The routing decision comes from oral language data — not the HLS alone. The Home Language Survey tells you that language background needs to be considered. The OL proficiency measure (WJ-IV OL, BESA, or equivalent) tells you who should evaluate. Establish dominance before finalizing your battery.
CLI Calculator — WJ-IV OL
Comparative Language Index
— WJ-IV Oral Language (English vs. Spanish)
Enter both RPI scores and click Calculate
A difference of >10 points indicates dominance in the higher-scoring language. A difference of ±10 points or less is considered balanced / inconclusive. The CLI is derived from the Oral Language cluster RPI scores — not standard scores.
Routing Reference
| OL data shows… | Routing | What this means |
|---|---|---|
| English-only home language (no OL measure needed) | Proceed | HLS confirms English-only. No LPAC designation. Proceed with standard English-language battery. |
| English dominant (CLI >+10 in English's favor) | Proceed | English-language instruments are appropriate. Document CLI results and language background in FIE Background section. |
| Spanish/other dominant (CLI >10 in Spanish/other's favor) — limited U.S. schooling (0–5 yrs) | Refer out | Bilingual diagnostician or school psychologist should conduct the evaluation. Instruments normed in dominant language (e.g., Batería IV) are required. Share all existing data with the bilingual evaluator. |
| Spanish/other dominant — extensive U.S. schooling (6+ yrs or U.S.-born) | Split / consult | Persistent non-English dominance after extensive English instruction warrants clinical judgment. Consult bilingual colleague. Consider split eval: you conduct cognitive; bilingual evaluator conducts achievement in dominant language. |
| Balanced / inconclusive (CLI within ±10 points) | Consult | Neither language alone may capture full ability. Consult bilingual colleague before finalizing battery. Document the inconclusive dominance finding. Cross-linguistic interpretation required at Interpret stage. |
| Student is non-verbal or minimally verbal (regardless of language background) | See resources | Language dominance determination is secondary — response mode validity is the primary concern. Instrument selection and evaluation approach depend on the suspected eligibility and the student's communication profile. See: Low Incidence Reference (nonverbal instrument comparison) · Early Childhood Guide (DD convergence-of-data approach) · AU Evaluation Reference (nonverbal cognitive considerations). |
| Dominant language is neither English nor Spanish (e.g., French, Vietnamese, Arabic, Somali, Tagalog) | CALP approach | WJ-IV CLI does not apply. No normed instruments exist in most non-Spanish languages. Use reduced-language-load and nonverbal instruments. See CALP guidance below. |
| No OL measure administered yet | Get OL data first | Do not begin cognitive or achievement testing until dominance is established. Administer WJ-IV OL or equivalent. TELPAS may provide interim context but is not sufficient for dominance determination. |
Non-Spanish L1 — CALP Guidance
When the dominant language is neither English nor Spanish
French, Vietnamese, Arabic, Somali, Tagalog, and other languages
The WJ-IV CLI is not applicable, and normed instruments in the student's dominant language are generally unavailable. This does not mean you proceed with standard English-language assessment as if language background is irrelevant — it means you must make deliberate instrument choices that minimize language load and maximize construct validity.
CALP Framework — Key Considerations
CALP (Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency) develops over 5–7 years of academic language exposure. A student may have strong conversational English (BICS) but insufficient academic English to perform validly on language-loaded cognitive or achievement measures. Scores on Gc-heavy subtests may reflect language proficiency more than cognitive ability.
Preferred cognitive instruments
KABC-II — Use MPI or NVI; minimize Gc subtests. Designed to reduce cultural/language load.
UNIT-2 — Fully nonverbal; no language required for administration or response.
Leiter-3 — Nonverbal cognitive and attention. Strong option for recent arrivals.
CTONI-2 — Nonverbal, pictorial and geometric analogies. Pantomime administration available.
Achievement & supplemental
WIAT-IV or KTEA-3 — Administer with awareness that oral language subtests may underestimate ability. Weight reading decoding and math calculation over oral expression.
CTOPP-2 — Phonological processing is relatively language-neutral at the construct level. Valid across language backgrounds.
TAPS-3 Spanish — If any Spanish is present, may provide additional auditory processing data.
Document explicitly in the FIE: why standard instruments were modified or replaced, what construct each instrument was intended to measure, and how language background was accounted for in score interpretation. The absence of normed instruments in the dominant language is not a documentation gap — it is the clinical reality, and transparency about it is defensible.
FIE Documentation Language
Proceed — English dominant
Review of language background data, including the Home Language Survey and oral language proficiency assessment results, indicates that [Student Name] demonstrates English language dominance. Although a language other than English is spoken in the home and the student holds [a current / a prior] EB designation, Comparative Language Index results from the WJ-IV Oral Language battery indicate stronger English oral language performance. Standard English-language assessment instruments were selected accordingly. Language background was considered in instrument selection, administration, and interpretation of results, consistent with TAC §89.1040 and IDEA requirements.
Proceed — English-only home language
Review of the Home Language Survey (HLS) on file indicates that English is the only language spoken in the home. [Student Name] has no current or prior LPAC designation. English is the student's primary language of instruction and communication; therefore, standard English-language assessment instruments were selected. Bilingual evaluation procedures were not warranted based on available language background data.
Refer out — non-English dominant
Review of language background data indicates that [Student Name] is dominant in a language other than English, based on oral language proficiency assessment results (CLI = [value]). Given the student's language profile and schooling history, assessment in the dominant language is required to obtain a valid estimate of cognitive and academic functioning. This evaluation was referred to a bilingual diagnostician/school psychologist for primary assessment using instruments normed in the student's dominant language, consistent with TAC §89.1040 requirements for evaluating students whose dominant language is other than English.
Split evaluation — non-English dominant, extensive U.S. schooling
[Student Name] has a home language background other than English and holds [a current / a prior] EB designation. Despite [6 or more years of U.S. schooling / receiving all schooling in U.S. schools], oral language assessment results continue to indicate non-English dominance (CLI = [value]). This profile was carefully considered in evaluation planning in consultation with a bilingual colleague. A split evaluation approach was used: [describe division of assessment responsibilities]. Instrument selection, administration, and interpretation accounted for the student's language profile. Language difference versus language or learning disorder is addressed in the eligibility determination section of this report.
Balanced / inconclusive dominance
Language background data for [Student Name] indicates [a current / prior] EB designation and exposure to a language other than English in the home. Oral language proficiency data did not yield a clear dominance determination (CLI = [value]), suggesting balanced bilingual development or inconclusive proficiency data. Evaluation planning was conducted in consultation with a bilingual colleague. Instrument selection accounted for the student's bilingual profile. Interpretation of results addresses cross-linguistic considerations and the potential for neither language alone to fully represent the student's cognitive and academic capabilities.
Non-Spanish L1 — CALP approach (no normed instruments in dominant language)
[Student Name]'s home language is [Language], and the student [holds a current EB designation / has a home language background other than English]. Standard bilingual evaluation procedures used for English/Spanish evaluations are not applicable, as normed assessment instruments in [Language] are not available for the measures required by this evaluation. This clinical reality was considered explicitly in evaluation planning.
Instrument selection prioritized measures with reduced language load and strong construct validity across language backgrounds: [list instruments used, e.g., KABC-II (MPI/NVI), CTOPP-2, WIAT-IV]. Subtests with high Gc or oral language demands were interpreted with caution, as performance on these measures may reflect English language proficiency rather than the underlying cognitive or academic ability being assessed.
Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency (CALP) develops over 5–7 years of academic language exposure. Given the student's [years] of U.S. schooling and English language background, [describe CALP context — e.g., "academic English proficiency is still developing, and scores on language-loaded subtests are likely to underestimate cognitive ability"]. Results are interpreted within this context throughout this report. The absence of normed instruments in the student's dominant language does not preclude a valid evaluation; it requires that the evaluator exercise heightened clinical judgment in instrument selection, administration, and interpretation, consistent with IDEA's requirement that evaluations be conducted in the language most likely to yield accurate information about the student.