Advertisement

Contemporary School Psychology

, Volume 23, Issue 1, pp 68–86 | Cite as

On the Measurement of Cognitive Abilities in English Learners

  • Samuel O. OrtizEmail author
Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Although there exist a range of professional standards and guidelines for evaluating individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, there is a conspicuous absence of approaches that meet or satisfy the recommendations related to fairness and equity, particularly with reference to English learners (ELs). ELs are defined simply as anyone who is not a native English speaker and did not learn English as their only langauge. As such, ELs are typically bilingual due to the presence of at least one language other than the one they learned from birth. But bilingual does not always imply English as the second language as does EL. Likewise, an EL may be limited English proficient (LEP) or they may have become fluent English speakers over time. In either case, their current level of proficiency does not eliminate the fact that they were and always will be English learners. For these reasons, the term “EL” is preferred as it clearly denotes the type of multilingual individual being referred to in the present discussion regarding test performance. The measurement of cognitive abilities in ELs is based largely on a wide and highly disparate set of studies that have been conducted for over a century without any guidance from established or proposed theory. Despite the lack of consistency in various aspects of the empirical process, there has, nonetheless, emerged some basic principles upon which there is agreement and evidence. These principles include the variability of developmental differences in language which affects cognitive test performance and its increasing, proportional, and attenuating impact on tests as a function of the degree to which a given test requires and expects age-based developmental language proficiency and acculturative knowledge acquisition. The purpose of this paper is to provide a general review and critical discussion of the various studies conducted to examine the cognitive test performance of ELs and the extent to which they provide support for the these basic principles. In addition, an attempt is made to provide greater clarity on the various concepts, their definitions, and relationships to other variables relevant to the assessment of ELs as a way of fostering a more consistent and consensus-based understanding regarding the multiple factors arising from measurement of cognitive abilities in ELs and their significance for future research and practice. In this manner, the findings are ultimately distilled and coalesced into a cohesive and related set of empirically derived conclusions that together provide a foundation for the development and refinement of theory, a consistent platform and guide for conducting useful empirical investigations, and a framework by which recommendations for applying research into practice can be made so as to create evidence-based assessment (EBA). In addition to the historical and contemporary research, current approaches used in the evaluation of ELs are discussed relative to their advantages and limitations. Finally, guidelines for best practice are delineated as well as new developments and potential directions for future research and practice frameworks that may enhance our understanding and measurement of cognitive abilities in ELs that approaches the aspirational standards of fairness and equity in evaluation.

Keywords

English learner Nondiscrimninatory assessment Bilingualism and testing Langauge development and test performance 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The author of this article is author of the C-LIM contained in the Cross-Battery Assessment Software System (X-BASS) which is available as a commercial product. However, a free version of the C-LIM is also available at no cost. The author of this article is also author of the Ortiz Picture Vocabulary Acquisition Test.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Altus, G. T. (1953). WISC patterns of a selective sample of bilingual school children. Journal of General Psychology, LXXXIII, 241–248.Google Scholar
  2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington DC: American Educational Research Association.Google Scholar
  3. American Psychological Association. (2006). Evidence-based practice in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(4), 271–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: language, literacy and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bialystok, E. (2007). Acquisition of literacy in bilingual children: a framework for research. Language Learning, 57, 45–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borghese, P., & Gronau, R. C. (2005). Convergent and discriminant validity of the universal nonverbal intelligence test with limited English proficiency Mexican-American elementary students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 128–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brigham, C. C. (1923). A study of American intelligence. Princeton: Princeton University.Google Scholar
  8. Cathers-Schiffman, T. A., & Thompson, M. S. (2007). Assessment of English- and Spanish-speaking students with the WISC-III and Leiter-R. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 25, 41–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cormier, D. C., McGrew, K. S., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2014). The influences of linguistic demand and cultural loading on cognitive test scores. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 32(7), 610–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cummins, J. C. (1984). Bilingual and special education: issues in assessment and pedagogy. Austin: PRO-ED.Google Scholar
  11. DiCerbo, K. E., & Barona, A. (2000). A convergent validity study on the differential ability scales and the Wechsler intelligence scale for children—third edition with Hispanic children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 18, 344–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines: American Guidance Service, Inc.Google Scholar
  13. Dynda, A. M. (2008). The relation between language proficiency and IQ test performance. Unpublished manuscript, St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY.Google Scholar
  14. Esparza-Brown, J. (2007). The impact of cultural loading and linguistic demand on the performance of English/Spanish bilinguals on Spanish language cognitive tests. Unpublished manuscript. Portland State University.Google Scholar
  15. Figueroa, R. A. (1983). Test bias and Hispanic children. Journal of Special Education, 17, 431–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Figueroa, R. A. (1990). Best practices in the assessment of bilingual children. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology II. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  17. Figueroa, R. A., & Hernández, S. (2000). Testing Hispanic students in the United States: technical and policy issues. Report to the president’s advisory commission on educational excellence for Hispanic Americans. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI).Google Scholar
  18. Figueroa, R. A., & Newsome, P. (2006). The diagnosis of LD in English learners: is it nondiscriminatory? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 206–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2007). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Flanagan, D. P., Ortiz, S. O., & Alfonso, V. C. (2013). Essentials of cross-battery assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  21. Geisinger, K. F. (1992). Fairness and selected psychometric issues in the psychological testing of Hispanics. In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), The psychological testing of Hispanics (pp. 17–42). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goddard, H. H. (1913). The Binet tests in relation to immigration. Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18, 105–107.Google Scholar
  23. Grosjean, F. (1989). Neurolinguists beware!: the bilingual is not two monolinguals in one person. Brain and Language, 36, 3–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Horn, J. L. (2002). Selections of evidence, misleading assumptions, and oversimplifications: the political message of the bell curve. In J. M. Fish (Ed.), Race and intelligence: separating science from myth. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  25. Hynd, G. W., Kramer, R., Quackenbush, R., Weed, W., & Conner, R. (1979). Clinical utility of the WISC-R and the French pictorial test on intelligence with native American primary grade children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 49(2), 480–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400.Google Scholar
  27. Jensen, A. R. (1974). How biased are culture-loaded tests? Genetic Psychology Monographs, 90, 185–244.Google Scholar
  28. Jensen, A. R. (1976). Construct validity and test bias. Phi Delta Kappan, 58, 340–346.Google Scholar
  29. Kaufman, A. S., & Wang, J. J. (1992). Gender, race and education differences on the K-BIT at ages 4 to 90 years. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 10, 219–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kranzler, J., Flores, C., & Coady, M. (2010). Examination of the cross-battery approach for the cognitive assessment of children and youth from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds. School Psychology Review, 39(3), 431–446.Google Scholar
  31. Laosa, L. M. (1976). Historical antecedents and current issues in nondiscriminatory assessment of children’s abilities. Paper presented at the National Planning Conference on Nondiscriminatory Assessment for Handicapped Children, Lexington, KY.Google Scholar
  32. Lohman, D. F., Korb, K., & Lakin, J. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English language learners using nonverbal tests: a comparison of the raven, NNAT, and CogAT. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lynn, R. (1996). Dysgenics: genetic deterioration in modern populations. Westport: Praeger.Google Scholar
  34. Marin, G., & Gamba, R. J. (1996). A new measurement of acculturation for Hispanics: the Bidimensional acculturation scale for Hispanics (BAS). Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 18(3), 297–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mercer, J. R. (1979). The system of multicultural pluralistic assessment: technical manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  36. Mercer, J. R., & Lewis, J. F. (1977). SOMPA, system of multicultural pluralistic assessment: parent interview manual. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  37. Murphy, D. G. (1990). Comparison of scores of bilingual urban and monolingual suburban elementary school children two measures of intelligence. Psychological Reports, 67, 1375–1378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Naglieri, J. A., & Yazzie, C. (1983). Comparison of the WISC-R and PPVT-R with Navajo children. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 598–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Nakano, S., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Factor structure of the Wechsler intelligence scales for children–fourth edition among referred native American students. Psychology in the Schools, 50, 957–968.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. National Association of School Psychologists. (2015). The provision of school psychological services to bilingual students [Position Statement]. Bethesda: Author.Google Scholar
  41. Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, et al. (1996). Intelligence: knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nieves-Brull, A. (2006). Evaluation of the culture-language matrix: a validation study of test performance in monolingual English speaking and bilingual English/Spanish speaking populations. Unpublished manuscript. St. John’s University, NY.Google Scholar
  43. Oakland, T. (1983). Concurrent and predictive validity estimates for the WISC-R IQs and ELPs by racial-ethnic and SES groups. School Psychology Review, 12(1), 57–61.Google Scholar
  44. Oakland, T., & Glutting, J. (1990). Examiner observations of Children’s WISC-R test-related behaviors: possible socioeconomic status, race, and gender effects. Psychological Assessment, 2, 86–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ortiz, S. O. (2014). Best practices in nondiscriminatory assessment. In P. Harrison & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology VI: foundations (pp. 61–74). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  46. Ortiz, S. O. (2018). Ortiz picture vocabulary acquisition test (Ortiz PVAT). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  47. Ortiz, S. O., & Melo, K. (2015). Evaluation of intelligence and learning disability with Hispanics. In K. Geisinger (Ed.), Psychological testing of Hispanics (pp. 109–134). Washington DC: APA Books.Google Scholar
  48. Ortiz, S. O., Melo, K., & Terzulli, M. (2017). Use of the WISC-V with English language learners. In D. P. Flanagan & V. C. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of WISC-V assessment (pp. 539–590). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  49. Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., & Alfonso, V. C. (2018a). The cross-battery assessment software system (X-BASS). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  50. Ortiz, S. O., Piazza, N., Ochoa, H. S., & Dynda, A. M. (2018b). Testing with culturally and linguistically diverse populations: moving beyond the verbal-performance dichotomy into evidence-based practice. In D. P. Flanagan & E. McDonough (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment, fourth edition (pp. 684–712). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  51. Palmer, D. J., Olivarez Jr., A., Wilson, V. L., & Fordyce, T. (1989). Ethnicity and language dominance-influence on the prediction of achievement based on intelligence test scores in nonreferred and referred samples. Learning Disability Quarterly, 12, 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raven, J. C. (1941). Standardisation of progressive matrices, 1938. British Journal of Medical Psychology, XIX(1), 137–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reynolds, C. R., & Ramsay, M. C. (2003). Bias in psychological assessment: an empirical review and recommendations. In I. B. Weiner, J. R. Graham, J. A. Schinka, & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: assessment psychology (pp. 67–94). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  54. Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students: a practical guide. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  55. Romstad, C., & Xiong, Z. B. (2017). Measuring formal intelligence in the informal learner: a case study of Hmong American students and cognitive assessment. Hmong Studies Journal, 18, 1–31.Google Scholar
  56. Sanchez, G. I. (1934). Bilingualism and mental measures: a word of caution. Journal of Applied Psychology, 18, 765–772.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sandoval, J., Frisby, C. L., Geisinger, K. F., Scheuneman, J. D., & Grenier, J. R. (Eds.). (1998). Test interpretation and diversity: achieving equity in assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  58. Sattler, J. (1992). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Sattler.Google Scholar
  59. Shuey, A. M. (1966). The testing of negro intelligence (2nd ed.). New York: Social Science Press.Google Scholar
  60. Sotelo-Dynega, M. (2007). Cognitive performance and the development of English language proficiency. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY.Google Scholar
  61. Sotelo-Dynega, M. (2014). What Is a Bilingual School Psychologist? A National Survey of the Credentialing Bodies of School Psychologists. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(3), 247–258.Google Scholar
  62. Sotelo-Dynega, M., Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., & Chaplin, W. (2013). English language proficiency and test performance: evaluation of bilinguals with the Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive ability. Psychology in the Schools, 50(8), 781–797.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Styck, K. M., & Watkins, M. W. (2013). Diagnostic utility of the culture-language interpretive matrix for the Wechsler intelligence scales for children—fourth edition among referred students. School Psychology Review, 42(4), 367–382.Google Scholar
  64. Styck, K. M., & Watkins, M. W. (2014). Discriminant validity of the WISC-IV culture-language interpretive matrix. Contemporary School Psychology, 18, 168–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Terman, L. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Tychanska, J. (2009). Evaluation of speech and language impairment using the culture–language test classifications and interpretive matrix. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, St. John’s University, Jamaica, NY.Google Scholar
  67. US Census Bureau. (2015). Census bureau reports at least 350 languages spoken in U.S. homes. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-185.html.Google Scholar
  68. Valdés, G., & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and testing: a special case of bias. Norwood: Ablex.Google Scholar
  69. Vukovich, D., & Figueroa, R. A. (1982). The validation of the system of multicultural pluralistic assessment: 1980–1982. Unpublished manuscript, University of California at Davis, Department of Education.Google Scholar
  70. Wechsler, D. (1949). Wechsler intelligence scale for children. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
  71. Weiss, L., Prifitera, A., & Munoz, M. (2015). In K. F. Geisinger (Ed.), Psychological testing of Hispanics (2nd ed., pp. 81–108). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  72. Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III tests of cognitive abilities. Itasca: Riverside.Google Scholar
  73. Yerkes, R. M. (1921). Psychological examining in the United States Army. Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© California Association of School Psychologists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology, MARSB36ASt. John’s UniversityJamaicaUSA

Personalised recommendations