Serving young children with communication disabilities from Latinx backgrounds and their families with equity: Provider perspectives.
Lauren M Cycyk, Katie Coles, Kenneth O'Dea and 8 others
PMID 36027806WHAT IT FOUND
Providers serving Latinx children struggle with standardized tests that misidentify language difference as disorder.
They rely on family reports and clinical experience to bridge the gap, but face systemic barriers like lack of interpreters, insufficient training, and agency requirements that prioritize test scores over accurate diagnosis.
Key findings
01Providers view standardized assessments as the primary barrier to accurate diagnosis, citing invalidity in Latinx contexts and state mandates that require test scores for eligibility.
02To compensate for flawed tools, most providers adapt test administration, rely heavily on family reports, and triangulate data with observations and dynamic assessment.
03Systemic factors, including lack of bilingual staff, inadequate interpreter training, and agency policies that value test scores over clinical judgment, hinder equitable service delivery.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The study included only 24 providers from a single state (Oregon), limiting generalizability to other regions. Participants were predominantly White and female, which may reflect national demographics but limits the perspective of Latinx providers. The study focused only on provider perspectives and did not include input from Latinx families, administrators, or policymakers. Providers were required to have a caseload of at least five Latinx children, so findings may not represent the experiences of those with less exposure to this population.
Declared interests
The study was supported by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) of the National Institutes of Health. The authors declared no competing financial interests.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the providers' reliance on clinical experience and informal measures as a validated solution that replaces standardized testing. The study highlights that these adaptations are necessary workarounds for a broken system, not evidence that informal assessment is equally reliable or accepted by all agencies, which often still mandate standardized scores for eligibility.