INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films the
text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, som e thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of th e copy

subm itted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment
can adversely affect reproduction.

W
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete manuscript and
there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright
IE
material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
EV
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning
the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to
right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in
PR

one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced

xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6” x 9” black and white photographic
prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for
an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to order.

Bell & Howell Information and Learning

300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 Copyright

by

Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

W
August, 1999

IE
EV
PR

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
 W
IE
EV
PR

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL STUDY

OF THE ENGLISH/SPANISH BILINGUAL VERBAL ABILITY TESTS

A Dissertation Presented to the

Faculty o f the College of Education
University o f Houston

W
IE
In Partial Fulfillment
EV
o f the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Education
PR

by

Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

August, 1999

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 UMI Number: 9939678

W
Copyright 1999 by
Alvarado, Criselda Guajardo

IE All rights reserved.

EV
PR

UMI Microform 9939678

Copyright 1999, by UMI Company. AH rights reserved.

This microform edition is protected against unauthorized

copying under Title 17, United States Code.

UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL STUDY

OF THE ENGLISH/SPANISH BILINGUAL VERBAL ABILITY TESTS

A Dissertation for the Degree

Doctor of Education

by

Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

W
Approved by Dissertation Committee:

7. IE
Dr. Kip T. Tellez, Chairperson
EV
nYolanda N. Padron, Committee Member

r. Hersholt C. Waxman, Committee Member

PR

Dr. Robert E. Williams, Committee Member

U S '.
Dr. Richard W. Woodcock, Committee Member

Q jl
Dr. Allen R. Warner, Dean
College o f Education

August, 1999

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 Acknowledgements

Esta disertacion se ofrece como prueba de amor y agradecimiento a la memoria

de mi padre, Elias Tamez Guajardo, que dedico su vida a su fam ilia. Gracias po r los
valores que no solo impartio, pero lo demostro todos los dias de su vida. Gracis por la
motivacion que siempre siga aprediendo. Gracias por su amor. Esta disertacion, tambien
se dedica a mi madre tan angelical, Ascidalia Zambrano Guajardo, p o r sus sacrificiosy
amor de madre sin fin .

This dissertation is dedicated with love and appreciation to the memory o f my

wonderful father, Elias Tam ez G uajardo for devoting his life to his family. Thank you

for the values you not only imparted, but demonstrated everyday o f your life. Thank you

W
for the motivation to continually pursue learning. Thank you for the love. This

dissertation is also dedicated to my angelic mother, Ascidalia Z am brano G uajardo, for

all her sacrifices and endless mother’s love.

IE
Special appreciation and loving acknowledgement is due to my husband, Jose
EV
Antonio Alvarado, for his staunch support in all that I do, but especially for his constant

encouragement that I follow my dream. My children, K arin Yvonne A lvarado and

Nicolas Antonio A lvarado, had to give up the most, a mother’s time, so that I could
PR

finish my doctoral work. Thank you from the bottom o f my heart. I am also most

fortunate to have a sister like Alma G u ajard o who helped me raise my children.

My life has been blessed with many extraordinary friends and colleagues. Special

thanks are due to Dr. A na M unoz-Sandoval for her wonderful advice, support, and

professional counsel. I would also like to thank Dr. R ichard W oodcock for encouraging

me to begin my doctoral work and providing guidance. M ary R uef must also be singled

out for her friendship. Thank you all.

iv

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 A THEORETICAL AND EMPIRICAL STUDY

OF THE ENGLISH/SPANISH BILINGUAL VERBAL ABILITY TESTS

An Abstract
of
A Dissertation Presented to the
Faculty o f the College o f Education
University of Houston

W
IE
In Partial Fulfillment
o f the Requirements o f the Degree
EV
Doctor of Education
PR

by

Criselda Guajardo Alvarado

August, 1999

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 Alvarado, Criselda G. “A Theoretical and Empirical Study o f the English/Spanish
Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests.” Unpublished Doctor o f Education Dissertation,
University of Houston, August, 1999.

ABSTRACT

This study examined the English/Spanish Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests (B VAT)

(Cummins, Munoz-Sandoval, Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998a) by comparing and predicting

associations with external criteria. Based on the premise that bilingual individuals have a

unique linguistic configuration that cannot be fractionalized by language, the BVAT

propose to estimate an individual’s bilingual verbal ability (B VA) by measuring the

verbal/linguistic knowledge that is common to the bilingual’s two or more languages

W
together with the knowledge unique to each language.

Ninety bilingual (English/Spanish) second- and third-grade students participated

IE
in the study. The sample was grouped into three bilingual categories; bilingual, English-

dominant (n = 26); balanced bilingual (n = 34); and bilingual Spanish-dominant (n = 30).

EV
The BVAT were compared to the English and Spanish monolingual verbal ability tests:

English Language Proficiency Cluster o f the Woodcock-Johnson Tests o f Cognitive

PR

Ability-Revised (WJ-R COG) (Woodcock & Johnson, 1989), Verbal Comprehension

Index of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-HI (WISC-EU) (Wechsler, 1991),

and Spanish Language Proficiency Cluster o f the Bateria Woodcock-Munoz Pruebas de

habilidad cognitiva-Revisada (Woodcock & Munoz-Sandoval, 1996). The BVAT were

also compared to three visual-spatial performance measures: Visual Processing Cluster of

the WJ-R COG, Perceptual Organization Index o f the WISC-HI, and Test o f Nonverbal

Intelligence-3 (TONI-3) (Brown, Sherbenou, & Johnsen, 1997).

Results showed statistically significant positive intercorrelations between the

subtests o f the BVAT: Picture Vocabulary, Oral Vocabulary, and Verbal Analogies. The

vi

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
 BVA mean was compared to the mean scores o f the English and Spanish monolingual

verbal ability tests and found to be significantly higher for the total sample, but not

consistently higher for all bilingual groups. The BVA means across the bilingual groups

were compared to determine if the test consistently assessed BVA for students with

different levels o f bilingualism. Homogeneous BVA means were found for the bilingual,

English-dominant and balanced bilingual groups, but not for the bilingual Spanish-

dominant group. Finally, the comparison between the BVAT and the visual-spatial

performance measures indicated statistically significant positive correlations. By

examining the BVAT’s relation to other standardized tests, this study investigated the

W
educational uses and potential benefits o f the BVAT for bilingual students.

IE
EV
PR

v ii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission .
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter Page

I. INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1
Assessment o f Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students 2
Testing in English.......................................................................... 2
Testing in the Dominant Language.............................................. 3
Using Nonverbal Intelligence Tests............................................. 6
Testing BilinguaUy........................................................................ 6
Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests............................................................ 7
Research Questions............................................................................... 8
Purpose o f the Study .......................................................................... 11
Need for Studies on Bilingualism ................................................ 11
Educational Importance o f Studying the Bilingual Verbal
Ability Tests................................................................................... 12

W
Definition o f Terms ............................................................................. 14

H. REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE........................................ 18

The Nature and Development of Bilingualism.................................
IE 18
Nature o f Bilingualism.................................................................. 19
Relevance o f Mother’s Speech to Language Acquisition 22
Second Language Acquisition and Learning.............................. 23
Interaction o f the Two Languages............................................... 24
EV
Key Variables Impacting Second Language Acquisition 25
Bilingualism: Language and C ognition............................................. 26
Bilingualism and Cognitive A bility........................................... 28
Educational Approaches to Teaching a Second Language 31
Sociocultural Influences on Language Learning.............................. 33
PR

Affective Influences on Second Language Learning........................ 35

Assessment o f the Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Student... 36
Sociocultural Influences on A ssessm ent...................................... 36
Factors That May Be Contributing to Misrepresentation o f
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students.......................... 38
Variability among bilingual students and its impact on testing38
Problems related to assessment instrum ents.......................... 39
Assessment problems brought about the educational system 40
Variability among assessment and teaching personnel 41
Language Proficiency vs. Verbal Ability............................................ 42
Language Proficiency Tests........................................................... 42
Verbal Ability Tests........................................................................ 44
Studies involving verbal and visual-spatial performance
differences............................... 44
The Bilingual Verbal Ability T ests.................................................... 45
Theoretical Foundation o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests ... 46
Measurement Model o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests .... 48

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 m RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY........................................ 51
Objectives o f the S tu d y ......................................................................... 51
Hypotheses.............................................................................................. 52
Participants.............................................................................................. 54
Specific Student Identification P ro cess......................................... 55
School Selection Process................................................................. 58
Setting.............................................................................................. 58
Instrumentation and Procedures for Determining
Bilingual C ategories................................................................... 58
Procedures.............................................................................................. 60
Quantitative M easures....................................................................... 61
Bilingual Verbal Ability T ests..................................................... 62
Reliability and validity studies................................................ 63
Two-way verbal ability study.................................................. 64
Correction procedure for the “Dominance Effect” ................ 66
Correlational study between the Bilingual Verbal Ability
Tests and the Raven Standard Progressive Matrices............. 67

W
Intercorrelations o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests 67
English Language Proficiency C lu ster........................................ 67
Spanish Language Proficiency C luster........................................ 68
Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Organization Indices
IE 69
Visual Processing C lu ster..................................................................... 71
Tests o f Nonverbal Intelligence-3........................................................ 72
Data Analyses............................................................................................73
EV
Summary Statistics.............................................................................73
Intercorrelations................................................................................ 74
Group Differences........................................................................... 74
Supplemental T estin g .................................................................. 74
PR

IV RESULTS....................................................................................................... 75
Descriptive Statistics........................................................................ 76
Results of Hypotheses T estin g .......................................................... 81
Hypothesis 1: Subtests o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests... 81
Hypothesis 2: The Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests and the
Monolingual Verbal Ability T e sts............................................... 82
Hypothesis 3: The Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests Across
Bilingual G roups............................................................................. 85
Hypothesis 4: The Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests and the
Visual-Spatial Performance M easures......................................... 87
Supplemental A nalyses..................................................................... 88
Summary Statistics and Intercorrelation of the Subtests o f the
Bilingual Verbal Ability T ests........................................................ 89
Descriptive Statistics by Grade and G ender.................................. 90
Correlations o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests and the
Monolingual Verbal Ability T ests.................................................. 92
Exploratory Factor Analysis o f Verbal Ability and Visual-Spatial
Performance M easures................................................................ 94

iv

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
 V. SUMMARY AND D ISCU SSIO N ......................................................................... 97
Discussion o f R e su lts........................................................................... 97
Hypothesis 1: Subtests o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests ... 98
Interpretation o f results............................................................. 98
Implications................................................................................ 100
Hypothesis 2: Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests and Monolingual
Verbal Ability T e s ts....................................................................... 101
Interpretation o f results............................................................. 101
Implications................................................................................ 105
Hypothesis 3: Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests Across Bilingual
G roups.............................................................................................. 106
Interpretation o f results............................................................ 107
Implications............................................................................... 107
Hypothesis 4: Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests and the Visual-
Spatial Performance Measures.................................................. 108
Interpretation o f results............................................................ 108
Implications............................................................................... 110

W
Supplemental A nalyses......................................................................... 110
Summary Statistics o f the Subtests o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability
T e sts.................................................................................................. 110
Intercorrelations o f the Subtests o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability
IE
Tests by Bilingual G roups............................................................... I l l
Descriptive Statistics by Gender and Grade.................................. I l l
Correlations o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests and the Verbal
Ability Tests Across Bilingual Groups........................................... 112
EV
Exploratory F actor Analy sis.......................................................... 112
Summary o f R e su lts................................................................................ 112
Lim itations............................................................................................... 113
Implications o f this Study....................................................................... 114
Educational Im plications.............................................................. 114
PR

Uses o f the Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests........................... 114

Educational significance of the bilingual verbal ability
construct.................................................................................... 117
Research Implications.................................................................... 118
Theoretical Implications................................................................ 120

REFERENCES................................................................................................................. 121

APPENDIX A ................................................................................................................... 136

APPENDIX B ................................................................................................................... 138

APPENDIX C ................................................................................................................... 140

APPENDIX D ................................................................................................................... 142

APPENDIX E ................................................................................................................... 145

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
 APPENDIX F .................................................................................................................. 148

APPENDIX G .................................................................................................................. 150

APPENDIX H .................................................................................................................. 152

APPENDIX I .................................................................................................................. 155

APPENDIX J ................................................................................................................. 158

W
IE
EV
PR

VI

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Participants by Gender and Grade Across Bilingual Groups.......................... 56

2 Dominance Form ula...........................................................................................59

3 Summary Statistics o f the Seven Test Measures for the Total Sample 78

4 Summary Statistics o f the Seven Measures Across Bilingual G roups 79

5 Correlations Among the BVAT Subtests...................................................... 82

6 Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance Among Four Verbal Ability Tests

and Three Levels o f Bilingualism............................................................... 83

W
7 Tukey Post-Hoc Comparisons o f the Verbal Ability Tests for the Total
Sam ple............................................................................................................ 84

8 Tukey Post-Hoc Comparisons of the Verbal Ability Tests for the

IE
Bilingual Groups.......................................................................................... 85

9 Analysis o f Variance o f the Verbal Ability Test Scores Among Bilingual

G roups.......................................................................................................... 86
EV

10 Tukey Post-Hoc Comparisons o f the Verbal Ability Tests Across Bilingual

G roups............................................................................................................ 87

11 Pearson Correlation Matrix for the BVAT and Visual-Spatial Performance

PR

M easures........................................................................................................ 88

12 Means and Standard Deviations o f the BVAT Subtests

by Bilingual G roups.................................................................................... 89

13 Intercorrelation o f the BVAT Subtests by Bilingual Groups.................... 90

14 Descriptive Statistics by Gender.................................................................... 91

15 Descriptive Statistics by Grade...................................................................... 92

16 Correlation Matrix o f the Verbal Ability Tests for the

Bilingual English-Dominant G roup............................................................. 93

17 Correlation Matrix o f the Verbal Ability Tests for the

Balanced Bilingual Group............................................................................ 93

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 18 Pearson correlation M atrix o f the Verbal Ability Tests for the
Bilingual Spanish-Dominant G roup.............................................................. 94

19 Rotated Factor Matrix o f the Verbal Ability Subtests and Visual-Spatial

Performance Measures..................................................................................... 96

W
IE
EV
PR

Ytii

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1 BVA Equation.................................................................................................... 48

2 Transformation equation for corrected BVA................................................. 66

3 English language proficiency and Spanish language proficiency by

bilingual g ro u p ................................................................................................. 76

W
IE
EV
PR

v iv

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission of the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

The Bilingual Verbal Ability Tests (BVAT) (Munoz-Sandoval, Cummins,

Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998a) are new aptitude tests that claim to measure bilingual verbal

ability (BVA), that is, the holistic verbal ability o f bilingual individuals (Munoz-

Sandoval, Cummins, Alvarado, & Ruef, 1998b). Based on the premise that bilingual

individuals have a unique linguistic configuration that cannot be fractionalized by

language, the BVAT propose to estimate an individual’s BVA by measuring the

conceptual/linguistic knowledge that is common to the bilingual’s two or more languages

W
together with the conceptual/linguistic knowledge that is unique to each language

(Muiioz-Sandoval et al., 1998b).

IE
This study investigated the theoretical and empirical foundation of the BVA
EV
construct as purportedly measured by the English/Spanish BVAT by examining the test’s

relation to other standardized tests o f ability. A total o f 90 bilingual (English/Spanish)

second and third grade students from two urban school districts participated in this study.
PR

The BVAT were compared to two English verbal ability tests, a Spanish verbal ability

test, and three visual-spatial performance measures of ability. Descriptive statistics,

correlations, intercorrelations, and analysis o f variances (ANOVAs) were computed and

evaluated based on the expected relationships. Supplemental analyses were additionally

conducted which included descriptive statistics, factor-analytical procedures and

correlational studies.

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 2

Assessment o f Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students

In recent years, educators and psychometricians have become acutely aware o f the

problems o f testing bilingual children using English-only measurement tools (Barrera,

1988; Castellano, 1998, Cummins, 1980a, 1980b; Figueroa, 1989; Valdes & Figueroa,

1994). Current assessment practices are blamed for the overrepresentation o f culturally

and linguistically diverse students in special education programs (Ortiz & Yates, 1983;

Plata, 1993) and underrepresentation in gifted and talented programs (Cohen, 1990; Ortiz

& Yates, 1983; Saccuzzo, Johnson, & Guetin, 1994). Educators and scholars argue that

current tests and testing procedures designed for bilingual children are limited at best

W
(Figueroa, 1990; Nuttall, 1987; Perez & Ochoa, 1993), leading Figueroa (1989) to lament
IE
that “bilingualism is like random chaos for psychometrics” (p. 145).

Educators, scholars, and assessment professionals have recommended different

EV
ways to assess culturally and linguistically diverse students to reduce the limitations and

bias o f current testing practices. Such practices include delaying assessment,

PR

identification, and program placement; using nonverbal intelligence tests; testing in the

first and/or dominant language (Armour-Thomas, 1992; Bernstein, 1989; Cummins,

1980b; Figueroa, 1989; Ortiz & Yates, 1983), and testing bilingually (Figueroa, 1989;

Mufioz-Sandoval et al., 1998b).

Testing in English

Testing bilingual children in English alone can lead to such psychometric issues as

inappropriate content o f test material, inappropriate standardization samples, language

bias, and lack of construct validity o f the measurement tools (Hamayan & Damico,

1991). The effects o f bilingualism have often caused a negative effect on assessment

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
 results (Figueroa, 1985; Ortiz & Yates, 1983). Numerous studies have documented lower

scores on IQ tests, vocabulary tests, and achievement tests for bilingual students (Dean,

1979, Kush & Watkins, 1994, McEvoy & Johnson, 1989, Mishra, 1983, Olivarez,

Palmer, & Guillemard, 1992, Ortiz, Garcia, Holtzman, Polyzoi, Snell, Wilkinson, &

Willig, 1985, Vasquez & Nuttall, 1989). Alvarado (1999a) contends that assessing ability

in the bilingual’s second language often yields lowered scores because the bilingual

individual has not had the same amount o f language exposure as the test’s norming

population. Three professional organizations set forth the following statement regarding

the limitations o f English-dependent testing for culturally and linguistically diverse

W
students.

For a non-native speaker and for a speaker of some dialects of English, every test
IE
given in English becomes, in part, a language or literacy test. . . Test results may
EV
not reflect accurately the abilities and competencies being measured if test

performance depends on these test takers’ knowledge o f English (American

Educational Research Association [AERA], American Psychological Association

PR

[APA], & National Council on Measurement in Education [NCME], 1985, p. 73).

Testing in the Dominant Language

Testing in the primary or dominant language of bilingual students has very similar

problematic issues as the testing bilingual students in English. The corollary o f the

AERA, APA and NCME statement above can read: every test given in Spanish becomes,

in part, a Spanish language or literacy test. Figueroa (1985) declares that the validity of

Spanish tests for bilingual pupils immersed in a predominantly English speaking

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 4

education system is highly questionable (Alvarado, 1999b; Figueroa, 1985; Mufioz-

Sandoval et al., 1998b).

Testing bilingual children in their primary language leads to four testing options for

assessment professionals (Figueroa, 1989). The assessment professional might translate

the test, use an interpreter, and/or use primary Ianguage-normed tests. The last option is

for a bilingual psychologists to conduct the testing either by translating the test or using

primary language-normed tests (Figueroa, 1989).

Although translation o f tests is a relatively straightforward process; the

psychometric properties of the test can not be translated and often are lost (Figueroa,

W
1989). Figueroa uses the Mexico City Escala de inteligencia para nivel escolar Wechsler-
IE
Revisada (WISC-RM), the Spanish form of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-

Revised (WISC-R) (Wechsler, 1974a) to point out that the difficulty level o f a translated
EV
word is, in effect, not the same as in English. For example, in the Spanish form o f the

WISC-R, it was found that the vocabulary words needed reordering because o f different

difficulty levels.
PR

The assessment practice o f using interpreters in testing is often used with

linguistically diverse students (Figueroa, 1985). Langdon (1989) defines the role of the

interpreter as one who conveys information from one language to another in the oral

modality, while a translator conveys information using the written modality. Research on

the effect o f interpreters in psychological testing is scant (Figueroa, 1989). Most who use

this assessment option, do so without knowing the affect on test results (Figueroa, 1989;

Langdon, 1989). Figueroa, Sandoval, and Merino (1984) state that the use o f interpreters

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.
 5

in school psychology “is almost totally devoid o f research concerning the impact of this

procedure on validity” (p. 136).

The third option is to test in the student’s native language, however, this practice

can also have limitations. Alvarado (1999a) contends that testing in the native language

can yield lowered scores because the bilingual individual often has not had the native

language actively maintained or the bilingual individual may be experiencing the natural

phenomenon o f language loss (Crawford, 1996). Spanish-speaking children educated in

an English-immersion educational system and then tested with a Spanish-normed test

raises validity questions (Figueroa, 1989). Rueda, Figueroa, Mercado, and Cardoza

W
(1984) found that the error rate for the U.S.-educated, Spanish-speaking students was too
IE
high on the Spanish System o f Multicultural Pluralistic Assessment (Spanish SOMPA)

and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC). Fifty-three percent o f the
EV
nonhandicapped students in the study could qualify for special education services with a

learning disabled label, while 46% of the currently labeled mentally retarded students

qualified instead as learning disabled. Pearson, Fernandez, and Oiler (1993) suggest that
PR

comparing verbal ability one language at a time neglects the totality o f the bilingual’s

abilities, especially the knowledge unique to each language. On the other hand, they

continue, to sum measures in the two languages fails to correct for abilities, if any, that

the child shares between the languages. Neither method is appropriate (Figueroa, 1989;

Pearson, Fernandez, & Oiler, 1992).

The statistics (Bernstein, 1989; Perez & Ochoa, 1993) regarding bilingual

assessment professionals indicate that there is a profound shortage. Four areas o f

professional competencies are considered important for testing bilingual students

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f th e copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout perm ission.
 6

(Figueroa, Sandoval, and Merino, 1984). These are proficiency in the student’s primary

language, cross-cultural awareness, knowledge o f the first and second language

acquisition process, and knowledge o f assessment tools and techniques needed for

bilingual students.

Using Nonverbal Intelligence Tests

The use o f nonverbal tests to reduce inequities is a common strategy (Perez &

Ochoa, 1993). Nonverbal measures are generally less influenced by language and culture

(Cummins, 1984), and are attractive to examiners. However, this strategy limits

assessment to tasks that are processing or perceptual in nature. As discussed in Chapter

W
II, language and cognition are so strongly interlinked that separation o f language from
IE
cognition severely limits the thinking process. Separation o f language from cognition in

testing severely limits the test’s capabilities to assess the thinking process.
EV
Testing Bilinguallv

Figueroa (1989), in his review o f the literature on testing, documented the

existence of numerous and persistent irregularities in the test scores o f bilingual students.
PR

He concluded that the practice o f testing bilingual children in English or in the primary

language, as well as the inadequate knowledge base of assessment professionals, exposes

bilingual pupils to “needless levels o f error and misdiagnosis” (pg. 145). Figueroa

advocates the testing o f bilingual children bilingually, but concedes that the technology

for doing this was currently not available. Figueroa is careful to differentiate between the

difference between testing in two languages and testing bilingually. Bilingual testing is

not simply assessing knowledge in the first and then the second language, but accessing

information shared by the two languages as well as information unique to either the first

R ep ro d u ced with p erm ission o f the copyright ow ner. Further reproduction prohibited w ithout p erm ission.