Pilot Testing of a Bilingual Cross-Culturally Adapted DELV for Guyanese Creole-Speaking Children

This study piloted a culturally adapted version of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation (DELV), the DELV Guyanese Creole edition (DELV-GC), for children who speak Guyanese Creole, a Caribbean English Creole. The aims were to determine whether participants performed significantly better on the DELV-GC compared with the standardized DELV Norm-Referenced (DELV-NR), whether there were performance differences between typically developing (TD) children and those with suspected language disorders (SLD), and to identify item-level patterns of linguistic or cultural bias on the DELV-NR.Initial item identification involved 177 children (ages 6-9) from urban and rural Guyana who completed the DELV-NR. Subsequently, 61 children completed both the DELV-GC and DELV-NR for comparative analysis. Paired samples t-tests were used to compare scores on the DELV-GC and DELV-NR. Independent samples t-tests compared scores between TD and SLD participants. Qualitative item analysis identified DELV-NR items that were missed by at least 40 percent of participants.Children performed significantly better on the DELV-GC, responding correctly to 61.2% of items compared with 48.2% on the DELV-NR. TD and SLD groups showed significant differences on both assessments. Fifty-one percent of the DELV-NR items were identified as biased due to grammatical, pragmatic, phonological, or vocabulary mismatches, while 38% of items on the DELV-GC showed bias. Fast-mapping items requiring morphological inflection were particularly problematic for this population. Sample adaptations demonstrating systematic approaches to addressing linguistic mismatches are provided.The results indicate that while the DELV-GC shows promise as a more culturally appropriate assessment than the DELV-NR for Guyanese children, comprehensive psychometric validation, including reliability and validity testing, is necessary before clinical implementation. This study represents an initial phase of instrument development rather than a fully validated assessment tool. Findings provide clinicians with evidence of systematic assessment bias affecting Caribbean Creole speakers and demonstrate adaptation strategies that maintain diagnostic validity while reducing linguistic penalties.