No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
The Training and Use of Interpreters in Bilingual Psycho-Educational Assessment: an Alternative in Need of Study
Abstract
A multistate survey of 859 school psychologists who indicated prior experience conducting bilingual psycho-educational assessment found that over half had used interpreters. Seventy-seven percent of the school psychologists who reported using interpreters had received no or very little training to do so. Only 37% of the school psychologists reported that their interpreter had received formal training. In only 7% of the cases reported were both school psychologists and interpreters trained in the interpretation process. The data illustrate the need to increase training and recruitment of minority and/or non-minority graduate students proficient in two or more languages for the purpose of more accurately assessing limited-English proficient students. Additional areas for further research involving interpreters are suggested.
... To investigate the referral process in a large, diverse school district and to understand factors that contribute to disproportionate representation. (Ochoa, González, Galarza, & Guillemard, 1996;Ochoa, Powell, & Robles-Piña, 1996;Ochoa, Rivera, & Powell, 1997) surveyed 859 National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) members from eight states who indicated they had prior experience conducting bilin-gual psychoeducational assessments. They published several articles with data from this survey. ...
... Only 1% attempted to determine if a discrepancy occurred in both English and the student's home language. Ochoa, González, et al. (1996) compared the tests used in English-only and bilingual psychoeducational assessments and found that curriculum-based assessments were used more often with ELLs than with English-only students, and that overall there was more diversity in the tests used with ELLs. Ochoa, Powell, and Robles-Piña (1996) examined the use of interpreters by the same school psychologists and found that al-though more than half had used interpreters, only 37% of the interpreters had received any formal training. ...
... Although school personnel expressed confidence in the ability of the assessment process to discern who truly met eligibility criteria and who did not, Harry et al. found several influences on the process that would suggest otherwise, including teachers' informal diagnoses of children's problems, the influence of school personnel's impressions of the family, external pressures for identification and placement, the exclusion of information on classroom ecology, the choice of assessment instruments, the arbitrary nature of placement decisions, and a disregard for established criteria. Like others, they found that assessors seemed to overly rely on the re- Maldonado-Colon, 1986 Ochoa, González, et al., 1996Ochoa, Robles-Pina, et al., 1996Ochoa, Rivera, & Powell, 1997 Note. LD = learning disabilities; SE = special education; ELLs = English language learners; NASP = National Association of School Psychologists. ...
We review empirical research on English language learners (ELLs) who struggle with reading and who may have learning disabilities (LD). We sought to determine research indicators that can help us better differentiate between ELLs who struggle to acquire literacy because of their limited proficiency in English and ELLs who have actual LD. We conclude that more research is warranted to further elucidate the strengths and learning needs of subgroups of underachieving ELLs, to help us determine who should qualify for special education, and to clarify why some ELLs who do not have LD still struggle with language and literacy acquisition. Future research should account for the complexities involved in becoming literate in another language and focus more on cultural and contextual factors that affect student achievement.
... However, evidence indicates that some parents are not offered language interpretation services (Smith, Stern, & Shatrova, 2008). Even when provided, many school interpreters lack training in language interpretation (Lopez & Rooney, 1997;Ochoa, Gonzalez, Galarza, & Guillemard, 1996) and often special education staff have not been trained to work with interpreters (Ochoa et al., 1996). Consequently, studies suggest that interpretation during special education meetings may be incomplete (DuFon, 1993;Klingner & Harry, 2006;Lipsit, 2003;Lo, 2008;Lopez, 2000), resulting in an inability by EI/ECSE programs to fulfill IDEA (P.L. 108-446) mandates (Harry, 1992;Klingner & Harry, 2006). ...
... However, evidence indicates that some parents are not offered language interpretation services (Smith, Stern, & Shatrova, 2008). Even when provided, many school interpreters lack training in language interpretation (Lopez & Rooney, 1997;Ochoa, Gonzalez, Galarza, & Guillemard, 1996) and often special education staff have not been trained to work with interpreters (Ochoa et al., 1996). Consequently, studies suggest that interpretation during special education meetings may be incomplete (DuFon, 1993;Klingner & Harry, 2006;Lipsit, 2003;Lo, 2008;Lopez, 2000), resulting in an inability by EI/ECSE programs to fulfill IDEA (P.L. 108-446) mandates (Harry, 1992;Klingner & Harry, 2006). ...
Spoken parent—educator interactions through language interpreters for parents who do not speak English can challenge early intervention/early childhood special education professionals. Research suggests that language interpretation is often inadequate to ensure that the parental participation, informed parental consent, and interpretation mandates of IDEA (P.L. 108-446) Parts B and C are met. Examples from several contexts are presented to illustrate communication disconnects between early educators and parents. Subsequently, a discussion of quality language interpretation in early intervention/ early childhood special education is presented followed by program and policy recommendations.
... Unfortunately, the use of ad-hoc translations is a common procedure among school psychologists in the US (about 50% say they have done it; Ochoa, Riccio, Jimenez, de Alba, & Sines, 2004). Compounding the problem is that most school psychologists have not been trained to identify and recruit appropriate translators (Ochoa, Gonzalez, Galarza, & Guillemard, 1996). Inappropriate translators include individuals such as secretaries and janitors (Paone, Malott, & Maddux, 2010), the referred child or older sibling (Garcı´a-Sa´nchez, Orellana, & Hopkins, 2011;Tse, 1995), friends of the child or family (Lynch & Hanson, 1996), or foreignlanguage teachers at the school (Swender, 2003). ...
In 1991, Bracken and Barona wrote an article for School Psychology International focusing on state of the art procedures for translating and using tests across multiple languages. Considerable progress has been achieved in this area over the 25 years between that publication and today. This article seeks to provide a more current set of suggestions for altering tests originally developed for other cultures and/or languages. Beyond merely describing procedures for linguistic translations, the authors provide suggestions on how to alter, use, and review tests as part of a cultural-linguistic adaptation process. These suggestions are described in a step-by-step manner that is usable both by test adapters and by consumers of adapted tests.
... The use of interpreters is probably an unfamiliar practice for most school psychologists and will be discussed in this section. Ochoa, Gonzalez, Galarza, and Guillemard (1996) conducted a comprehensive survey of school-based use of interpretation services. They found that 77% of school psychologists who had used interpreters had no training in using interpreters. ...
This article addresses issues faced by school psychologists when assessing students who are culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD). The authors describe the growing CLD population and legal requirements for assessment of CLD students for special education eligibility. Difficulties associated with referral and assessment procedures of CLD students and essential knowledge for examiners are explained, including second language acquisition at the level of basic interpersonal communication skills (BICS) and cognitive-academic language proficiency (CALP). Recommendations for the pre-referral process and assessment of CLD students are presented and discussed. This article will be useful for school psychologists who are unfamiliar with concepts and procedures for assessing second language learners. This article addresses current issues in the evaluation of students for whom English is not their primary language. For a number of reasons, the assessment of this group of learners is at the forefront of education in general and school psychology in particular. Some of these reasons include the recent increase in this population of students, difficulty finding examiners who are appropriately trained, and the challenge of finding and using appropriate Address correspondence to: Julia Shaftel, Ph.D.
... The provision of language interpretation is one approach to meet the needs of parents who speak a second language (Lynch and Hanson 2004;Ohtake et al. 2000). However, parents are not always offered language interpretation services (Smith et al. 2008) and, likely due to concerns about language interpretation quality, some parents may not accept language interpreters provided by education programs (Cheatham, in press;Lopez and Rooney 1997;Ochoa et al. 1996). Nonetheless, best practices in early childhood education and early childhood special education include positive educator-family partnerships and communication to ensure meaningful family participation in children's education (Division for Early Childhood 2007; National Association for the Education of Young Children 1995). ...
In this article, we discuss communication between early educators speaking their native language and parents who speak English
as a second language. Parents who may have a limited proficiency in the second language face challenges to understanding semantic
and pragmatic aspects of English. Actual early childhood conference talk in which parents were speaking English as a second
language will illustrate potential difficulties to listening comprehension and communication. Additionally, semantics and
pragmatics will be used as a framework for recommending strategies to facilitate these parents’ ability to comprehend and
communicate during discussions with early educators.
KeywordsDiversity–Parent Participation–Bilingual–English as a second language
Despite the increasing number of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in the United States, few studies have examined how school psychologists deal with assessments of LEP students. In the current study, we surveyed 97 school psychologists in a rural Midwestern state (Kansas) regarding a number of issues related to assessment of LEP students. While about half of the sample (49%) reported conducting an assessment with an LEP student during the past year, only 6% reported speaking another language frequently. Few respondents reported that a bilingual psychologist was available for consultation. We also examined usage of interpreters, graduate training in LEP assessment, and the actual activities in which interpreters engaged during the assessment process.
The purpose of this investigation was to explore how the use of school interpreters influenced the process of instructional consultation. The study was conducted in a multicultural high school setting. A case study methodology was used to examine five instructional consultation cases in which interpreters were used to facilitate the communication between the Limited English Proficient students, their parents, consultants, and consultees. The results focused upon the perceptions of the consultees and clients. The findings indicate that working with interpreters served as both a facilitator as well as a barrier during the instructional consultation process. The use of interpreters influenced the pace of the consultation process, the communication between consultation participants, and the establishment of trust with the clients. Implications for practice, training, and research are discussed within the context of instructional consultation.
Reliable and valid assessment of individuals who are English language learners (ELL) has presented a dilemma to psychologists, and school psychologists in particular, as it is complicated by the small number of professionals qualified to serve as bilingual examiners. Some psychologists use ancillary examiners during testing when no bilingual psychologist is available to conduct the evaluation, and both the process and the impact of using ancillary examiners need further investigation. This study examined the performance of students under two testing conditions, one with a monolingual psychologist and an ancillary examiner, and another with a bilingual psychologist without an ancillary examiner. Students tested in English, with English as their dominant language, consistently performed better than those students tested in Spanish on sub-tests that required detailed verbal responses. Results also indicated that evaluation format may have an effect on student performance and can lead to different levels of performance.
This study examined critical components of the assessment procedures school psychologists use when conducting evaluations for emotional disturbance with students who are English language learners (ELLs). A random sample of 1,500 members of NASP from 12 states with high limited English proficient populations was surveyed. A total of 439 respondents (29.27%) returned the survey. Only 223 of the respondents indicated that they had assessed ELLs. The results indicate that school psychologists are assessing ELLs from many different language groups, Spanish being the most common language group assessed. A significant number of school psychologists used interpreters when assessing ELLs. The following assessment methods were employed by over 90% of the respondents: behavioral observation, child interview, teacher interview, and parent interview. These four methods were judged to be very helpful. The most frequently used measures included Bender Visual Motor Gestalt Test (75.8%), Draw-A-Person (71.7%), House-Tree-Person (58.4%), Kinetic Family Drawing (55.3%), and Generic Sentence Completion Forms (52.5%). The Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (ARSMA), all BASC measures (PRS in English and Spanish, TRS, SRP, SDH, and SOS), Million, and Haak Sentence Completion obtained the highest mean ratings for level of helpfulness. Implications of results with respect to professional standards and recommended practices are discussed.
This research examines three tests commonly used to assess the English oral-language proficiency of students who are English language learners (ELLs): the Language Assessment Scales—Oral, the Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey, and the IDEA Proficiency Test. These tests were given to native English-speaking non-Hispanic White and Hispanic students from varied socioeconomic levels. Since these tests use native-language proficiency as the standard by which responses are evaluated, it is reasonable to expect native English speakers to perform extremely well on these instruments. The extent to which the native speakers of the language do not perform well on these instruments calls their validity into question. Findings indicated that none of the native English-speaking children who took the Woodcock-Muñoz Language Survey scored in the “fluent” or “advanced fluent” English ability. One hundred percent of the students scored in the “fluent English speaking” range of the Language Assessment Scales—Oral, and 87% of the students scored in the “fluent English speaking” range of the IDEA Proficiency Test.
This study explored bilingual school psychologists' assessment practices with students identified as English language learners (ELL). One thousand bilingual National Association of School Psychologist members were recruited nationwide, and 276 participated. Among those conducting language proficiency assessments of ELLs, many (58%) use comprehensive methods across four domains of language use. Participants generally use multifaceted assessment approaches and most (84.1%) assess acculturation as part of the assessment battery. Although few use interpreters, those who did reported a mix of best practices and discouraged practices in their use. Multiple regression results showed that engaging in continuing education activities about assessing ELLs predicted “best practices” when assessing language proficiency, selecting and using measures with ELLs with whom they share a second language, and using interpreters. A relationship was also found between engaging in applied preservice training with bilingual supervision and best practice behaviors assessing student acculturation. © 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Because of immigration pressures, the classrooms of many teachers include students from language-minority groups; these teachers often turn to special education for assistance. This article examines key issues and tensions in the areas of referral and special education instruction for these students. Potential solutions derive from two sources: first, the increasing consensus regarding effective approaches to bilingual education; second, the growing belief that these students need both systematic instruction in academic skills and a more “natural” approach to language to promote comprehension and use of English. The article discusses the collaborations needed in the fields of learning disabilities, bilingual education, and special education.
The purpose of this paper is to outline state of the art procedures for test translation, validation and use in multicultural, multilingual assessment. Guidelines are based on psychometric, linguistic, cultural and practical considerations. The authors encourage sound practice within the international psychological community in its assessment of children outside the intended source language and/or culture of available tests.
Bilingual special education is a new discipline that has emerged because of the problems faced by linguistic minorities with the conduct of special education. As current research studies indicate, the progress and innovations ushered in by P. L. 94–142 have not been extended to linguistic minorities, particularly Hispanic children. This special issue suggests that the medical-model, reductionistic paradigm underpinning special education is inimical to bilingual pupils. It proposes a paradigm shift and a redefinition of bilingual special education.
The question is better phrased: what are the problems? Essentially they divide into three — the child’s, the therapist’s and the community’s. The problems centred on the child include his primary handicapping condition — mental retardation, specific learning disorder, hearing impairment, etc. — and their associated difficulties. These may be classified as medical, social, emotional, motor and cognitive, including language. The central concern of this book has been defining a language handicap in a bilingual setting, and this chapter on management is directed chiefly at this, though naturally considering it in its social-emotional context.
A random sample of members of the National Association of School Psychologists was surveyed to examine the assessment activity of practicing school psychologists. Test-usage estimates and importance ratings for well-established standardized instruments, newly revised or released instruments, and informal procedures such as interview and curriculum-based assessment were examined. Estimates of time involved in various service delivery activities also were obtained. Results indicated that assessment activities still account for about 50% of the practice hours of school psychologists, followed by consultation (20%) and treatment (19%). School psychologists reported frequent use of intellectual, behavior-social-emotional, achievement, and perceptual assessment methods, but were less likely to be involved in vocational or preschool assessment. Familiar instruments, such as the Wechsler scales, the Woodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Battery-Revised, the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised, the Bender-Visual Motor Gestalt, the Beery Developmental Test of Motor Integration, and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, were the most used tests. However, in the social-emotional domain, direct assessment methods, such as interview and observation, were more frequently used and rated as more important than standardized measures. These results, and the limitations of the study, are discussed.
Data from a large racially representative sample of school children show that the trend toward placing minority students into special education classes in disproportionate numbers has been complicated by the introduction of the learning-disability (LD) category. While the proportion of blacks in classes for the mentally retarded has decreased with the recent emphasis on protection in evaluation, the increased proportion of blacks in LD classes has been so great that the result has been an increasingly disproportionate number of blacks in special education classes overall. This is in spite of national efforts to the contrary.
To expand the current theoretical base in second language acquisition, this article proposes nine generalizations on optimal age, L1 cognitive development, and L2 academic achievement. These generalizations summarize the author's and others' research on second language acquisition for schooling purposes. In this synthesis, relationships among the following variables are considered: first language acquisition, second language acquisition, student age at the time of exposure to a second language, academic achievement (as measured by standardized tests in all subject areas), membership in a language majority or language minority community, and language(s) of instruction in school. The five new generalizations presented at the end of the article, which are based on research on academic achievement in a second language, merit additional research to validate and refine them.
The study reported in this article analyzed the length of time required for 1,548 advantaged limited English proficient (LEP) students to become proficient in English for academic purposes while receiving instruction in English in all subject areas. Variables included were age on arrival, English proficiency level upon arrival, basic literacy and math skills in the native language upon arrival, and number of years of schooling in English. Second language and content-area achievement were measured by students' performance on the Science Research Associates tests in reading, language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies. The results indicated that LEP students who entered the ESL program at ages 8–11 were the fastest achievers, requiring 2–5 years to reach the 50th percentile on national norms in all the subject areas tested. LEP students who entered the program at ages 5–7 were 1–3 years behind the performance level of their LEP peers who entered the program at ages 8–11, when both groups had the same length of residence. Arrivals at ages 12–15 experienced the greatest difficulty and were projected to require as much as 6–8 years to reach grade-level norms in academic achievement when schooled all in the second language. Whereas some groups may reach proficiency in some subjects in as little as 2 years, it is projected that at least 4–8 years may be required for all ages of LEP students to reach national grade-level norms of native speakers in all subject areas of language and academic achievement, as measured on standardized tests.
A survey of test usage for adult assessment was responded to by 402 professionals. Based on the responses of 313 individuals who assess adults, the following instruments were the most popular in each domain: WAIS-R or WAIS (intelligence), WRAT-R or WRAT (achievement), MMPI (personality), Vineland (adaptive behavior), and Strong-Campbell (vocational interest). There was a tendency for the most popular instruments to be seen as providing the information of greatest importance, although Draw-A-Person was a clear exception to that finding. Other questions in the survey explored the respondents! perceptions of the strong and weak aspects of intelligence tests, the purposes for which intelligence tests are used, and the domains that are in greatest need of new instruments.
This congressionally mandated study was directed to assess the relative effectiveness of using only-English or the non-English home language of the limited-English-proficient (LEP) child as the language of instruction to help the child acquire English language and content skills. Reflecting the objective of federally sponsored services to LEP students, the research question addressed by this study was: Which of three alternative instructional programs designed to meet the needs of Spanish- speaking LEP students helped them to "catch-up" to their English-speaking peers? The three programs included: Structured English-Immersion Strategy, Early-Exit, and Late-Exit Transitional Bilingual Programs. These programs differed in the amount of and the length of time that the LEP student's primary language was used for instruction. This longitudinal study followed over 2,000 elementary children for four years. The comprehensive data collection documented an array of child, family, classroom, teacher, school, district, and community information. The study concluded that providing LEP students with substantial instruction in their primary language does not interfere with or delay their acquisition of English language skills, but helps them to "catch-up" to their English-speaking peers in English language arts, English reading, and math. In contrast, providing LEP students with almost exclusive instruction in English does not accelerate their acquisition of English language arts, reading or math, i.e., they do not appear to be "catching-up." The data suggest that by grade six, students provided with English-only instruction may actually fall further behind their English-speaking peers. Data also document that learning a second language will take six or more years. The results revealed the need to improve the training of teachers assigned to work with limited-English-proficient students so that they can provide a more
Discusses the psychoeducational assessment of Hispanic youngsters with limited English proficiency in American schools. Caveats in the assessment process related to the timing of the referral for evaluation, prereferral interventions, alingualism vs bilingualism, verification of birthdates, Spanish translations of English tests, the use of interpreters, provision of information regarding the assessment process in the native language of the home, and the educational history of the student are noted. Strategies for the evaluation of background data, language functioning, intellectual functioning, academic functioning, and adaptive behavior functioning are presented. Emphasis is placed on the use of nonverbal measures of intelligence and the importance of language and academic evaluations in both English and Spanish in order to obtain comparative data. (54 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Children with limited-English-proficiency (LEP) and special education needs will be more numerous in the public schools of certain states. This article presents a set of competencies that are relevant to the practice of school psychology with LEP special pupils. Although the focus is on Hispanic children, the competencies apply to bilingual special education in general. They cover the following areas: second-language proficiency of the psychologist, cross-cultural awareness, assessment, knowledge of language development, skill in working with interpreters, and knowledge of bilingual education curriculum.
This article discusses current psychological and educational assessment practices used with elementary school limited-English-proficiency (LEP) children, as revealed by a nationwide study of 21 local education agencies (LEAs) that had LEP handicapped children mainstreamed in bilingual education classrooms. Data were obtatained through telephone and personal interviews of bilingual and special education directors, inspection of documents, and site visits. The testing approaches most frequently used with LEP students were the common culture approach (which relies on nonverbal measures) and translated tests. In many of the LEAs, translations were done while testing was in progress. An average of 12 psychological, language, and educational tests were used with each LEP child. The assessment instruments used were not normed on LEP populations. Only a third of the LEAs studied were incorporating multicultural pluralistic approaches in their assessment procedures. The professionals involved in the assessment of LEP children were the same as those used for English-speaking children except that they were bilingual. Most of the LEAs reported serious shortages in bilingual assessment personnel. LEAs have tried to cope with this problem in various ways, including the use of trained or untrained interpreters, the use of central teams or contracted professionals, and the use of nonverbal tests administered by nonbilingual personnel. However, many children remain to be assessed, and LEAs have been forced to establish priorities.
This study reports the results of an investigation of the assessment views and practices of school psychologists in the United States. Results of the investigation indicated that respondents are predominantly behavioral and cognitive behavioral in orientation; spend most of their professional time in the public schools; and engage in a great deal of assessment. Behavioral assessment and projective testing occupies the greatest amount of their social-emotional assessment time. Behavioral interviewing is the most used behavioral technique, followed by behavioral observation, which is reportedly used by approximately one third of the respondents with from 41% to 100% of clients. Although most of the respondents report a preference for continuing to do approximately the same amount of the various social-emotional assessment activities as they are presently doing, very high percentages of respondents indicate that their use of behavioral assessment strategies would increase with development of published instrumentation, normative standards, and standardized out-of-setting behavioral procedures.
Bilingualism is like random chaos for psychometrics. The literature on testing repeatedly has documented the existence of robust and persistent anomalies in the test scores of bilingual students. School psychology, conceivably the most test-dependent and test-defined profession, is the recipient of an inadequate technology and knowledge base, which exposes its growing bilingual clientele to needless levels of error and misdiagnosis. The lack of viable regulations regarding the testing of bilingual pupils exacerbates the already difficult problems confronting school psychologists and the language-minority students they attempt to serve.
Best practices in the assessment of limited English proficient and bilingual children
- G B Esquivel
Best practices in the assessment of bilingual children
- R A Figueroa
Texas: A state policy for Hispanic children with special needs
- A Ortiz
A model for assessment of limited English proficiency students referred for special education services
- A Barona
- M Santos De Barona
Children at risk: Poverty, minority status, and other issues in educational equity
- L C Caterino
Limited English proficient students demographics
- J Chapa
Assessment of cognitive ability
- Jr Holtzman
- W H Wilkinson
Practical considerations in the assessment of LEP students with special needs
- P Chamberlain
- P Medeiros-Landurand