Chapter 10

1. Chapter 10 Conceptual Measurement and Methodological Issues In Cognitive Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Individuals

2. The Trend • The changing demographic pattern of the United States provide a strong indication that practitioners of all kind will encounter situations requiring evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals with increasing frequency. Either driven by legal prescriptions or lack of training, practitioners often will focus on the linguistic barrier to communication and unfortunately not looking much into the cultural factor that influences testing as well. • The purpose of this chapter is to describe the relevant conceptual and measurement issues associated with the cognitive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students. It is important that practitioners first have a clear understanding of how multilingual-multicultural assessment differs from general assessment.

3. Reserach • According to Ochoa, Powell, and Robles-Pina (1996), the most common used instrument with diverse individuals include a Wechsler Intelligence Scale(generally administered completely in English), the Bender Visual-Motor Gestalt test, the Draw-A-Person test, and the Leiter. Now given the inadequate psychometric properties, inappropriate norms, and comparison groups, unidimensional assessments, linguistic and cultural confounds, and so forth that characterize many of these test, such a combination ( or battery) is problematic. Some try solving this problem by having these test administered in the native language or interpreted but with such diverse populations and such a low battery to asses these populations we still run into the problem of these populations not being properly assessed and therefore how can the data be properly interpreted as well. Language and culture has an effect on all testing situations.

4. Research • According to Kamphaus (1993) the traditons of Galton, Binet, Wechsler, Cattell and others underlie all modern test of intelligence because they were all emanated from French, British, German, North America, and other similarly European cultures • Neisser et al. (1996) stress that “it is obvious that the cultural environment-how people live, what they value, what they do-has a significant effect on the intellectual skills developed by individuals” (p.86). • In order to asses fairly individuals from diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds, practictioners need to come to terms with the fact that “intelligence cannot be tested independently of the culture that gives rise to the test”(Cole and Cole 1993.p 502) but, • Lastly Salvia and Ysseldyke (1991) commented that “when a childs general background experiences differ from those of the children on whom the test was standardized, then the use of the norms of that test as an index for evaluating that child’s current performance or for predicting future performances may be inappropriate”(p18). So what can be done?

5. Cultural Bias Vs. Cultural loading • Cultural bias in testing occurs whenever test (developed and normed in the United States ) are given to individuals whose cultural background, experiences, and exposures are not comparable to that of the individuals comprising the norm group. Thus results may be biased with regard to construct vailidity because the test measures levels of acculturation more so than actual cognitive ability.( Ex p 156, 2nd paragraph) Those who have not had sufficient opportunity to become acculturated to the same level as their peers are likley to score lower because they do not possess the knowledge and content, not because their ability is actually lower(Vlades and Figueroa, 1996) • Cultural Loading is the way language and culture are related and the amount of cultural knowledge required to comprehend meaning or participate in an activity.

6. improvements • The validity of results obtained in the assessment of diverse individuals may there fore be improved if two important and interrelated pieces of information can be obtained: • (1). The individuals level of acculturation as compared to age-related peers, and • (2). The degree to which performance on a stand-alone test or a test from a battery is contingent upon possession of culture-specific knowledge.

7. Language bias vs. linguistic demand • Linguistic demand is very important part of testing as well. You must know the level of proficiency for an individual in English and any other language they have been exposed to (no matter how little the exposure may be)and the degree or level of language required by any test or tests that will be used for the purpose of evaluation. Obtaining information regarding language proficiency is often accomplished through use of one of the many English language proficiency test available on the market today (chapter 9), where as information regarding the linguistic characteristics of test can be found via the cultural and linguistic extensions of the CHC Cross-Battery approach. • The effect that language differences have on test performance is quite similar to that described for cultural differences. Language development is experientially based and follows an invariant, predictable, and measurable development course, much like acculturation. Because the sequence of items on standardized test is developmentally arranged, the attenuating effect of language development, or language proficiency, is not revealed in comparisons of performance within any single test. In other words, individuals who are limited in their English proficiency may learn just as quickly as native English speaking individuals in situations where neither language system is favored. However, when learning is measured on task that favor English language proficiency skills, such as those found on test of intelligence and cognitive abilities, individuals with limited English language proficiency will not fare well

8. Norm Sample Inclusion vs. Representation • When it comes to representation, despite the diversity test are still a misrepresentation even when test are modified to try and fit a certain culture. Even spanish versions of test like the Bateria’-R. COG: Woodcock and Munoz-Sandoval which are extremely well designed test , is still comprised of primarily monolingual spanish speakers, but it poses a problem for bilingual or dual launguage speakers. Because again it the experience and exposure that is the crucial factor, these test cannot be said to offer the implied representative comparison group for U.S. bilingual people. Although there are some represented, but again the question is who to say theres enough. • Norm referenced tests are designed to provide information that allows comparisons of individual performance with the performance of a group of individuals with similar characteristics when all other factors are controlled. The difficulty with norms in the assessment of culturally and linguistically different individuals lies in the question regarding constitutes adequate representation. Salvia and Ysseldykemake it clear that skin color, race, or ethnicity should not be equated with cultural differences-or more accurately, acculturation differences-and that it is the difference in experiential background (that may or may not be related to culture) that adversely affects test performance.Indeed there is no test currently availabe that have norm samples in which experintial background have been systematically controlled. Despite its importance.

9. Nonverbal assessment • In working with dual-language learners, there is a common misconception that use of “nonverbal” or “performance” tests of cognitive ability or intelligence effectively addresses issues related to language bias or linguistic demand, and even cultural loading to some extent. The reality, however, is that reducing the oral or spoken language requirements in any given test does not, in fact, eliminate all the potential linguistic bias and does little, if anything, to reduce bias related to acculturation(Flanagan and Ortiz 2001: Ortiz;2001) because even though the test are nonverbal they still require a high level of nonverbal receptive language skill in order to comprehend the examiners instructions and expectations. This test will depend upon the examiners/examinees ability to interact effectively in a non-verbal manner. • The presence or absence of physical gestures, facial nuances, and subtle body movements and their meaning are very culturally bound elements and any attempts at communication this way significantly affects the interaction. Although a good alternative for those who have a significant difficulty with high language demands, they are no means the answer to the issues being addressed because they continue to have many of the same problems that plague verbal test (inadequate norm sample representation, cultural loading, narrow range of measured abilities)

10. Bilingual vs. assessment of bilingual individuals • The zeal for development of native-language test (i.e. test in languages other than English) has resulted in the availability of a wide range of tests and batteries in other languages. Still the issue of whether appropriate methods and procedures are being employed during the assessment. When it comes to testing for bilingual there is a difference between attempting “bilingual assessment” or ‘assessment of a bilingual individual”. • When it comes to bilingual assessment the examiner has to possess the linguistic competency to administer the test in the native language or use an interpreter/translator(Lopez, 1997,2002). It is often believed that native-language assessment constitutes bilingual assessment, but this is incorrect. Bilingual assessment is rightfully defined as evaluation of a bilingual individual, by a bilingual examiner, in a bilingual manner, that is the examiner and examinee are free to use both languages(english and native language) as necessary throughout the testing process. Reasoning behind this is bilingual individuals are not monolingual minded, they freely code switch (shift from one language to another)as the need or situation might indicate(Bialystock, 1991; Cole & Cole, 1993; Grosjean 1989; Haymin and Damico 1991a)it also requires a practitioner that is knowledgable of the culture, proper training on how culture affects testing, and speaks the language fluently enough to evaluate functioning properly (Ochoa, Powell, Robles-Pina, 1996) • So the current evaluation practices are not bilingual but monolingual(in the native language) or bilingual only in the sense that evaluation was conducted in two different languages( which is perhaps more multi-lingual in nature)

11. continuation • Even the use of interpreters may result in additional confusion because there is a tendency to discount the influence of native-language proficiency on performance. • It is important to recognize that “mere possession of the capacity to communicate in an individuals native language does not ensure appropriate, nondiscriminatory assessment of that individual. Traditional assessment practices and their inherent biases can be easily replicated in any number of languages” (Flanagan et all.,2000,p.291). • The one test that fits the definition above is the BVAT(Bilingual Verbal Ability Test) . It administer 3 test drawn from the WJ-R COG(picture vocab, Oral vocab, and Verbal analogies) with an approximate administration of 30 minutes. They give the test in English first and then any questions that are missed are given in the native language this is a true reflection of the individuals combined knowledge of the both languages. Or their BVA(bilingual verbal ability) • There is also the BCA(broad cognitive ability) this test is drawn from a combination of BVAT, the WJ-R Cog, and the Bateria’-COG. This test attempts to measure a broad range of cognitive functioning , by incorporating at least one test of the various CHC broad abilities. This test is mostly administered in the native language • These two test and how they are administered are attempts to validly measure the cognitive abilities of bilingual individuals in a manner that is more consistent with modern conceptualization of bilingual functioning.

12. Assessment of bilinguals • Assessment of bilingual individuals is defined as the practice of giving monolingual test in monolingual fashion to bilingual individuals, without specific regard to their ability, and in a manner that does not actually involve bilingual interchange between the examiner and the examinee. As described previously, repeated testing in one language and then another, even if one of the langugaes is the native language, is not bilingual assessment, but assessment of a bilingual individual.