In schools and private practices across the country, families of struggling students are told, “Get an evaluation,” as if identifying a diagnosis is the solution. But what happens when the evaluation is conducted by the wrong person, who either lacks deep expertise in language development or doesn’t treat the conditions they’re assessing? The answer is predictable and disheartening: families get conflicting opinions, students receive ineffective interventions, and years of opportunity and money are lost (Snowling & Hulme, 2025, p. 3).
Let’s be blunt. A diagnostic label, be it ADHD, dyslexia, executive dysfunction, or auditory processing disorder, means very little if it doesn’t translate into a treatment plan grounded in actual cognitive and linguistic needs (Kamhi, 2011; Snowling & Hulme, 2025, p. 2). And in far too many cases, children with significant language-based learning issues are assessed by individuals who don’t treat language (Ehren & Whitmire, 2009). Such assessments often result in vague recommendations and test summaries that fail to meaningfully inform intervention. The outcome? High schoolers who still can’t comprehend grade-level texts, still can’t express themselves in writing, and are still being bounced from one failed intervention to another.
Assessors Who Don’t Treat: A Systemic Problem
It’s one of the most overlooked problems in educational and clinical practice: many evaluators are diagnosticians only. They don’t provide therapy, and worse, they may not fully understand what evidence based language and literacy therapy requires. Without a clinical eye for how test results connect to actual instruction, these evaluations often lack functional utility. As a result, they over-emphasize what a student can’t do without creating a clear roadmap of what to do about it. This isn’t just pointless, it’s harmful.
Assessment practices that do not link directly to intervention risk delaying access to evidence-based supports, particularly in older students where the window for literacy recovery is narrowing (Wallach & Ocampo, 2022, pp. 6, 17, 19; Snowling & Hulme, 2025, p. 3). When students are mischaracterized or under-identified, especially by those unfamiliar with the nuances of language-based learning disabilities, they are often placed into programs that are either overly generic or flat-out inappropriate (Wallach & Ocampo, 2022, p. 135).
Beware the One-Size-Fits-All Dyslexia Program
Another common pitfall: funneling all struggling readers into the same packaged phonics program, regardless of their profile. Yes, structured literacy is evidence-based (Spear-Swerling, 2019; IDA, 2016). But not every program fits every learner. A child with deep deficits in syntax, pragmatics, verbal reasoning, narratives, etc., may flounder in a program that only targets word-level decoding. And yet these children are often misassigned because their assessments didn’t probe expressive language, verbal reasoning, or connected discourse comprehension (Snowling & Hulme, 2025, pp. 4, 5).
Language impairments in older students often require direct teaching of complex syntax, metalinguistic skills, and academic vocabulary (Nippold, 2016; Nippold, 2018), none of which are addressed in any current phonics curricula (Snowling & Hulme, 2025, p. 5). This is why assessments must go beyond sound and word levels and include sentence and discourse-level language analysis. If your assessor isn’t doing this, they’re missing the full picture.
A Better Way: Assessment That Leads to Action
An effective assessment should do more than assign a diagnostic label, it should chart a course for evidence-based intervention. This means:
- Identifying specific linguistic targets (e.g., complex syntax, pragmatics, metacognition, narratives, etc)
- Matching the student’s profile to therapy approaches that work (e.g., narrative-based language intervention, complex sentence intervention, robust discourse instruction)
- Providing measurable, actionable goals that can be addressed in therapy
- Collaborating with families on how to implement supports across settings
This kind of assessment can only be done by professionals who specialize in language, and who actually treat language disorders. These are speech-language pathologists with advanced training in literacy, not audiologists, school psychologists, or neuropsychologists who never step into a therapy room.
The Cost of Getting It Wrong
When families go to the wrong professional, they don’t just lose money, they lose time. They lose trust in the process. Worst of all, their child loses momentum during the years when intervention could still be most effective. Failure to identify and treat the language foundations of literacy in a timely way compounds educational disadvantage and limits long-term academic success.
Based on clinical experience, by the time students reach high school, those who were mis-assessed and mis-served are often emotionally drained, disillusioned with support systems, and disengaged from learning. They’ve been told to work harder, try this new program, or attend more tutoring sessions, yet the root cause of their struggles has never been addressed. It didn’t have to be this way.
The Bottom Line
The right assessment can change a child’s trajectory. But that assessment must come from a qualified professional who understands, treats, and monitors language development and literacy, not just someone who diagnoses learning needs but someone who deeply understands how language underlies and influences those challenges. Ask the hard questions. Demand specificity. And if all you’re getting are vague explanations or limited program recommendations that don’t address the root of the problem, then keep searching to find a qualified professional who can accurately identify the underlying issues and treat them effectively using functional, evidence-based interventions.
Because the truth is: choosing the wrong assessor doesn’t just delay progress, it derails it!
References:
- Cowen, C. D. (2016, Summer). What is structured literacy? International Dyslexia Association. Retrieved July 10, 2025, from International Dyslexia Association website.
- Ehren, B. J., & Whitmire, K. (2009). Speech-language pathologists as primary contributors to response to intervention at the secondary level. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30(2), 90–104.
- Kamhi, A. G. (2011). Balancing certainty and uncertainty in clinical practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42(1), 59–64.
- Nippold, M. A. (2016). Later language development: School-age children, adolescents, and young adults (4th ed.). Pro-Ed.
- Nippold, M. A. (2018). The literate lexicon in adolescents: Monitoring the use and understanding of morphologically complex words. Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups, 3(1), 211-221.
- Snowling, M.J. and Hulme, C. (2025), Risk Factors for Dyslexia: Addressing Oral Language Deficits. Mind, Brain, and Education.
- Spear-Swerling, L. (2019). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(3), 201–211.
- Wallach, G. P., & Ocampo, A. (2022). Language and literacy connections: Intervention for school-age children and adolescents. Plural Publishing.