Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
The PLS-5 (Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition) is a norm-referenced language test for birth through 7 years 11 months that yields Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language standard scores. Speech-language pathologists and early-intervention evaluators use it in Part C and preschool eligibility evaluations. The write-up must label caregiver-reported evidence and apply the state's exact rule. This page covers how to write up PLS-5 results, with a fictional sample.
Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) and early-intervention evaluators in Part C programs, preschools, clinics, and hospitals; publisher qualification level B
Part C eligibility teams and service coordinators, IFSP and preschool IEP teams, pediatricians and NICU follow-up programs, payers, NDIS and provincial program reviewers, families
400 to 800 words for the results section · administration 45 to 60 minutes, plus the caregiver questionnaire, a language sample, and hand scoring
Norm-referenced developmental language scale (Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication combining into Total Language; play-based elicitation, observation, and caregiver report; supplemental articulation screener, language sample checklist, and caregiver questionnaire)
Part C early-intervention eligibility evaluations, preschool speech or language impairment and developmental-delay evaluations, late-talker and NICU follow-up referrals, bilingual Spanish-English evaluations with the Spanish edition, progress reevaluations
Published by NCS Pearson (2011; Spanish and Australian and New Zealand editions 2012; no sixth edition announced as of September 2026); described here for write-up purposes, no test content reproduced
The PLS-5 (Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition; Zimmerman, Steiner, and Pond; NCS Pearson, 2011) is a norm-referenced developmental language assessment for children from birth through 7 years 11 months. Two scales, Auditory Comprehension and Expressive Communication, sample understanding and expression from preverbal interaction through emerging language and early literacy in play-based tasks with pictures, objects, and the examiner; each yields a standard score (mean 100, SD 15) with a confidence interval, a percentile rank, a Growth Scale Value for tracking change, and a language age equivalent, and the two combine into a Total Language score on the same metric. Three supplements travel with it: an Articulation Screener that takes under two minutes, a Language Sample Checklist, and the Home Communication Questionnaire, a caregiver form for children functioning in the birth-through-age-2 range whose answers, per the publisher's FAQ, allow many test items to be scored without administering them to the child. Administration runs about 45 to 60 minutes on paper with hand scoring (digital manuals and the digital questionnaire are delivered through Q-global, but scoring itself is manual), at publisher qualification level B, against a US normative sample of 1,400 children that excluded children born prematurely. The PLS-5 Spanish (2012) is a separately normed edition, standardized on 1,150 monolingual and bilingual Spanish-speaking children in the United States and Puerto Rico, that credits responses in either language into dual-language scores; the Australian and New Zealand Language Adapted Edition (2012) adapts wording but keeps the US normative sample; and a separate PLS-5 Screening Test exists for screening only. As of September 2026 the 2011 edition remains current on Pearson's US, Canadian, and Australian sites, with no sixth edition announced.
Three facts carry the write-up. First, a PLS-5 score is not necessarily a summary of what the examiner saw: for infants and toddlers the standardized procedure lets caregiver answers on the Home Communication Questionnaire credit items, those credits carry full scoring weight, and no published study establishes that caregiver-credited items have the same diagnostic value as elicited ones, so a defensible report states which evidence came from report, from observation, and from elicitation. Second, the eligibility arithmetic belongs to the state, not the test: IDEA Part C requires each state to define developmental delay in its own terms (34 CFR 303.111), standard-deviation rules read straight off the standard score (85 sits 1 SD below the mean, 77.5 at 1.5 SD, 70 at 2 SD), percent-delay rules use the state's approved method, and federal law prohibits any single procedure from being the sole criterion (34 CFR 303.321(b)); the publisher's own FAQ adds that a low Auditory Comprehension or Expressive Communication score alone can qualify a child whose Total Language score does not, and says of rigid cutoffs applied without confidence bands and other data that they "do not align with IDEIA legislation, best testing practice, or appropriate PLS-5 test interpretation." Third, age: the norms exclude preterm children, the publisher permits correction for prematurity (36 weeks gestation or less) only through 24 months, and the report gives both ages and the authority for the one it used. The DAYC-2 page covers the broad developmental battery that often owns a program's domain-level eligibility arithmetic while the PLS-5 supplies language depth, the CELF-5 page covers school-age language from age 5, and the GFTA-3 page covers the full speech sound evaluation that the PLS-5's two-minute screener can only flag.
Speech-language pathologists on Part C early-intervention teams are the core users, giving the PLS-5 at home or in an arena evaluation as the communication component of the multidisciplinary process federal law requires, which must include an instrument, the child's history and a parent interview, functioning in all five developmental areas, other sources, and records, all within 45 days of referral and at no cost to the family. Preschool teams meet it again from age 3, inside Part B evaluations for the speech or language impairment category or a state's developmental-delay category, where the write-up feeds the eligibility team and the IEP input. Clinic and hospital SLPs, developmental pediatrics services, and NICU follow-up programs use it to characterize a late talker or a mixed receptive-expressive profile and to support medical necessity for treatment, billing the untimed evaluation code 92523. Bilingual evaluators use the PLS-5 Spanish for Spanish-English children, because the English edition was normed on children whose primary language is English. Outside the United States, Ontario and other provincial preschool speech and language programs use the US-normed edition inside access-based pathways with no score gate, and Australian clinicians use the Language Adapted Edition to supply standardized evidence for NDIS early childhood applications that are judged on functional impact. The readers are therefore a service coordinator applying a state rule, a receiving team re-deciding after a move, a physician or payer checking necessity, and a family entitled to a plain-language account. The broader evaluation frame lives on the developmental assessment page, global infant and toddler development on the Bayley-4 page, and the screening that precedes all of this on the ASQ-3 and M-CHAT-R pages.
No regulation prescribes a PLS-5 report format. What the federal evaluation rules, the state criteria, and the instrument's own design dictate is the content: the edition and the ages, the source of every credited behavior, uncertainty around every number compared with a threshold, the converging measures that make the instrument one procedure among several, and an eligibility statement written against the named rule. Each section below carries the pitfall that most often undermines it.
Identification, edition, ages, and the governing rule. Open with the full test name and the edition actually given (PLS-5 English, PLS-5 Spanish with single-language or dual-language administration, or the Australian and New Zealand Language Adapted Edition), the materials (paper, or digital manuals and questionnaire through Q-global) and the fact that scoring is manual, the setting and mode (home, clinic, arena, or telepractice under the publisher's guidance), the evaluation dates, and the chronological age. If the child was born at 36 weeks or earlier, state the gestational age, the corrected age, the arithmetic, and the authority for using it (the publisher permits correction only through 24 months; the state's rule may say more). Name the state or program whose eligibility definition the report will apply. Pitfall: "PLS-5 administered in Spanish" for a child who was given the separately normed Spanish edition, or a corrected age with no gestational age, no arithmetic, and no authority. A reader cannot reproduce either.
Evidence sources: reported, observed, elicited. State which credited behaviors came from the Home Communication Questionnaire and caregiver interview, which were observed spontaneously in play and routines, and which were elicited under the standardized procedure, without naming items. The procedure permits caregiver credit for early behaviors and gives it full scoring weight; the report's job is to preserve the provenance, because no published study establishes that reported and elicited credits carry the same diagnostic value. When caregiver report carried most of a scale, say so and treat the score as provisional pending direct observation. Pitfall: "N. demonstrated" when the credit came from the questionnaire. Reviewers flag it first, and a receiving team that later observes the child directly will find the gap.
Behavioral and validity conditions. Document engagement, attention, and regulation, health on the day, hearing status (newborn screen, later screening, or audiology), vision, the languages spoken at home and the child's exposure to each, interpreter involvement, and any nonstandard conditions. State plainly whether the normative comparison fits this child: the English norms assume English as the primary language and exclude children born prematurely. Federal rules require assessment in the child's native language or the mode most likely to yield accurate information. Pitfall: English-edition standard scores reported as diagnostic for a bilingual toddler, or a session cut short by fatigue scored without comment. State the conditions and let them bound the interpretation.
Scale scores with uncertainty. Report Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language as standard scores (mean 100, SD 15), each with its confidence interval and percentile rank and a descriptor in prose (scores within 1 SD of the mean are conventionally described as average), and say which age produced them. Lead with the receptive-expressive pattern rather than the total when the two scales diverge, because the total blends them and the publisher's guidance is that either scale alone can qualify a child. Record Growth Scale Values for later change measurement; report an age equivalent only where a form requires one, with its limitation stated. Pitfall: A bare 78 compared with a 77.5 line as if the integer were exact, or Total Language treated as the only number when a strong receptive score is hiding a qualifying expressive one.
Converging evidence. Add the measures that make the PLS-5 one procedure among several: a language sample of stated length and context (vocabulary, word combinations, communicative functions, gesture use, intelligibility where relevant), an independent parent-report instrument such as the age-appropriate MacArthur-Bates CDI form, the Articulation Screener result if given (a screen, not a speech sound evaluation), developmental history, and hearing status. The publisher itself points evaluators to language sampling, observation, parent interview, and other measures when interpreting PLS-5 results. Pitfall: The PLS-5 standing alone. Federal law prohibits any single procedure as the sole criterion for eligibility, and a caregiver questionnaire embedded in the test is not an independent parent-report measure.
Eligibility analysis against the named rule. Quote the jurisdiction's actual criterion and apply it in its own currency: a standard-deviation rule reads off the standard score, with the interval and the state's rounding convention deciding the boundary, and a percent-delay rule uses the state's approved method and instruments, labeled as the state's administrative method when it relies on age equivalents. Never convert a standard score into a percent delay. Then situate the score inside the multisource process: no single procedure decides, informed clinical opinion can establish eligibility that scores miss but never negate a qualifying result, and the determination belongs to the team. In a clinic, the same paragraph states the diagnosis and the functional limitations that establish medical necessity. Pitfall: "1.5 SD below the mean, which equals a 25 percent delay." It does not; the two are different currencies, and a state that accepts one route has not authorized the conversion.
Family summary, recommendations, and next steps. Close with a plain-language paragraph the family can use: what is easier for the child, what is harder, how it shows up at home, what came from the family's own report, whether the program's criterion was met, and what happens next (team review, IFSP development within the 45-day window, transition planning near the third birthday with its 90-day conference requirement). Link each recommendation to a documented finding, name the progress measure (Growth Scale Values and a repeat parent-report inventory rather than re-comparing age-normed scores), and state the referrals the profile implies, hearing first. Pitfall: A report that ends at score classifications. Part C expects results explained to the family and their priorities to shape the plan; a template recommendation list with no thread back to the findings reads as an evaluation done to the family rather than with it.
PLS-5 RESULTS SECTION SKELETON Child: [initials] Evaluation date(s): [ ] Evaluator: [name, credentials] Chronological age: [ ] Corrected age (if born at 36 weeks or earlier): [ ] (gestational age [ ]; correction permitted through 24 months; authority: [ ]) Referral question: [ ] Program + eligibility rule applied: [state/program; criterion quoted, e.g. 1.5 SD below the mean in one area / 25% delay] Instrument: Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition Edition: [English / Spanish (single or dual language) / Australian and NZ] Materials: [paper / Q-global manuals + questionnaire] Scoring: manual Setting + mode: [home / clinic / arena; in person / telepractice] Evidence sources: [behaviors credited from the Home Communication Questionnaire and caregiver interview; observed in play and routines; elicited] Behavioral + validity conditions: [engagement, health, hearing status, home languages and exposure, interpreter; normative comparison fits: yes / no] Scale scores (at [chronological / corrected] age, each with uncertainty): Auditory Comprehension: SS [ ] (95% CI [ ] to [ ]), percentile [ ], [descriptor] Expressive Communication: SS [ ], CI [ ], percentile [ ], [descriptor] Total Language: SS [ ], CI [ ], percentile [ ], [descriptor] Pattern statement: [receptive vs expressive; what the total blends] GSVs recorded: [ ] Age equivalent: [only if a form requires it] Converging evidence: [language sample: context, length, findings; parent-report measure (e.g. CDI form) result; Articulation Screener; history; hearing] Eligibility analysis: [criterion in its own currency (SD from standard scores; percent delay only by the state's method); result vs threshold; AC or EC alone if the rule allows; other sources; informed clinical opinion; team] Family summary (plain language): [strengths, needs, what the family reported, criterion met or not, next steps] Recommendations + next steps: [linked to findings; IFSP timeline; progress measures (GSVs, repeat parent report); referrals; transition if near three] Evaluator signature / credentials: Date:
Free to use and share, no signup. The PDF includes a one-page cheat sheet with section-by-section pitfalls and a pre-sign checklist; the DOCX is the blank results-section skeleton, ready to adapt. Neither reproduces test items, stimuli, record forms, the caregiver questionnaire, norms, or conversion tables.
Scenario: a 20-month-old former 35-week preterm infant referred by his pediatrician for few words, evaluated at home by a Part C speech-language pathologist, with caregiver-credited evidence labeled, both ages reported, an expressive-specific profile, and the eligibility statement written against a named state-style rule. All details are fictional.
Patient: N.R., 20 months 12 days (19 months 7 days corrected) · Setting: Part C early intervention eligibility evaluation, communication component, family home · Clinician: L. Okonkwo, MS, CCC-SLP · Note date: 09/18/2026
Measures and conditions: Preschool Language Scales, Fifth Edition (PLS-5), English edition with US norms, paper administration with hand scoring, given at the family's home on 09/15/2026 as the communication component of a multidisciplinary Part C evaluation. The Home Communication Questionnaire was completed by N.R.'s mother on 09/12/2026 and reviewed with her by interview before testing. N.R. was born at 35 weeks gestation; chronological age at testing was 20 months 12 days and corrected age 19 months 7 days. Program policy permits correction for prematurity through 24 months, consistent with the publisher's guidance, so the norm-referenced scores below are reported at corrected age, with the chronological-age result given where it differs. Referral came from the pediatrician on 09/01/2026 for few words at the 18-month visit. The home is monolingual English, so the normative comparison is judged appropriate. Hearing: the newborn screen was passed, and a diagnostic audiology evaluation on 09/08/2026 was within normal limits bilaterally. N.R. engaged readily in floor play for about 40 minutes with one snack break, and standard administration was maintained. The Articulation Screener was not administered at this age; speech sounds were described from the play sample.
Evidence sources: Behaviors that the standardized procedure permits to be credited from caregiver report were scored from the questionnaire and interview only where his mother described the behavior as current and consistent, and those credits are identified as caregiver-reported in the record and in this section rather than as examiner-observed. Comprehension behaviors were largely elicited or observed directly in play and routines. Expressive credits rested more heavily on caregiver report, and every reported expressive behavior was also heard or seen at least once during the session, so no credited behavior stands on report alone; the vocabulary his mother described matched what was observed and what the parent inventory recorded.
Scale scores: At corrected age, the Auditory Comprehension standard score was 94 (95 percent confidence interval 87 to 101; 34th percentile), within the average range. Expressive Communication was 70 (64 to 76; 2nd percentile), well below the average range, with the entire interval below the 1.5 SD line of 77.5. Total Language was 80 (75 to 85; 9th percentile), below average, an intermediate value that blends the two scales and understates the expressive-specific pattern. Scored against chronological age instead, Expressive Communication would be 67 (1st percentile) and Auditory Comprehension 91; the pattern, and the conclusion below, are the same under either age. Descriptors follow the convention that standard scores within 1 SD of the mean are average. Growth Scale Values were recorded for reevaluation. Age equivalents are not reported: the program's criterion is stated in standard deviations, and the two metrics are not interchangeable.
Converging evidence: A 30-minute play-based language sample at home on 09/15/2026 yielded nine different recognizable words used spontaneously, no two-word combinations, and frequent pointing, showing, giving, and vocalizing to request and comment; communicative intent, joint attention, and symbolic play were age-appropriate. On the MacArthur-Bates CDI Words and Sentences form, completed by his mother on 09/12/2026, productive vocabulary was 24 words, below the 10th percentile for age, with no word combinations, an independent parent-report result that converges with the expressive scale. The consonant inventory in the sample was limited to early-developing sounds (stops, nasals, and /h/) in simple syllable shapes, expected at this stage and to be reviewed as vocabulary grows.
Eligibility analysis: Our state's Part C definition of developmental delay includes a score of at least 1.5 standard deviations below the mean in one developmental area on an appropriate standardized instrument, and the program applies that criterion to a receptive or an expressive scale score when the delay is confined to one; the definition also offers a percent-delay route that the program computes by its own approved method. In the communication area, the Expressive Communication score meets the standard-deviation criterion in its own currency, with the entire interval below 77.5; Total Language does not, and the publisher's own guidance is that a low Auditory Comprehension or Expressive Communication score can qualify a child whose Total Language score does not. No percent-delay figure is derived from the age equivalent or from the standard score. The finding converges with the caregiver questionnaire, the independent parent inventory, the language sample, the pediatrician's referral, and direct observation, and hearing has been ruled out as a cause. Under 34 CFR 303.321 this instrument is one procedure among several, the evaluator's informed clinical opinion supports the same conclusion, and eligibility is the multidisciplinary team's determination within the 45-day timeline that began with the 09/01/2026 referral.
Family summary and recommendations: Reviewed with N.R.'s parents on 09/18/2026 in plain language: he understands much of what is said to him at home, follows familiar directions, and communicates clearly with gestures, sounds, and a small set of words; what is hard right now is saying words and putting them together, and his parents' questionnaire and observations matched what we saw. He met the program's definition of a communication delay in the expressive area. Recommended: the team meets with the family to confirm eligibility and develop the IFSP; parent-implemented language intervention coached in daily routines (following his lead, modeling single words and short phrases, responsive turn-taking), with the visit schedule set by the IFSP team; monitoring of speech sounds as vocabulary grows; reevaluation in six months using Growth Scale Values for change and a repeat parent inventory, with a hearing recheck if progress stalls. Transition planning toward preschool services will begin on the program's timeline as his third birthday approaches.
This sample is fictional and for educational purposes. It does not describe a real child or record; the scores, dates, and details are invented to show write-up structure and are not clinical guidance. Scores are invented for illustration and correspond to no real child or record, and no norm-table values are reproduced.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsUnited States: the write-up sits inside a legal machine, and the parts are citable. IDEA Part C requires each state to adopt its own definition of developmental delay (34 CFR 303.111) across the five developmental areas an evaluation must cover, communication among them (303.21); requires a multidisciplinary evaluation that includes an instrument, the child's history and a parent interview, functioning in each area, other sources, and records; prohibits any single procedure as the sole criterion; and requires informed clinical opinion, which may establish eligibility that instruments miss but may never negate a qualifying result (303.321). Evaluation, assessment, and the initial IFSP meeting must be complete within 45 days of referral (303.310), evaluation and assessment carry no fee to the family (303.521), and transition toward Part B preschool services requires a conference not fewer than 90 days before the third birthday (303.209) (LAW). From age 3, Part B eligibility runs through the speech or language impairment category, a communication disorder that adversely affects educational performance (300.8(c)(11)), or a state-optional developmental-delay category for ages 3 through 9 (300.8(b)), with the same no-single-measure rule (300.304(b)(2)) and the requirement to assess in the child's native language (300.304(c)(1)) (LAW). The state layer is where PLS-5 write-ups go wrong. A February 2026 federal technical-assistance summary counted 19 jurisdictions using 2 SD below the mean in one area, 19 using 1.5 SD in two or more areas, 18 using a 25 percent delay in one or more areas, 13 using a 30 to 40 percent delay in one area, and a tail of other rules, with most states offering more than one route. New York's regulation accepts a 12-month delay, a 33 percent delay in one domain or 25 percent in each of two, or 2.0 SD below the mean in one domain or 1.5 SD in each of two, and defines a delay confined to communication as 2.0 SD below the mean in that area; Illinois requires a delay of 30 percent or more measured with state-approved instruments, with informed clinical opinion where standardized testing is inappropriate; Texas requires a 25 percent delay in one or more areas, or 33 percent when expressive language is the only delay, established through its state-approved evaluation process (LAW and PROGRAM POLICY, state by state). Pearson's own guidance is a separate voice: use confidence intervals for eligibility decisions, remember that a low Auditory Comprehension or Expressive Communication score alone can qualify a child whose Total Language does not, and treat rigid cutoffs applied without other data as inconsistent with IDEA and good practice (publisher guidance); the familiar "1.5 SD everywhere" is a CONVENTION that no federal authority sets. In clinics, a PLS-5 supports but never establishes medical necessity: evaluations bill through the untimed code 92523 (or 92522 when only speech sound production is evaluated), and coverage, authorization, and frequency follow the plan's policy (PAYER POLICY).
Canada and Australia change the frame from score-versus-threshold to function and access. Ontario's Preschool Speech and Language Program takes children from birth until they start school on a family's concern or self-referral, with no diagnosis and no score gate, and other provinces run analogous access-based pathways, so a Canadian report names the actual program framework and labels any local threshold a program CONVENTION unless a provincial policy source is cited; Pearson Canada sells the same US-normed English edition (PROGRAM POLICY, provincial). Australia's NDIS early childhood approach admits children under six on developmental delay without a diagnosis and judges evidence on functional impact, and the Pearson product sold there is a Language Adapted Edition (2012) standardized on the same 1,400 US children, so an Australian report never calls it Australian-normed (PAYER POLICY and CONVENTION). Edition, norms, and honesty about the evidence: the PLS-5 (2011) remains the current edition as of September 2026 on Pearson's US, Canadian, and Australian sites, with no sixth edition announced; the English norms were collected from children whose primary language is English and are not a bilingual norm set, which is what the separately normed PLS-5 Spanish (2012; 1,150 monolingual and bilingual Spanish-speaking children in the United States and Puerto Rico; dual-language scoring) exists for; the normative sample excluded children born prematurely, and the publisher permits correction for prematurity, defined as 36 weeks gestation or less, only through 24 months. Publisher-reported reliability is strong (split-half coefficients from .80 to .97; manual test-retest values of about .90 for the scales at preschool ages), and the publisher reports Total Language sensitivity of .83 and specificity of .80, figures the Columbia LEADERS Project's 2013 review rates as fair while questioning the reference standard and spectrum of the clinical samples. Independent peer-reviewed work has addressed structure and change rather than replicating those classification figures: a 2021 Mokken analysis of 169 Head Start preschoolers found high latent-class reliability for both scales but had to drop five Auditory Comprehension items to reach a moderate hierarchical scale, and a 2022 intervention study of 110 autistic toddlers found Growth Scale Values the most useful metric for change, with standard scores showing floor effects. No published study establishes that caregiver-credited items are diagnostically equivalent to elicited ones, which is why the source label is not optional. Rights follow the usual Pearson pattern: qualification level B, consumable record forms and the caregiver questionnaire that are not reproduced, transfer of results into an electronic record and any embedding of scoring logic as permission and license matters, and no authorization for the free web scorers and spreadsheet generators that circulate; a report may always contain the child's derived scores and your interpretation in your own words.
PLS-5 is a trademark of NCS Pearson, Inc. (Pearson's product pages mark the name with the trademark symbol, and the test content is copyrighted by NCS Pearson, Inc.). BastionGPT is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the publisher. This page reproduces no test items, stimuli, norms, or scoring materials.
The numbers behind these errors are specific. The ECTA Center's February 2026 summary counts 19 jurisdictions at 2 SD in one area, 19 at 1.5 SD in two or more, 18 at a 25 percent delay, and 13 at a 30 to 40 percent delay, most with more than one route; Pearson's own FAQ permits prematurity correction only through 24 months, defines prematurity as 36 weeks or less, and states that a low Auditory Comprehension or Expressive Communication score alone can qualify a child whose Total Language does not; the publisher reports Total Language sensitivity of .83 and specificity of .80 against split-half reliabilities of .80 to .97; Spaulding, Plante, and Farinella (2006) found sensitivity and specificity reported for only 9 of 43 child language tests, with acceptable accuracy for 5; Hsiao and colleagues (2021) had to drop five Auditory Comprehension items before the scale met a moderate hierarchy criterion in 169 Head Start children; Kwok and colleagues (2022) found standard scores subject to floor effects and Growth Scale Values most responsive to change in 110 autistic toddlers; and 34 CFR 303.321(b) prohibits any single procedure from deciding. The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same errors most often in PLS-5 documentation reviews:
BastionGPT is specifically trained, tuned, and clinically tested on speech-language evaluation reports.
See how clinicians use it day to day on the AI therapy notes page.
Many BastionGPT users report saving more than 90 minutes per day on documentation.
HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan. Your data is never used to train models. BastionGPT drafts, you review and sign.
The PLS-5 yields three standard scores on a mean-100, SD-15 scale: Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language, each with a confidence interval, a percentile rank, a Growth Scale Value, and a language age equivalent. Scores within 1 SD of the mean (85 to 115) are conventionally described as average and lower scores as below average to very low relative to age peers, in prose rather than a lookup table; 85 sits 1 SD below the mean, 77.5 at 1.5 SD, and 70 at 2 SD. The publisher's own advice is to use confidence intervals, not single scores, for classification, eligibility, or placement decisions. The two scales matter more than the total when they diverge, because the total blends them and the publisher states that a low score on either scale alone can qualify a child. Growth Scale Values answer a different question (how much the child's own ability changed between administrations) and are not peer rankings, and age equivalents have unequal intervals and no error band, so they never carry a decision.
Whatever the child's state says, and nothing else. Federal law requires each state to define developmental delay and prohibits any single procedure from being the sole criterion (34 CFR 303.111 and 303.321) (LAW). The definitions differ: a February 2026 federal technical-assistance summary counted 19 jurisdictions using 2 SD in one area, 19 using 1.5 SD in two or more areas, 18 using a 25 percent delay, and 13 using a 30 to 40 percent delay, most with several routes. New York accepts a 12-month delay, 33 percent in one domain or 25 percent in each of two, or 2.0 SD in one domain or 1.5 SD in each of two, and defines a delay confined to communication as 2.0 SD below the mean; Illinois requires 30 percent or more measured with state-approved instruments; Texas requires 25 percent, or 33 percent when expressive language is the only delay (LAW and PROGRAM POLICY, state by state). So there is no universal PLS-5 cutoff. The defensible write-up quotes the current criterion, applies it in its own currency, reports the exact score with its confidence interval, uses the scale score where the rule allows it (a low Auditory Comprehension or Expressive Communication score alone can qualify a child whose Total Language does not, in the publisher's words), and leaves the determination to the multidisciplinary team.
Not from a standard score, ever, and from an age equivalent only where the state's own method says so. A standard score locates the child in the normative distribution for their exact age; percent delay divides a developmental-age shortfall by a reference age, treating developmental months as an equal-interval ruler, and the two answer different questions. States that offer both routes treat them as parallel legal alternatives, not translations: New York lists its percent-delay and standard-deviation criteria side by side, Texas establishes its official percent delay through its state-approved evaluation process, and Illinois ties its 30 percent criterion to approved instruments. A 2022 study of PLS-5 change scores found age equivalents, standard scores, raw scores, and Growth Scale Values behaving differently in the same children, which is the empirical reason not to treat an age-equivalent gap as interchangeable with a standard-deviation result. So the report applies a standard-deviation rule from the standard score, applies a percent-delay rule exactly as the state computes it (and labels an age-equivalent method as the state's administrative rule), and never announces one metric as the other.
Partly, and the report must say exactly where. For children functioning in the birth-through-age-2 range, the publisher's FAQ states that if the caregiver completes the questionnaire before testing, many items can be scored without administering them to the child, and the procedure gives those credits full weight. What no authority provides is evidence that caregiver-credited items carry the same diagnostic value as elicited ones, so the defensible write-up labels which behaviors were credited from report, which were observed, and which were elicited, corroborates reported behaviors through observation and routines where possible, treats a caregiver-heavy scale as provisional, and pairs the test with an independent parent-report inventory such as the age-appropriate MacArthur-Bates CDI form and a language sample. Under Part C, an incomplete standardized administration does not end the evaluation: the team uses appropriate procedures, informed clinical opinion, history, and observation, and no single procedure decides. What a report never does is present a partly administered test as a fully elicited score.
Completely. The publisher's FAQ states that the normative sample did not include children born prematurely, that clinicians may choose to adjust for prematurity through the age of 24 months, and that a premature birth means 36 weeks or less gestation; after 24 months no adjustment is appropriate. Report the gestational age, the chronological age, the corrected age, the arithmetic, the authority relied on (the publisher's guidance, and the state's rule, which may write prematurity adjustment into its own definition of delay or say nothing), which scores used which age, and whether the eligibility conclusion changes under the other age. Near a threshold the two ages can land on opposite sides of the line, and the honest report shows both rather than silently choosing the age that produces the preferred outcome. When the publisher's convention and the state's eligibility policy differ, the state's policy governs the eligibility analysis and the report says which it followed.
The PLS-5 Spanish (2012), not the English edition and not a translation of it. The English PLS-5 was normed on children whose primary language is English, and the publisher states it was not normed with bilingual children responding in another language, so an English-edition standard score is not diagnostic for a Spanish-English toddler. The Spanish edition was standardized on 1,150 monolingual and bilingual Spanish-speaking children in the United States and Puerto Rico and offers a dual-language administration that credits a response in either language into bilingual-conceptual Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language scores; a report names that edition and that mode, reports language exposure and dominance, the examiner's or interpreter's language competence, and converging evidence across both languages (a sample in each, an independent parent inventory in the home language, developmental history), because a disorder is inferred from a cross-linguistic pattern plus functional impact, not from limited experience in one language. Federal rules require assessment in the child's native language or the mode most likely to yield accurate information (34 CFR 303.321(a) for Part C and 300.304(c)(1) for Part B).
By decision purpose and developmental level, not birthday. The PLS-5 spans birth through 7:11, works through play and permitted caregiver credit for children at very early communication levels, and gives the deepest receptive-expressive language picture for a toddler; it is often the right instrument for a minimally verbal three-year-old. The CELF Preschool-3 (2020; ages 3:0 to 6:11) begins at three and offers a more differentiated preschool-language profile for an engaged four- or five-year-old whose referral asks about content, structure, and classroom language, and the school-age CELF-5 takes over from age 5. The DAYC-2, covered on the DAYC-2 page, is a five-domain developmental battery (birth through 5:11) that a state program may designate as the official source of its domain-level percent delay while the SLP uses the PLS-5 for language depth, so the two are often paired rather than chosen between. The REEL-4 (birth through 36 months) obtains its receptive and expressive results by caregiver interview, and the Rossetti is criterion-referenced, useful for description but unable to supply a standard-deviation result a rule may require. Speech sound questions go to the GFTA-3; the PLS-5's screener only flags them.
No, and the report does not need them. Record forms, the Home Communication Questionnaire, picture and manipulative stimuli, scoring rules, and norms tables are the publisher's protected content at qualification level B; a report contains the child's derived scores, the edition and mode, your observations, the source of each credit at the level of report versus observation versus elicitation, and your interpretation in your own words, which is exactly what downstream readers use. Describing a behavior at the topic level (for example, following a familiar routine direction) is fine; reproducing an item, the questionnaire, or a conversion table is not. Pearson's permissions process covers transfer of results into an electronic record and any placement of scoring on another platform, and the free auto-scorers and spreadsheet generators that circulate online reproduce proprietary conversion logic without authorization. Test security is also credibility: a team that sees leaked stimuli in a report has reason to doubt the scores that follow.
Yes. Give it the facts (edition and materials, both ages with any correction arithmetic and its authority, which credits came from caregiver report, Auditory Comprehension, Expressive Communication, and Total Language scores with intervals and percentiles, the language sample and parent-inventory findings, observations, and the state rule) and it drafts the results section: sources labeled, the receptive-expressive pattern ahead of the total, the eligibility analysis in the rule's own currency, and a plain-language family summary, ready for your review. It can also cross-check a finished report for a caregiver credit written as observed, a percent delay derived from a standard score, a corrected age past 24 months or without its arithmetic, a bare score at a threshold, a total hiding a qualifying scale, or an eligibility sentence with no rule. BastionGPT is HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan, and your data is never used to train models.
The instrument facts and compliance claims on this page trace to these sources, last verified September 2026:
Educational content, not legal or billing advice. Sample notes are fictional. Follow your organization's policies and your board, payer, and jurisdiction requirements.