I received this question from an SLP in Arizona: “What do you do when the eligibility category being considered is DD and you have a bilingual child where there is no appropriate standardized test … yet the district still wants a standard score of 1.5 SD to qualify in the area of communication?” As a fellow school-based SLP who has wrestled with these contradictions, I know how frustrating this feels.
As a general rule, you cannot rely solely on a standardized score for a bilingual student when those norms are invalid. Professionals must assemble converging evidence (narrative samples, dynamic assessment, functional data) to support eligibility for a developmental delay category, even when the district language emphasizes the 1.5 SD threshold.
Keep reading because we are going to unpack (1) what “DD” means in a school-based setting, (2) why the standard-score expectation creates tension when working with bilingual children, (3) how you can structure your evaluation and report to align with best practice and the state criteria, and (4) provide practical templates and tables you can plug into your reports and blog posts for SLP colleagues. Plus, we created a downloadable cheat sheet for those times you have to advocate for yourself or navigate sticky situations.
What “DD” Means (and Why the Standard-Score Requirement)
In many U.S. states such as Arizona, the eligibility category of Developmental Delay (DD) is used for children (often ages 3-9) who show significant delays in one or more developmental domains (communication, cognitive, motor, social/emotional, adaptive). In the communication domain, this means that a child’s speech-language development is sufficiently behind peers, impacting educational performance.
Why the 1.5 SD Standard Score?
Many districts adopt a policy stating that to meet the communication portion of DD you must show a standard score at or below 1.5 standard deviations below the mean (often ≤ ≈ 77 if mean = 100, SD = 15) and there is a functional impact. The reasoning: normative data give you a “cut-off” that is clear and defensible for eligibility teams. However, for bilingual children this becomes problematic.
The Tension for Bilingual Students
- Most standardized tests were normed on monolingual English speakers, and may not reflect the developmental trajectory of bilingual children (either simultaneous or sequential).
- The state/district language may acknowledge that standard scores alone cannot always determine eligibility for culturally-linguistically diverse (CLD) students, yet still hold to 1.5 SD rule.
- As a school SLP you are caught between policy (needing the number) and best practice (the number being invalid).
When You Have No Valid Standardized Test
Use a “Converging Evidence” Framework
When a bilingual child lacks an appropriate standardized test (or the norms are suspect), you build a body of evidence from multiple sources. A good guide: the “converging evidence” model advocated in this Beyond the Scores article.
What evidence sources can you include?
- Narrative language sample(s) in both (or all) languages the child uses — retell, story-generation tasks
- Dynamic assessment: test-teach-retest, stimulability, scaffolded tasks
- Informal functional communication observations: how the child uses language across settings (classroom, home, peer interactions)
- Parent/teacher interviews regarding performance in both languages, how communication impacts participation
- If you have standardized scores but they are of questionable validity, include them but note limitations and do not rely solely on them
How to Write This Up
In your report you might write something like:
“Standardized test X was administered. However, due to the student’s dual-language exposure and the absence of normative data for this population, the standard score will not serve as the sole basis for eligibility decision. Instead, the following additional data—language sample analysis, dynamic assessment, classroom observation, parent interview—have been used to determine whether a delay exists.”
Supporting the Communication Domain Under DD
When you only have, for example, articulation scores (or only English standardized data) but you believe the child qualifies under DD’s communication domain:
- Use articulation data as one piece of evidence (e.g., percent consonants correct, phonological error patterns).
- Add expressive/receptive language sample data showing deficits relative to bilingual norms (or peer expectations) in both languages or strongest language.
- Document functional impact (e.g., “Because of reduced intelligibility and limited morphosyntax in L1 and English, the student struggles to participate in classroom discussions, peer interaction, and follow multistep directions.”)
- Link to the state eligibility rubric. You might say, “Although a standard score of ≤ 77 was not achieved (or valid), the cumulative data indicate a significant communication delay that adversely impacts educational performance, consistent with the state’s DD criteria.”
What If the District Insists on the 1.5 SD Score?
Advocate smartly. This is your time to shine as the communication expert on your team or campus.
- Educate the team: share short citations about bilingual assessment bias (e.g., American Speech‑Language‑Hearing Association [ASHA] guidance).
- Provide the standard score (if you have it) but flag it: note the child’s bilingual status, lack of norm representativeness, and why you cannot rely on it alone.
- Recommend eligibility based on functional communication delay rather than just a norm referenced cut-off.
- Collaborate: ask for input from the eligibility team, bilingual education specialists, and families to ensure that the child’s communication needs are fully considered.
Sample Developmental Delay Speech Report Statement
“Although the student’s standard score on Test Y (English only) was 85, this result is of limited validity given the student’s bilingual status and the test’s normative sample of monolingual English speakers. Narrative sample analysis (in Spanish and English) revealed below-age morphosyntax and vocabulary development, dynamic assessment indicated limited response to scaffolded intervention, and classroom observations confirm that the student’s communication skills impede peer interaction and academic participation. Based on converging evidence, the student meets the criteria for the communication domain of Developmental Delay under state policy.”
Quick Reference for School-Based SLPs
| Scenario | What You Have | What You Do | How to Frame Eligibility |
|---|---|---|---|
| Valid bilingual standardized tool available (e.g., Spanish/English norm) | Standard score ≤ 1.5 SD + functional data | Accept score, add narrative + observation | “Meets communication domain via score + functional impact” |
| No valid standardized tool or suspect norms | Narrative, dynamic, interview, observation | Collect multiple data points; provide standard score if available with caveat | “Meets communication domain through converging evidence despite lack of standard score” |
| Only articulation standardized score | e.g., English-only articulation test | Use phonological/phonetic analysis, narrative sample, classroom observation | “Meets communication domain due to functional speech delay impacting educational performance” |
Addressing the Common Questions
Can we simply waive the standard score requirement because of bilingual status?
Not automatically. Follow your state/district policy but document why the test results are not valid for this child. Use alternative data to support the eligibility decision.
What if the child scores above the 1.5 SD cut-off but you believe in a functional delay?
You still present the full evidence. The eligibility team may determine that the standard score alone is not sufficient. Use your narrative and dynamic evidence to show the impact on educational performance.
Are narrative samples enough to qualify a child for DD?
Yes — when combined with other data (observations, parent/teacher input, dynamic assessment). Best practice supports using narrative sample analysis especially for bilingual children.
When Standard Scores Don’t Tell the Whole Story: An SLP’s Guide to Advocating for Fair Assessment of Bilingual Students
This one-page resource helps school-based SLPs justify why standardized scores are not always valid or necessary when evaluating bilingual children under the Developmental Delay category. It includes citations from ASHA, federal IDEA guidance, and current bilingual assessment research so that your eligibility teams have the proof they often request. The handout provides short, quotable statements you can include in reports, meetings, or parent conferences to demonstrate that your decision is grounded in both research and policy — not opinion.
📘 Download PDF – “When Standard Scores Don’t Tell the Whole Story”
- References:
Freeman, Max R., and Scott R. Schroeder. “Assessing Language Skills in Bilingual Children: Current Trends in Research and Practice.” Journal of Child Science, vol. 12, 2022, e33–e46. - Mercier, Michelle. A Resource and Informational Toolkit for Speech-Language Pathologists Working with Bilingual Children. Western University, 2017.
- “Multilingual Service Delivery in Audiology and Speech-Language Pathology.” ASHA Practice Portal, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, 2023.
If you’ve ever faced this scenario in your caseload, drop a comment below.
Share
Tweet
LinkedIn
Pin
Email
