The Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF-5) was designed to assess a student’s language and communication skills in a variety of contexts, determine the presence of a language disorder, describe the nature of the language disorder, and plan for intervention or treatment.
The CELF-5 correlates with current educational practices by linking common core standards to instruction and intervention. The test consists of 16 tests, previously called “subtests”, that determine language strengths and weaknesses, eligibility for services, curriculum relevant treatment, and initial steps of clinical decision making regarding recommendations for “classroom language adaptations or accommodations” (Examiner’s Manual, pg 1).
Use of the CELF-5 as the basis for determination of a language disorder raises a lot of concerns. First, the reference standard for the sensitivity and specificity groups does not meet current professional standards and raises considerable concerns about discriminant accuracy. Although the CELF-5 test manual boasts accuracy of 97%, this is at a cut score of 1.3 standard deviations below the mean. In most cases when scores are used, the cut score required is usually 2SD below the mean in order to identify language disoder. At 2SD below the mean the CELF-5 has a sensitivity of 57% accuracy. The use of a test that identifies children with language disorder with about as much success as flipping a coin has serious implications for the many states that continue to require performance at 2 SD below the mean to qualify for services.
In addition, there continue to be significant linguistic, cultural and socioeconomic biases in the newest version of the CELF. The CELF-5 is somewhat an improvement over the CELF-4 which was essentially a vocabulary test cloaked as a language test. (In the CELF-4 students had to know a pedigree dog name, “springer spaniel”, to understand one of the paragraphs in the Understanding Spoken Paragraphs subtest!) But vocabulary continues to be the most prevalent skill assessed throughout the 16 CELF-5 tests. As this test is largely a vocabulary test, it will likely identify socioeconomic status and second language acquisition issues, rather than a language disorder or disability. As noted in previous versions of the CELF, the test evaluates acquisition of the morphology and syntax of Standard American English. While the manual provides examples of correct responses for a few dialects, not all dialects are considered and it is unlikely that many evaluators will go beyond the official scoring sheet when they determine which are the “correct” responses. The CELF-5 continues to be useful to probe for information about a student’s language, but its limitations prevent it from being used to identify disorder or disability.
