In Chapters 8-11, bilingual populations were examined. However, in those studies it was not possible to obtain actual measures of proficiency in English and the primary language of the bilinguals tested. For instance, in Chapter 8 all of the test Scores ostensibly represented proficiency in English, achievement, or non-verbal intelligence; in Chapter 10, all of the testing was actually done in
... [Show full abstract] English though many of the children had learned Navajo as their first language; in Chapter 11, it was possible to get a measure of proficiency in Choctaw in addition to the Scores on English-based achievement tests, but there was no measure aimed explicitly at proficiency in English (only subjective ratings of English ability by teachers and aides were obtained). Here, in Chapter 12, therefore, it may be interesting to examine the relative predictive power of measures of Spanish and English proficiency in relation to achievement scores of Spanish-English bilinguals. Another unique aspect of the present study is that here it was possible to compare a widely used set of procedures for assessing bilingual competencies in Spanish and English, namely, the DeAvila and Duncan Language Assessment Scales (often referred to by the abbreviation LAS) with a more or less standard application of doze procedure (also see Laesch and Van Kleeck, 1987).
