By: Vannesa Mueller, PhD, CCC-SLP, CLD Committee Co-Chair; Amelia Rau, PhD, CCC-SLP; and Marivel Willingham, MA, CCC-SLP, CLD Committee Co-Chair

A preschooler walks into the evaluation room bright-eyed and eager, speaking confidently in Spanish with her caregiver. Minutes later, as the standardized English test begins, she hesitates, stumbles, and is quickly flagged as “delayed.” For many bilingual children, this scenario is all too familiar, and the consequences are significant. When language difference is mistaken for language disorder, often with English-only measures rather than a true bilingual evaluation, children may be mislabeled, families may feel misunderstood, and critical educational opportunities can be missed (e.g., Paradis, Genesee, & Crago, 2011).

As speech-language pathologists (SLPs), we recognize that language is inseparable from culture, identity, and lived experience. Yet our fields still rely too heavily on assessments created for monolingual speakers, even when working with bilingual children. What is often presented as a “bilingual evaluation” frequently amounts to the application of monolingual tools without appropriate interpretive frameworks. In the absence of clear criteria for evaluating bilingual performance, clinicians are left with inconsistent diagnostic procedures, an issue that undermines both research validity and clinical practice. This article offers practical, culturally responsive strategies to move beyond such limitations and toward more accurate, equitable assessment.

Why It Matters
The need for culturally responsive assessment has never been greater. In Texas, about one-third of school-aged children live in households where a language other than English is spoken (U.S. Census Bureau, 2023). Within public schools, 24.3% of students are formally identified as Emergent Bilingual (Texas Education Agency, 2024). Nationally, multilingualism is rapidly becoming the norm, not the exception. Within this context, SLPs are on the front lines of ensuring that children receive the right support, whether that means intervention for a true language disorder or affirmation of a language difference.

The stakes are high. Misdiagnosis of bilingual children can result in inappropriate educational placements, stigmatization, and reduced access to meaningful instructional opportunities (Bedore & Peña, 2008; Chesmore, Ou, & Reynolds, 2016; National Council on Disability, 2018). Conversely, failure to identify a true disorder may deny children timely intervention, compounding academic challenges and widening social disparities (Kohnert, 2010). Although standardized assessments remain valuable tools, they cannot fully capture the linguistic and cultural realities of bilingual learners; best practice requires converging evidence across multiple sources and both languages (Ebert & Pham, 2017; Kohnert, 2010; Castilla-Earls et al., 2020).

Culturally responsive assessment means integrating multiple perspectives, tools, and methods to ensure that clinical decisions honor a child’s language background and communication strengths (Castilla-Earls et al., 2020). By reframing assessment as a holistic, culturally situated process, we empower both clinicians and families to work together toward accurate, equitable outcomes.

Practical Strategies
Culturally responsive assessment is not about adding extra steps; it’s about shifting how we think and what we prioritize. The following strategies are practical, flexible, and can be applied across clinical and educational settings.

1. Gather a Rich Language and Cultural History
Families hold essential knowledge about a child’s communication. Use parent/caregiver interviews and questionnaires to learn about home language use, exposure to different contexts, and cultural expectations for communication. For example, ask, “What language does your child prefer when playing? When telling a story? With grandparents?” These details provide a more accurate baseline than any standardized score (Bedore, Peña, Joyner, & Macken, 2011; Kohnert, 2010).

2. Collaborate with Interpreters and Cultural Brokers
Working with interpreters can enhance accuracy but only if roles are clear. Interpreters strive to deliver an accurate oral message while cultural brokers provide insight into communication styles, traditions, and family values. For example, an interpreter may interpret words from a vocabulary test, while a cultural broker may explain why a child avoids direct eye contact with adults, an expected behavior in some cultures rather than a social red flag (Caesar & Kohler, 2007; Langdon & Saenz, 2016).

3. Use Dynamic Assessment Approaches
Traditional tests capture performance in one moment. Dynamic assessment evaluates learning potential. Using a test-teach-retest model, you might introduce five new vocabulary words, provide mediated learning, and then check how quickly the child applies the new knowledge. A child who responds well to support is more likely to present with a language difference while continued struggle may suggest a disorder (Gutierrez-Clellen & Peña, 2001; Peña, Iglesias, & Lidz, 2001).

4. Analyze Language Samples Across Contexts
Language is fluid and contextual. Collect samples in different environments (home, classroom, playground) and in both languages when possible. Pay attention to how the child uses code-switching or narrative structures. A child who seamlessly shifts between languages or uses culturally appropriate storytelling techniques is demonstrating sophisticated communication skills that may not show up on a standardized measure (Rojas & Iglesias 2019; Peña et al., 2006).

5. Rethink “Error” Patterns
What looks like an error in English may reflect typical second-language acquisition or dialectal variation. For example, a Spanish-English bilingual may say, “He no have toys,” a structure that mirrors Spanish grammar. Rather than marking this as incorrect, ask, “Does this pattern align with a language difference, or does it represent a breakdown inconsistent with either language?” This distinction is key to accurate diagnosis (Paradis, 2005; Bedore & Leonard, 2001).

6. Incorporate Multiple Data Sources
No single tool tells the whole story. Standardized tests should be combined with teacher reports, caregiver input, observations, and informal probes. The strength of your assessment comes from triangulating these data points (Ebert & Pham, 2017; Castilla-Earls et al., 2020).

7. Center Family Perspectives
Families are not just informants; they are co-assessors. Ask caregivers what concerns them most, how their child communicates at home, and what goals they hope to see addressed. Positioning families as partners not only enhances accuracy but also builds trust and ensures that intervention, if needed, is culturally aligned (Kohnert, Ebert, & Pham, 2020; Hammer et al., 2014).

8. Continue Education and Advocacy
As speech-language pathologists, completing continuing education and advocacy trainings is a practical and essential strategy for conducting dynamic, culturally responsive assessments. Trainings provide up-to-date knowledge on cultural and linguistic diversity, reduce bias in evaluation practices, and equip SLPs with tools to better understand and support clients from diverse backgrounds. By staying informed and actively engaging in advocacy efforts, SLPs can ensure their assessment methods are equitable, individualized, and reflective of each client's unique cultural and communicative context.

Together, these strategies move us beyond the “bilingual eval” as a box to check. Instead, assessment becomes a dynamic, collaborative process that values children’s cultural and linguistic identities while safeguarding the accuracy of clinical decision-making.

Putting It Into Practice
Consider Sofia, a 5-year-old Spanish-English bilingual preschooler referred for evaluation due to concerns about limited English vocabulary. On a standardized English test, she scored below the average range, raising initial concerns about a language disorder.

Instead of relying solely on that score, the SLP gathered a comprehensive language history, learning that Sofia primarily communicates in Spanish at home and has only been exposed to English for one year in preschool. A dynamic assessment task revealed that she quickly learned and retained new English vocabulary when provided mediated support. Language samples in both Spanish and English showed age-appropriate grammar and storytelling skills, though she occasionally mixed languages, an expected pattern in bilingual development.

By incorporating family perspectives, interpreter support, and multiple data sources, the SLP concluded that Sofia was demonstrating a language difference, not a disorder. The outcome prevented unnecessary special education placement and allowed her teachers to support her ongoing bilingual development.

This vignette illustrates how culturally responsive assessment not only prevents misdiagnosis but also validates the rich linguistic identities of the children we serve.

Conclusion
Culturally responsive assessment requires us to expand beyond the boundaries of standardized testing. By gathering meaningful histories, using dynamic tools, collaborating with families and cultural partners, and reframing “errors” as possible differences, we create a more equitable process. As SLPs, we are called to honor the cultural and linguistic backgrounds of our clients while ensuring accurate diagnosis and appropriate intervention. In doing so, we strengthen trust, improve outcomes, and affirm the diversity that enriches our professions and our communities.


References
Bedore, L. M., & Leonard, L. B. (2001). Grammatical morphology deficits in Spanish-speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 44(4), 905–924. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2001/072)

Bedore, L. M., & Peña, E. D. (2008). Assessment of bilingual children for identification of language impairment: Current findings and implications for practice. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 11(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.2167/beb392.0

Bedore, L. M., Peña, E. D., Joyner, D., & Macken, C. (2011). Parent and teacher rating of bilingual language proficiency and language development concerns. International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 14(5), 489–511. https://doi.org/10.1080/13670050.2010.529102

Caesar, L. G., & Kohler, P. D. (2007). The state of school-based bilingual assessment: Actual practice versus recommended guidelines. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38(3), 190–200. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2007/020)

Castilla-Earls, A., Bedore, L., Rojas, R., Fabiano-Smith, L., Pruitt-Lord, S., Restrepo, M. A., & Peña, E. (2020). Beyond scores: Using converging evidence to determine speech and language services eligibility for dual language learners. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(3), 1116–1132. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_AJSLP-19-00179

Chesmore, A. A., Ou, S.-R., & Reynolds, A. J. (2016). Childhood placement in special education and adult well-being. The Journal of Special Education, 50(2), 109–120. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022466915624413

Ebert, K. D., & Pham, G. T. (2017). Synthesizing information from language samples and standardized tests in school-age bilingual assessment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 48(1), 42–56. https://doi.org/10.1044/2016_LSHSS-16-0007

Gutierrez-Clellen, V. F., & Peña, E. D. (2001). Dynamic assessment of diverse children: A tutorial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 32(4), 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2001/019)

Gillanders, C., Castro, D. C., & Sandilos, L. E. (2014). The language and literacy development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 715–733. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.05.008

Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders, 43(6), 456–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.02.002

Kohnert, K., Ebert, K. D., & Pham, G. T. (2020). Language disorders in bilingual children and adults (3rd ed.). Plural Publishing.

Langdon, H. W., & Saenz, T. I. (2016). Working with interpreters and translators: A guide for speech-language pathologists and audiologists. Plural Publishing.

National Council on Disability. (2018). IDEA series: The segregation of students with disabilities. National Council on Disability. https://www.ncd.gov

Paradis, J. (2005). Grammatical morphology in children learning English as a second language: Implications of similarities with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(3), 172–187. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/019)

Peña, E. D., Gillam, R. B., Malek, M., Ruiz-Felter, R., Resendiz, M., Fiestas, C., & Sabel, T. (2006). Dynamic assessment of school-age children’s narrative ability: An experimental investigation of classification accuracy. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(5), 1037–1057. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2006/074)

Peña, E. D., Iglesias, A., & Lidz, C. S. (2001). Reducing test bias through dynamic assessment of children’s word learning ability. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10(2), 138–154. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2001/014)

Rojas, R. & Iglesias, A (2019). Assessing the bilingual (Spanish/English) population. In J. F. Miller, K. Andriacchi, & A. Nockerts (Eds.), Assessing language production using SALT software: A clinician's guide to language sample analysis (3rd ed., pp. 115–127). SALT Software

Texas Education Agency. (2024). Emergent bilingual students in Texas public schools, 2023–24 school year. Texas Education Agency. https://tea.texas.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). Language spoken at home by ability to speak English for the population 5 years and over (age group: 5 to 17 years) [Texas]. 2023 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Table B16007. https://data.census.gov