below the mean on one or two subtests;
however, their standard scores for the remaining five or six
subtests fell at least 1 SD below the mean. Seven of the
eleven (63.6%) participants scored at least 1 SD below the
mean on all seven subtests. As seen in Table 1, subtests
with standard scores that were within normal to low normal limits were Synonyms, Sentence Comprehension, and
Nonliteral Language. There were four subtests for which
no subtest standard score was within 1 SD from the mean:
Syntax Construction, Grammaticality Judgment, Meaning
From Context, and Pragmatic Judgment.
Test performance and the participants’ age and severity
of behavior were compared using a nonequal variance independent group two-tailed t test. The standard scores were
examined for participants who were <16 years of age (n
= 8) and those who were ≥16 years of age (n = 3). There
was a significant difference (t = 4.75; df = 7.4; p < 0.05)
between the standard scores of the group of participants
<16 and the group ≥16 years. On average, the scores were
better for the <16 group by 22 points; however, the only
significant correlation between behavior severity rating and
Selected subtests of the Comprehensive Assessment of
Spoken Language (CASL; Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999) were
administered to the adolescents to assess a wide range of
language skills: Synonyms, Syntax Construction, Sentence
Comprehension, Grammaticality Judgment, Nonliteral Language, Meaning From Context, and Pragmatic Judgment.
These subtests were chosen because they assess a variety of
language skills. The internal reliability of the CASL ranges
from .64 to .94, with most in the .80s and .90s, which indicates a high reliability. The reliability of the CASL demonstrates consistency among the subtests. Validity of the
CASL allows for more in-depth study of specific language
skills. Tasks of the CASL subtests were chosen on the basis
of both theoretical design and prior research studies. The
mean standard score obtained on the CASL is 100, and the
standard deviation is 15 (Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999).
Different orders of administration for the subtests were
written, and an order was randomly drawn when a student
qualified for the study. Testing occurred in the morning and
was completed on the same day.
Statistical Analysis
Descriptive statistics were used to determine the mean
score for each subtest for all participants. An independent–
38
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
RESULTS
DISORDERS • Volume 38 • 36–40 • Spring 2011
Table 2. Minimum, maximum, and mean standard scores
earned on each administered subtest of the CASL.
Subtest
Minimum
Maximum
Mean
Synonyms
45
104
74.36
Syntax Construction
43
73
55.91
Sentence Comprehension
45
99
73.64
Grammaticality Judgment
40
78
66.55
Nonliteral Language
40
95
63.91
Meaning From Context
58
80
68.09
Pragmatic Judgment
40
82
57.55
test performance was on the Synonyms subtest, which was
inversely correlated (–.613).
DISCUSSION
Results suggest that a low score on the Synonyms subtest
indicates higher risk for more severe behavior problems.
The adolescents included in this study had moderate to
severe behavior problems. Based on these findings, the adolescents attending this alternate setting were identified with
undiagnosed language problems. Higher standard scores
were earned on subtests that required single-word responses
(i.e., Synonyms and Sentence Comprehension), and standard scores decreased as response requirements increased in
length and complexity.
The Synonyms subtest required a single-word response,
and Sentence Comprehension required a binary response
of yes or no. For the remaining subtests, a visual prompt
was provided, but responses required longer verbal utterances that had to be semantically and syntactically correct. Characteristics of errors on the Syntax Construction
subtest included using incorrect verb tense, omitting critical
elements, or not understanding the stimuli. On the Grammaticality Judgment subtest, errors included the inability
to identify correct subject–verb agreement, verb tense, and
pronouns. At times, the participants would identify that the
sentence was not grammatically correct but could not make
the correction. On the Meaning From Context subtest, several participants quickly reached a ceiling with mostly “I
don’t know” responses. Some incorrect responses had one
component of the correct answer but were not sufficiently
complete to count correct. Difficult items on the Pragmatic
Judgment subtest were ones that required a request for clarification or information and polite introductions or declines.
The responses were not impolite; they were inappropriate to
test criteria. Other responses often lacked specificity.
A correlation did not exist between adolescents’ severity
of behavior and overall test performance; however, there
was a correlation between participants’ age and the test
scores. As the participants’ age increased, their performance
on the test decreased.
These findings correspond with the results reported by
Paul and Epanchin (1982), which indicated that adolescents with behavioral disorders tend to respond to their
environment in a socially unacceptable manner. Results
are also in agreement with other studies such as Camarata
et al. (1988), which indicated that children with behavioral disorders may be at risk for a language disorder. As
Redmond (2002) indicated, many of the children receiving services for social–emotional disorders, such as those
who participated in this study, have unidentified language
problems due to the fact that their symptoms/behaviors are
misinterpreted as being one of the symptoms that leads to a
diagnosis of a social–emotional disorder.
It is evident that this population of adolescents tends to
have language problems. To reduce the amount of behavior
problems that are exhibited by this group, language testing
should occur during the early school years. Early identification and intervention for these adolescents could reduce the
overall severity of problems related to language deficits.
This could decrease the unacceptable behaviors and possibly improve and facilitate learning in the future. There are
many students who are not identified as having a language
problem early enough.
The small number of participants and the ratio of males
to females are limitations of this study. Future research in
alternate education settings should study changes in language skills of adolescents between 13 and 16 years of age.
Contributing factors that lead to the development of more
severe language deficits once an adolescent is 16 years old
should be investigated further.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Evangeline Parish School
Board for allowing the students to participate in this study. We
also want to thank Randall Grasier, director of the alternate education setting, for allowing us to complete data collection within
the alternate education facility. This study was approved by the
Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center–Shreveport
Institutional Review Board (Protocol H07-058).
REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1996). Specification for
audiometers (ANSI-S36). New York, NY: Author.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (1991). Prevention of communication disorders tutorial [Relevant paper].
Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy.
Apel, K. (1999). An introduction to assessment and intervention
with older students with language-learning impairments: Bridges
from research to clinical practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 228–230.
Baker, L., & Cantwell, D. P. (1982). Language acquisition, cognitive development and emotional disorders in childhood. In K.
E. Nelson (Ed.), Children’s language (Vol. 3, pp. 286–321).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brinton, B., & Fujiki, M. (1993). Clinical forum: Language and
social skills in the school-age population: Language, social
skills, and socioemotional behavior. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 194–198.
Camarata, S. M., Hughes, C. A., & Ruhl, K. L. (1988). Mild/
moderate behaviorally disordered students: A population at
Fontenot et al.: Language Deficits and Behavior Problems
39
risk. Speech, Language, and Hearing Services in Schools, 19,
191–200.
Implications for speech-language pathologists. Language, Speech,
and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 139–151.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1999). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken
Language. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
Cozad, R., & Rousey, C. (1966). Hearing and speech disorders
among delinquent children. Corrective Psychiatry and Journal of
Social Therapy, 12, 250–255.
Paul, J., & Epanchin, B. (1982). Emotional disturbance in
children: Theories and methods for teachers. Columbus, OH:
Merrill.
Picard, C. J. (2003). Alternative education handbook. Baton
Rouge, LA: Louisiana Department of Education.
Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., Morgan, M., & Hart, C. H. (1999).
Withdrawn and sociable behavior of children with language
impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
30, 183–195.
Prizant, B. M., Audet, L. R., Burke, G. M., Hummel, L. J., Maher, S. R., & Theeadore, G. (1990). Communication disorders
and emotional/behavioral disorders in children and adolescents.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 179–192.
Hart, K. I., Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., & Hart, C. H. (2004). The
relationship between social behavior and severity of language
impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 647–662.
Redmond, S. M. (2002). The use of rating scales with children
who have language impairments. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 11, 124–138.
Linares-Orama, N. (2005). Language-learning disorders and youth
incarceration. Journal of Communication Disorders, 38, 311–319.
Mack, A. E., & Warr-Leeper, G. A. (1992). Language abilities
in boys with chronic behavior disorders. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 23, 214–223.
McKinley, N. L., & Lord-Larson, V. (1985). Neglected-language
disordered adolescent: A delivery model. Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in Schools, 16, 2–15.
Morris-Friehe, M., & Sanger, D. D. (1994). Follow-up of children at risk for language problems. Journal of Communication
Disorders, 27, 241–256.
Newcomer, P. L., & Hammill, D. D. (1997). Test of Language
Development—Primary, Third Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Sanger, D. D., Hux, K., & Belau, D. (1997). Oral language skills
of female juvenile delinquents. American Journal of SpeechLanguage Pathology, 6, 70–76.
Sanger, D., Moore-Brown, B. J., Montgomery, J., & Hellerich,
S. (2004). Speech-language pathologists’ opinions on communication disorders and violence. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 35, 16–29.
Schery, T. (1985). Correlates of language development in
language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Disorders, 50, 73–83.
Contact author: Jamie L. Fontenot, Communication Disorders,
3375 Faubourg Road, Washington, LA 70589. E-mail: [email protected].
Nungesser, N. R., & Watkins, R. V. (2005). Preschool teachers’
perceptions and reactions to challenging classroom behavior:
40
CONTEMPORARY ISSUES
IN
COMMUNICATION SCIENCE
AND
DISORDERS • Volume 38 • 36–40 • Spring 2011