Understanding Test Results

<!–

: A parent and professional reviewing a document together in a calm, collaborative setting. Brand-aligned. –>

Receiving a language assessment report can feel confusing. Reports often include scores, percentile ranks, standard deviations, and clinical terms that are not explained in plain language.

This page is designed to help you understand what those numbers mean, what questions to ask, and how to use results to support your child — not just to label them.

Standard scores compare your child’s performance to a normative sample — a group of same-aged peers used to establish what “typical” looks like. Most tests use a mean (average) of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.

– Score of 100: exactly average

– Score of 85–115: within one standard deviation — typical range

– Score below 70: more than two standard deviations below average — often flags for evaluation or eligibility

A percentile rank tells you how your child’s score compares to other children of the same age.

– 50th percentile: average — half of same-aged peers scored higher, half scored lower

– 25th percentile: scored higher than 25% of peers, lower than 75%

– 10th percentile or below: may indicate need for closer evaluation or support

Most diagnostic language assessments are norm-referenced — meaning scores are based on how a child compares to a standardized sample. The validity of those comparisons depends entirely on whether the normative sample is appropriate for your child.

Important: Most English language assessments were normed on hearing children. Most ASL assessments have smaller normative samples. This matters when interpreting scores for Deaf and hard-of-hearing children.

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Preferred practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathology. ASHA. https://www.asha.org/policy/pp2004-00191/

1. Is ASL developing? If your child uses ASL, were ASL-specific tools used? What do those scores show?

2. Is English developing? What English language skills were assessed, and how does the child’s profile compare to appropriate peers?

3. Is access sufficient? Does the child have consistent, accessible language input? Were scores affected by limited exposure rather than a language disorder?

4. Is any delay due to language deprivation or a language disorder? These require different responses. A child without consistent language access cannot be diagnosed accurately with a language disorder.

Watch for these patterns that may indicate a child needs more support or that the evaluation itself needs to be questioned:

– Low scores in both ASL and English — may indicate language deprivation rather than a disorder

– Testing conducted only in English when the child is an ASL user — results will not be valid

– Inconsistent access to language noted in background information but not addressed in conclusions

– Conclusions about disorder drawn without evidence that the child had consistent, accessible language input before testing

If you see any of these patterns, ask the evaluator directly how they accounted for language access in their interpretation.

Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), evaluations must:

– Be conducted in the child’s primary language or mode of communication

– Use technically sound instruments

– Not use a single measure as the sole basis for eligibility decisions

– Be administered by trained professionals

These requirements are established under 34 CFR § 300.304 (Evaluation procedures, IDEA Part B). Under this regulation, evaluations must use a variety of assessment tools, be conducted in the child’s primary language or mode of communication, and not use a single measure as the sole basis for eligibility decisions.

If you believe an evaluation did not meet these standards, you have the right to request an Independent Educational Evaluation (IEE) at public expense in many circumstances. This right is established under 34 CFR § 300.502.

Results are a starting point — not a verdict. Use them to:

– Identify what support your child needs right now

– Ask whether language access is sufficient and how to increase it if not

– Set measurable goals in IEP or IFSP meetings

– Monitor progress over time with re-evaluation at appropriate intervals

[Request a language evaluation → /language-testing/request-evaluation/][Learn about IEP meetings → /iep-meeting/][Explore resources → /resources/]

Changes: Replaced [CITATION REQUIRED: ASHA] with ASHA (2004) preferred practice patterns. Replaced [CITATION REQUIRED: 34 CFR §300.304] with regulatory citation and description. Added inline IEE citation (34 CFR § 300.502). Confirmed accuracy of IEE rights description, language deprivation vs. disorder framing, and ASL norming limitations statement. All placeholders resolved.