Speech-Language Evaluation Report
A full, de-identified report exactly as SLP Draft produces it. Student name, dates, and scores are fictional. Nothing here was invented by AI — every figure was entered by the clinician in the Testing tab.
Reason for referral
M.G. was referred for a triennial reevaluation to determine continued eligibility for speech-language services. Teacher and parent report noted difficulty following multi-step directions, formulating complete sentences in writing, and participating in classroom discussion.
Assessment procedures
- Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals — Fifth Edition (CELF-5)
- Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation — Third Edition (GFTA-3)
- Conversational language sample (47 utterances)
- Classroom observation (30 minutes, whole-group instruction)
- Parent and teacher input; review of educational records
Formal language testing (CELF-5)
M.G. earned a Core Language standard score of 85 (95% CI 79–91, 16th percentile). The Core Language Score is a composite measure of overall language ability and is not specific to a single modality. Index scores were as follows:
| Index | SS | %ile | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core Language | 85 | 16 | Low average |
| Receptive Language | 82 | 12 | Low average |
| Expressive Language | 87 | 19 | Low average |
| Language Content | 84 | 14 | Low average |
| Language Structure | 86 | 18 | Low average |
Receptive and expressive index scores were commensurate, indicating that M.G.’s difficulties are not isolated to one modality.
Language sample analysis
A 47-utterance conversational sample was collected during a structured play and picture-description activity. Mean length of utterance in morphemes was 3.4, consistent with Brown’s Stage IV and below expectations for chronological age. Utterances were characterized by omission of grammatical morphemes (regular past -ed, third person singular -s) and limited use of complex syntax (relative and adverbial clauses).
Articulation (GFTA-3)
Sounds-in-Words standard score 78 (7th percentile). Errors included /r/ substitutions (w/r) in all word positions. Intelligibility to an unfamiliar listener in connected speech was judged at approximately 85%.
Classroom observation
During a 30-minute whole-group literacy block, M.G. required repetition of two-step directions on 4 of 6 opportunities and did not initiate any verbal contributions to group discussion. In a one-to-one context immediately afterward, comprehension of narrative text was age-appropriate.
Impact on educational performance
M.G.’s language and speech sound profile affects access to grade-level curriculum, particularly in reading comprehension, written expression, and participation in classroom discussion, where demands for complex syntax and precise vocabulary are highest.
Eligibility statement
Based on convergent evidence from standardized testing, language sample analysis, classroom observation, and teacher and parent input, M.G. continues to demonstrate a speech or language impairment that adversely affects educational performance and requires specially designed instruction.
Recommendations
- Continued speech-language services, 2 × 30 minutes weekly, small group.
- Targets: grammatical morphology in connected speech, complex sentence formulation, /r/ production at the sentence level.
- Classroom supports: chunked multi-step directions, visual sentence frames, extended processing time.
- Progress monitored every 4 weeks with data reported quarterly.