English Language Learners/Development and Learning Disabilities:

English Language Learners/Development and Learning Disabilities: Understanding Linguistic and Cultural Acquisition, Three-Tiered Tiered Research-Based Interventions, and Eligibility for Special Education. Graphics 1998 Denise A. Ortiz Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. St. John s University A copy of this presentation can be downloaded from http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~ortizs/files/ Unless otherwise indicated, all information in this packet is Copyright 2006 Samuel O. Ortiz, Ph.D. and may not be reproduced without permission.

Assessment of Diverse Children: Stage Model for Nondiscriminatory Assessment I. Develop culturally and linguistically based hypotheses II. Assess language development and proficiency III. Assess cultural and linguistic differences IV. Assess environmental and community factors V. Evaluate, revise, and re-test hypotheses VI. Determine appropriate languages of assessment VII. Reduce bias in traditional practices VIII. Utilize authentic and alternative practices IX. Apply cultural-linguistic context to all data X. Link assessment to intervention Pre-referral procedures (I. - V.) Post-referral procedures (VI. - X.)

Stage Model of Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures VI. DETERMINE NEED FOR AND LANGUAGE(S) OF ASSESSMENT The legal system recognizes that assessors need to consider the child s primary language ability (in addition to his or her ability in English). The interpretive validity of assessment data rests squarely on the proper identification and understanding of the child s entire linguistic history as well as other factors influencing the development of both languages. The Language or languages of assessment are determined collaboratively by the Assessment Team which selects appropriate tools and techniques on the basis of pre-referral data. The development of an appropriate assessment plan forms the transition from pre-referral to special education evaluation. However, up to this point, all activities could and should have been accomplished within the context of the pre-referral process. The following statements represent only the most general guidelines applicable to all children. There is simply no way to make specific guidelines to cover even a large majority of cases since each assessment must be made on the basis of the unique and individual circumstances of each child. All children who are LEP must be assessed in their primary language in addition to any English language testing that may be appropriate, Children who are FEP may be assessed in their primary language in addition to any English language testing that may be appropriate, All LEP and FEP children must be assessed by an assessor competent in both the language and culture of the pupil in order to ensure that results are evaluated in a non-discriminatory manner.

Role of Interpreters in Assessment I The Importance of Reducing Language Barriers The primary role of an interpreter in assessment is to assist the examiner in reducing the linguistic barriers and biases that make measurement of functioning and performance difficult. The interpreter must ensure that communication between the examiner and examinee is accurate and comprehensible while preserving the meaning and intent of the questions posed by the examiner and the responses provided by the examinee. In addition, the interpreter must assist the examiner in determining the language ability in both the native (L1) and secondary (L2) language of the examinee, as well as the examinee s level of acculturation. Knowledge of these factors guides appropriate assessment and interpretation of results. Level of Acculturation Native Language LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT Language of Instruction Parental Education

Role of Interpreters in Assessment II The Importance of Non-Discriminatory Assessment In order to accurately facilitate assessment, the interpreter must be familiar with the cultural practices, customs, values, beliefs, norms, and behaviors that govern and guide the use of both verbal and non-verbal expressions of behavior. This knowledge can be used to assist the examiner in determining whether measured performance is unusual when framed within the context of the child s culture. Moreover, interpreters must be cognizant of processes related to normal second language acquisition and bilingual development, in particular BICS and CALP. Assisting the examiner in understanding the nuances of behavior related to culture specific or dual-language learning issues is crucial to non-discriminatory assessment and interpretation. Language Theory Performance Culture

Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures Bilingual Assessment or Assessment of Bilinguals? BILINGUAL ASSESSMENT refers to the assessment of bilinguals by bilingual school psychologists. the bilingual school psychologist is in a position to conduct assessment activities in a manner (i.e. bilingually) that is not available to the monolingual school psychologist even with the aid of interpreter. a competent and qualified bilingual school psychologist proficient in the same language of the student is the best option in assessment of bilinguals. bilingual assessment is a relatively new research tradition with little empirical support to guide appropriate practice. there are no truly bilingual tests or assessment protocols and not much is yet known about the performance of bilinguals on monolingual tests administered in the primary language. ASSESSMENT OF BILINGUALS refers to the assessment of bilinguals by monolingual English speaking school psychologists. There is considerably more research about the performance of bilinguals as a group on tests given monolingually in English than in the native language. use of instruments whether or not designed or standardized for use with bilinguals must be conducted in a manner that seeks to reduce the discriminatory aspects in the use of such instruments to the maximum extent possible. the emphasis on bias reduction applies equally to tests given in the native language as well as English. a monolingual psychologist properly trained in nondiscriminatory assessment and competent in cultural and linguistic issues is the second best option for assessment when using a trained interpreter for communication. an untrained psychologist, whether monolingual or bilingual, who possesses no training in nondiscriminatory assessment or cultural and linguistic knowledge regarding test performance of bilinguals is the last option for assessment.

Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Processes and Procedures REDUCE BIAS IN TRADITIONAL TESTING PRACTICES The goal isn t to eliminate all bias or find unbiased tests this is unlikely and impractical. Rather, the goal is toward reduction of bias to the maximum extent possible. In general, examiners should: Utilize best available tools with respect to the child's native and second languages Remember that direct test translation is poor practice and psychometrically indefensible Recognize that norming samples are not stratified on the basis of bilingual ability and are rarely applicable to the majority of CLD students being assessed thus invalidating scores Adapt test items, content, stimuli, administration, or performance criteria as necessary to ensure more valid responding by the student only after administering the test first in a standardized way Recognize that use of an interpreter can assist in collecting information and administering tests, however, score validity remains low even when the interpreter is highly trained and experienced Use systematic methods based on established literature for collecting and interpreting data in a nondiscriminatory way (e.g., CHC Culture-Language Matrix) In addition to the difficulties associated with interpreting the validity and reliability of standardized test results with culturally and linguistically diverse children, the use of common classification schemes tends to accentuate misconceptions regarding the true meaning of this type of scores. Listed below is an alternative classification scheme that provides a less technical and more positive description of performance: CLASSIFICATION STANDARD SCORE/PERCENTILE RANK RANGE Highly Proficient Standard Score = 110 or higher Percentile Rank = 75%ile or higher Proficient Standard Score = 90 to 109 Percentile Rank = 25%ile to 74%ile Emergent Standard Score = 80 to 89 Percentile Rank = 9%ile to 24%ile Problematic Standard Score = 79 or lower Percentile Rank = 8%ile or lower

Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Psychological Testing: Early influences and a lasting legacy. H. H. Goddard and the menace of the feeble-minded The testing of newly arrived immigrants at Ellis Island Lewis Terman and the Stanford-Binet America gives birth to the IQ test of inherited intelligence Robert Yerkes and mass mental testing Emergence of the bilingualethnic minority handicap

Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Psychological Testing: Early influences and a lasting legacy. As Goddard described the scene, a fog hung over New York harbor that day and no immigrants could land. But one hundred were about ready to leave, when Goddard intervened: We picked out one young man whom we suspected was defective, and, through the interpreter, proceeded to give him the test. The boy tested 8 by the Binet scale. The interpreter said I could not have done that when I came to this country, and seemed to think the test unfair. We convinced him that the boy was defective Goddard, 1913, p. 105, as quoted in Gould, 1996, p. 195.

Cultural and Linguistic Factors in Psychological Testing: Early influences and a lasting legacy. The common opinion that the child from a cultured home does better in tests solely by reason of his superior home advantages is an entirely gratuitous assumption. Practically all of the investigations which have been made of the influence of nature and nurture on mental performance agree in attributing far more to original endowment than to environment. Common observation would itself suggest that the social class to which the family belongs depends less on chance than on the parents native qualities of intellect and character.the children of successful and cultured parents test higher than children from wretched and ignorant homes for the simple reason that their heredity is better. Terman, 1916, p., 115 as quoted in Gould, 1996, p. 213.

The blackboard demonstrations for all seven parts of the Beta Test. From Yerkes, 1921. Blackboard Demonstrations for Beta

Beta Test 6 Sample Items Instructional Items from Test 6 of the Army Beta Test.

Part six of examination Beta for testing innate intelligence. Beta Test 6

The Nature of Bias in Tests: Yerkes 1921 data from Army testing. 15 Average Mental Age 14 13 12.53 13.50 13.74 13.08 12 11 11.29 11.70 10 0-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 20+ Years of Residence Average score for native English speakers on Beta = 101.6 Average score for non-native English speakers on Beta = 77.8

Bilingualism and Testing Interpretation: New immigrants are inferior Instead of considering that our curve indicates a growth of intelligence with increasing length of residence, we are forced to take the reverse of the picture and accept the hypothesis that the curve indicates a gradual deterioration in the class of immigrants examined in the army, who came to this country in each succeeding 5 year period since 1902 The average intelligence of succeeding waves of immigration has become progressively lower. Brigham, 1923

Norm-referenced referenced Tests and the Assumption of Comparability When we test students using a standardized device and compare them to a set of norms to gain an index of their relative standing, we assume that the students we test are similar to those on whom the test was standardized; that is, we assume their acculturation [and linguistic history] is comparable, but not necessarily identical, to that of the students who made up the normative sample for the test. When a child s general background experiences differ from those of the children on whom a 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. Salvia & Ysseldyke, 1991 Language Comparisons Performance? IQ Culture

Assessment of Diverse Children: Acculturation and Language Differences The difficulty with norms in the assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals lies in some of the assumptions related to the stratification process. The question becomes one concerning the notion of exactly what constitutes representative. Practitioners should be careful not to fall prey to the assumption that stratification in the norm sample on the basis of race is equivalent to stratification on the basis of culture. Not only is this not true, but it is not even culture itself that is the crucial variable, but the level of acculturation that should be controlled. Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001, p. 226-227.

Assessment of Diverse Children: Acculturation and Language Differences With respect to language proficiency, representation within the standardization sample is a similar issue. In the United States, every child entering school who does not speak English is immediately set on a path toward becoming a circumstantial bilingual. However, bilingual pupils along with their varying levels of dual-language proficiency are neither systematically included nor accommodated in the design and norming of any currently available test of intelligence or cognitive ability. Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001, p. 228.

Assessment of Diverse Children: The Nature of Bias in Tests NO BIAS Test items (content, novelty) Test structure (sequence, order, difficulty) Test reliability (measurement error/accuracy) Factor structure (theoretical structure, cluster or composite scores) Prediction (academic success or achievement) BIAS Test Validity (specificity and validity of measured constructs) Test Selection (matching examinee with test s dimensions of cultural loading or linguistic demand) Test Interpretation (confidence in evaluative judgments and meaning assigned to derived scores) "Intelligence tests are not tests of intelligence in some abstract, culture-free way. They are measures of the ability to function intellectually by virtue of knowledge and skills in the culture of which they are a sample" Scarr, 1978, p. 339. "As long as tests do not at least sample in equal degree a state of saturation [assimilation of fundamental experiences and activities] that is equal for the norm children and the particular bilingual child it cannot be assumed that the test is a valid one for the child. Sanchez, 1934

Assessment of Diverse Children: Dimensions of Standardized Tests Related to Bias Tests are culturally loaded: the majority of tests used by psychologists were developed and normed in U.S. and inherently reflect native anthropological content as well as the culturally bound conceptualizations of the test developers themselves. Many tests require specific prior knowledge of and experience with mainstream U.S. culture Tests require language (communication): linguistic factors affect administration, comprehension, responses, and performance on virtually all tests. Even nonverbal tests that reduce oral language requirements continue to rely on effective communication between examiner and examinee in order to measure optimal performance Tests vary on both dimensions: Tests vary significantly with respect to the degree that they are culturally loaded as well as the degree of language required Cultural Loading and Linguistic Demand Low Moderate High

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Validity in Diagnosis and Interpretation DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING LOW MODERATE HIGH CHC BROAD/NARROW ABILITY CLASSIFICATIONS

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING - LOW Battery Age Subtest Gf-Gc Ability CTONI 6-18 Geometric Sequences Gf(I, RG) LEITER-R 5-18+ Design Analogies Gf(I) LEITER-R 2-18+ Repeated Patterns Gf(I) LEITER-R 2-18+ Sequential Order Gf(I) LEITER-R 11-18+ Paper Folding Gv(VZ) LEITER-R 11-18+ Figure Rotation Gv(VZ, SR) UNIT 5-17 Cube Design Gv(SR, VZ) UNIT 5-17 Mazes Gv(SS) DAS 6-17 MATRICES Gf(I) DAS 6-17 SEQUENTIAL & QUANTITATIVE REASONING Gf(I, RG) DTLA-3 6-17 Symbolic Relations Gf(I) MAT 5-17 Matrix Analogies Test Gf(I, RG) Raven s 5-18+ Raven s Progressive Matrices Gf(I) TONI-3 5-17 Test of Nonverbal Intelligence-Third Edition Gf(I) DEGREE OF DAS 3-17 Pattern Construction Gv(SR) LINGUISTIC DAS 2-3 Block Building Gv(VZ) DEMAND DAS 4-5 Matching Letter-Like Forms Gv(VZ) DAS 6-17 RECALL OF DESIGNS Gv(MV) LOW K-ABC 4-12 TRIANGLES Gv(VZ, SR) KAIT 11-85+ MEMORY FOR BLOCK DESIGNS Gv(MV) SB:IV 2-24 PATTERN ANALYSIS Gv(VZ) WPPSI-R 3-7 Geometric Design Gv(VZ, P2) CAS 5-17 Figure Memory Gv(CF, MV) DTLA-3 6-17 Design Sequences Gv(MV) DTLA-3 6-17 Design Reproduction Gv(MV) TOMAL 5-19 Facial Memory Gv(MV) TOMAL 5-19 Abstract Visual Memory Gv(MV) TOMAL 5-19 Manual Imitation Gv(MV) TOMAL 5-19 Delayed Recall of Visual Selective Reminding Gv(MV) WMS-R 16-74 Visual Paired Associates II Glr(MA) CAS 5-17 Matching Numbers Gs(P, R9) CAS 5-17 Planned Codes Gs(R9) CAS 5-17 Number Detection Gs(R7, R9)

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING - LOW Battery Age Subtest Gf-Gc Ability DAS 3 17 Recall of Digits Gsm(MS) K-ABC 2-12 NUMBER RECALL Gsm(MS) SB:IV 7-24 MEMORY FOR DIGITS Gsm(MS) WAIS-R 16-74 DIGIT SPAN Gsm(MS) WISC-III 6-16 DIGIT SPAN Gsm(MS) K-SNAP 11-85 Number Recall Gsm(MS) LAMB 20-60 Digit Span Gsm(MS) TOMAL 5-19 Digits Forward Gsm(MS) TOMAL 5-19 Letters Forward Gsm(MS) WMS-R 16-74 Digit Span Gsm(MS) WRAML 5-17 Number/Letter Memory Gsm(MS) WJ-R 2-85+ MEMORY FOR NAMES Glr(MA) WJ-R 4-85+ DELAYED RECALL-MEMORY FOR NAMES Glr(MA) WRAML 5-17 Sound Symbol Glr(MA) DEGREE OF DAS 6-17 Speed of Information Processing Gs(R7) LINGUISTIC DTLA-3 6-17 Word Sequences Gsm(MS) DEMAND TOMAL 5-19 Word Selective Reminding Glr(M6) TOMAL 5-19 Delayed Recall of Word Selective Reminding Glr(M6) MODERATE SB:IV 7-24 MATRICES Gf(I) SB:IV 2-24 Bead Memory Gv(MV) WISC-III 6-16 Mazes Gv(SS) WPPSI-R 3-7 Mazes Gv(SS) WECHSLERS 3-74 BLOCK DESIGN Gv(SR) LAMB 20-60 Simple Figure Gv(MV) LAMB 20-60 Complex Figure Gv(MV) WMS-R 16-74 Figural Memory Gv(MV) WMS-R 16-74 Visual Reproduction I Gv(MV) WRAML 5-17 Design Memory Gv(MV) WMS-R 16 74 Visual Paired Associates I Glr(MA) WISC-III 6-16 Symbol Search Gs(P, R9) WAIS-R 16-74 DIGIT SYMBOL Gs(R9) WISC-III 6-16 CODING Gs(R9) WJ-R 4-85+ VISUAL MATCHING Gs(P, R9) WJ-R 4-85+ CROSS OUT Gs(P) SB:IV 7-24 Number Series Gf(RQ) DEGREE OF WJ-R 4-85+ CONCEPT FORMATION Gf(I) LINGUISTIC WJ-R 4-85+ ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS Gf(RG) DEMAND LAMB 20-60 Supraspan Digit Gsm(MS) HIGH

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING - MODERATE Battery Age Subtest Gf-Gc Ability LEITER-R 6-18+ Visual Coding Gf(RG) LEITER-R 2-10 Matching Gv(VZ) LEITER-R 2-18+ Attention Sustained Gs(P, R9) DAS 2-5 Picture Similarities Gf(I) CAS 5-17 Geometric Sequences Gf(I) DEGREE OF DAS 3-7 Recognition of Pictures Gv(MV) LINGUISTIC K-ABC 2-4 Face Recognition Gv(MV) DEMAND SB:IV 7-24 Memory for Objects Gv(MV) WECHSLERS 3-74 OBJECT ASSEMBLY GV(CS) LOW WJ-R 4-85+ Picture Recognition Gv(MV) K-ABC 2-4 WORD ORDER Gsm(MS) CAS 5-17 Receptive Attention Gs(P, R4) K-ABC 2-4 Magic Window Gv(PI) K-ABC 2-12 Gestalt Closure Gv(CS) WJ-R 2-85+ Visual Closure Gv(CS) DAS 4-17 Recall of Objects Glr(M6) TOMAL 5-19 Paired Recall Glr(MA) CAS 5-17 Word Series Gsm(MS) KAIT 11-85+ REBUS LEARNING Glr(MA) KAIT 11-85+ REBUS DELAYED RECALL Glr(MA) WJ-R 4-85+ VISUAL-AUDITORY LEARNING Glr(MA) WJ-R 4-85+ Delayed Recall-Visual Auditory Learning Glr(MA) DEGREE OF KAIT 11-85+ MYSTERY CODES Gf(I) LINGUISTIC K-SNAP 11-85 Four-letter Words Gf(I) DEMAND WMS-R 16-74 Verbal Paired Associates I Glr(MA) WMS-R 16-74 Verbal Paired Associates II Glr(MA) MODERATE WPPSI-R 3-7 Animal Pegs Gs(R9) KAIT 11-85+ LOGICAL STEPS Gf(I) LAMB 20-60 Word Pairs Glr(MA, FI) DAS 3-5 Early Number Concepts Gq(A3, KM) SB:IV 2-4 QUANTITATIVE Gq(A3) WECHSLERS 3-74 ARITHMETIC Gq(A3) WJ-R 2-85+ INCOMPLETE WORDS Ga(PC) DEGREE OF WJ-R 4-85+ SOUND BLENDING Ga(PC) LINGUISTIC TOPA 5-8 Test of Phonological Awareness Ga(PC) DEMAND SB:IV 12-24 EQUATION BUILDING Gf(RQ) WPPSI-R 3-7 Sentences Gsm(MS) HIGH WJ-R 4-85+ MEMORY FOR WORDS Gsm(MS) WRAML 5-17 Verbal Learning Glr((M6)

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING - HIGH Battery Age Subtest G f-g c Ability LEITER-R 2-6 Classification G f(i) LEITER-R 2-10 Picture Context G f(rg) UNIT 5-17 Analogic Reasoning G f(i) DEGREE OF LEITER-R 2-18+ Form Completion Gv(VZ, SR) LING UISTIC LEITER-R 4-10 Im m ediate Recognition G v(mv) DEM AND LEITER-R 2-18+ Forward Mem ory G v(mv) LEITER-R 2-18+ Figure Ground G v(cf) LO W LEITER-R 4-10 Delayed Recognition Glr(MA) LEITER-R 2-18+ Associated Pairs Glr(MA, MM) LEITER-R 6-18+ Delayed Pairs Glr(MA, MM) K-BIT 4-90 Matrices G f(i) DAS 2-5 Verbal Com prehension G c(ld, LS) W RAML 5-17 Picture Memory Gv(MV) DAS 2-5 Nam ing Vocabulary G c(ld, VL) DEGREE OF KAIT 11-85+ FAMOUS FACES GC(K2) LINGUISTIC W J-R 4-85+ ORAL VOCABULARY Gc(VL, LD) DEMAND W J-R 4-85+ PICTURE VOCABULARY Gc(VL, KO) DTLA-3 6-17 W ord O pposites G c(ld) M ODERATE K-BIT 4-90 Expressive Vocabulary G c(vl, KO, LD) DTLA-3 6-17 Picture Fragm ents G v(cs) K-SNAP 11-85 G estalt Closure G v(cs) DAS 6-17 SIM ILARITIES G c(ld) DAS 6-17 WORD DEFINITIONS Gc(VL, LD) SB:IV 2-24 VO CABULARY G c(ld, VL) SB:IV 2-14 Absurdities G c(ld) W ECHSLERS 3-74 SIM ILARITIES G c(ld) W ECHSLERS 3-74 VO CABULARY G c(ld, VL) DEGREE OF W ECHSLERS 3-74 INFORMATION Gc(KO) LING UISTIC DTLA-3 6-17 Story Construction G c(ld) DEM AND DTLA-3 6-17 Basic Inform ation G c(ko) PPVT-3 2-85 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-3 rd Ed. Gc(VL, KO, LD) HIGH W J-R 4-85+ LISTENING COMPREHENSION Gc(LS, LD) EVT 2-85+ Expressive Vocabulary Test G c(vl, LD) LAMB 20-60 W ordlist Glr(M6, MA) SB:IV 12-24 VERBAL RELATIO NS G c(ld) SB:IV 2-24 Com prehension G c(ld, KO) W ECHSLERS 3-74 COMPREHENSION Gc(LD, KO) W MS-R 16-74 Logical Mem ory I Glr(MM)

Culture-Language Test Classifications (C-LTC): WISC-IV IV DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING L O W M O D E R A T E H I G H MATRIX REASONING (Gf-RG) Cancellation (Gs-P,R9) Picture Completion (Gc-K0, Gv-CF)* BLOCK DESIGN (Gv-SR, Vz) SYMBOL SEARCH (Gs-P,R9) DIGIT SPAN (Gsm-MS, MW) CODING (Gs-R9) ARITHMETIC (Gq-A3) Picture Concepts (Gc-K0, Gf-I)* LETTER-NUMBER SEQUENCING (Gsm-MW) INFORMATION (Gc-K0) SIMILARITIES (Gc-LD,VL) VOCABULARY (Gc-VL,LD) COMPREHENSION (Gc-K0, LS) Word Reasoning (Gc-VL, Gf-I)* *These tests demonstrate mixed loadings on the two separate factors indicated. Note: Some of the ability and culture-language classifications listed in this packet are preliminary, based primarily on expert consensus procedures and judgment, and thus subject to change in accordance with future research findings. They are not intended for diagnostic purposes but rather to guide decisions regarding the relative influence of acculturation and English-language proficiency on test results.

Culture-Language Test Classifications (C-LTC): WJ-III DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH L O W SPATIAL RELATIONS (Gv-VZ,SR) VISUAL MATCHING (Gs-P,R9) NUMBERS REVERSED (Gsm-MW) CONCEPT FORMATION (Gf-I) ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS (Gf-RG) AUDITORY WORKING MEMORY (Gsm-MW) DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING M O D E R A T E H I G H Picture Recognition (Gv-MV) PLANNING (Gv-SS) PAIR CANCELLATION (Gs-R9) VISUAL-AUDITORY LEARNING (Glr-MA) Delayed Recall Visual Auditory Learning (Glr-MA) RETRIEVAL FLUENCY (Glr-FI) RAPID PICTURE NAMING (Glr-NA) MEMORY FOR WORDS (Gsm-MS) INCOMPLETE WORDS (Ga-PC) SOUND BLENDING (Ga-PC) AUDITORY ATTENTION (Ga-US/U3) DECISION SPEED (Gs-R4) VERBAL COMPREHENSION (Gc-VL,LD) GENERAL KNOWLEDGE (Gc-K0)

Culture-Language Test Classifications (C-LTC): KABC-II DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING L O W M O D E R A T E H I G H TRIANGLES (Gv-SR,Vz) Hand Movements (Gsm-MS; Gv-MV)* Pattern Reasoning (Gf-I, Gv-Vz)* Face Recognition (Gv-MV) Atlantis (Glr-MA, L1) Atlantis Delayed (Glr-MA, L1) Gestalt Closure (Gv-CS) NUMBER RECALL (Gsm-MS) Block Counting (Gv-Vz) Rebus (Glr-MA) Rebus Delayed (Glr-MA, L1) Conceptual Thinking (Gv-Vz; Gf-I)* Rover (Gv-SS; Gf-RG)* WORD ORDER (Gsm-MS, WM) Story Completion (Gf-I, RG; Gc-K0, Gv-Vz)* Expressive Vocabulary (Gc-VL) Riddles (Gc-VL, LD; Gf-RG)* Verbal Knowledge (Gc-VL, K0) *These tests demonstrate mixed loadings on the two separate factors indicated. Note: Some of the ability and culture-language classifications listed in this packet are preliminary, based primarily on expert consensus procedures and judgment, and thus subject to change in accordance with future research findings. They are not intended for diagnostic purposes but rather to guide decisions regarding the relative influence of acculturation and English-language proficiency on test results.

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Validity in Diagnosis and Interpretation PATTERN OF EXPECTED PERFORMANCE OF CULTURALLY AND LINGUISTICALLY DIVERSE CHILDREN DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING LOW MODERATE HIGH PERFORMANCE LEAST AFFECTED INCREASING EFFECT OF CULTURAL DIFFERENCE INCREASING EFFECT OF LANGUAGE DIFFERENCE PERFORMANCE MOST AFFECTED (COMBINED EFFECT OF CULTURE & LANGUAGE DIFFERENCES)

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Validity in Diagnosis and Interpretation Which model fits monolinguals and bilinguals best? Predicted Best Fit: Monolingual 100 100 100 Predicted Best Fit: Neither 100 100 100 85 85 85 Predicted Best Fit: Bilingual 100 100 100 85 85 85 98 95 92 85 85 85 95 92 89 92 89 85

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Validity in Diagnosis and Interpretation Summary of Total Mean Squared Difference Scores for Specified Models Difference Scores Monolingual M SD M Bilingual SD 100 Model 13.43 3.52 14.18 3.75 85 Model 19.63 6.36 14.41 4.89 C-LTC Model 17.17 5.25 12.16 3.59 Source: Nieves, B., Ortiz, S.O., Flanagan, D.P., Chaplin, W. (2006), unpublished data..

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Validity in Diagnosis and Interpretation Individual Best Fit Model for Monolingual and Bilingual Groups 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100 Model 85 Model C-LTC Model (n=37);(n=14) (n=4);(n=13) (n=12);(n=49) Source: Nieves, B., Ortiz, S.O., Flanagan, D.P., Chaplin, W. (2006), unpublished data..

Cultural and Linguistic Classification of Tests Addressing Validity in Diagnosis and Interpretation Pattern of Scores on the Wechsler Subtests Subtest Monolingual Bilingual Difference VOC 103.75 87.67-16.08 INF 99.57 86.30-13.27 SIM 103.68 91.12-12.56 COM 100.66 89.88-10.78 ARI 98.11 89.35-8.76 CD 105.57 98.21-7.36 PC 99.91 97.92-1.99 PA 97.36 96.14-1.22 OA 96.89 96.70-0.19 BD 97.08 97.29 0.21 Source: Nieves, B., Ortiz, S.O., Flanagan, D.P., Chaplin, W. (2006), unpublished data..

English Language Learners Elementary School Sample 110 Mean subtest scores across ten Wechsler subtests 100 90 80 VOC INF SIM COM ARI CD PC PA OA BD Monolingual Bilingual Source: Nieves, B., Ortiz, S.O., Flanagan, D.P., Chaplin, W. (2006), unpublished data.

English Language Learners Preschool Sample Mean subtest scores across the six DAS subtests 55 50 45 T-Score 40 35 30 25 20 CO PC PS ENC NV VC DAS Subtests Source: Aguerra, F., Terjesen, M., Flanagan, D. P., & Ortiz, S. O. (2007). unpublished data.

English Language Learners Elementary School Sample Mean WJ III GIA across the four levels of language proficiency on the New York State ESL Achievement Test W J III G IA 110 100 90 80 70 71.75 82.29 89.55 101 60 50 Beginner Intermediate Advanced Proficient NYESELAT Level Source: Sotelo-Dynega, M., Ortiz, S.O., Flanagan, D.P., Chaplin, W. (2007), unpublished data..

English Language Learners Elementary School Sample Mean subtest scores across the seven WJ III subtests according to language proficiency level on the NYSELSAT 110 100 90 80 70 60 Beginner Intermediate Advanced Proficient Gc Verbal Comprehension Glr Visual-Auditory Learning Gf Concept Formation Ga Sound Blending Gsm Numbers Reversed Gs Visual Matching Gv Spatial Relations Source: Sotelo-Dynega, M., Ortiz, S.O., Flanagan, D.P., Chaplin, W. (2007), unpublished data..

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM) Worksheet Name of Examinee: Age: Grade: Date: LOW DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND MODERATE HIGH L O W Test Name: Score: Test Name: Score: Test Name: Score: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING M O D E R A T E H I G H Cell Average = Test Name: Score: Cell Average = Test Name: Score: Cell Average = Test Name: Score: Cell Average = Test Name: Score: Cell Average = Test Name: Score: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Cell Average = Test Name: Score: ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) Cell Average = Cell Average = Cell Average =

Wechsler Scaled Score T-Score Deviation IQ Percentile Rank Wechsler Scaled Score T-Score Deviation IQ Percentile Rank Wechsler Scaled Score T-Score Deviation IQ Percentile Rank 13 45.01 39 83 13 65 122 92 14 46.01 39 84 14 65 123 93 15 47.02 7 40 85 16 65 123 94 15 48.02 41 86 17 66 124 95 15 48.03 41 87 19 15 67 125 95 16 49.04 42 88 21 67 126 96 0 17 50.05 43 89 23 68 127 97 17 51.06 8 43 90 25 69 128 97 18 52.07 44 91 27 69 129 97 19 53.09 45 92 29 16 70 130 98 19 54.11 45 93 31 71 131 98 1 20 55.16 45 93 33 71 132 98 21 56.16 46 94 35 72 133 99 21 57.20 9 47 95 38 73 134 99 22 58.25 47 96 40 17 73 135 99 23 59.30 48 97 43 74 136 99 2 23 60.36 49 98 45 75 137 99 24 61.49 49 99 48 75 138 99 25 62 1 10 50 100 50 76 139 99.57 25 63 1 51 101 52 18 77 140 99.64 25 63 1 51 102 55 77 141 99.70 26 64 1 52 103 57 78 142 99.75 3 27 65 1 53 104 62 79 143 99.80 27 66 1 11 53 105 65 79 144 99.84 28 67 1 54 106 65 19 80 145 99.87 29 68 2 55 107 67 81 146 99.89 29 69 2 55 108 69 81 147 99.93 4 30 70 2 55 108 71 82 148 99.93 31 71 3 56 109 73 83 149 99.94 31 72 3 12 57 110 75 83 150 99.95 32 76 3 57 111 77 84 151 99.96 33 74 4 58 112 79 85 152 99.97 5 33 75 5 59 113 81 85 153 99.98 34 76 5 59 114 83 85 153 99.98 35 77 6 13 60 115 84 86 154 99.99 35 78 7 61 116 86 87 155 99.99 35 78 8 61 117 87 87 156 99.99 36 79 8 62 118 88 88 157 99.99 6 37 80 9 63 119 89 89 158 99.99 37 81 11 14 63 120 91 89 159 99.99 38 82 12 64 121 92 90 160 99.99 STANDARD SCORE AND PERCENTILE RANK CONVERSION TABLE

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 1 WISC-III/WJ-R CROSS BATTERY DATA FOR LUIS (ENGLISH) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING LOW MODERATE HIGH WISC-III OBJECT ASSEMBLY Gv-90 WJ-R Visual Closure Gv-100 x = 95 WISC-III DIGIT SPAN Gsm-90 WISC-III BLOCK DESIGN Gv-90 SB-IV Bead Memory Gv-98 WISC-III CODING Gs-100 WJ-R VISUAL MATCHING Gs-101 WJ-R MEMORY FOR NAMES Glr-96 WISC-III ARITHMETIC Gq-85 WJ-R VISUAL-AUDITORY LEARNING Glr-98 x = 96 x = 92 WJ-R ORAL VOCABULARY Gc-78 WJ-R PICTURE VOCABULARY Gc-71 x =75 WJ-R CONCEPT FORMATION Gf-90 WJ-R ANALYSIS-SYNTHESIS Gf-107 x = 99 WJ-R INCOMPLETE WORDS Ga-89 WJ-R SOUND BLENDING Ga-69 WJ-R MEMORY FOR WORDS Gsm-80 x = 80 WISC-III SIMILARITIES Gc-80 WISC-III VOCABULARY Gc-65 WISC-III INFORMATION Gc-60 WISC-III COMPREHENSION Gc-65 WJ-R LISTENING COMPREHENSION Gc-69 x = 68

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 2 Woodcock-Johnson Revised: Tests of Cognitive Ability (English Administration) SS PR SS PR Memory for Names 105 64 Visual-Auditory Learning 91 28 Visual Matching 101 54 Memory for Words 99 46 Incomplete Words 85 15 Cross-Out 111 77 Visual Closure 96 39 Sound Blending 84 14 Picture Vocabulary 79 8 Oral Vocabulary 90 25 Analysis-Synthesis 92 31 Concept Formation 96 40 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (English Administration) Scaled Score PR Standard Score Scaled Score PR Standard Score Information 6 9 80 Block Design 11 65 105 Similarities 4 2 70 Object Assembly 13 84 115 Vocabulary 4 2 70 Symbol Search 10 50 100 Comprehension 7 16 85 Coding 11 65 105 Arithmetic 9 38 95 Mazes 9 38 95 Digit Span 9 38 95 Leiter International Performance Scale - Revised (Nonverbal Administration) Standard Score Percentile Rank Design Analogies 122 92 Repeated Patterns 114 83 Associated Pairs 94 35 Delayed Pairs 89 24

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 2 WISC-III & LEITER-R BASED CROSS-BATTERY DATA FOR ELIZABETH (ENGLISH) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH LOW Leiter-R Design Analogies Gf-122 Leiter-R Repeated Patterns Gf-114 WISC-III BLOCK DESIGN Gs-105 WISC-III SYMBOL SEARCH Glr-100 WISC-III CODING Gs-105 WISC-III DIGIT SPAN Gs-95 DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING MODERATE HIGH x = 118 WISC-III OBJECT ASSEMBLY Gv-115 WISC-III Mazes Gv-95 Leiter-R Associated Pairs Glr-94 Leiter-R Delayed Pairs Glr-89 x = 105 WISC-III ARITHMETIC Gq-95 x = 101 x = 95 WISC-III SIMILARITIES Gc-80 WISC-III VOCABULARY Gc-70 WISC-III INFORMATION Gc-70 WISC-III COMPREHENSION Gc-85 x = 92 x = 76

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 2 WJ-R & LEITER-R BASED CROSS-BATTERY DATA FOR ELIZABETH (ENGLISH) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH Leiter-R Design Analogies Gf-122 Leiter-R Repeated Patterns Gf-114 WJ-R VISUAL MATCHING Gs-101 WJ-R MEMORY FOR NAMES Glr-105 WJ-R CROSS-OUT Gs-111 WJ-R CONCEPT FORMATION Gf-96 WJ-R ANALYSIS-SYNTHESIS Gf-92 LOW MODERATE WJ-R Visual Closure Gv-96 Leiter-R Associated Pairs Glr-94 Leiter-R Delayed Pairs Glr-89 x = 118 x = 96 WJ-R VISUAL-AUDITORY LEARNING Glr-91 x = 106 x = 91 WJ-R ORAL VOCABULARY Gc-90 WJ-R PICTURE VOCABULARY Gc-79 x = 94 WJ-R INCOMPLETE WORDS Ga-85 WJ-R SOUND BLENDING Ga-84 WJ-R MEMORY FOR WORDS Gsm-99 x = 90 HIGH DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING x = 92 x =85

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 2 BATERÍA-R DATA FOR ELIZABETH (SPANISH) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH BAT-R VISUAL MATCHING Gs-92 BAT-R MEMORY FOR NAMES Glr-100 BAT-R CROSS-OUT Gs-96 BAT-R CONCEPT FORMATION Gf-93 BAT-R ANALYSIS-SYNTHESIS Gf-88 LOW DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING MODERATE BAT-R Visual Closure Gv-96 x = 96 x = 96 BAT-R VISUAL-AUDITORY LEARNING Glr-86 x = 86 BAT-R ORAL VOCABULARY Gc-79 BAT-R PICTURE VOCABULARY Gc-65 x = 91 BAT-R INCOMPLETE WORDS Ga-78 BAT-R SOUND BLENDING Ga-76 BAT-R MEMORY FOR WORDS Gsm-76 x = 77 HIGH x = 72 *Note: Cross-Battery analysis of data obtained in a language other than English with the Culture-Language Matrix is for illustration purposes only. Unlike data from English language tests, there is no research to guide interpretation of other language data according to level of acculturation or linguistic demands. It is believed, however, that the effects will like follow the data patterns seen in English language testing, primarily because the norm samples for native language tests are subject to the same limitations and criticisms as described before.

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 3 WISC IV ONLY DATA FOR YUQUITA (ENGLISH) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH L O W CANCELLATION Gv-80 MATRIX REASONING Gf-90 BLOCK DESIGN Gv-75 SYMBOL SEARCH Gs-70 DIGIT SPAN Gsm-85 CODING Gs-65 LETTER-NUMBER SEQUENCING Gsm-90 DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING M O D E R A T E H I G H PICTURE COMPLETION Gc/Gv-85 x=85 ARITHMETIC Gq-90 *PICTURE CONCEPTS Gc/Gf-90 x=74 x=90 INFORMATION Gc-90 SIMILARITIES Gc-75 VOCABULARY Gc-80 COMPREHENSION Gc-85 *WORD REASONING Gf/Gc-85 x=90 x=85 x=83 *These tests have mixed factor loadings and are difficult to interpret.

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 4 WJ III DATA FOR MIGUEL (ENGLISH) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH L O W SPATIAL RELATIONS Gv-95 VISUAL MATCHING Gs-70 NUMBERS REVERSED Gsm-90 CONCEPT FORMATION Gf-103 ANALYSIS SYNTHESIS Gf-111 Auditory Working Memory Gsm-107 DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING M O D E R A T E x = 95 Picture Recognition Gv-86 PLANNING Gv-88 PAIR CANCELLATION Gs-68 x = 81 x = 80 VISUAL-AUDITORY LEARNING Glr-93 Delayed Recall Visual Auditory Learning Glr-85 RETRIEVAL FLUENCY Glr-90 RAPID PICTURE NAMING Glr-71 x = 85 x = 107 MEMORY FOR WORDS Gsm-98 INCOMPLETE WORDS Ga-87 SOUND BLENDING Ga-85 AUDITORY ATTENTION Ga-89 DECISION SPEED Gs-73 x = 86 VERBAL COMPREHENSION Gc-90 GENERAL KNOWLEDGE Gc-86 H I G H x = 88

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 5 KABC II DATA FOR ROSITA (Age 9) (ENGLISH) LOW DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND MODERATE HIGH L O W TRIANGLES Gv-95 Pattern Reasoning Gv-105 Atlantis Glr-100 NUMBER RECALL Gsm-90 Rebus Glr-95 DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING M O D E R A T E H I G H x = 100 Rover Gv-85 WORD ORDER Gsm-90 Story Completion Gf-80 x = 93 x = 88 x = 80 Riddles Gc-75 Verbal Knowledge Gc-75 x = 75

Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM): Case Study Example 6 KABC II DATA FOR MARIO (Age 6) (ENGLISH) DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND LOW MODERATE HIGH DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING L O W M O D E R A T E H I G H TRIANGLES Gv-90 Pattern Reasoning Gf-90 Atlantis Glr-70 x = 83 NUMBER RECALL Gsm-95 Rebus Glr-75 Conceptual Thinking Gv-100 Rover Gv-95 WORD ORDER Gsm-90 x = 85 x = 95 Riddles Gc-85 Expressive Vocabulary Gc-90 x = 88

General Guidelines for Expected Patterns of Test Performance for Diverse Individuals DEGREE OF LINGUISTIC DEMAND Low Moderate High DEGREE OF CULTURAL LOADING L O W M O D H I G H Slightly Different: 3-5 points Moderately Different: 5-7 points Markedly Different: 7-10 points Slightly Different: 5-7 points Moderately Different: 7-10 points Markedly Different: 10-15 points Slightly Different: 7-10 points Moderately Different: 15-20 points Markedly Different: 20-25 points Slightly Different: 5-7 points Moderately Different: 7-10 points Markedly Different: 10-15 points Slightly Different: 7-10 points Moderately Different: 10-15 points Markedly Different: 15-20 points Slightly Different: 10-15 points Moderately Different: 15-20 points Markedly Different: 20-25 points Slightly Different: 7-10 points Moderately Different: 10-15 points Markedly Different: 15-20 points Slightly Different: 10-15 points Moderately Different: 15-20 points Markedly Different: 20-25 points Slightly Different: 15-20 points Moderately Different: 20-30 points Markedly Different: 25-35 points Slightly Different: Includes individuals with high levels of English language proficiency (e.g., advanced BICS/emerging CALP) and high acculturation, but still not entirely comparable to mainstream U.S. English speakers. Examples include individuals who have resided in the U.S. for more than 7 years or who have parents with at least a high school education, and who demonstrate native-like proficiency in English language conversation and solid literacy skills. Moderately Different: Includes individuals with moderate levels of English language proficiency (e.g., intermediate to advanced BICS) and moderate levels of acculturation. Examples include individuals who have resided in the U.S. for 3-7 years and who have learned English well enough to communicate, but whose parents are limited English speakers with only some formal schooling, and improving but below grade level literacy skills. Markedly Different: Includes individuals with low to very low levels of English language proficiency (e.g., early BICS) and low or very low levels of acculturation. Examples include individuals who recently arrived in the U.S. or who may have been in the U.S. 3 years or less, with little or no prior formal education, who are just beginning to develop conversational abilities and whose literacy skills are also just emerging.

The Automated Culture-Language Interpretive Matrix (C-LIM) An automated Excel program that provides all culturelanguage test classifications, CHC classifications, and automates conversion and interpretation via the addition of a graphical representation of test scores. C-LIM v. 1.0 Available March/April 2007 on CD-ROM with Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Nondiscriminatory Assessment and Standardized Testing Probably no test can be created that will entirely eliminate the influence of learning and cultural experiences. The test content and materials, the language in which the questions are phrased, the test directions, the categories for classifying the responses, the scoring criteria, and the validity criteria are all culture bound." Jerome M. Sattler, 1992

Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Summary Guidelines for Equitable Decision-Making Although language learning follows a specific sequence, its various components are not totally dependent upon each other. Test performance will depend on the interaction between the individual s linguistic and educational experiences. the better educated an individual is in their native language, the better they are able to utilize and express that education through a second language. individuals can learn to speak a language without learning how to read or write just as they can learn to read and write it without learning how to speak it. the ability to think and reason in a second language does not presume the presence of age-appropriate oral language proficiency or equivalent levels of exposure or experience. the ability to speak in a second language does not presume the existence of early foundational language skills, phonological processes, or developmental structure.

Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Summary Guidelines for Equitable Decision-Making Performance on any given test is based upon the degree to which an individual possesses age-appropriate levels of language development and acculturation that include: amount of formal instruction in the symbolic and structural aspects of the language of the test (e.g., reading, writing, grammatical rules). amount of formal instruction or informal experience in the general use of the language of the test (e.g., speech, pragmatics, semantics, syntax). amount of exposure during the critical period to the language of the test (e.g., fluency, pronunciation, automaticity, intuitive grammar, idioms, etc.). Second language learners rarely, if ever, develop ageappropriate levels of language development as compared to monolingual English speaking peers.

Nondiscriminatory Assessment: Summary Guidelines for Equitable Decision-Making In the end, it will be a judgment call but evaluation of the most salient and relevant factors in a case can assist in creating a defensible position regarding whether documentation and data support difference or disability. Keys to making good decisions: try not to underestimate the impact of even small amounts of cultural or linguistic differences and exposure develop an expectation about the degree of impact the cultural and linguistic factors should have on test performance and compare available results accordingly look for patterns in the data that show consistency, for example, lower scores on tests that require more language and higher scores on tests that require less language final decisions should be based on the preponderance of the data, convergence of indicators, and the principle that the simplest explanation for the data is often the right one

BOOKS: CHC Cross-Battery Resources Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H. & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Comprehensive Assessment of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: A practical approach. New York: Guilford. Flanagan, D. P. & Ortiz, S.O. (2007). Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment, Second Edition. New York: Wiley. Flanagan, D.P., Ortiz, S.O., Alfonso, V., & Mascolo, J. (2006). The Achievement Test Desk Reference (ATDR): A guide to Learning Disability Assessment, 2 nd Edition. New York: Wiley. Flanagan, D.P., McGrew, K.S., & Ortiz, S.O. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc Theory: A Contemporary Approach to Interpretation. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. ONLINE: CHC Cross-Battery Online http://www.crossbattery.com/ The Institute for Applied Psychometrics http://www.iapsych.com/

Selected Bibliography on Assessment Ambert, A. M. & Dew, N. (1982). Special Education for Exceptional Bilingual Students: A handbook for educators. Milwaukee, WI: Midwest National Origin Desegregation Assistance Center. Baca, L. M. & Almanza, E. (1991). Language Minority Students with Disabilities. Reston, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children California State Department of Education (1997). Guidelines for the development of academic, language, and special education programs for limited-english proficient students in California public schools, K-12. Sacramento, CA. California State Department of Education, Office of Bilingual Bicultural Education (1991). Schooling and Language Minority Students: A Theoretical Framework. Los Angeles, CA: Evaluation, Discrimination and Assessment Center, CSULA. Cummins, J. C. (1984). Bilingual And Special Education: Issues In Assessment and Pedagogy. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Flanagan, D. P., McGrew, K. S. & Ortiz, S. O. (2000). The Wechsler Intelligence Scales and Gf-Gc Theory: A contemporary approach to interpretation. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Flanaga, D. P. & Ortiz, S. O. (2001). Essentials of Cross-Battery Assessment. New York: Wiley & Son s. Hakuta, K. (1986). Mirror of Language: The debate on bilingualism. New York: Basic Books. Hamayan, E. V. & Damico, J. S. (1991). Limiting Bias in the Assessment of Bilingual Students. Austin, TX: ProEd

Selected Bibliography on Assessment Krashen, S. D. (1985). Inquiries and insights: Second Language Teaching, Immersion and Bilingual Education, Literacy. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Alemany Press. Mattes, L. J. & Omark, D. R. (1984). Speech and language assessment for the bilingual handicapped. San Diego: College-Hill Press McGrew, K. S. & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). The Intelligence Test Desk Reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross battery assessment. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ortiz, A. A. & Wilkinson, C. Y. (1991). Assessment and Intervention Model for the Bilingual Exceptional Student (AIM for the BESt). Teacher Education and Special Education. 14(1), 35-42. Ortiz, A. A. & Maldonado-Colon, E. (1986). Recognizing learning disabilities in bilingual children: How to lessen inappropriate referral of language minority students to special education. Journal of Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities International, 43(1), 47-56. Ortiz, S. O. & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). Gf-Gc Cross-Battery Interpretation and Selective Cross-Battery Assessment: Considering Referral Concerns and the Needs of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations. In K. S. McGrew & D. P. Flanagan (Eds.), The Intelligence Test Desk Reference (ITDR): Gf-Gc cross battery assessment. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Ortiz, S. O. & Flanagan, D. P. (1998). Enhancing cognitive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals: Application and use of selective Gf-Gc cross-battery assessment. The School Psychologist, 52(1), 6-9. Samuda, R. J., Kong, S. L., Cummins, J., Pascual-Leone, J. & Lewis, J. (1991). Assessment and Placement of Minority Students. Lewiston, NY: C. J. Hogrefe/Intercultural Social Sciences Publications. Valdés, G. & Figueroa, R. A. (1994). Bilingualism and Testing: A special case of bias. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Corporation.