Salvador Hector Ochoa’s research while affiliated with Texas A&M University and other places

This study, a survey of 1,507 school psychologists from eight states, found that school psychologists who conduct bilingual psycho-educational assessment do not believe that they have received adequate training. Nearly 70% of the respondents described their training with respect to knowledge of cross-cultural issues involved in bilingual psycho-educational assessment as less than adequate. At least 80% stated their level of training was less than adequate on the following three competencies: (a) knowledge of second language acquisition factors and their relationship to assessment; (b) knowledge of methods to conduct bilingual psycho-educational assessment; and (c) ability to interpret the results of bilingual psycho-educational assessments. The data indicate that school psychologists who do conduct bilingual psycho-educational assessment are providing service in an area in which they have not received adequate training. In evaluating the school psychology programs from which they received their training, respondents identified only one program that provided adequate training in all four competencies, two that provided adequate training in three competencies, and four programs that provided adequate training in two competencies. The regression analyses indicated that the amount of training provided by school psychology programs did not differ greatly across the 24 years examined in any of the four competencies.

A survey of 859 school psychologists who indicated prior experience conducting bilingual psychoeducational assessment identified 36 factors used to comply with provisions in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act relating to assessing bilingual or limited-English-proficient students. Seventeen additional factors that were overlooked and should be considered are also identified. (Author/CR)

This study, a survey of 859 National Association of School Psychologist (NASP) members from eight states, identified school psychologists' assessment practices with bilingual and limited-English-proficient (LEP) students and compared test usage frequencies between English-only and bilingual psychoeducational assessment. Cognitive, achievement, and adaptive behavior domains were examined. In the area of cognitive assessment, the WISC-R or WISC-III administered in English only was the measure most frequently used. Moreover, the use of nonverbal intelligence tests appeared to be a common practice. With respect to achievement testing in English and Spanish, the Woodcock instruments were used by approximately three-fourths of the respondents. Curriculum-based assessment was employed significantly more often in bilingual psychoeducational assessment than in traditional English-only assessment. For assessing adaptive behavior, 90% of the sample used at least one of the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Survey Scales. Across all three domains, there was much more diversity in test usage in bilingual psychoeducational assessment in comparison to assessment conducted with English-speaking pupils. An evaluation of and recommendations for assessment practices with LEP and bilingual students are provided.

This study identified school psychologists' language proficiency assessment practices with bilingual and/or limited-English-proficient students. The sample consisted of 859 school psychologists who had prior experience conducting bilingual psychoeducational evaluations. The results of the survey indicated that 62% of school psychologists usually conduct their own language proficiency assessment, while 38% primarily or only use other district or outside sources in this area. The Language Assessment Scale (LAS) was the most frequently used instrument by outside sources. Approximately 46% of the school psychologists reported that the language proficiency information they obtained from outside sources was more than six months old. Several concerns pertaining to primarily or only using outside sources to obtain language proficiency data are discussed. With respect to school psychologists who conduct their own language proficiency assessment, the Test de Vocabulario en Imágenes Peabody and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised were the instruments most frequently used in Spanish and English, respectively. Fifty percent of the school psychologists who have conducted bilingual psychoeducational assessments reported that they had used non-standardized means to assess language proficiency. The most frequently cited method of informal language proficiency assessment was obtaining a language sample or conducting a student interview. An evaluation of school psychologists' language proficiency is provided.

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.

This meta-analysis examined the peer rating sociometric research on students with learning disabilities. Seventeen studies yielded 37 effect sizes calculated in three ways: Glass's (1977) effect size' (g) standardized by using the standard deviation of the control group, Hunter and Schmidt's (1990) effect size (d) standardized by using the pooled within-groups standard deviation, and Hedges and Olkin's (1985) unbiased effect size (d). The mean g was -.69; the mean d was -.66, and the mean d was-64, all of which indicate that pupils with learning disabilities have lower sociometric status when compared with their nonhandicapped counterparts. The moderator variables of ratee gender, grade level, research design, and sociometric scale type did not have an influence on effect size. The variable of rater gender, however, did moderate effect size. Future within-group sociometric research identifying behavioral profiles of students with learning disabilities classified into different status groups is recommended.

The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of achievement on the peer status of Mexican-American male and female pupils with LD in academic and play contexts in classrooms where all students displayed low achievement. Participants were fourth- and fifth-grade pupils in a metropolitan school district in the Southwest. The sample was obtained from 13 compensatory regular education classrooms across six schools. Mexican-American pupils with LD received significantly lower sociometric scores than their low-achieving nondisabled Mexican-American peers even when the entire class was composed of low-achieving students.

The purpose of this study was to assess the sociometric status of mainstreamed Hispanic learning disabled (LD) and nonhandicapped pupils. Fourth- and fifth-grade pupils from a small metropolitan school district in the Southwest participated. Sociometric data were collected from 35 classrooms across 10 schools. Hispanic LD pupils received lower sociometric peer ratings than their nonhandicapped peers. However, a peer rating/nomination classification procedure resulted in considerable variability in sociometric status for both LD and nonhandicapped children. Although 30% of the LD sample were in the rejected status group, almost 50% of the LD pupils attained average sociometric status. Sociometric context (i.e., academic and play) also influenced membership in status groups.